Category: Judicial Selection

☠️👎🏼 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

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

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  3. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮
  4. 🇺🇸🗽⚖️GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE REPORT: GENDER VIOLENCE ☠️⚰️DRIVES CONTINUING REFUGEE FLOW TO U.S. — Dishonesty Of Sessions’s Misogynistic Attack In Matter Of A-B- 🤮 Exposed Again! — Yet, Garland Fails To Take Action To End Misogyny, Anti-Asylum Culture @ EOIR, Even As He Also Fails To Insist On The Restoration Of The Rule Of Law @ Our Borders! —  WHY?🤯

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🧑‍⚖️ 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

Related posts:

  1. 🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!
  2. 🏴‍☠️👎🏼🤮 JUSTICE’S UNJUST “COURTS!” — Recent Reports Highlight Horribly Failed System —Asylum Free Zones, Unqualified Prosecutor-Judges, Deadly Denials, Blatant Information Imbalance, Dehumanizing Treatment, Poor Access To Counsel, Docket Mayhem, Unrealistic Timelines, Biased Outcomes, Indifference To Human Life, Unaccountability, Among The Myriad Problems Flagged By Those Forced To Deal With Garland’s Ongoing Mockery Of Due Process! — EXTRA! — How Poor Legal Performance @ DOJ Skews The Entire Immigration Debate!
  3. 🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👍🏼BREAKING — THE NDPA STRIKES BACK WITH VIGOR: 70 Human Rights, Civil Rights, Due Process, Good Government, Immigration, Equal Justice, Racial Justice, Progressive, Gender Justice Organizations Rip Garland, Monaco In Letter Protesting Their Abject Failure To Address Due Process, Racial Justice, Rule Of Law Disaster At EOIR — New, Competent, Diverse, Progressive Leadership & Judges Needed To Counteract 4 Years Of White Nationalism, Biased Hiring, “Malicious Incompetence!” — No More “Miller Lite Unhappy Hour” @ DOJ!
  4. 🤯TRAC: GARLAND’S IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG HITS 2 MILLION: More Judges, More Completions, Less Representation, Defective BIA, Mindless Mal-Administration = More Backlog!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 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
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

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. 👍🏼⚖️🗽MAJORITY OF ASYLUM SEEKERS WIN THEIR CASES, EVEN IN A BROKEN & BIASED  SYSTEM INTENTIONALLY STACKED AGAINST THEM — But, Only, If They Can Get To A “Merits Adjudication!” — Nativist Lies, Myths, Driving USG Policies Exposed! — Why USCIS & EOIR Self-Created Backlogs Primarily Shaft Those Deserving Legal Protection Of Some Type!
  3. ⚖️🗽🇺🇸 SPEAKING OUT: “MATTHEW AT THE BORDER: ACTING ON THE MESSAGE OF CHAPTER 25”
  4. WOW, HERE’S A SURPRISE: MANY KIDS FLEEING VIOLENCE IN THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT BIDEN BORDER POLICIES — They Are Just Trying To Save Their Lives!

🤯 IMMIGRATION BUNGLES CONTINUE FOR GARLAND’S DOJ! 

Alfred E. Neumann
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?” Failure doesn’t seem to bother Garland. Maybe it should!  
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration community on the latest screwups from the Article IIIs:

1) Burden of proof  (9th Cir.)

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/08/20-71977.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-burden-of-proof-fonseca-fonseca-v-garland

“Mario Fonseca-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen. Fonseca-Fonseca sought to reopen his immigration proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. The BIA found that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not submit new evidence that would likely change the result in his case. The parties disagree on a threshold issue—whether the BIA applied the correct burden of proof. … Today, we clarify that prima facie eligibility for relief requires only a threshold showing of eligibility—a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on the merits if the motion to reopen were granted. As the BIA previously explained, a noncitizen “demonstrates prima facie eligibility for relief where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.” In re S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1308 (B.I.A. 2000) (en banc). Because the BIA applied the wrong standard in denying Fonseca-Fonseca’s motion to reopen, we remand to the agency to adjudicate his motions under the proper standard.”

[Hats off to Andrew J. S. Newcomb and Elias Mendoza!]

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

2) CIMT (11th Cir.)

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112709.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-gmc-cimt-categorical-approach-usa-v-lopez

“This appeal requires us to decide how to apply the categorical approach to a conspiracy crime—a question of first impression in our Circuit. The United States seeks to revoke Lisette Lopez’s naturalization on the ground that she committed a crime of moral turpitude within five years of applying for citizenship and willfully concealed or misrepresented during the application process the fact that she had committed a crime. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the government on the ground that Lopez had committed a crime of moral turpitude during the statutory period. Because the crime to which Lopez pleaded guilty—conspiring to launder money—did not categorically involve moral turpitude, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”

[Hats way off to the indefatigable Matthew Hoppock!  An audio recording of the oral argument is here.]

******************************
3) Sue sponte reopening (5th Cir)

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/22/22-60336.0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-bia-sua-sponte-reopening-authority-mancia-v-garland

“Mancia would like to have her removal proceedings reopened so that her request for suspension of deportation can be adjudicated according to the still-extant substantive NACARA standards. … She contends that nothing in NACARA limits the Board’s general discretionary power to reopen sua sponte a case in which it has rendered a decision. Indeed, that inherent discretion is codified. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). So, she reasons, even though the special and more petitioner-friendly reopening avenue of section 203(c) closed to her in 1998, there is no reason why she cannot ask the Board to grant reopening under its discretionary authority, subject to all the limits that otherwise apply to that authority. … We agree with Mancia. The Board’s reliance on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h) — requiring filing of section 203(c) reopening requests with the Immigration Court — is misplaced because that requirement only applies to “any motion to reopen filed pursuant to the special rules of section 309(g) of IIRIRA, as amended by section 203(c) of NACARA.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h)(1). Mancia’s motion to reopen is no such motion. And nothing in NACARA requires those seeking relief under its provisions to do so by filing a section 203(c) motion. The government points to no statute, rule, or precedent to the contrary. And we see no reason why NACARA should be read as implicitly divesting the Board of its discretion to sua sponte reopen a proceeding. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant Mancia’s petition by vacating the Board’s rejection of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to the Board’s sua sponte authority and remanding for further consideration of that motion consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Margaret “Meg” Moran!]

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

Unnecessary mistakes such as this, including ones like USA v. Lopez, above, which carry over into naturalization and other areas, could largely be avoided if Garland heeded expert advice and appointed a BIA of all expert judges. That would be those with universally respected comprehensive knowledge of immigration and human rights, an unswerving commitment to due process, and a demonstrated focus on fair results — NOT the current “any reason to deny, let’s just go with the DHS flow” attitude that infects all too much of the BIA’s decision-making these days.

There is also some irresponsible performance going on at OIL where they are defending flawed results that expert advocates would or should know are unjust and in many cases just flat out wrong or misguided! 

The above things are supposed to be “easy fixes” for Dem Administrations. Instead, the EOIR/DOJ continues to a large extent as it did under Trump — with serious adverse human, legal, and future consequences for American democracy.

