"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Knightess of the Round Table — “Primed and ready to keep fighting dysfunction @ EOIR until due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and equal justice for all prevail!”
Introduction and Summary of Argument
This brief presents amici’s practical perspective on why the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provision for removal based on a conviction for a “crime involving moral turpitude” is void for vagueness. Section 1227(a)(2)(A) combines the imprecision of the phrase “moral turpitude” with the indeterminacy of applying that phrase to a hypothetical set of facts
1 Counsel of record for all parties received notice of amici’s intent to file this brief at least ten days before its due date. The parties have consented to this filing. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
2
under the categorical approach. The result is a provision so vague that adjudicators cannot agree on how to conduct the inquiry and frequently reach inconsistent results.
The Act charges immigration judges with determining which crimes involve “moral turpitude.” Though the statute provides no definition, in 1951, this Court held that the “language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct.” Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 231-32 (1951). But time has disproved that understanding. The usual “consistency [that] can be expected to emerge with the accretion of case law,” S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., 894 F.3d 535, 550 (3d Cir. 2018), has not materialized. Indeed, the typical sources of clarity—the Board of Immigration Appeals and the courts of appeals—have produced more questions than answers. Whose morals matter? How should judges discern what those morals are? What course should judges follow when moral views conflict? How do they account for changes in views over time? Immigration judges have no way to know. And the uncertainty that the statute’s vague words create left amici with no guide except their own moral intuitions.
To this ambiguity, add that, under the categorical approach, immigration judges do not evaluate the actual conduct engaged in by the noncitizen before them. Instead, they must assess the moral implications of a theoretical set of facts—the “least culpable” means of committing the crime in question. The hypothetical nature of this mode of analysis exacerbates the underlying vagueness of the statutory phrase “crime involving moral turpitude.”
3
Recently, this Court has struck down statutory provisions that suffered from analogous uncertainty, holding each unconstitutionally vague. See Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018); United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Section 1227(a)(2)(A) should suffer the same fate.
The real-world effects of Section 1227(a)(2)(A)’s vagueness confirm this conclusion. Attempts to curtail the provision’s arbitrariness by articulating standards have failed. The Board and the courts of appeals have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to craft a workable set of rules for identifying which crimes involve moral turpitude. Their efforts have instead produced a series of non-dispositive, ad hoc tests that generate inconsistent and arbitrary results. Confusion abounds in immigration courts and in Article III courts alike, with widespread disagreement over whether a given crime involves moral turpitude. Among other unexplainable outcomes, the courts of appeals part ways on whether crimes such as making a terroristic threat or deceptively using a social security number involve moral turpitude. Amici were required to sort through this morass, unsure of which of the growing list of ad hoc tests applied or how to deal with the conflicting results. Their experiences confirm that the phrase “moral turpitude” is too vague to govern the “particularly severe ‘penalty’” of removal. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 365 (2010) (quoting Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 740 (1893)).
For these reasons, this Court should grant review and reverse.
For over 70 years, Federal Judges from the Supremes on down have turned a “blind eye” to our Constitution and substituted their subjective views on morality and immigrants for the rule of law. Our Round Table says it’s high time to stop! ⚔️🛡
Madeline Meth ESQUIRE Deputy Director and Staff Attorney – Georgetown Law Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic PHOTO: Linkedin — “She’s training tomorrow’s lawyers to fix today’s failing courts!“
Thanks again to the superstars Esthena L. Barlow, Brian Wolfman, Counsel of Record Madeline Meth, and the rest of the “Youth Brigade of the NDPA” over @ Georgetown Law!
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down a Donald Trump-era policy used by U.S. border officials to quickly expel migrants because of the covid pandemic, saying the ban had little proven benefit to public health even as it shunted migrants to dangerous places.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the District of Columbia vacated the order known as Title 42, effectively restoring asylum seekers’ access to the borders for the first time since the Trump administration issued it during the earliest days of the pandemic.
The decision — which takes effect immediately — knocks down one of the last remaining barriers to asylum from the Trump administration, advocates for immigrants said. It also poses an immediate logistical challenge for the Biden administration after two consecutive years of record apprehensions on the U.S.-Mexico border, with the possibility that the numbers could grow.
Biden officials have long worried about a mass rush to the border creating an emergency similar to the one that occurred in Del Rio, Texas, in Sept. 2021, when thousands of migrants crossed illegally and overwhelmed U.S. agents, creating a squalid camp on the banks of the Rio Grande that embarrassed the Biden administration.
Sullivan’s ruling also comes days after top border official Chris Magnus resigned under pressure after clashing with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security had no immediate response to the ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that brought the lawsuit on behalf of migrants, said Sullivan’s decision to vacate the Title 42 policy means the policy ends for all migrants, including families and adults traveling without children.
“Title 42 unfortunately had a long shelf life but has finally been ended, and that will mean enormous relief to desperate asylum seekers,” said ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt.
Sullivan also made clear that that he would not stay his order pending appeal, leaving it to a higher court to do so if the Biden administration sought more time to address the ruling.
. . . .
Key Quote:
Sullivan wrote that the federal officials knew the order “would likely expel migrants to locations with a ‘high probability’ of ‘persecution, torture, violent assaults, or rape’ ” — and did so anyway.
“It is unreasonable for the CDC to assume that it can ignore the consequences of any actions it chooses to take in the pursuit of fulfilling its goals,” Sullivan wrote. “It is undisputed that the impact on migrants was indeed dire.”
***************
The horrific consequences for lawful asylum seekers subjected to this unlawful policy have indeed been “dire:” rape, assault, kidnapping, beating, torture, extortion, starvation, illness, sickness, death, family separation, despair, to name a few.
By contrast, there have been NO consequences for Stephen Miller and the other Trump Administration officials who fabricated and directed this ruse on the justice system and attack on humanity and the rule of law! Nor have there been any consequences for lower level officials who “went along to get along” with what they knew or should have knownto be deadly abuses of our laws.
Additionally, Biden officials who continued to violate the law and even concocted ways of expanding its illegal and immoral use have escaped accountability and continue in their jobs. DOJ lawyers who failed to do “due diligence” and defended a policy based on pretext, misrepresentations of fact, racism, and xenophobia have also continued to operate in the “ethical twilight zone” that normally would have serious professional consequences!
Of course the whole history of the Title 42 charade ☠️🤮has been one of one step forward and three steps back. The corrupt decision-making extends to unqualified right-wing zealots with lifetime sinecures on the Federal Article III bench and to equally corrupt GOP state AG’s for their dishonest scheme to force continued illegal Title 42expulsions.
So, despite these “crimes against humanity,” don’t expect that “heads will roll!” Given the current sorry state of our Federal Courts and the DOJ, it’s not certain that Judge Sullivan’s order will actually have effect or that asylum seekers will ever get the fundamentally fair and humane treatment to which they are entitled.
But, I am certain that this will eventually go down in history as one of the most disgraceful intentional abrogations of law, with the most drastic consequences for humanity and our nation’s reputation, in 21st Century legal history!
It’s also worthy of note that rather than getting the asylum system properly staffed and trained, bringing in Immigration Judges with the required expertise, installing a BIA of expert judges capable of issuing correct, realistic, generous, practical asylum precedents, working cooperatively with the private bar to facilitate representation, and developing an orderly process for resettlement (away from the border) of asylum applicants who pass credible fear, Garland, Mayorkas, and a White House officials have dithered away two years of time without getting the necessary robust, fair, expert, efficient, timely asylum adjudication system up and running!
The advice and pleas of experts and advocates have been “tuned out” or ignored by those in charge! Now, as all of us predicted, the “chickens have come home to roost” for the Administration’s indifferent, incompetent, and lackadaisical approach to the biggest racial justice and human rights crisis facing our nation.
Thanks Judge Sullivan! Thanks ACLU! Apologies to the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers wronged by the cowardly failure of America to uphold our laws, Constitution, and international obligations — that “subset” of victims who are still alive despite our Government’s grotesque misconduct!
“Dulce Zaragoza, a native and citizen of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to the Indiana offense of criminal neglect of a dependent after locking her six-year-old son in a closet for six hours. She was sentenced to one year in jail suspended to time served plus 30 days, with the remainder of the sentence to be served on probation. After completing her sentence, she traveled abroad and presented herself for admission when she returned. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) found her inadmissible based on the neglect conviction, which the agency classified as a “crime involving moral turpitude.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). She was placed in removal proceedings. Zaragoza fought removal on several grounds, with her arguments expanding as the proceedings progressed. Before the immigration judge, she argued that the Indiana neglect offense does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. The judge disagreed and entered a removal order, and Zaragoza appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “the Board”). In the meantime, she petitioned the state court to modify her sentence. Her purpose was to bring herself within the so-called “petty offense” exception to inadmissibility, which is available to first-time offenders sentenced to six months or less. Id. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). The state court obliged and reduced her one-year sentence to 179 days. With that order in hand, Zaragoza argued before the BIA that Indiana’s neglect offense is not a crime involving moral turpitude, and regardless, the petty-offense exception applies. The BIA rejected both arguments, agreeing with the immigration judge that the Indiana offense is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, and further holding that the sentence-modification order was not effective to establish Zaragoza’s eligibility for the petty-offense exception. For the latter conclusion, the Board relied on a recent decision of the Attorney General declaring that state-court sentence modification orders are effective for immigration purposes only if based on a legal defect in the underlying criminal proceeding. Matter of Thomas & Thompson (“Thomas”), 27 I. & N. Dec. 674, 690 (Att’y Gen. 2019). Zaragoza sought reconsideration, this time adding two more arguments: (1) the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the Attorney General’s decision in Thomas is impermissibly retroactive as applied to her. The BIA disagreed on both counts. Zaragoza petitioned for review in this court, reprising the entire array of arguments she presented to the Board. We agree with the BIA’s resolution of all issues but one: applying Thomas in Zaragoza’s case is an impermissibly retroactive application of a new rule. We therefore remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
***********************
Commentary from Kevin A. Gregg, ESQ:
Kevin A. Gregg
• 1st
Partner at Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli & Pratt P.A. & Host of Immigration Review Podcast
2d • Edited •
2 days ago
Crimmigration attorneys, get your motions ready.