If you can’t or won’t fix that which you control, what good are you? That’s the question that Dems should be asking about Garland’s indifferent performance on human rights, racial justice, and immigration — all inextricably related whether he and his lieutenants want to admit it or not!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-09-23

Related posts:

  1. 🤯🤬 IT’S NOT “JUST THE 9TH CIRCUIT!” — A PANEL OF AMERICA’S MOST CONSERVATIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES (ALL GOP APPOINTEES) BLASTS GARLAND BIA’S SLOPPY, DEFECTIVE LEGAL WORK!🤮
  2. ⚖️🗽🇺🇸🦸‍♂️ NDPA SUPERLITIGATOR RAED GONZALEZ DRUBS GARLAND AGAIN! — “Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs,” asks Dan Kowalski of LexisNexis Immigration Community? — When will the unconscionable failure of immigrant justice at Garland’s Department of “Justice” finally end? When our nation’s democracy goes down in flames?🔥 ♨️
  3. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  4. 😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️:  9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH  CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️

⚖️☠️ 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
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 10th 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!

image001.png

image002.png

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.

 

image003.jpg

 

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!

Russian Roulette
AG Merrick Garland thinks it’s fine to play “roulette” with human lives in his arbitrary, capricious, and dysfunctional EOIR. Those trying to help his victims obtain justice disagree! Is this REALLY the way things ran when Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? If not, why is it “good enough for Immigration Court?”
IMAGE: tvtropes

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

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏻‍⚖️👩‍💼 MODELING EOIR’S POTENTIAL IN DENVER! — Judge Brea C. Burgie & Attorney Alexandra Katsiaficas Show How Good Judging & Effective Advocacy Can Combine For A Gender-Based Asylum Grant To Female Refugee From El Salvador!
  3. ☠️🤯🤮🚫 AFTER WINNING YEARS-LONG BATTLE TO STOP ILLEGAL REFUGEE REMOVALS BY TRUMP & BIDEN, WEARY HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES FACE DAUNTING NEW CHALLENGE: Garland’s Dysfunctional Due-Process-Denying “Courts” — Key Empirical Info Lacking, But We Do Know One Important Thing: Garland’s Latest Docket “Gimmick” — Time Limits — Sharply Reduces Chances Of Success, From Probable Grant (52%) To Likely Denial! — Quality Control & Grotesque Inconsistencies Remain Unaddressed In Dem AG’s “Race To Deny” Legal Protection!🤮
  4. 🗽 BORDER: WashPost’s Maria Sacchetti’s Nuanced Report Is Well Worth A Read: “The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.” — Right to apply for asylum is a “simple rule” that politicos of both parties lack the will & skill to follow!🤮

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

Jeff Sessions
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

Related posts:

  1. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  2. ⚖️🤯🤮GARLAND’S OHIO JUDICIAL MELTDOWN — “High-Asylum-Denying” Immigration Judges Appointed By Barr & Sessions Remain On Garland’s Bench In Cleveland Despite Referring To Migrants As “Illegals” & “Pretty Virgins!” — EOIR Disciplinary System Remains As Opaque As Ever Under Garland!🏴‍☠️ Yulin Cheng Reports @ Columbus Dispatch!
  3. 🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!
  4. 🗽⚖️ “COURTSIDE” IN THE NEWS: BOTH NOLAN @ THE HILL & KEVIN @ IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG HIGHLIGHT MY BLISTERING ANALYSIS OF BIDEN’S FIRST-YEAR IMMIGRATION POLICIES! — Garland’s Monumental EOIR Fail Writ Large Among “Underreported News” Of 2021 — Mishandling Of Immigration Courts Creates Key “Enthusiasm Gap” Among Progressives Heading Into 2022 Midterms!

🤯 INCREDIBLE! — 2d Cir. Schools EOIR On Adverse Credibility — Chen v. Garland

 

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/58f9e14a-e986-4263-9590-1f525ff8d4f9/2/doc/19-715_opn.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-credibility-chen-v-garland

“Zhi Bo Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and ordered him removed from the United States. The IJ’s decision was based, in part, on its finding that Chen was not credible. Because certain reasons for that credibility finding were erroneous, and because we cannot be confident that the IJ would have made the same determination absent those errors, Chen’s petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Gary Yerman!]

Gary Yerman. Esquire
Gary Yerman, Esquire
Managing Partner
The Yerman Group
NY, NY

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

My favorite quote from the Circuit’s decision by Judge Raymond J. Lohier (Obama appointee): “We conclude that the IJ misidentified part of Chen’s testimony as inconsistent, improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, and misconstrued as an omission a part of Chen’s testimony that comported with his Form I-589 asylum statement.” 

But, even with all these glaring defects, the IJ’s findings were affirmed by the BIA without much, if any, critical analysis. What does this say about EOIR under AG Garland?

Credibility should be “bread and butter” for EOIR Judges and particularly the BIA. But, when the “culture” is “any reason to deny,” bad things happen!

As my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffery” Chase commented: “You have to wonder what percentage of all BIA decisions contain significant errors.” 

I think that’s a particular concern in unrepresented cases, which are much less likely to reach the Circuits. Additionally, the unduly restrictive legal standard for judicial review means that marginal BIA adverse credibility findings will often get “rubber stamp” affirmances from the Circuits.

Essentially, EOIR often denies the respondent “the benefit of the doubt” in close credibility cases and then the Courts of Appeals give the BIA “the benefit of the doubt.” So, it ends up being a “double whammy” for the respondent!

That’s why it is critical to have individuals effectively represented at the trial level! At each level thereafter, the law skews heavily in favor of the Government! 

That also supports the position that “dedicated dockets” and “expedited dockets” that discourage and impede (one could argue intentionally) effective representation and full presentation of all the evidence should be held to be prima facie denials of due process!

It’s also why I argue that it’s so important that exceptionally well qualified experts with experience representing asylum seekers be appointed to these hugely important (yet widely ignored and under-appreciated) EOIR judgeships! Better judges would make the entire EOIR system fairer and more efficient, without sacrificing due process!

That’s also why appellate victories like this by Attorney Gary Yerman are so impressive and telling about the continuing dysfunction at EOIR! 

Additionally, given the “loading of the system” against the respondent on credibility, the BIA has to REALLY screw up to get reversed, as they did in this case! That, in turn, raises a fundamental unresolved issue: Why is a Dem Administration running a specialized court system that all too often lacks the expertise and judgement to get “bread and butter” issues like this correct in the first instance? 

It’s obvious that a BIA that goofs up cases like this is NOT providing the type of clear, expert guidance to IJs necessary to achieve due process and fundamental fairness on a continuing systemic basis! That should be of huge concern to everyone who values justice in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-01-23

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮
  2. 🤯2D CIR. SAVAGES BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM PRECEDENT Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724 (B.I.A. 2019)! — Phantom Discrepancies, “Lunch Over Lives,” No Time To Listen, Staggering Due Process Violations, Legal Incompetence “Outed” By Appeals Court! — “[T]he adverse credibility finding relies, in large measure, on legal error by the agency, including misstatement and mischaracterization of the facts in the record and flawed reasoning . . . [and] the IJ’s unjustified refusal to allow Malets to present readily available witness testimony deprived him of a full and fair hearing.”
  3. ☠️ PERSECUTED IN CUBA, NIT-PICKED BY IJ 🤮, RUBBER-STAMPED BY BIA 👎🏼, REFUGEE FINALLY GETS SOME JUSTICE ⚖️ FROM 11TH CIR!😎
  4. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”

👎🏼 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!” 🏴‍☠️

 

Four Horsemen
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — Asylum experts and advocates question the wisdom of the BIA’s “take no prisoners” approach to asylum!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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

Related posts:

  1. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  2. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮
  3. 🗽 BORDER: WashPost’s Maria Sacchetti’s Nuanced Report Is Well Worth A Read: “The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.” — Right to apply for asylum is a “simple rule” that politicos of both parties lack the will & skill to follow!🤮
  4. ☹️👎🏽BUMBLING BIA BADLY BUNGLES BASICS, AGAIN! — Applies Wrong Standard In Seeking To Reverse Valid CAT Grant — Obviously Frustrated 3rd Cir. Reinstates IJ Decision Following BIA’s Inept Attempt @ Appellate  Review! — Arreaga Bravo v. A.G.