At least in Chicago! Matter of Thomas and Thompson CANNOT be applied retroactively in the Seventh Circuit!
Sentence modifications/clarifications/European vacations obtained pre-T&T and that comply with Matter of Cota Vargas/Song/Estrada must be recognized for immigration purposes!
Also, when will A.G. Garland weigh in on Matter of Thomas and Thompson? The time is now.
*******************
When the BIA starts not with the correct legal concept that retroactivity is disfavored in the law, but rather with “how can we best help DHS Enforcement and/or curry favor and job security from our political ‘handlers’ at DOJ,” “bad things are going to happen.” And, they do, over and over!
There are plenty of well-qualified “practical scholars” out here who understand retroactivity in the immigration context and would get these basic questions right in the first instance without bothering the Courts of Appeals or generating disorder, inconsistency, and unnecessary backlog! Why hasn’t Garland recruited them to be the “New and Improved BIA” that would actually be driven by legal expertise, practical scholarship, due process, and fundamental fairness? The latter are qualities that EOIR and DOJ claims it seeks in Immigration Judges. But, it’s not the reality that practitioners too often actually face in todays dysfunctional, inefficient, and hopelessly backlogged EOIR.
The public and those subject to substandard judging and often dehumanizing treatment by EOIR are suffering — amazingly, now more than ever! When will Garland do his job and reform his courts to conform to due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations of law, and best practices?
The latter desirable qualities, actually necessary for any legitimate judiciary, are certainly NOT descriptive of today’s broken EOIR! Garland and his lieutenants might consider themselves “above the fray!”
But, my already over-stuffed e-mailbox is “lighting up” with EOIR horror stories from experienced, long-time practitioners who are questioning whether they can continue practicing in the hostile, lawless, “no due process,” “no customer service,” “no common sense,” “blame the victim” environment that Garland has allowed to mushroom, and sometimes even encouraged, at EOIR.
I mentioned the term “Dedicated Docket” at an Executive Session of a major NGO recently. The anger and disgust that it provoked from those actually “doing the job” of fighting for justice in Garland’s broken system was palpable!
Why is a Democratic Administration that is, despite beating expectations in the midterms, still hanging on by a thread, inflicting this type of disrespect, pain, and suffering on its own loyal supporters? How will this self-created legal, Constitutional, human rights disaster play out moving toward 2024!
“The EOIR HQ Tower” needs a complete shake-up and replacement ofthose who have demonstrated their inability to get the job done with those who can! The latter are out here. But, the worse Garland lets his system get, the harder and most costly (dollars and lives) it will be to fix it!
Waiting for Merrick Garland and his “Clueless Crew” at DOJ to fix the dysfunctional Immigration Courts will be an exercise in futility. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0
Garland is a disgraceful failure as our nation’s top lawyer; Congress is deadlocked and uninterested in solving immigration and human rights problems; Federal Courts, these days often “stacked” with far-right ideologues, too often look the other way at gross violations of due process, overt racism, misogyny, and bad interpretations as long as it’s “only migrants of color” (“non-persons” in the view of some) and their lawyers whose lives are being trashed. At best, the Circuits provide widely inconsistent review and results — perhaps not quite as bad as EOIR, but still far beyond anything that would be acceptable if migrants were actually treated as “persons” as the Constitution clearly provides.
I receive some desperate anecdotal complaints about the absurdly broken system and unprofessional conduct by some IJs and EOIR officials here at “Courtside.”
Here’s a recent one from a long-time practitioner that more or less sums up Garland and the Biden Administration’s incredibly disreputable mal-administration of EOIR:
Everything at EOIR is such a disgrace. It is now very difficult for me to appear before IJs, as I have complete contempt for the agency. It is so much worse now than when Trump was in charge. But of course, EOIR could care less, and obviously, this IJ could care less as well…
“Much worse now than when Trump was in charge!” Let that sink in folks!
As I’ve said before, “This just isn’t right!” But, we seem to be dealing with three branches of “Government” who have simply turned their collective backs on the Constitution, the rule of law, common sense, and the fundamental obligations of decency that human beings owe to each other. They also deny the truth: That immigrants are and will continue to be an essential part of the fabric of our society.So, many have asked me “What’s the answer?”
Storm the fort “from the inside!” Use your superior knowledge, organizational, and problem solving skills to get on the Immigration Bench and get paid to do things the right way, help force systemic change over time, save some very deserving lives, and help preserve and improve our democracy at the same time.
One of the few advantages of working in an “out of control” system is this: there isn’t much control. That often motivates sloppy work, corner-cutting, and a “who cares” approach.
But, it can also motivate and allow those with the skills and moral integrity to “do the right thing,” to put due process first, solve problems (satisfying), and institute “best practices” rather than worst practices in YOUR courtroom, even if only on a case-by-case basis. And, guess what? Things that “work” and efficiently resolve problems in your courtroom do impact the rest of the system!
Eventually, it can lead to demands to stop doing things the same old wrong and unfair way and start start treating others fairly and with dignity. Surprisingly, despite persistent bureaucratic myths to the contrary, doing things the right way and treating everyone fairly is more efficient than repeating the same old mistakes, based on the same old discredited “deterrence myths,” over and over. Recognizing and timely granting deserving cases is the very best, totally overlooked, way of cutting backlog and forcing the system to be more efficient without stomping on anyone’s rights or humanity!
Sure, the EOIR system only superficially claims to be interested in efficiency. What they really want is the “appearance of efficiency” with the ability to shift blame for problems to the “victims” of their incredibly poor performance!
But, eventually enough folks in the right places can get the idea that doing things the right way could actually be better for the system than repeating past mistakes and covering up. The latter gets stressful, even for politicos and bureaucrats who have made careers out of avoiding accountability and responsibility. And, there are certainly plenty of those in today’s EOIR and DOJ.
So here are 10 great opportunities to “get on the inside” and start fixing justice in America and the critical “retail level.”
Seven open IJ positions:
Working for the U.S. Department of Justice allows you to make a difference every day through public service. As an immigration judge you provide due process while deciding cases that have immediate impact. Next week, EOIR will announce the opportunity to apply for immigration judge positions. EOIR will post the vacancy announcement to USAJobs and announce it via the IJ Jobs listserv. The announcement will offer opportunities for immigration courts in the following locations:
Adelanto, CA
Concord, CA
Imperial, CA
San Francisco, CA
LaSalle, LA
Boston (Lowell), MA
El Paso, TX
If you would like to learn more about qualifications and the process for becoming an immigration judge, please visit our informational page.
Here are three Assistant Chief Judge (“ACIJ”) positions:
It is REALLY important that great attorneys of all genders and ethnic groups apply for these important positions. EOIR has NEVER been representative of either the communities it serves or the talent and diversity of the private immigration/human rights bar. The “bureaucratic excuse” has been that the “pool” of USG applicants, particularly those from DHS and prosecutorial backgrounds, is always far “superior.”
I call BS! But, the only way to “prove it wrong” is if “the best and brightest” from the private sectors apply en masse.
EOIR will NOT improve voluntarily. Over the past two disgraceful years, Garland has proved that “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So, get on the inside and start changing this system to promote impeccable scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices from the inside and from “the bottom up!”
Because, waiting for Merrick Garland and his “clueless” crew @ DOJ and EOIR to get the job done for equal justice and racial justice in America will be like “Waiting for Godot.” And, we all know how that turns out.
Along the 2,000-mile (3,219km) boundary between the US and Mexico, the 2022 fiscal year proved the deadliest on record for people trying to make unauthorized crossings of this heavily patrolled international line.
In Eagle Pass’s regional enforcement sector alone, border patrol agents discovered more than 200 dead migrants between October 2021 and the end of July, compared to an already heartbreaking 34 bodies during the entire 2020 fiscal year.
Ahead of this week’s crucial midterm elections, Republicans have manipulated these harrowing statistics as yet another opportunity to make much ado about what various rightwing players call Joe Biden’s “open border policies”, accusing his administration of incompetence that is causing “body bags [to] keep piling up”.
It’s close to sealed by a hostile combination of pandemic-era public health measures cynically retooled as federal immigration control and mass policing by state troops who arrest, jail and criminalize migrants.
Cruelly, these hardline deterrence mechanisms advanced by both Democrats and Republicans have probably only made the US’s south-west border bloodier.