🗽 BORDER: WashPost’s Maria Sacchetti’s Nuanced Report Is Well Worth A Read: “The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.” — Right to apply for asylum is a “simple rule” that politicos of both parties lack the will & skill to follow!🤮

Maria Sacchetti
Maria Sacchetti
Immigration Reporter, Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2023/07/18/border-asylum-us-mexico-biden-legal/

Maria writes:

. . . .

Federal law says anyone fleeing persecution may request asylum once they reach U.S. soil, no matter how they got there. Successive administrations have attempted to restrict that simple rule, however, desperate to reduce record numbers of crossings that have overwhelmed the immigration system, leaving many to live for years in the United States without a decision in their cases.

. . . .

One border, two realities

The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.

Brownsville, an American city of 200,000 on the other side of the Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico, is officially under a state of emergency. But that emergency has dissipated in recent months.

The streets are quiet, thanks to a 70 percent drop in illegal border crossers since the new asylum rule and other Biden policy changes took effect. City workers greet the relatively small number of newcomers released from holding facilities and escort them to a curtained-off parking garage and to the first bus out of town.

In Matamoros, however, migrants trying to navigate the new rules are squeezing into shelters, sharing hotel rooms, curling up in a large camp on the dry riverbank or under pop-up tents at a grimy former gas station.

On a pedestrian bridge one hot morning in late June, Mexican authorities shooed away those who did not have an appointment through the app — including some Mexicans, even though the rule change is not supposed to apply to them.

“Let’s go, please,” one officer said to migrants who gathered at the Matamoros edge of the bridge. “Now.”

Advocates for immigrants say it is unlawful for officials to block migrants from crossing borders in search of protection — and unfair to presume they can easily navigate U.S. asylum law and appointments via smartphone apps. The process of requesting asylum is supposed to be simple, they said, because lives are at stake.

But advocates are powerless to navigate around the new rules until the court case is resolved.

In the sweltering heat one recent day, Christina Asencio, a lawyer with Human Rights First, tried to explain to migrants in the Matamoros camps how the system is supposed to work.

. . . .

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

Read Maria’s full article, one of the more balanced treatments I have encountered, at the link.

A few thoughts:

  • Even this fine article misses the biggest point: Most asylum seekers want to “do things the right way.” But there has been no “right way” for years because of  the unlawful and bogus use of Title 42 by both the Trump and Biden Administrations. It’s still being unlawfully restricted by the arbitrary Biden Administration regulations. Yet, remarkably, asylum seekers are willing to risk their lives waiting in Mexico for an opportunity to apply in an orderly, legal manner under a broken and biased system unfairly “rigged” against them! THAT’S the “real big takeaway” about the reduction in unauthorized border crossings. It’s one that that nobody except experts and advocates are willing to fully acknowledge! Indeed, during the Title 42 charade, an asylum seeker’s only chance of getting into the system was to cross without authorization. Otherwise, they would have been summarily returned without any chance to present their claims.
  • Some asylum seekers will qualify for protection, some won’t. That’s what the legal, asylum system is supposed to determine — in a fair, expert, and timely manner. That our asylum system has become dysfunctional and ludicrously backlogged lies squarely with poor performance by Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, in many cases “egged on” by right-wing nativists’ myths and distortions. Blaming the victims — asylum seekers — for massive USG failures over decades is totally disingenuous!
  • Statistically, it’s true that most asylum applicants from the Southern Border do not achieve asylum under our current dysfunctional system. But, the question we should be asking is why aren’t more qualifying, given the horrible conditions in “sending countries” and the generous legal standards — including a presumption of future persecution based on past persecution — that are supposed to apply, but often don’t in practice. 
  • For years, the Executive, through its captive EOIR “courts,” has been unfairly manipulating and intentionally misapplying the law, as well as misreading and ignoring evidence, to achieve unrealistically high asylum denial rates for applicants of color, particularly those arriving at our borders from Latin American and Haiti. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/justice-betrayed-the-intentional-mistreatment-of-central-american-asylum-applicants-by-the-executive-office-for-immigration-review/; https://immigrationcourtside.com/appellate-litigation-in-todays-broken-and-biased-immigration-court-system-four-steps-to-a-winning-counterattack-by-the-relentless-new-due-process-army/. This continues to happen, as documented by the unusually large number of rebukes by Article III Courts (even some of the most conservative) of the flawed decision-making coming out of Garland’s broken EOIR. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/07/14/🌊-tsunami-of-bad-☠️-bia-decisions-hits-garlands-doj-wrong-on-nexus-4th-2-1-wrong-on-nta-4th-2-1-wrong-on-agfel-8th-wrong-on-past-political-per/.
  • One of the most egregious EOIR-led anti-asylum “scams” is abuse and misuse of the “nexus” requirement for asylum to send legitimate refugees back into harm’s way. See, e.g., immediately preceding reference. “Persecution” must relate to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. But, the asylum statute does NOT require that that be the sole or even the primary motivation for the persecution. It just has to be “at least one central reason.” And, usually, persecution is carried out by the persecutor for a variety of reasons. It’s called “mixed motive analysis” and EOIR Judges, particularly at the precedent-setting BIA, routinely ignore or mis-apply it to deny grantable claims. 
  • Harm resulting from things like “work, poverty, natural disaster, and bad governments” does not automatically qualify an individual for asylum. But, contrary to what many suggest, neither do these circumstances preclude asylum. For example, while a “natural disaster” might not make an individual a “refugee” under law, if that individual were forced to live in a known danger zone or denied life-saving assistance at least in part because of religious, ethnic, or political identity, that WOULD qualify. Was the infamous “Kristallnacht” in Nazi Germany systemic persecution of Jews for ethic and religious reasons? Or was it “mere vandalism, random violence, and hooliganism?” I would say clearly the former. But, I can imagine today’s BIA attributing it to the latter, to deny protection to a large group of individuals. I adjudicated thousands of asylum cases as both a trial and an appellate judge during 21 years at EOIR. I found that harm where a “protected ground” was “at least one central reason” was the rule, not the exception as EOIR tries so hard to make it.
  • Other often “trumped up” methods EOIR uses for denying valid asylum claims include bogus “adverse credibility” findings; unreasonable “corroboration” requirements; fabricated “reasonable internal relocation” opportunities; nonsensical, ahistorical “changed circumstances” conclusions; ignoring or misconstruing expert testimony; “selective reading” or mis-reading of country background reports; coercive detention in substandard conditions; and restricting or limiting access to counsel. If you think this sounds like a national disgrace on “Garland’s watch,” you’re absolutely right!
  • Undoubtedly, under a properly functioning system, with true expert adjudicators and judges — those whose career experiences demonstrated sound scholarship and understanding of the life-threatening circumstances of asylum seekers and the inherent limitations of both the Asylum office and EOIR — many more asylum cases from those applying at the Southern Border and elsewhere would be granted. So, Government policies based largely on “deterrence” or on the self-fulfilling prophecy that “few will qualify” should be viewed as fatally flawed. Without a better EOIR and an asylum adjudication system run by well-qualified experts, we can’t possibly formulate rational and humane border policies or indeed workable immigration policies at all. Tragically, we’re a long way from that right now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-19-23

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  3. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 
  4. COURTSIDE HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF EXPOSING THE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” COMMITTED BY THE REGIME AND THE MORAL CULPABILITY OF THOSE WHO WILLFULLY CARRY OUT & ENABLE THESE ATROCITIES — The “Mainstream Media” Is Now Channeling Courtside! — “In the meantime, no government has the right to treat people with such abject inhumanity. History will remember Trump for this, but it will also remember the people who enable such atrocious acts.”

🤮 ALLEGATIONS OF RACISM IN OHIO LATEST SLAM AGAINST MERRICK GARLAND’S FAILED “COURTS!” — “(People) need to know how these courts are just a mockery and that they’re really harming people,” says one Ohio advocate! — Lack of due process, poor performance, systemic racial injustice make Garland’s “courts” a “millstone around the neck” for American Justice and Dems!☠️

 

Lady Injustice
“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Black Mauritanians and other asylum seekers of color find that the scales of justice are systemically weighted against them when on trial for their lives in AG Garland’s “courts!” 
Public Realm
Danae King
Danae King
Faith & Values & Immigration Reporter
Columbus Dispatch

https://apple.news/AgFzMWECESo-_Tr_S7-sMDg

DANAE KING | USA TODAY NETWORK:

. . . .

In 2020, asylum seekers from Sub-Saharan Africa were deemed not credible in 8.5% of interviews, over 37% more often than, on average, for all nationalities that year, according to an August 2022 U.S. Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, submitted by several advocacy organizations.

“This data further confirms concerns raised about implicit racial and other bias in credibility determinations in US asylum adjudications,” the report states.

The report notes that Black asylum seekers face different treatment in the immigration system than others, including longer than average detention times, trouble finding accurate and adequate interpreters, different treatment in court, lack of access to counsel, purposefully rushed proceedings, biased judges, wrongful denial of asylum and more.

Lynn Tramonte has seen all those scenarios happen in Ohio.

“In immigration court, it’s almost like you’re guilty until proven innocent and they would rather err on the side of deporting a refugee who was tortured than granting asylum to someone who might be lying,” said Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, a group of Ohio immigrants and citizens who work to protect the dignity and rights of all through activism.

Nemecek has also seen judges and government attorneys “team up on (immigrants) and ask all kinds of questions and find them not credible.”

From 2002 to 2022, 713 Mauritanians went before immigration judges in Cleveland, and 443 were denied asylum. Another 28 had another form of relief, such as withholding of removal, and 242 were granted asylum, according to TRAC.

The United States Department of State considers Mauritania so dangerous that it recommends U.S. citizens don’t travel there due to crime and terrorism.

Tramonte wishes judges would do more research on the nations where asylum seekers are coming from.

“They have zero knowledge of documents from other countries or even what it’s like to be tortured,” she said.

A spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) disputed those claims.

. . . .

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

Read  Danae’s full article at the link!

“Courtside” and others have been raising these issues for a long time! Yet, Garland has neither spoken out nor taken action to “clean up” courts that every expert would say are “broken” and need major changes, including better-qualified judges who have true expertise in asylum and human rights! 

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke is totally “MIA” on this serious issue and on the racially-driven travesties in DOJ’s “wholly-owned” court system, in immigration detention centers, and at the Southern Border! Associate AG Vanita Gupta, once a civil rights icon, has “vaporized” on perhaps the biggest, potentially solvable, civil rights/racial justice issue facing America! What’s happening here?

I spent years doing Mauritanian asylum cases on the EOIR Ohio Docket (and, to a lesser extent, in the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court). Most were clear grants of asylum! Few were appealed by ICE! Almost none were reversed by the BIA! I doubt that conditions have improved materially since then. 

Unfortunately, mistreatment of Black Mauritanian asylum seekers by EOIR is nothing new. It has a long and disreputable history going back decades.

In the late 1990’s, my now Round Table colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg and I frequently dissented from wrong-headed denials of Mauritanian asylum claims by our BIA colleagues. See, e.g., Matter of M-D-, 23 I&N Dec. 1180, 1185, 1189 (Schmidt, Chairman, Rosenberg, Board Member dissenting), rev’d sub nom, Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000). There, the Circuit, in a decision written by Chief Judge Walker, agreed with many of the points raised by Judge Rosenberg and me in our respective dissents: “[T]he BIA failed to: (1) rule explicitly on the credibility of Diallo’s testimony; (2) explain why it was reasonable in this case to expect additional corroboration; or (3) assess the sufficiency of Diallo’s explanations for the absence of corroborating evidence.”

Judge Rosenberg and I were later “rewarded” by AG John Ashcroft by being “purged” from the BIA, along with a minority of other colleagues who had the temerity to stand up for the legal and human rights of migrants! Folks at EOIR “got the message” that standing up for immigrants’ rights and due process could be “career threatening!”

 That, in turn, unleashed a crescendo of sloppy, anti-migrant, dehumanizing decisions emanating from EOIR. Things got so bad so fast that subsequent Bush II AGs Gonzalez and Mukasey were finally forced, under extreme pressure from the Article IIIs, to intervene and put a stop to the most glaring abuses.

But, in fact, the EOIR system never recovered from that debacle. From then on, the BIA has been largely a “captain may I rubber stamp” (credit “Sir Jeffrey” Chase) for DHS Enforcement and each Administration’s political agenda. It’s been a continuous downward spiral, with subsequent AGs either actively encouraging abuses of asylum seekers and other migrants or being “willfully indifferent” to the ongoing legal and human rights disasters on their watches. 

It’s interesting how when the “powers that be” ignore abuses, they don’t go away. They just fester and get worse. Garland’s “what me worry” stewardship over EOIR is a classic example.

As for EOIR’s claim that they are providing IJs with “robust” asylum training, in the words of my friend, Kansas City attorney (and former Arlington intern) Andrea Martinez, “I call BS!” The proof is in the results!

My friend and Round Table colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase puts it more elegantly:

In stating that the program is “robust” (i.e. fine as is), who among EOIR’s upper-level leadership is enough of an expert in the topic to make that determination? There are actually recent IJ hires with a great deal of expertise in asylum and CAT, but to my knowledge, they are not the ones creating or presenting the trainings.

EOIR’s asylum and CAT training remains insufficient, and the evidence of this can be found in the deluge of Circuit Court reversals, or even from simply reviewing hearing transcripts. Just compare the USCIS Asylum Officer training program with EOIR’s IJ training materials. A particular problem is the failure to properly train new IJs in the case law of the specific circuit in which they sit. Immigration Judges are largely left to their own devices to learn the law properly.

As the article states, these issues concerning Ohio have been raised before! See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/10/07/🏴☠%EF%B8%8F🤮-halls-of-injustice-allegations-of-racism-misogyny-islamophobia-other-bias-have-been-swirling-around-garlands-dysfunctional-eoir/ Yet, there is no response from Garland. If the DOJ has done an investigation, the results should be made public. If not, the public deserves to know why prima facia credible allegations of systemic racism in his Immigration Courts have been ignored or deemed not credible.

Another example of superior asylum training available “on the market” is that developed by Professor Michele Pistone (a true asylum expert who has taught and inspired generations of attorneys now serving in and out of government) at VIISTA Villanova. I am sure that EOIR could have arranged with Professor Pistone to create a “world class” asylum training program for both new and experienced IJs. Indeed, she would have been a logical choice for Garland to have recruited for a senior position at EOIR.

The talent to fix EOIR exists on the open market. However, EOIR can’t be fixed with the senior management team Garland has put, or in some cases left, in place.