Deterrence as a strategy has informed some of the US’s most controversial immigration policies, from separating families, to detaining children, to stranding asylum seekers in dangerous Mexican border towns.
But desperate people still find ways to make it on to US soil: last fiscal year, Customs and Border Protection documented nearly 2.38m enforcement encounters at the southern border, a record high causing headaches for Biden as conservatives accuse the president of being “lax” on border crime.
The truth is more complex, and not at all lax. More than a million of last fiscal year’s border enforcement encounters were processed under Title 42, now invoked as a federal immigration enforcement tool but originally disguised as a public health measure amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
The policy allowed the Trump and now the Biden administrations to expel huge numbers of people from the US without even letting them ask for asylum, seemingly in violation of domestic and international law.
Far from ending unauthorized migration, the invocation of Title 42 has in fact dramatically inflated the number of encounters at the US-Mexico border, as people who are expelled feel compelled to cross again – and again, and again. Sometimes, relentless migrants have been so determined to complete their journeys that they have risked life and limb dozens of times, fueling a political and humanitarian disaster.
And both parties continue to police people seeking security and opportunity over violence, persecution and poverty as if they’re national security threats.
In the shadow of it all, the corpses amass.
Back in Eagle Pass, locals like Rosalinda Medrano who have lived for decades along a porous border understand that migrants have and will always come or, increasingly, die trying.
Advertisement
Support the Guardian and enjoy the app ad-free.
Support the Guardian
“Even though there’s one fence, and another fence, and so many troopers, and the national guard, and you name it – Border Patrol, here and there and everywhere – it’s not gonna stop these families,” she said, adding simply: “They want a better life.”
**************************
Read the complete article at the link, in which Alexandra points to the numerous achievable solutions that both parties eschew — for political reasons — some cynical, dishonest, and racist (GOP) — others cowardly (Dems). None of what Alexandra reports will come as news to faithful readers of Courtside, or, indeed, to anyone who has taken the time to actually study and reflect on America’s decades of expensive, inhumane, “deterrence policies.”
Fact is, existing law, if correctly applied and administered, offers some obvious ways to start solving the problem:
Robust realistic “overseas” refugee programs in the Western Hemisphere — 150,000 would be a modest start — rather than the piddling, restricted numbers now slowly doled out by the Biden Administration.
Reopen legal ports of entry to legal asylum seekers, as required by law, to incentivize and reward them for not seeking to cross between ports of entry.
Staff the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts with real experts in asylum law (there are plenty of well-qualified lawyers now in the private sector) who are committed to due process and can rapidly recognize and grant the many meritorious cases. Then, individuals are admitted in legal status, on their way to green cards, rather than aimlessly wandering the US with government-issued packets of misinformation (or no information at all) waiting for hearings that will come either too soon or too late, but never in a reasonable manner and often with incorrect preordained results designed to abuse the legal system as an “enforcement deterrent.” (NOTE: To act as an incentive/reward for appearing at ports of entry, the asylum system must be credible, transparent, and timely — something that no Administration has achieved to date, but which is possible with more vision, leadership, and better personnel making decisions.)
Work with, bolster, support, and learn from the many NGOs in the U.S. to insure that asylum seekers are informed of their obligations, represented on their applications, and resettled, mostly away from the borders to areas that need them, in an orderly fashion.
“Even though there’s one fence, and another fence, and so many troopers, and the national guard, and you name it – Border Patrol, here and there and everywhere – it’s not gonna stop these families,” she said, adding simply: “They want a better life.”
We can, and must, do better than “more body bags” as a matter of national policy! Migrants aren’t going to stop coming. That, we can’t change in the long run — no matter how many lies, myths, and distortions nativists throw out there, and no matter how fast spineless Dem politicos run from or attempt to hide the truth. But, we can deal with reality in a more humane, practical, realistic manner that will serve our nation’s, and humanity’s, interests into the future.
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Forbes: Evidently, USCBP is eliminating the passport entry stamp to streamline the entry process. So now, foreign nationals will only have access to the Form I-94 website as proof of their lawful immigration status.
CBS: The department confirmed the review when asked to respond to accounts from migrants who told “60 Minutes” that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials along the U.S.-Mexico border kept their documents, despite agency policy instructing agents to return migrants’ personal property unless they are fraudulent.
NIJC: More than 130 immigration, criminal justice, and civil rights organizations released a letter today urging the Biden administration to include immigrants in the pardon process.
Law360: More than 100 immigrant rights organizations are urging the Biden administration to fully reinstate visitation at immigration detention facilities, saying in a Thursday letter that visitation is crucial for detainees’ mental health and monitoring human rights violations.
SA Current: The ACLU is condemning the actions of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents allegedly caught on video firing pepper balls at a group of Venezuelan migrants protesting along the banks of the Rio Grande River near El Paso.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Wednesday declined to review a decision denying an asylum application from a Honduran man and his son who claim they will be killed by gang members if they return home, finding the Board of Immigration Appeals properly reviewed the immigration judge’s decision.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Tuesday backed the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision to apply a persecution motive standard used in asylum requests to an Ecuadorian’s withholding of removal request, saying it was reasonable for the agency to do so.
Law360: The Third Circuit on Tuesday knocked down a Guatemalan man’s asylum bid after concluding he failed to back up his fears of violence in the Central American nation based on gang recruitment efforts and his rejection of gangs due to his evangelical Christian faith.
Law360: The Eighth Circuit has upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling that denied a family asylum based on alleged gang threats for lack of evidence that the government of El Salvador could not or would not protect them.
Law360: A Mexican citizen who said police and criminal gangs would torture him for being bisexual and suffering from mental illness if he is deported a third time
Law360: The Ninth Circuit on Thursday backed an order requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjudicate Special Immigrant Juvenile petitions within 180 days, rejecting the government’s argument that a lower court relied on “stale evidence” and disregarded hardship considerations.
Law360: Republican state attorneys general accused the Biden administration of violating an injunction requiring it to repel migrants from the border under pandemic-era restrictions, saying a sharp drop in Haitian expulsions indicated the administration was selectively lifting the so-called Title 42 border block.
AILA: On 10/31/22, DHS began limited implementation of the DACA final rule. USCIS will continue to accept and process applications for deferred action, work authorization, and advance parole for current DACA recipients. Due to litigation, USCIS will accept but cannot process initial DACA requests.
AILA: EOIR 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-42A and Form EOIR-42B. Comments are due 12/5/22. (87 FR 66326, 11/3/22)
AILA: EOIR 30-day notice-and-comment period for proposed revisions to Form EOIR-31A, which allows an organization to seek accreditation or renewal of accreditation of a non-attorney representative to appear before EOIR and/or DHS. Comments are due by 12/5/22.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Supposedly, the main political issues right now are the economy and inflation. But, the economy and inflation are largely determined by the Fed, markets, global conditions, weather, and a certain amount of pure luck — all things beyond the direct control of the political branches of the USG.
As mentioned by Chuck Todd on last Sunday’s NBC “Meet the Press,” many experts say that the most effective tool that the Administration and Congress have to improve the economy without triggering a recession is to increase legal immigration — sooner rather than later. But, neither party is interested. The GOP sees an anti-immigrant stance as a key to political success. And, the Dems are “actively disinterested” in the issue. So, the opportunity passes.
But, the reality is that, in the long run, no amount of shipping containers, walls, prisons, family separations, deportations, exclusions to death or despair, hate rhetoric, or restrictive legal roadblocks will halt the future flow of human migration, and not incidentally, the internal relocation in America as certain areas become “unlivable.”
According to a government report published in today’s Washington Post:
The U.S. can expect more forced migration and displacement
Already, the authors of Monday’s report said, major storms such as Hurricane Maria, as well as extended droughts that strained lives and livelihoods, have led people to leave their homes in search of more-stable places.
In the hotter world that lies ahead, they write, additional climate impacts — along with other factors such as the housing market, job trends and pandemics — are expected to increasingly influence migration patterns.
“More severe wildfires in California, sea level rise in Florida, and more frequent flooding in Texas are expected to displace millions of people, while climate-driven economic changes abroad continue to increase the rate of emigration to the United States,” the report finds.
Such shifts are inherently complicated and fraught.
Several Indigenous tribes in coastal regions, facing fast-rising seas, have already sought government help to relocate, but have struggled to do so without significant hurdles.
“Forced migrations and displacements disrupt social networks, decrease housing security, and exacerbate grief, anxiety and mental health outcomes,” the authors write.
Neither political party appears serious about addressing these migration realities — already underway. The ideas that we can wall ourselves off, invest in “sending countries,” detain, and deport our way out of migration are not “solutions.”
Failure to act boldly and expansively on legal immigration will create a huge class of exploitable, disenfranchised, extralegal residents and plenty of work for border agents, internal police, righty judges, and jailers. It will also be a huge boon to smugglers and cartels who basically will “own” the American migration franchise. But, in the long run, building a large “underground humanity” won’t be enough to offset the “downside” of lacking a robust, realistic, orderly, legal immigration process.
Eventually, those nation-states that figure out how to harness, welcome, and distribute the power of human migration will rule the future. Right now, America’s leaders, of both parties, seem wedded to a “sure to fail” approach of either opposing or ignoring the realities and unlimited potential of human migration. Too bad — for all of us!