In the meantime, the stunningly poor quality, blatant racial insensitivity, and inept judicial administration Garland tolerates at EOIR will continue to be a millstone around the neck of American Justice and the Democratic Party. To what depths Garland will drag both remains to be seen.

Millstone
Garland’s dysfunctional and systemically biased Immigration “Courts” are a millstone around the neck for American Justice and Dems!
Creative Commons license

Finally, where are progressive human and civil rights stalwarts like Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ) on this issue? Why haven’t they demanded some accountability from Garland? And, whatever happened to our first African-American Veep Kamala Harris? Does she still exist? What’s more important than racial justice in “life or death courts” wholly controlled by her Dem Administration?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-18-23

Related posts:

  1. 🇺🇸🗽⚖️GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE REPORT: GENDER VIOLENCE ☠️⚰️DRIVES CONTINUING REFUGEE FLOW TO U.S. — Dishonesty Of Sessions’s Misogynistic Attack In Matter Of A-B- 🤮 Exposed Again! — Yet, Garland Fails To Take Action To End Misogyny, Anti-Asylum Culture @ EOIR, Even As He Also Fails To Insist On The Restoration Of The Rule Of Law @ Our Borders! —  WHY?🤯
  2. FROM THE HEIGHTS OF KASINGA TO THE DEPTHS OF AMERICA’S DEADLY STAR CHAMBERS: Will The Biden Administration Tap The New Due Process Army To Fix EOIR & Save Our Nation? 
  3. 🏴‍☠️👎🏻🤮“HOUSTON, WE’VE STILL GOT A PROBLEM!” — A HUGE AND GROWING ONE — Garland’s Failure To Restore “Justice @ Justice” Reverberates Throughout Our Nation!🆘
  4. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️

🏴‍☠️👎🏼🤮 JUSTICE’S UNJUST “COURTS!” — Recent Reports Highlight Horribly Failed System —Asylum Free Zones, Unqualified Prosecutor-Judges, Deadly Denials, Blatant Information Imbalance, Dehumanizing Treatment, Poor Access To Counsel, Docket Mayhem, Unrealistic Timelines, Biased Outcomes, Indifference To Human Life, Unaccountability, Among The Myriad Problems Flagged By Those Forced To Deal With Garland’s Ongoing Mockery Of Due Process! — EXTRA! — How Poor Legal Performance @ DOJ Skews The Entire Immigration Debate!

injustice
Injustice
Public Realm
Dems spend lots of time whining about the destruction of the Federal Judiciary by GOP right-wing extremists. However, after two years in charge, they have done little to bring due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial expertise to America’s worst courts — the Immigration Courts — which they totally control!

 

Austin Kocher, Ph.D.
Austin Kocher, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
TRAC-Syracuse
PHOTO: Syracuse U.

Two items from Professor Austin Kocher on Substack:

Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported

Omaha is now the toughest court in the country for asylum seekers, MPI hosts discussion on immigration courts in crisis, interview with an immigration judge, and more.

pastedGraphic.png

Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported austinkocher.substack.com • 1 min read

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7086002474968313856?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_feedUpdate%3A%28V2%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7086002474968313856%29

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

New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case + Online Event

Even the best attorneys require 50-75 hours over several months to complete an asylum case. The Biden admin’s attempts to speed up asylum cases may be ignoring this reality.

…see more

pastedGraphic_1.png

New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7086001618898296832?updateEntityUrn=urn:li:fs_feedUpdate:(V2,urn:li:activity:7086001618898296832)

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

Lauren Iosue
Lauren Iosue
L-3 & NDPA Member
Georgetown Law
PHOTO: Linkedin

And, this from Lauren Iosue, Georgetown Law L-3 on LinkedIn.

Lauren Iosue

View Lauren Iosue’s profile

• 1st

J.D. Candidate at Georgetown University Law Center

3d •

Through my internship at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, I observed master calendar hearings in the detained docket in the Florence Immigration Court. I was back in Florence, Arizona, because the court itself is located within the barbed wire of the detention center. Observing the Florence Immigration Court emphasized how dehumanizing removal proceedings can be for detained immigrants. Master calendar hearings are often immigrants’ first interaction with the Court. To start, a guard brought a group of men in jumpsuits to the courtroom and lined them up. The judge read them their rights and then called them individually to discuss their case. Twice I witnessed the wrong person being brought into court where they sat through proceedings until the guards realized and switched them out for the correct person.

The vast majority of Respondents in removal proceedings are unrepresented. There is a blatant information imbalance in immigration court when the immigrant is unrepresented. Oftentimes, pro se detained immigrants do not have access to the resources represented or released Respondents have during their proceedings. Respondents may not know their legal options unless organizations like the Florence Project can speak to them before their hearing and provide them with pro se information packets or represent them. During the hearing, the men did not even have a pen and paper to take notes. Meanwhile, the immigration judge and government attorney have access to technology and a wealth of experience to pull from to make legal arguments.

This is just one example of many – my colleagues and I also observed translation issues and pushback against some men who wished to continue fighting their case. Above all, I’ll leave with this very simple observation: the judge and guards called each man up by his court docket number before his name. If we are to support and uphold the dignity of all people, we must do so especially in systems that look to strip it from them. Providing immigrants with access to a lawyer, if they’d like one, can ensure that people have access to information that allows them to make informed decisions about their case. The Florence Project is one of the organizations working tirelessly to expand access to representation throughout Arizona, and I hope to continue this work after graduating from Georgetown University Law Center next year. #EJAFellowUpdate | Equal Justice America

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

Congrats to Lauren Iosue, and thanks for becoming a member of the NDPA! 😎 The scary thing: As an L-3, Lauren appears to have more “hands on” Immigration Court experience and a far deeper appreciation of the material, sometimes fatal, flaws in the EOIR system, than Garland and his other “top brass” in the DOJ responsible for operating and overseeing this tragic mess! 

Why isn’t “real life” immigration/human rights experience representing individuals in Immigration Court were an absolute requirement for appointment to AG, Deputy AG, Associate AG, Solicitor General, and Assistant AG for Civil (in charge of OIL) in any Dem Administration, at least until such time as the Immigration Courts become an Article I Court removed from the DOJ?

30-years ago, when I was at Jones Day, we were budgeting a minimum of 100 hours of professional time for a pro bono asylum case! That was before the “21st century BIA” added more unnecessary, artificial technicalities to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to win. It’s not “rocket science!” 🚀

Lucy McMillan ESQUIRE
Lucy McMillan ESQUIRE
Chief Pro Bono Counsel
Arnold & Porter
Washington, D.C.
PHOTO: A&P

All Garland would have to do is reach back into his “big law” days at Arnold & Porter (“A&P”). He should pick up his cell phone and call Lucy McMillan, the award-winning Chief Pro Bono Counsel @ A&P.  Ask Lucy what needs to change to get EOIR functioning as a due-process-focused model court system! Better yet, reassign upper “management” at EOIR, and hire Lucy to clean house and restore competence, efficiency, and excellence to his currently disgracefully-dysfunctional “courts!”

As Austin’s posts and the reports he references show, Garland’s indolent, tone-deaf, mal-administration of the Immigration Courts is a national disgrace that undermines democracy and betrays core values of the Democratic Party! How does he get away with it? Thanks to Austin, AILA, Lauren, and others exposing the ongoing “EOIR charade” in a Dem Administration! 