It wasn’t “Camelot,” as you can clearly see from this picture taken on the day of my retirement, June 30, 2016. No “Arthurs, Guineveres, or Lancelots” in this shot! But, the Arlington Immigration Court did its best to bring a modicum of due process, fundamental fairness, justice, and respect to those passing before it. Not perfect, by any means. But I was glad to be there and be “part of the team” for 13 years!
⚖️🪦 “REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT” — Farewell To The Arlington Immigration Court
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Nov. 7, 2022
It was my “professional home” for the final 13 years of my career, until I retired in 2016. The Arlington Immigration Court was “born in controversy” decades ago when the Immigration Courts abandoned the sole outpost in the District Colombia and moved across the Potomac River to Northern Virginia. For many years thereafter, its internal acronym remained “WAS,” and mail and record files intended for the Seattle Immigration Court in the “State of Washington” periodically were misrouted to WAS, and vice versa.
Over the years, it grew from a single Immigration Judge — the legendary trail-blazer Judge Joan Churchill — to a judicial cast in the double digits. It outgrew always-inadequate space several times, reaching “the final resting place” on Bell Street in National Landing (née “Crystal City”) in 2012. It was combined and uncombined with the nearby “Headquarters Immigration Court.” At various times, Arlington Judges had regular jurisdiction over such far-flung locations as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo, Puerto Rico, and the USVI!
To be sure, Arlington had its share of tragedies, scandals, screw-ups, and nonsense. When located in the misnamed “penthouse” — a/k/a the top floor of the Ballston Metro Center — there were NO PUBLIC RESTROOMS — undoubtedly a violation of various Federal and local rules and an act of gross inhumanity to mankind by the chronically inept “powers that be” at EOIR “Headquarters” in Falls Church. Obviously, there were also no “10-minute recesses,” as attorneys and clients — old, young, handicapped, mobile or immobile, fit or unfit— were required to take the elevator to the lobby and fan out to various coffee shops and restaurants in the neighborhood to seek “relief from injustice and inconsideration.”
But, I like to think that the cause of justice was sometimes served at Starbucks, in the corridors, the elevator lobby, or on the surrounding streets during these interludes. On some happy occasions, counsel returned from these “extended recesses”with joint solutions to the case that might not previously have occurred to them, or to me.
On several occasions, the Arlington Fire Marshals closed us down for overcrowding! Toward the end of of our tenancy at Ballston, I inherited the sole “courtroom with a window.” I sometimes quipped that by craning my neck, I could see all the phases of my EOIR career from there: my past (the notorious “EOIR Tower in Falls Church”); my present (the humanity before me in my courtroom); and my future (“The Jefferson” Retirement Home across the square).
But, Arlington also was a place of general and genuine camaraderie: Where judges, Government attorneys, private attorneys, interpreters, and staff worked together as a team to bring practical, efficient, justice to those individuals appearing before the court and the many beyond that whose lives and fates were tied up in theirs. Indeed, of the various places I worked and visited in EOIR, it most reflected the values that have always been important to me: Fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork.
Those “Thursday Judicial Lunches” and the famous or infamous “Seersucker Thursdays” helped model the spirit of teamwork and camaraderie. Indeed, my judicial career ended on June 30, 2016 — not incidentally, my final “Seersucker Thursday.” (I did, however, “carry on the tradition when teaching at Georgetown Law each June thereafter — until COVID and the “Zoom-era” struck!)
It was also a “showcase court” — or as close an approximation of one as EOIR had at the time. Because of the location in the DMV area, a steady stream of politicos, senior managers, journalists, Congressional Committee staff, professors, DOJ attorneys, USCIS adjudicators, statisticians, demographers, and the like passed through Arlington’s cramped confines and sat on some of the world’s most uncomfortable pews (some interns actually brought “stadium cushions”) to observe the “real life drama” of Immigration Court.
Also, as then Chief Judge Michael Creppy accurately told me at the time of my 2003 reassignment, Arlington was a “teaching court.” Generations of outstanding student attorneys from local law school clinics, “Big Law” associates, and newly-minted immigration practitioners “learned the ropes” in our cramped and chronically over-or under-heated courtrooms. (Immigration Judges were deemed “not qualified” to adjust courtroom thermostats. We had to call on the Court Administrator or the Security Guard to exercise that higher-level responsibility. I actually used to get “joint oral motions” from counsel to raise my courtroom temperature when we were in Ballston!)
And, Arlington Judges were known for their willingness toengage in “educational dialogue” with the parties and observers at the conclusion of the case. Of course, the “merits” of cases were “off limits.” But, it was a terrific opportunity to share information about procedures, practices, and to convey “judicial expectations” to those eager to learn more. Memorably, Judge Wayne Iskra’s totally accurate and painfully obvious remark that “the system is broken” seemed to go above and beyond what our “handlers” in Falls Church deemed appropriate!
Notably, a large number of “Arlington alums” are now themselves in key positions, as judges, government officials, NGO leaders, law firm founders and partners, academics, scholarly commentators, or media figures. Arlington interns and judicial law clerks have also gone on to distinguish themselves. For better or worse, hopefully the former, Arlington had “influence” that went beyond its “utilitarian wannabe to shabby” physical confines.
It was also a place of hope. That might have been why for years we had a negligible “no show” rate for individual hearings. For a number of years, from 2010 to the “advent of Trump,’” it was among the “league leaders” in asylum grants and favorable outcomes for individuals. This was in an age where the overall system and many of the attitudes of DOJ politicos who had authority over the Immigration Courts were relatively unsympathetic to asylum seekers, particularly those arriving at our southern land border or by boat!
A “colorful cast of characters” passed through the Arlington bench. Some were “up and comers” — on their way to “fame and fortune” in the EOIR hierarchy or beyond.
Others of us were exiles or refugees from “The Tower” or Senior Executive positions elsewhere at so-called “Main Justice” or “other government agencies.” At various points during my 13-year tenure, the following were “in residence” at Arlington: former Acting Commissioner of the “Legacy INS;” former INS General Counsel; former BIA Chair; former BIA Members and “Temporary BIA Members;” former Acting INS General Counsel; former INS Deputy General Counsel; Former Principal Deputy Director, International Section of the DOJ; former Principal Deputy Chief Immigration Judge, two-time former Chief Trial Judge of the U.S. Army; former Acting Chief Immigration Judges; former Acting EOIR Director; former Assistant Chief Immigration Judges; former “Brooks Bros Rioter;” former Partner at Jones Day; former Managing Partner of the DC Office of Fragomen; past President of the National Association of Immigration Judges; founder and first President of the BIA Employees Union; former Chief Counsel to the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Justice; (briefly) former EOIR General Counsel and Deputy General; former Associate Counsel at the White House Domestic Policy Council; former Assistant to the Deputy Attorney General; Adjunct Professor and former Adjunct Professors at Georgetown Law, George Mason Law, and UVA Law.That’s just what I can remember; I’m sure I’ve overlooked some.A few “legitimate celebs” passed through our doors, including Angela Jolie who was a witness in one case!
To be sure, those of us “on the way down the government food chain” or those voluntarily fleeing it far outnumbered those slated to move “up the ladder.” Of course, Arlington wasn’t above criticism. Too old, too White, too male, too many “bureaucratic retreads” to accurately reflect the diverse nature of both the “customers” and the legal community in the DMV area. I won’t deny that there was some validity to those observations.
But, we “were what we were” — the choices that led to our composition at any one time were “above our pay grade.” Heck, I didn’t even apply for the job!
I think all of us did our best to compensate for or “work around” our undoubted “blind spots.” Whether we were successful is for others to decide. As a group, regardless of gender, we all consciously tried to avoid the “grumpy old men” appellation attached to some Immigration Courts of that era.
On October 14, 2022, the Arlington Immigration Court passed into history. Its judges, staff, cases, and the lives they affect scattered, in a tidal wave of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,”among the newly-established Sterling and Annandale Immigration Courts and the Falls Church and Richmond “Immigration Adjudication Centers.”The latter are apparently part of the current “vision “ of “migrating” EOIR back to its “INS roots” of yore by “emulating” the impersonality of USCIS “Service Centers” — while reportedly providing a level of “customer service” significantly below that which would make USCIS blush!
So, it’s a final farewell to Arlington. But, I will always remain grateful for the time I spent there, for the colleagues I worked with, for those who came before me and helped enlighten me in court, and for those whose lives and futures were entrusted to my care.
Every year at the end of October, legal service providers come together to celebrate Pro Bono Week. It is a dedicated opportunity to acknowledge the amazing work that our volunteers do—work that is the foundation of the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Justice Campaign. In an immigration system that is set up to make it almost impossible for certain groups of people to win, pro bono volunteers are one of the bastions helping overwhelmed legal service providers hold the line for due process and justice.
From the solo practitioner doing pro bono work to learn a new skill, to the corporate law firm partner who has incorporated pro bono as part of their practice for two decades, our volunteers run the gamut. Everyone makes a difference—from the law students interpreting between classes and homework to the community members who volunteer simply because they care. Every single volunteer is integral to the Justice Campaign’s work—and we thank them for their time and dedication.
Since its creation in 2017, the Justice Campaign and our volunteers have walked alongside hundreds of immigrants in their fight for justice and due process in the United States.
This year alone, over 200 Justice Campaign volunteers have:
Worked on 221 cases for detained individuals in 14 detention centers across the country.
Worked on 335 cases for non-detained individuals across 32 states of residence.
Served clients from 30 countries of origin who speak 19 different languages.
And with these volunteers’ help:
71% of clients have won their immigration case.
85% of clients asking for release from detention have won that release from an immigration judge.
Nationally, only 40% of people win their immigration cases, and only 32% win their release from an immigration judge. Those numbers are even lower for people without an attorney. Detained immigrants without an attorney only have about an 11% chance of winning release.
This small example of Justice Campaign clients and volunteers shows the immediate impact that pro bono work has on clients’ lives. Without the dedication of our pro bono volunteers, many of these individuals would have had to move forward alone. Statistically speaking, that means most probably would have lost.
The past several years have been difficult for most of the world in so many ways. And yet, pro bono volunteers continue showing up every day, allowing the Justice Campaign to continue serving clients, help people get out of detention, fight their cases—and for many, win. To the hundreds of volunteers who have worked with the Justice Campaign, this year and every year, thank you. We could not do this work without you.
*************************
This reality bears little resemblance to the myths and false narratives about the impact of representation put out by nativists and parroted by EOIR during the Trump years. Nor does it match the gimmicks and poor planning of the Biden Administration, which continues to operate on the false assumption that the vast majority of asylum cases in Immigration Court will be denials.
While this sample is probably too small to be statistically valid, it certainly supports the view that the current mess at EOIR unjustly leaves behind many asylum seekers and other individuals entitled to relief just because they are unrepresented or poorly represented. It also make them much more likely to remain in detention, costly for both them and the Government.
It would make sense for EOIR and the Biden Administration to work cooperatively with the pro bono and low bono bar to prioritize and increase representation and to then prioritize represented cases that are most likely to result in grants of relief. Those cases are likely to proceed faster (without any due-process-denying “gimmicks”), less likely to be appealed, and would seldom reach the Courts of Appeals. An overall efficient way to use resources.
Additionally, EOIR should be working more closely with VIISTA Villanova and others who have developed “scalable” programs for training accredited representatives to increase quality representation in Immigration Court.
Instead, with yet another round of mindless “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” on steroids, EOIR has instigated an unnecessary and counterproductive “pitched battle” with advocates across America. Go figure!
“Can’t anyone here play this game?” The GOP lacks honesty and decency. The Dems lack vision and guts. The public is misinformed about the realities of immigration. Migrants and their supporters are caught in the crossfire of political failure! PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
Lack of immigration reform hurts businesses and farmers, puts nation’s food supply at risk
Note the comments from immigration lawyer George Pappas in North Carolina.
The hostility is reflected in the immigration courts in Atlanta and in Charlotte, where the highest denial rates for asylum prevail,” he told USA TODAY. “They will not be talking about outsourcing workers or about education. The right wing base of the Republican party has used immigration as a political wedge issue to deflect attention and to deflect media, airwaves, and media space from real issues.
While undoubtedly the Immigration Courts in Atlanta and Charlotte do reflect the type of biased, anti-immigrant approach pushed by GOP politicos, today they are run by Dem AG Merrick Garland. He has failed to make needed reforms and changes at the top, starting with inept leadership from EOIR Headquarters and a precedent setting appellate board (BIA) that does not reflect the best-qualified expert judicial talent available who would implement due process, fundamental fairness, consistency, and best judicial practices nationwide.
Ironically, these values WERE once part of the “EOIR Vision,” abandoned and trashed by Administrations of both parties over the past two decades. For Dems who believe in the power of immigrants and immigrants’ tights, it’s now basically “Pogoland:” “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
A number of the public comments in the articles also show gross misconceptions about the nature of migration, the goals of the GOP, the reasons why migrants can’t apply for asylum in a safe, orderly manner at ports of entry, the immense benefits to both the workforce and society brought by family-based immigrants and those seeking to enter as refugees and asylees, and the relationship between an improved economy and a sensible, robust, realistic approach to immigration (eschewed by the GOP; bobbled by the Dems).
Both parties have squandered opportunities to acknowledge truth, make the current system work better, and create order at the border. Neither has a serious plan for reform on its agenda.
Unlike the Trump “shut the border/build the wall” racist fiasco, Biden’s initial USCitizenship Act of 2021 had some good ideas. But, after quickly “throwing it out there,” apparently as a sop to those who helped elect them, the Administration shoved it in a drawer and forgot about it. Instead, they pursued a mishmash of “built to fail gimmicks,” bureaucratic bungling, broken courts, poor legal positions, lack of vision, inept PR, and weak leadership.
The failure of the world’s leading “nation of immigrants” to discard and disavow the racist nonsense on immigration and come together on realistic, forward looking, generous, welcoming immigration policies makes our nation look bad and robs us of opportunities to improve the economy and build for the future.
Too many Biden Administration Immigration officials appear to share Stephen Miller’s “upside down” view of the Statue of Liberty, in whole or in part! Why can’t they just follow the Refugee Act of 1980 and establish the robust, timely, generous legal approach to refugees and asylum seekers that best serves America?Bill Frelick Director Refugee and Migrant Rights Division Human Rights Watch
Refugees are people who flee for their lives. Escape from danger and abuse is usually chaotic, sudden, desperate. The Biden administration’s rollout of its new policy for Venezuelan refugees seems oblivious to this refugee reality and risks doing more harm than good.
. . . .
Announcing the program on Oct. 12, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said Venezuelans who enter irregularly “will be returned to Mexico.”
He didn’t mention — and appeared to disregard — U.S. law, which recognizes that anyone who arrives in the United States has the right to seek asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of such alien’s status.”
The impact of this announcement, “effective immediately,” was the summary return to Mexico without examination of their asylum claims of any Venezuelans entering the United States without authorization. Mexico has given no assurances that it will examine their refugee claims or provide asylum to those who fear return to Venezuela. In fact, the 4,050 Venezuelans expelled to Mexico since the implementation of the policy have been given visas valid for only one week and instructed to leave the country.
. . . .
With the Biden administration’s plan in effect, we might as well apply a blowtorch to Emma Lazarus’s welcoming poem at the foot of the Statue of Liberty and chisel in a new message: “Give me your well-rested, your well-to-do, your properly ticketed jet-setters yearning to breathe free.”
Read Bill’s complete op-ed act the link. Bill is one of many “practical experts” who would do a much better job than current Administration politicos in establishing and running a refugee and asylum program that would comply with the law, due process, human dignity, and America’s best interests.Why is Biden following the lead of his “clueless (and spineless) crew?”
The Refugee Act of 1980was enacted and amended to deal with these situations! Robust, realistic refugee programs outside the U.S. should encourage many refugees to apply, be screened abroad, and admitted legally.
Other refugees arriving at our border can be promptly screened for credible fear. Those who fail that test can be summarily removed in accordance with existing law.
Those who pass that test should have access to counsel and receive timely, expert adjudications, with full appeal rights, under the generous “well founded fear” (1 in 10 chance) international standard established by the Refugee Act. See, e.g., INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (Supremes); Matter of Mogharrabi (BIA).
It’s not “rocket science!” With dynamic, experienced refugee experts running the system and “practical scholars” with expertise in refugee processing and human rights laws serving as USCIS Asylum Officers and EOIR judges at the trial and appellate levels the legal system should be flexible enough to deal with all refugee situations in an orderly manner.
Many, probably a majority, of today’s asylum seekers should be granted asylum and admitted to the U.S. in full legal status, authorized to work, and on their way to green cards and eventual citizenship. Like those admitted from abroad, they could also be made eligible for certain resettlement assistance to facilitate integration into American communities who undoubtedly will benefit from their presence.
The more robust, realistic, and timely our overseas refugee programs become, the fewer refugees who will be forced to apply for asylum at our borders. Also, real, bold, dynamic humanitarian leadership, including accepting our fair share of refugees and asylees, could persuade other countries signatory to the Geneva Refugee Convention to do likewise.
No insurmountable backlogs; no bewildered individuals wandering around the U.S. in limbo waiting for hearings that will never happen; few “no shows;” no long-term detention; no botched, biased “any reason to deny” decisions from unqualified officers and judges leading to years of litigation cluttering our legal system, no diverting Border Patrol resources from real law enforcement, no refugees huddled under bridges or sitting on street corners in Mexico!
It’s not “pie in the sky!” It’s the way our legal system could and should work with competent leadership and the very best available adjudicators and judges! It would support the proper, important role of refugees as an essential component of LEGAL IMMIGRATION, not an “exception” or “loophole” as racists and nativists like to falsely argue.
Instead of demonstrating the competence and integrity to use existing law to deal with refugee and asylum situations, the Biden Administration resorts to ad hoc political gimmicks. Essentially, the “RA80” has been repealed “administratively.” Effectively, we’re back to the “ad hoc” arbitrary approaches we used prior to ‘80 (which I worked on during the Ford Administration, and where I recollect I first heard of Bill Frelick).
I doubt that the late Senator Ted Kennedy, former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, and the rest of the group who helped shepherd the Refugee Act of 1980 through Congress would have thought that using Border Patrol Agents as Asylum Officers or packing the Immigration Courts and the BIA with judges prone to deny almost every asylum claim, regardless of facts or proper legal standards, was the “key to success!”