As shown by recent “Courtside” postings about the “Tsunami” 🌊 of Article III “rejections” of lousy BIA decisions, throughout America, many, many more asylum cases could be timely granted with a properly well-qualified, expert BIA setting precedents and forcing judges like those in Omaha to properly and generously apply asylum law or find other jobs! Maximum protection, NOT “maximum rejection,” is the proper and achievable (yet unrealized) objective of asylum laws!

Asylum law, according to the Supremes and even the BIA is supposed to be generously and practically applied — so much so that asylum can and ordinarily should be granted even where the chances are “significantly less” than probable. See Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I & N Dec. 439, 446 (BIA 1987). 

The problem is that the BIA and EOIR have never effectively implemented and followed the Mogharrabi standard. In recent years, particularly during the Trump debacle, they have moved further than ever away from this proper legal standard while still giving it lip service! Clearly, the IJs in Omaha and other “Asylum Free Zones” are operating outside the realm of asylum law with deadly and destructive consequences. Yet, Garland, a former Federal Judge himself, permits it! Why?

The assumption that most asylum seekers who pass credible fear should ultimately lose on the merits is false and based on intentionally overly restrictive mis-interpretations and mis-applications of asylum law! It’s a particular problem with respect to asylum seekers of color from Latin America and Haiti — a definite racial dimension that DOJ and DHS constantly “sweep under the carpet.” Because of the extraordinarily poor leadership from EOIR, DOJ, and DHS, this “fundamental falsehood of inevitable denial” infects the entire asylum debate and materially influences policies.

A dedicated long-time “hands-on” asylum expert, someone who actually met some of the “Abbott/DeSantis busses,” said that over 70% of those arriving from the border had potentially grantable asylum claims. That’s a far cry from the “nobody from the Southern border will qualify” myth that drives asylum policy by both parties and has even been, rather uncritically, “normalized” by the media.

Fixing EOIR is a prerequisite to an informed discussion of immigration and development of humane, rational, realistic immigration policies. That would be laws and policies based on reality, not myths, distortions, and sometimes downright fabrications.

Competent representation is also an essential part of fixing EOIR. There are ways to achieve it that Garland is ignoring and/or inhibiting. See, e.g., VIISTA Villanova. No excuses!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

PWS

07-17-23

Related posts:

  1. 🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: AILA Blasts Appointment Of Prosecutors Without Judicial Qualifications To Top Judicial Positions in Billy the Bigot’s Weaponized Anti-Due-Process “Court” System — Dysfunction, Bias, Illegitimate Decisions Run Rampant As Congress, Article IIIs Fail to Enforce U.S. Constitution!
  2. NO EXPERTISE NECESSARY! – At The “New EOIR,” Immigration Judges No Longer Need to Demonstrate Immigration Experience – Just a Willingness To Send Migrants to Potential Death, Danger, or Misery Without Due Process or Fundamental Fairness – When Your Job Is To Impose Arbitrary “Death Sentences,” Maybe It’s Easier If You Don’t Understand What You’re Really Doing!
  3. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  4. EOIR TARGETS UNACCOMPANIED KIDS FOR DEPORATION RAILROAD!

🌊 TSUNAMI OF BAD ☠️ BIA DECISIONS HITS GARLAND’S DOJ! — WRONG On Nexus (4th, 2-1); WRONG On NTA (4th, 2-1); WRONG On Agfel (8th); WRONG On Past Political Persecution In Cameroon (5th); WRONG On Experts (1st)!

Tsunami
Tsunami of bad BIA decisions hits as Garland ignores needed housecleaning and due process reforms @ EOIR!
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

1. NEXUS

CA4 on Nexus, Religious Persecution: Chicas-Machado v. Garland

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211381.P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-nexus-religious-persecution-chicas-machado-v-garland

“In sum, the BIA erred in finding that Chicas-Machado was not a refugee under the INA due to a lack of nexus to a protected ground, religion. Chicas-Machado demonstrated past persecution on account of religion, and is therefore entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 176-77. Recognizing the BIA’s error, we grant the petition for review and remand the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the BIA must determine whether the Government can rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 If the BIA concludes that Chicas-Machado is eligible for asylum on remand, it should reconsider her withholding of removal claim. See Sorto-Guzman, 42 F.4th at 450. We decline to reach all other issues raised on appeal as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims, and direct the BIA to reevaluate those claims following its reconsideration of Chicas-Machado’s asylum application. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 361 n.10 (4th Cir. 2021) (declining to reach the merits of withholding of removal appeal after finding error in the BIA’s asylum analysis).”

[Hats off to Daniel Thomann!  Listen to the oral argument here.]

Daniel Thomann ESQ
Daniel Thomann
ESQ

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.comhttps://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211381.P.pdf

2. NTA

CA4 on Defective NTA: Lazo-Gavidia v. Garland

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/202306.P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-defective-nta-lazo-gavidia-v-garland

“This petition raises important questions about proper notice in removal proceedings. Federal immigration law mandates that the government provide a noncitizen with a written notice to appear that contains certain critical details about her removal hearing, including the “time and place” of the proceedings. In a pair of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that the notice to appear must be a single document containing all statutorily required information. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021); Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. The immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. Because Lazo-Gavidia and her son received defective notices to appear, we grant their petition, vacate the Board’s order dismissing their appeal, and remand for further proceedings.”

[Hats off to Glenn Fogle!  Listen to the oral argument here.]

Glenn Fogle ESQ
Glenn Fogle ESQ

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

3. AgFel

CA8 on Shoplifting: Thok v. Garland

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/07/222508P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca8-on-shoplifting-thok-v-garland

“Because an offender can be convicted under Nebraska’s shoplifting statute when he acts with an intent not encompassed by a generic theft offense, we hold that the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic federal offense. Accordingly, the BIA erred in finding that Thok was removable for having committed a theft offense—and, thus, an aggravated felony—based upon his Nebraska shoplifting convictions. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”

[Hats off to Jaime Arango!  Listen to the oral argument here.]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

4. Past Political Persecution In Cameroon

Unpub. CA5 Victory: Naah v. Garland

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-61059.0.pdf

“Mercy Naah, a native of Cameroon, was charged as removable from the United States. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Naah demonstrated that she is unable or unwilling to return to Cameroon because of past persecution on account of her political opinion. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Danielle Beach-Oswald!]

Danielle Beach-Oswald ESQ
Danielle Beach-Oswald ESQ

 

 

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports for the Round Table 🛡️⚔️:

5. Experts

Unpublished 1st Cir. Victory [Experts]

[T]o keep it brief, we were on the winning side in an unpublished 1st Cir. decision issued today in which the IJ and BIA wrongly gave little weight to an country expert’s opinion on the risk petitioner faced in a CAT case. Decision attached. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in this one. Another great win for SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and the ACLU of New Hampshire!

More to follow. We continue to make a difference!

Best, Jeff

 

I have just learned that counsel is filing a motion to publish. There is good language regarding the evidentiary weight of one qualified as an expert who testifies credibly. The decision points out that an expert need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying their opinion, as long as such opinion is based on sufficient facts or data;” that “An expert cannot be “undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed;” and that where an IJ makes factual findings not consistent with the expert’s opinion, it is important for the IJ to explain the reasons behind those findings.

1st on Experts

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

Why do Dems routinely shoot themselves in the foot on immigration while driving a wedge between Dems in power and the immigration/social justice advocates who helped them get there?

In each of the 4th Circuit cases here, our Dem AG aligned himself with restrictionist positions advocated by dissenting Bush II and Trump appointees, while eschewing the far better-reasoned, more practical approaches advocated by expert advocates and adopted by the jurists in the majority who are committed to due process. 