Congress specifically intended to eliminate the use of parole to deal with refugees except in extremely unusual circumstances, not present here. Biden’s latest ill-advised gimmick violates that premise. It’s totally inexcusable, as the refugee flow from Venezuela is neither new nor unpredictable. I was granting Venezuelan asylum cases before I retired in June 2016. Even then, there were legions of documentation, much of it generated by the USG, condemning the repressive regime in Venezuela and documenting the persecution of those who resisted!
A better AG would say “No” to these improper evasions of existing law. But, we have Merrick “What Me Worry” Garland! His botching of the Immigration Courts has been combined with a gross failure to stand up for equal justice for migrants (particularly those of color) across the board! America and refugees deserve better from our chief lawyer.
The Refugee Act of 1980 actually provides all the tools and flexibility the Biden Administration needs to establish order on the border and properly and fairly process refugees and asylees. Why won’t they use them?
AG Merrick Garland has “looked the other way” while the Biden Administration flaunts applicable protection laws in and outside the U.S. He also runs a dysfunctional “court system” where anti-asylum bias, worst practices, poorly qualified decision makers, and grotesque inconsistencies undermine the legal rights of asylum seekers and other refugees. Doesn’t America deserve more competence from its top lawyer? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Asylum seekers and lawyers must cross hostile territory, with a dearth of naturally-occurring due process, to successfully negotiate Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR. Most never make it! Death Valley Creative Commons
INSIDE THE NUMBERS FOR THE TRAC 10-09-22 IJ REPORT
NOTE: Does not account for: IJs no longer on the bench; IJs appearing in more than one location; differences among detained, non-detained dockets; profiles of high and non-high-denying courts excluded locations with fewer than four IJs listed. No guarantee of accuracy for my “hand count” — but, in accordance with the old government motto, “I did the best I could under the circumstances.”
Precipitous unexplained rise in nationwide denial rate since FY 2012, from 44.5% to 63.3%, even though human rights conditions in most so-called “sending countries” remained horrible and in some cases significantly deteriorated.See for FY2012 stats, https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/306/
Lots of “Nay-Sayers” on the Immigration Bench:
92 IJs denied asylum 90% or more of the time.
Another 94 IJs denied 85-90% of the time.
Total of 186 “High Deniers” — those who denied 85% or more — significantly (21.7% or more) above already inexplicably high 63.3% national rate.
High Denying Courts (majority of IJs listed denied 85%+)
Atlanta (including ATD-Detained) (10 of 10 IJs)
Charlotte (6 of 8 IJs)
Conroe (5 of 9 IJs)
Houston (19 of 22 IJs)
Houston-Greenspoint (4 of 5 IJs)
Jena (6 of 6 IJs)
LA – North (8 of 11 IJs)
Los Fresnos (5 of 6 IJs)
Lumpkin (5 of 7 IJs)
Memphis (6 of 11 IJs)
Miami (20 of 31 IJs)
Miamii – Krome (7 of 9 IJs)
Non-High-Denying Courts (all, or almost all, listed IJs denied less than 85%)
Adelanto (5 IJs)
Arlington (3 of 25 IJs High Deniers)
Bloomington (1 of 13 IJs High Denier)
Boston (1 of 15 IJs High Denier)
Baltimore (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
Batavia (1 of 4 IJs High Denier)
Chicago (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
Denver (2 of 8 IJs High Deniers)
Detroit (4 IJs)
Elizabeth (5 IJs)
Imperial (5 IJs)
New York (46 IJs, 0 High Deniers) **
New York Detained (17 IJs, 1 High Denier)
Newark (3 of 16 IJs High Deniers)
Otay Mesa (7 IJs)
Pearsall (5 IJs)
Philadelphia (8 IJs)
Portland OR (4 IJs)
San Francisco (2 of 27 High Deniers)
Seattle (8 IJs)
Tacoma (5 IJs)
Van Nuys (1 of 7 IJs High Denier)
Telling stats:99.1%, 97.4%, 94.3% 90.4% — Asylum denial rates for four BIA Appellate Immigration Judges listed in the chart who continue to serve on Garland’s BIA. No wonder asylum seekers are saddled with bad law and sloppy, one-sided appellate review within Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR.
Best courts for asylum seekers: Generallyin the Northeast and Northern California: Arlington, Boston, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, San Francisco, Chicago.
Worst places for asylum seekers: Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Houston, Louisiana.
Mind-blowing stat: Compare the performance of IJs in Arlington and Baltimore with those in Charlotte, all within the 4th Circuit.
Observations:
New York, followed by San Francisco, appear to be the largest and best functioning courts with respect to actually following the generous standards for asylum seekers set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca, enunciated (but seldom followed) by the BIA in Mogharrabi, and to a large extent incorporated into sporadically enforced regulations.
In NY, 46 IJs, 0 High Deniers, 24 listed IJs granted at least 50% or more of the cases, denial rates ranging from 7.1% to 83.5%, still a rather mind-boggling range.The 24 IJs in the 50% or more grant range would seem like a good place for Garland to look for a model for rebuilding EOIR as a fair, due-process-oriented, subject matter expert court. He doesn’t seem interested in doing that, but it could be done with better leadership.
Although generally one would expect Detention Courts to be in the “High Denier” category, that’s not always the case. Courts like NY-Detained, Elizabeth, Adelanto, Otay Mesa, and Pearsall, all had some significant asylum grant rates. Conversely, several predominantly non-detained courts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, and Houston were unseemly “dead zones” for asylum seekers. Garland’s failure to address the gross inconsistencies and abuses of asylum law going on in those and other “High Denier Courts” is disgraceful.
Overall, this is a statistical picture of a failed and dysfunctional court system where critical life or death decisions depend more on where you are and who your judge or BIA “panel” is than on the quality of the evidence or the state of the law. It has failed to deliver on its promise of being a court of widely acknowledged subject matter experts who will guarantee due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices for all on some of the most important and life-determining decisions in American jurisprudence. It’s bad; and not significantly improving under the Dems!
Hon. Scott E. Bratton U.S. Immigration Judge New York – Broadway Immigration Court PHOTO: lawyer.com
Judge Scott E. Bratton of the NY Broadway Immigration Court was a “regular” before me when I was assigned to the Cleveland docket. Always well-prepared, collegial, and an outstanding brief writer and oral advocate, he had no hesitation in going to the Article III Courts when necessary on behalf of his clients. He also has a sense of humor and perspective. This great appointment should have come long ago. But, better late than never!
Hon. Denise M. Hunter U.S. Immigration Judge Sacremento Immigration Court PHOTO: Linkedin
Judge Denise M. Hunter of the Sacramento Immigration Court collaborated with now GW Law Professor Cori Alonso Yoder and me on “hands-on CLE in immigration” for the DC Bar. Following my retirement, she, Cori, and I met for lunch to “strategize” ways to make due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices the “norm” in Immigration Court, rather than the exception it continues to be! She’s now in a position to lead and teach by example to make that happen in a system where justice too often continues to be a mere “afterthought,” if that!
Hon. Becca A. Niburg U.S. Immigration Judge Hyattsville Immigration Court PHOTO: Linkedin
Judge Becca A. Niburg of the Hyattsville Immigration Court is a “self described immigration nerd” — in other words, a distinguished practical scholar in immigration, human rights, and due process for all! In addition to private practice and serving with two of the premier human rights NGOs in the DMV area, Catholic Charities & Kids in Need of Defense (“KIND”), Becca has a rich background as an immigration adjudicator at the appellate level of USCIS and as a litigator in the Office of Immigration Litigation at DOJ. She combines “insider knowledge” of the failing Government immigration bureaucracy with the skills, courage, determination, and “outside perspective” to make bureaucracy work for the common good, often in spite of itself. Can’t think of an organization more in need of that perspective these days than Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Here’s a complete list of appointments with bios from EOIR:
12 Judges from predominantly private sector backgrounds;
20 Judges from predominantly government sector backgrounds (primarily DHS & DOJ, but also state and local governments and other Federal agencies);
26 Judges with known immigration experience;
6 Judges with no obvious immigration experience on their resumes — all 6 from government sector backgrounds.
This is a marked improvement over the Obama and Trump Administrations where EOIR judicial appointments ran approximately 9:1 in favor of those from government! It’s also a needed improvement over the Trump Administration’s oft-criticized tendency to place too many individuals without significant immigration experience on the EOIR bench in the apparent belief that they would be more willing to “follow orders, shut up, deny, and deport.” The precipitous drop in asylum approvals during the Trump years, despite worsening conditions for refugees worldwide, proved that there was some basis for this anti-asylum assumption.
Nevertheless, Garland’s selections tend to remain significantly “over-weighted” toward those from government.I always believed that the excuse of DOJ officialsfor the over-appointments from government given during the Obama Administration — that the applicant pool from government was so much better — was pure unadulterated BS!
Since retiring and having an opportunity to work more closely with super talented private practitioners on Round Table briefs, CLE, articles, litigation strategy, proposals for legislative reform, and clinical and classroom teaching, I can say without a doubt that the talent level out here in the private/NGO/academic section is “through the roof” — astounding — particularly compared with the intellectual and legal output of EOIR! If more of these “leading lights” — of American law (NOT “just Immigration law”) aren’t on the “short list” for the Immigration Court and replacing most of the current BIA, that’s a problem with Garland’s recruiting process, NOT with the non-government “talent pool.”
Did the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation just “wait to see who might apply” for Federal Judge positions — starting with the Supremes! Hell no! They “groomed” their “preferred judicial selections” for years, decades even, far in advance of any known vacancies.
If you remember, Brett Kavanaugh believed that a seat on the Supremes was his “birthright” — since about age 10 or something like that. He bemoaned the fact that nasty Dems questioning his qualifications might deprive him of his “preordained destiny.” One can never accuse right-wing zealots of not having a well-developed “sense of entitlement.” They act on it, and apologize to nobody! Compare that with Dems!
By contrast, Dems are absolutely clueless about both the importance and potential of the Immigration Courts — including the BIA, a nationwide appellate court, essentially the “12th or 13th Circuit” depending on how you count.With absolute control of these important “retail level” courts for 10 of the past 14 years, the Dems have done an extraordinarily poor job of filling judgeships with the best-qualified, progressive, most due-process-committed candidates — scholarly, practical judges who would take equal justice and racial justice in America seriously! Additionally, such individuals would be “primed, experienced, and ready” for Article III appointments when the opportunities arose!
By contrast, in the four years they controlled EOIR, Sessions, Barr, and their “acting fill-in flunkies” did an extraordinary job of weaponizing and reshaping the Immigration Courts — starting with the BIA — in “Stephen Miller’s image.” In the process, they created total dysfunction and chaos at EOIR, heaped abuse and injustice on vulnerable asylum seekers ( predominantly individuals of color, many women and children), twisted immigration law into a “Milleresque” anti-immigrant mess, demoralized and punished lawyers, busted the judges’ union, forced some of the best most qualified judges off the bench, and undermined our entire justice system. They even got EOIR to “cook” their statistics to support the nativist myth that “nobody qualifies for asylum” — ergo, all asylum seeks and their lawyers are fraudsters!
I’m on the record, many times over, as being no fan of Stephen Miller! But, his aggressive, energetic, focused, “take no prisoners,” “ignore the opposition” approach to de-constructing our immigration and justice systems certainly was more effective than anything else I have witnessed over my decades in and out of Government! He understood that time could be short, and he had to do as much damage as possible in that allotted to him. He literally was totally engaged in killing asylum and asylum seekers until the exact minute he left the White House! Dems, on the other hand, disturbingly, exhibit no leadership, urgency, sense of purpose, dynamic energy, confidence in the rightness of their cause, or plan when it comes to immigration.
“You can’t do that” was a challenge to Miller — not a deterrent! He not only did it, but got away with it!
He didn’t “study” things or fool around attempting to build support outside his “base.” If nothing else, Miller “gave lie” to the off-repeated “bureaucratic mantra” that “change takes time.”
He undid decades of hard work by those engaged in making the “Refugee Act of 1980” functional in a matter of weeks or months! And, the inept immigration bureaucracy and non-existent immigration leadership under the Biden Administration has been stymied, or simply “contented no-shows,” on undoing much of Miller’s damage!
Faced with this exceptionally well-documented disaster, and it’s undeniable corrosive impact on our democracy, Garland has been largely MIA, or AWOL might be a better term. “Action” isn’t a word readily associated with Merrick Garland.
Garland’s glacial, largely disengaged, timid, ineffective approach to EOIR reform and reconstruction is perhaps typical of Democrat Administrations and their overall approach to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in the 21st Century. But, that doesn’t make it the RIGHT approach, for the party, the Federal Judiciary, our nation’s future, and, most important, for the individuals seeking justice in Garland’s EOIR wasteland and their long-suffering attorneys.
As someone who has not represented asylum seekers in his “Houses of Horror” and who disdains engaging with those who have, Merrick Garland has shown that he is unqualified to be Attorney General of the US. His “Clown Courts” are now “Houses of Horror” that are no joke, particularly for those who have to deal with his beyond dysfuntional mess on a daily basis! Reaper Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
I received this from a practitioner in response my earlier post about Garland’s ongoing scheduling and due process fiasco @ EOIR:
Glad you wrote this. It has been so hard. I am working 7 days a week and feel like I am losing my mind. Hopefully they start making changes, because how this is currently going is just not sustainable. Many of the Judges are not granting the continuances or making you go to the IH and giving you a hard time about it. Multiple Judges told me a month or even less notice was “plenty of time.” O boy!
“Due process cannot exist if an attorney does not have sufficient time and advance notice to prepare for a case.”
The above is an elementary statement of the minimum requirement for due process in any court setting! Yet, in the “wacky world of Garland’s EOIR” 🤯 it is being knowingly and intentionally violated hundreds of times each day!
Not only does this inhibit effective professional representation of those fortunate enough to have lawyers, but it actively discourages attorneys from taking on cases in Immigration Court, particularly those acting in a pro bono or low bono capacity. How will we interest and inspire new lawyers to get into the practice when this is the way they can expect to be treated? It’s a truly disgusting and disgraceful development!
The following letter from a consortium of practitioners, academics, and NGO leaders protests the insane, due-process-denying lack of notice and the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on steroids” ongoing @ EOIR and makes suggestions for constructive changes to restore at least some order to Garland’s dysfunctional courts. In my view, this situation raises huge Constitutional, ethical, and policy issues affecting all justice in America! It also illustrates the incredibly poor judgement and dismissive attitude of the Biden Administration and Garland’s DOJ in approaching the most serious “life or death” issues involving human rights and racial justice!
Among the signers:
NJ AILA chapter signed on, former judges, Rocky Mountain Advocacy Network, professors, CGRS, ASAP (150,000 members), NC Justice Center, etc. Attorneys practicing in every state + DC + Puerto Rico ended up signing-on to this letter.
I am a signatory. As you know, many of us believe that the ongoing intentional deterioration of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR is a preventable national disgrace that is undermining equal justice and democratic institutions in America. Consequently, I think it is critical to keep this issue “in the public eye” and to demand constructive, common sense reforms at EOIR.
The “constructive suggestions” contained in the letter are great! But, it’s a colossal waste of time and resources to have unqualified bureaucrats, far removed from the actual practice before these dysfunctional “courts,” unilaterally institute these ill-advised, unethical, due-process denying changes. Then, it’s left to the “outside experts” to drop everything and “plead and beg” for common sense and sanity from an arrogant, dysfunctional system!
The American justice system can’t continue to afford to let this wasteful and highly counterproductive “clown show” 🤡 go on unabated! It’s up to everyone who cares about equal justice in America (NOT just immigration practitioners) to demand that Merrick Garland get rid of the incompetents at EOIR and replace them with expert administrators and real, well-qualified judges who are “practical scholars” in the law, understand the needs of justice, and will reform this broken system to work for the best interests of everyone in America!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
This gathering will bring together existing universal representation projects as well as groups considering starting/supporting new programs to reflect on best practices, adapting models while seeking to end detention, and ways to expand universal representation. The deadline to register for virtual attendance is tomorrow, October 25, 2022.
CNN: There were 227,547 migrant encounters along the US-Mexico border in September, up 12 percent from the previous month. The sharp increase in migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua contributed to the uptick.
NYT: The number of Venezuelans entering the United States illegally dropped from about 1,200 a day to 150 in the first days after the Biden administration rolled out the new policies.
Reuters: The Ethiopian military and allies including troops from neighboring Eritrea have been battling forces from the northern region of Tigray on and off for two years. The conflict has killed thousands, displaced millions and left hundreds of thousands on the brink of famine.
The Hill: The Coast Guard stopped 185 Cubans on Friday, 94 on Saturday and 40 on Sunday. In total, the service says it has intercepted 921 Cubans since Oct. 1.
AP: Molina was among 13 migrants who recently arrived in the U.S. who agreed to share documents with The Associated Press that they received when they were released from U.S. custody while they seek asylum after crossing the border with Mexico. The AP found that most had no idea where they were going — nor did the people at the addresses listed on their paperwork.
CNN: It has been an endless cycle since President Joe Biden took office, according to multiple administration officials and sources close to the White House. Agency officials dream up a plan but then struggle to get White House approval, even as the problem compounds and Republicans step up their criticism. See also Immigrant advocates feel abandoned as they stare at Biden’s first-term checklist.
TRAC: According to new data obtained by TRAC through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, 480,301 people have been enrolled in ICE’s electronic monitoring program known as Alternatives to Detention (ATD) between August 2020 and June 2022. Many of these individuals, about 196,000, were previously active in ATD but have since ceased to be monitored under ATD, while 284,000 immigrants were still in ATD as of the end of June.
TRAC: As of the end of September 2022, Immigration Court judges dismissed a total of 63,586 cases because Department of Homeland Security officials, chiefly Border Patrol agents, are not filing the actual “Notice to Appear” (NTA) with the Immigration Court. Without a filed NTA, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
GBH: Police in New York arrested about 57,000 unlicensed drivers a year before state lawmakers narrowly approved the Green Light Law in 2019, making most immigrants eligible for licenses regardless of their legal status. In 2021, those arrests declined to about 30,000 and are on a similar pace for this year, according to records obtained by GBH News from the New York State Unified Court System.