As the 4th Circuit majority in Chicas-Machado cogently points out, the BIA’s “excessively narrow reading” of nexus conflicts with both the statutory language and practical considerations regarding the motivation of persecutors (not to mention riding roughshod over existing, binding Circuit precedent). The BIA has a long and troubling history of ignoring “mixed motive” to deny asylum.

Yet, instead of improving under Dems, the BIA’s abuse of nexus to wrongfully disqualify qualified refugees from protection has continued to metastasize under Garland! It’s all part of the anti-immigrant, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR, promoted by Sessions and Barr and not effectively addressed by Garland.

Happy to see another Round Table victory on use of experts. But, the 1st Circuit should have published this instructive decision. Hopefully, they now will!

As we know, the BIA’s systemic mishandling of experts is a chronic problem, particularly as the BIA intentionally overcomplicates the law, as a “deterrent,” so experts are almost a requirement for success. (Even though it is well-known that many asylum applicants have difficulty just getting competent pro bono lawyers to represent them, let alone the services of “pro bono experts.”). Every example helps expose the BIA’s professional misconduct, for which Garland and his DOJ leadership have shown an unusual and disturbing tolerance.

If you don’t bring an expert, they deny for failure to sustain your B/P! If you do bring an expert, they minimize, misconstrue, or ignore their testimony!

“Catch 22” — the applicant loses either way!

Experts are also important because it’s an area where the Article IIIs’ experience with experts in civil litigation far exceeds the BIA’s. Therefore, they are apt to recognize the BIA’s sharp divergence from the weight and respect ordinarily given to experts in civil litigation. Hence, we have had substantial success with the Circuits in challenging the BIA’s continuing, inappropriately dismissive, treatment of experts.

The BIA routinely uses sloppy, often internally inconsistent, “boilerplate” in their decisions. Yet, they somehow find time to “nitpick” expert testimony looking for every minor or insignificant “omission” or “discrepancy” to discredit the expert! What a disgrace!

Finally, on Naah v. Garland, a special “shout out” to long-time NDPA stalwart and role model Danielle Beach-Oswald on her victory in a Cameroonian political persecution case in the 5th Circuit. As the decision reflects, asylum victories on non-procedural issues are hard to come by in the 5th. Danielle was a “Legacy Arlington Immigration Court regular” during my time on the bench. This just further cements her status as “one of the best in the business!”

Congrats, Danielle, and thanks for all you do!

Think how much better this system would function with a BIA of real subject-matter experts focused on due process and fundamental fairness — rather than helping out their “partners” at DHS enforcement and protecting their careers in the process! And, what if we also had a Dem AG focused on due process for immigrants in “his” courts, rather than being asleep at the switch and complicit in some of the worst, anti immigrant, biased, backlog building “jurisprudence” rolled out by the Federal “justice” system! 

What if once in office, Dems actually courageously stood up for the immigrants, advocates, and values they claim to represent during elections?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-23

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  2. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮
  3. 😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️:  9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH  CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️
  4. BLOWING THE BASICS: 4th Cir. Says BIA Got Nexus & Political Opinion Wrong in Guatemalan Asylum Case — Lopez-Ordonez v. Barr — The Facts Were Compelling, But The BIA Worked Hard to Wrongfully Deny Protection!

🤯🏴‍☠️ BIA BLUNDERS BUILD BACKLOG! — 4th Cir. (2-1) & 2d Cir. Continue To Call Out BIA’s Lawless, Anti-Immigrant Behavior In Dem Administration!  — PLUS, BONUS COVERAGE — Commentary From Michelle Mendez & Me!😎

Lady Injustice
“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Public Realm

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221463.P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-psg-political-opinion-and-cat-santos-garcia-v-garland

“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”

[Hats way off to pro bono publico counsel Jessica L. Wagner!]

Jessica Wagner ESQUIRE
Jessica Wagner
Associate
Gibson Dunn
D.C. Office
PHOTO: Gibson Dunn

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/05b1e9ea-e5da-493a-8b94-45bc8e3d4757/3/doc/21-6043_opn.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-iac-prejudice-hardship-continuance-paucar-v-garland

“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Prof. Lindsay Nash and Paige Austin!]

Lindsay Nash
Lindsay Nash
Associate Professor of Law
Co-Director, Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic
Cardozo Law
PHOTO: Cardozo Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!

Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4th Circuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.

Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!

Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.

Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.

Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases? Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”

In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.

So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.

What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!

Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7

Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong!  Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!

Michelle N. Mendez
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ
Director of Legal Resources and Training
National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild
PHOTO: NIPNLG

My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.

Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:

  • “In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”
  • “Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS:  “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”
  • “We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”

There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.

Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!

For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!

In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.

Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.

Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing.  Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!

Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?

This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better!  American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!

Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes! 

Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!   

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-24

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  3. 😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️:  9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH  CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️
  4. 🤮☠️ EGREGIOUS “ETHNOCENTRIC” JUDGING! — BIA IGNORES RECORD IN FABRICATED DENIAL OF GUATEMALAN  CLAIM — 3RD CIR PUZZLED BY BIA’S CONDUCT: “At times, the IJ’s decision completely conflicts with the record. Yet, for reasons that are not at all apparent, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in its entirety.“

🇺🇸⚖️👨🏾‍⚖️ PROF. CARL TOBIAS (U. RICHMOND LAW) HAS SOME VERY NICE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT OUTGOING 4TH CIRCUIT CHIEF JUDGE ROGER GREGORY!

Chief Judge Roger Gregory
Judge Roger Gregory
U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/09/judge-roger-gregory-tenure-4th-circuit/

Tobias writes in WashPost:

On Saturday, Roger Gregory concluded his tenure as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Judge Gregory has ensured the court expeditiously, inexpensively and fairly decided several thousand appeals annually.

President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Gregory in June 2000, but GOP senators ignored the nomination, so Clinton granted him a recess appointment that December. President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gregory in May 2001, and he won confirmation. Judge Gregory was the court’s initial Black jurist, becoming its first Black chief judge in July 2016.

Gregory ensured efficacious implementation of administrative tasks, notably investitures for new active, and retirements for senior, jurists on the 15-member appeals court, plus the nine districts’ many trial court, magistrate and bankruptcy judges. He facilitated professional development of 150 judges and 1,600 court staff.

Judge Gregory also discharged complex, delicate responsibilities, namely investigating and resolving ethics complaints and claims of discrimination, which involved jurists and court personnel. Other complicated, sensitive duties were maintaining the court’s effective disposition of substantial appeals and collegiality as it transitioned from the most conservative to a more progressive appellate court. A crisis arising in Judge Gregory’s tenure was the coronavirus pandemic. He expeditiously organized the 4th Circuit response, skillfully navigating public health dangers and politicization of remedies for those risks.

Judge Gregory exhibited diligence, wisdom and appreciation, showing respect for history, customs and norms, as well as the 1,750 dedicated public servants who assiduously help the court efficaciously resolve large cases. Individuals across the 4th Circuit are indebted to Judge Gregory for his exceptional administration.

Carl Tobias, Richmond

The writer is the Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond School of Law.

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

Very well-deserved tribute! Thanks for writing it! 

The totally dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Courts need leadership like that provided by Judge Gregory. Perhaps, Judge Garland could call Judge Gregory and get him to take over and straighten out EOIR, America’s worst important “court” system. Sadly, to date, Garland has shown little interest in making good on the constitutional guarantee of due process for all persons in the U.S., including immigrants!