Block Club: As a major city that attracts immigrants, Chicago specifically has been struggling to support the recent influx of asylum seekers. After dealing with cuts under the Trump administration and then the COVID-19 pandemic, immigrant serving organizations’ resources were already strained before the war in Ukraine and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and subsequent Taliban takeover sent thousands of refugees and asylum seekers to Chicago. The recent arrival of migrants from Texas has only added to the strain on organizations’ resources, including legal services and representation.
LexisNexis: He argues that the immigration judge (“IJ”) applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether he would more likely than not be tortured with the “consent or acquiescence” of the Honduran government, and that the BIA erred in its review of the IJ’s decision. He also argues that the BIA failed to consider whether the Honduran government would likely torture him and whether the MS-13 gang is a de facto government actor. We agree that the agency erred in these respects, and we therefore grant his petition for review, vacate the order of the BIA to the extent it denied him CAT relief as to Honduras, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CA1: We thus remand for the BIA to consider in the first instance whether Chavez’s proposed social group satisfies the requirements for constituting a particular social group under the INA to which he belongs. We express no opinion as to the merits of that issue other than to emphasize that the BIA cannot reject such a group based solely on its determination that current or former gang members cannot form a particular social group.
LexisNexis: The plain language of the statute, coupled with the reasoning of Mahn and Ramirez-Contreras, persuades us that the Pennsylvania felony fleeing statute does not qualify as turpitudinous. While the failing to stop for a police officer while crossing a state line is conduct that may put another in danger, it does not necessarily do so. The agency therefore erred in its conclusion that King was convicted of a CIMT.
LexisNexis: We conclude: (1) the record in this case compels the conclusion that two of De Leon’s attackers were police officers during a July 2011 incident; (2) De Leon showed acquiescence on the part of the Guatemalan government with respect to that incident because government officials— namely, the two police officers—directly participated in the incident; and (3) the record indicates that the IJ and BIA’s conclusion that De Leon is not likely to be subjected to torture with government acquiescence if returned to Guatemala disregards several important circumstances pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of future torture. In light of these errors, we grant the petition and remand for the agency to reconsider De Leon’s application for relief.
Law360: The state of Texas on Wednesday agreed to drop its challenge to a provision of the pandemic-era Title 42 policy which exempted unaccompanied minor migrants from being expelled from the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Law360: An Illinois university professor and students can’t stop the Biden administration from enforcing a Trump-era policy barring student visas to Chinese nationals who are connected to any entity in China that supports its “military-civil fusion strategy,” a federal judge has ruled, denying the plaintiffs’ bid for a temporary restraining order.
Law360: A class of foreign-born military recruits who sought $10 million in attorney fees after winning back their expedited path to naturalization two years ago have settled for $2.75 million in the interest of conserving resources and avoiding further litigation risks.
AIC: Several legal services organizations filed a lawsuit today against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for unlawfully preventing attorneys from communicating with immigrants detained in four detention facilities in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and Arizona.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is extending certain COVID-19-related flexibilities through Jan. 24, 2023, to assist applicants, petitioners, and requestors.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
But immigrant advocates note that some of their demands aren’t contingent on Congress or the courts, which makes it all the more exasperating as to why the administration has failed to deliver.
Some told POLITICO they simply wanted to see the administration remedy the harm caused by the Trump administration’s family separation policies. Others want to see follow-up on early proposals to protect immigrant workers in labor disputes.
The administration further angered the community last week when it announced plans to use the Trump-era pandemic policy, Title 42, to expel Venezuelan migrants crossing the border illegally as part of its new humanitarian parole program for them. Advocates decried the expansion of Title 42, which the Justice Department is fighting in court, as a continuation of the Trump “playbook.”
. . . .
The biggest, most significant “unforced error” by the Biden Administration has been the failure to “clean house” at EOIR and to reform the Immigration Courts to be a model of great, scholarly, humane judging, and a bastion of due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices.
The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation set forth a successful “blueprint” for a far-right takeover of not only the Immigration Courts, but the entire Article III Judiciary. The Trump Administration adopted and successfully followed it!
By stark contrast, the Dems have failed to act timely and decisively on the one all-important Federal court system that they completely control! EOIR is a system that probably has more impact on the future of America — or whether there will even be a future America — than any court short of the Supremes!
Garland’s dismissive treatment of the informed views of immigration, human rights, and racial justice experts — who have had “hands on” experience with “America’s most dysfunctional courts” (the Immigration Courts) — has undermined our legal system and hamstrung almost every other progressive social justice initiative — from voting rights to abortion!
Garland’s failure to bring in experienced, dynamic, inspirational, respected, “Tier One” progressive practical scholar/leaders — folks like, for example, Dean Kevin Johnson, Professor Karen Musalo, Marielena Hincapie, Professor Phil Schrag, Margaret Stock, Professor Michele Pistone, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks — to clean up EOIR, kick some tail, and create “the best, fairest, most efficient courts in America” — is beyond inexcusable!
Dems are a self-inflicted mess when it comes to immigration — apparently because those “calling the shots” are more “Stephen Miller Lite” than they are Julian Castro and other Democrats who understand the essential importance of immigrants and of standing up for their rights — starting with the “retail level” of American justice.
As one frustrated experienced practitioner recently told me: “Biden’s entire immigration policies are a train wreck. He didn’t take the action he said he would. The practice of immigration law is soul crushing.”
“Soul crushing!” Those words should be a “wake up call” to the “tone deaf” policy honchos in the Administration. It shouldn’t be this way in a Dem Administration that was elected because they promised to do better and to stand up to the lies, myths, and false narratives of the nativist right! Once in power, Dems don’t seem to be able to distinguish between their friends and their adversaries. That’s proven NOT to be a “formula for success!”
For every immigrant/racial justice advocate that the Biden Administration wears down and demoralizes, two “new recruits” for the NDPA will arise, fully energized to keep litigating, winning, and raising hell until due process, human rights, fundamental fairness, and racial justice get some long overdue ACTION. Based on results to date, that means continuing to “beat Garland’s brains out” in court! The talent and creativity is obviously “out here,” not in Garland’s “Halls of (In)Justice!” Given that the “Stephen Miller Group” is also challenging the Administration in court, Garland will eventually find himself doing nothing but litigating immigration issues and getting walloped by both sides!
Meanwhile, as the Administration daily fails on immigration, human rights, and racial justice within the Executive Branch, my mailbox and message box are overflowing with desperate requests from Dem politicos, from Joe, Kamala, Nancy, and Chuck on down, for more donations of money and time. But, once the election cycle is over, our views are ignored, and we are treated as “PNGs.” Meanwhile, those who actively undermined immigrants’ rights and diminished due process are rewarded or retained in key positions where they continue to heap damage on the most vulnerable among us and frustrate their supporters.
Doesn’t seem like a sustainable future for the Democratic Party or for American democracy! But, hey, I’m just a retired Immigration Judge. Maybe my friends in the social justice movement enjoy being treated as “chopped liver” — frozen out and ignored — once they have helped elect Dems.
Republicans boldly “run on the big lie.” Meanwhile, Dems “run from the truth” about immigrants and their all-important role in America’s future! Go figure!
A quote from a recent NY Times article struck me as aptly summarizing the failure of leaders of both political parties to take an honest, creative, and practical approach to the opportunity presented by continuing human migration:
Immigration in the United States is broken, but one side of the fence wants to study the root causes of the problem, and don’t want to see what’s happening right here,” Mr. [John] Martin [deputy director of the Opportunity Center for the Homeless in El Paso] said, squinting beneath the brim of his cowboy hat. “And the other side wants to build a wall which would become a dam and eventually burst.”
Former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions went to the border to preach his “gospel” of anti-immigrant hate, lies, nativist myths, and to “fire up” officials for one of the biggest unconstitutional abuses of prosecutorial authority in modern American history. Indeed, that is when one reporter coined the term “Gonzo Apocalypto” to describe the absolute nonsense spewing from Sessions’s mouth.
Sessions orchestrated a vile “strategy” of family separation from which the victims haven’t yet, and may never, fully recover. Interestingly, he has also escaped accountability.
By contrast, Garland, to my knowledge, has never bothered to visit the border and engage first-hand with the human carnage his failed “courts” and abuse of both the Constitution and asylum law inflict on others. He interacts neither with those outside government trying to uphold the rule of law nor the enforcement officials given “mission impossible.” He absolves himself from observing the effect that his failure to carry out orderly, humane, legally compliant refugee and asylum processing — using existing law rather than extralegal “gimmicks” — has on communities on the border and in the interior.
Sessions was a vile, intellectually dishonest, and immoral leader; Garland is simply a failed and disengaged one. But, the difference might not be readily apparent to most practitioners laboring in the foul trenches of Garland’s dysfunctional “court” system.
From my observation, there are folks out here interested in, and capable of, addressing the opportunities, potential benefits, and challenges presented by the inevitability of human migration in the 21st Century. Most of them, unlike “pontificating politicos,” have, at some point, “walked the walk” with those humans caught up in the migration dilemma, on both sides of the border.
But, leaders of neither party are interested in the constructive ideas and solutions developed within the rule of law that these unusually talented and dedicated individuals can offer. As long as that is the case, the realities of human migration, false promises, racially driven bias, and wildly inconsistent application of justice in America will continue to vex both politicians and the voters who put such “non-problem-solvers” in office!