Judge Gregory, the first African-American judge on the Circuit, is succeeded by Chief Judge Albert Diaz a 2010 Obama appointee. Judge Diaz becomes the first Hispanic to serve as the Circuit’s Chief Judge!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-10-23

Related posts:

  1. 🤯 🤯 DOUBLE TAKEDOWN: 4th Circuit Slams BIA For 1) Mindlessly Trying To “Snuff” Allies From Afghanistan War☠️; & 2) Producing Incomprehensible Legal Gibberish 🤪 In Life Or Death Cases! — Two Recent Cases Show Deep Quality, Expertise Problems In Dem-Controlled “Courts” At The “Retail Level” Of U.S. Justice! 🤯🤬
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️CAMILLE J.  MACKLER @ JUST SECURITY “GETS IT!” — How Come Judge Garland & The Biden Administration Don’t? — “If we want to re-build a better, stronger immigration system, we need to start with immigration courts.” — Get Involved! Get Angry! Say No To Institutionalized Racism, Misogyny, & Dehumanization (“Dred Scottification”) @ EOIR! Force Judge Garland To Pay Attention! Demand Change, Now!
  3. 🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!
  4. ICRC: “Migration is not going to stop. If you try to prevent it or strictly regulate it, people start to pile up at the borders, which is happening in Mexico and other countries.”

🤯 🤯 DOUBLE TAKEDOWN: 4th Circuit Slams BIA For 1) Mindlessly Trying To “Snuff” Allies From Afghanistan War☠️; & 2) Producing Incomprehensible Legal Gibberish 🤪 In Life Or Death Cases! — Two Recent Cases Show Deep Quality, Expertise Problems In Dem-Controlled “Courts” At The “Retail Level” Of U.S. Justice! 🤯🤬

Ben Winograd
Ben Winograd, Esquire
Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center
Falls Church, VA

1. Ben Winograd, Esquire, is an all-star appellate litigator who would have made a great BIA Chair/Chief Appellate Judge!

Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis reports:

CA4 on Internal Relocation: Ullah v. Garland

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221026.P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-internal-relocation-ullah-v-garland

“The United States’ war in Afghanistan required regional allies willing to aid the effort. One such ally was Shaker Ullah, a Pakistani businessman who sold supplies to coalition forces. This invoked the wrath of the Pakistani Taliban, which demanded exorbitant payments from Ullah under threat of death. Ullah repeatedly refused, and the Taliban attempted to carry out its threat, promising to hunt him until it succeeded. After losing his business, home, and nearly his life, Ullah fled to the United States seeking asylum. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals both recognized that Ullah suffered past persecution entitling him to a presumption that the Taliban would continue to target him if he returned to Pakistan. But they agreed with the government that because Ullah lived in Islamabad (the capital of Pakistan) for a few weeks without the Taliban finding him, he could live in a new area of the country without fear of reprisal. We disagree. Ullah’s brief sojourn to Islamabad—where he never left the house— doesn’t rebut the presumption that a notorious terrorist organization continues to imperil his life. Since the record would compel any reasonable adjudicator to conclude Ullah faces a well-founded threat of future persecution, we grant Ullah’s petition for review, reverse the Board’s denial of Ullah’s preserved claims, and remand with instructions that the agency grant relief.”

[Hats way off to superlitigator Ben Winograd!  Listen to the oral argument here.]

pastedGraphic.png

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Tamara Jezic ESQUIRE Jezic & Moyse Fairfax, VA PHOTO: J&M

2.  “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court superstar Tamara Jezic runs circles around EOIR and OIL!

Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis reports:

Multiple Failures Trigger Remand to BIA: Chen v. Garland

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211371.P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/multiple-failures-trigger-remand-to-bia-chen-v-garland

“Petitioner Zuowei Chen is a native of China admitted to the United States on a student visa in 2009. Chen now seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. If removed to China, Chen fears, he will be persecuted and tortured by Chinese authorities, who in 2008 allegedly imprisoned and violently beat him because of his Christian beliefs and practices. We find there are aspects of the agency’s decision that require clarification before we can meaningfully review Chen’s claims. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remand for further explanation, consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Tamara Jezic!  https://jezicfirm.com/attorneys/tamara-jezic/ Listen to the oral argument here.]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Notably, and refreshingly, in Ullah, the 4th Circuit took the unusual step of directing the BIA to grant asylum, rather than just remanding for the BIA to screw it up again! In Chen, Trump appointee Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum was part of the unanimous panel! Condemnation of EOIR’s deficient performance is uniting Article III jurists across ideological lines!

The GOP is “out for Garland’s scalp” for all the WRONG reasons! It’s actually Dems who should be demanding an accounting for his inexcusable, miserable, democracy-eroding (non)performance at EOIR!

Garland’s mess at EOIR isn’t “theoretical,” “academic,” or “speculative!” It’s ACTUALLY endangering lives, eroding democracy, and creating unnecessary chaos on a daily basis! His intransigence is also diverting HUGE amounts of resources that could be used to DEFEND American democracy, rather than seeking to hold a tone-deaf Dem Administration accountable!

In the meantime, Dems are fecklessly moaning and groaning about a lawless and ethics-free Supremes. Yet, a Dem Administration is operating a huge, nationwide “court” system presenting these same problems, in spades!♠️

And, the victims of EOIR’s substandard judging are overwhelmingly people of color, literally fighting for their lives in a dysfunctional system that the Biden Administration is unwilling and/or unable to fix. In these cases, the victims were fortunate enough to be represented by two of the “best in the business,” Ben Winograd and Tamara Jezic. But, too many others face this biased and unfair system unrepresented, a situation that Garland not only has failed to remedy, but has made worse in some ways.  What “message, does this send, particularly to the younger cohort of “social justice” voters whom the Dems are counting on for the future?

Trial By Ordeal
Following the 2020 election, human rights advocates and experts expected and deserved dramatic, long overdue progressive improvements in justice at EOIR. Instead, Garland inexplicably has retained many of the most regressive features of injustice at EOIR, developed and reinforced during the Trump years. Frustration abounds, while justice for the most vulnerable among us suffers under a Dem Administration! Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

How bad is EOIR under Garland? One informed observer put it this way:

BIA staff attorneys are rewarded for the number of signed decisions per month. With the present make-up of the Board, their only incentive is to crank out denials.

Dems love to talk about “change!” The GOP actually achieves it, even though the results are overwhelmingly negative, regressive, and existentially damaging to democracy! Something’s got to give here!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-08-23

Related posts:

  1. 🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  3. 🇺🇸⚖️🗽NY TIMES EDITORIAL MAKES THE CASE FOR ARTICLE I — “It’s hard to imagine a more glaring conflict of interest than the nation’s top law-enforcement agency running a court system in which it regularly appears as a party.” — Garland’s Abject Failure To Fix EOIR, Bring In Experts Highlighted, As Constitutional Due Process, Ethical, Human Rights, Racial Justice, Gender Equity, Diversity, & Management Farce @ EOIR Continues Under His Disgraceful Lack Of Awareness & Failure Of Courageous, Progressive Leadership!  — Progressives Can’t Remain Silent, Must “Raise Hell” 👹With Biden Administration About Garland’s Lousy Performance @ EOIR, As He Continues To Stack Immigration “Judiciary” With “Miller Lite Holdovers” 🤮 To The Exclusion of Progressive Experts Who Helped Put Biden Administration In Office!
  4. 🤮☠️ THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE FROM GARLAND’S “AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING” (“ADR”) A/K/A “PLANNED CHAOS” IS DEVASTATING THE LEGAL PROFESSION! 🏴‍☠️ — Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow Reports!