"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.
EOIR plans to resume non-detained hearings on July 6, 2021 at all remaining immigration courts. Attorneys have reported seeing non-detained cases advanced or continued with less than 30 days’ notice before the individual hearing, so check your EOIR portal.
Reception window: weekdays 8:30am – 12:00pm. In-person, hard-copy service of documents will only be accepted at the window for detained cases pending at the Varick Street Immigration Court.
eService: For detained and non-detained cases pending before the Varick Street Immigration Court, you must use the “Varick Street NYC” location. For cases pending before the Immigration Courts at 26 Federal Plaza and 290 Broadway, you must use the “New York City” location. Beginning July 6, 2021, documents submitted with the wrong location designation will be rejected.
TOP NEWS
Judge Robert A. Katzmann (1954-2021) Second Circuit Court of Appeals PHOTO: US Courts.com
NYT: “Almost single-handedly he convinced the organized bar to provide free quality representation for thousands of needy immigrants,” said Jed S. Rakoff, a senior U.S. District Court Judge. “No judge ever took a broader view of the role of a judge in promoting justice in our society, or was more successful in turning those views into practical accomplishment.”
Vox: While details of the plan are short, [Biden] has asked the Justice Department to restart its access to justice work, which was on hiatus during the Trump administration, and convened a roundtable of civil legal aid organizations to advise him. But the Biden administration need not look far for potential solutions: The New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, a first-of-its-kind program that provides publicly funded lawyers to every detained or incarcerated immigrant in the state, offers a helpful model.
Bloomberg: The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security plan to propose new criteria for asylum-seekers as part of Biden’s broader goal to retool the nation’s immigration system. The Department of Homeland Security will draft ways to strengthen protections for undocumented individuals brought to the U.S. illegally as children, under the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). See also Aaron Reichlin-Melnick’s Twitter thread summarizing the agenda.
Reuters: A new U.S. immigration policy announced on Monday will expand access to work permits and deportation relief to some immigrants who are crime victims while their visa cases are pending.
WaPo: Though President Biden quickly signed several executive orders to roll back some of President Donald Trump’s most draconian policies — including one that sent asylum seekers back to Mexico to await their court hearings — a number of other restrictive measures and rulings that directly affect domestic violence survivors remain in place.
NBC: Among the judges’ concerns, as described to NBC News: There aren’t enough of them, they need more support staff, and they’ve felt political pressure from their bosses at the Justice Department.
AP: VOICE will be replaced by The Victims Engagement and Services Line, which will combine longstanding existing services, such as methods for people to report abuse and mistreatment in immigration detention centers and a notification system for lawyers and others with a vested interest in immigration cases.
Reuters: An effort by U.S. President Joe Biden to reunite migrant families separated by the previous administration is moving slowly, with only seven children reunited with parents by a task force launched in February, according to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report released on Tuesday. Another 29 families are set to be reunited in the coming weeks, the report said.
NYT: There was a slight increase in the number of border crossings, encounters and apprehensions overall during the same time period, a sign that the record surge of migrants trying to get into the country this spring could be starting to stabilize.
WaPo: As of May 31, nearly 9,000 children were kept at unlicensed sites, compared with 7,200 at licensed shelters, court filings by the U.S. government said. While the unlicensed facilities were running at near capacity in May, the licensed facilities were only about half full, according to a report filed by the agency tasked with the children’s care.
WaPo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehension numbers for May released recently show the share of families — about 20 percent — being expelled under Title 42 continued to decline. Although the overall number of families reaching the Southwest border declined as well, the data shows that eight out of 10 families that Border Patrol encountered were released into the country and allowed to pursue immigration cases.
ABC: Her trip to meet with Guatemalan and Mexican leaders is part of a two-track approach to the issue, senior administration officials have said, of “stemming the flow” of migration in the near term and establishing a “strategic partnership” with Mexico and Northern Triangle countries “to enhance prosperity, combat corruption and strengthen the rule of law” in the longer term.
ImmProf: It’s one of those wonky SCOTUS plurality opinions. Justice Kagan announces the judgement of the court and gets three justices (Sotomayor, Kennedy, and Gorsuch) to sign onto her opinion, which focuses on the statutory phrase “against the person of another.” Justice Thomas concurs, agreeing in the judgment that Borden’s conviction doesn’t qualify as a violent felony, though he focuses on different statutory language: “use of physical force.”
Law360: The Fifth Circuit declined to review a Salvadoran man’s appeal for humanitarian deportation relief Wednesday, finding that immigration judges had rightfully denied his claims after he failed to show he was a member of a persecuted group.
LexisNexis: Arnoldo Antonio Vasquez, a former Salvadorian military officer, was a naturalized American citizen. Based on his role in extrajudicial killings and a subsequent cover-up occurring during armed conflict in El Salvador, the government sought to revoke his citizenship, that is, to denaturalize him.
The court held that the Honduran petitioner did not face past persecution based on her membership in a particular social group (PSG) consisting of her family; rather, the court found she was targeted because she owned land that once belonged to her father. (Padilla-Franco v. Garland, 6/2/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060736
Applying the “reason to believe” standard under INA §212(a)(2)(C), the court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that there was probable cause to believe that petitioner was involved in illicit drug trafficking and was thus inadmissible. (Rojas v. Garland, 5/27/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060735
The court held that the government is not required to prove that a returning lawful permanent resident (LPR) meets an exception under INA §101(a)(13)(C) before it can parole the returning LPR into the United States for prosecution under INA §212(d)(5). (Vazquez Romero v. Garland, 5/28/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060737
Denying the petition for review, the court held that the Salvadoran petitioner was ineligible for asylum, because the gang that targeted her family had done so only as a means to the end of obtaining funds, not because of any animus against her family. (Sanchez-Castro v. Att’y Gen., 6/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 21060738
The BIA ruled that a mere continuation of an activity in the United States that is substantially similar to the activity from which an initial claim of past persecution is alleged cannot establish changed circumstances under INA §208(a)(2)(D). Matter of D-G-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 297 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21060899
Law360: The First Circuit should stand by its decision to wipe a lower court ruling that blocked federal immigration authorities from making arrests in and around Massachusetts courthouses, despite the Biden administration’s order curbing many such arrests, the federal government argued Thursday.
Law360: A lawful permanent resident of the U.S. sued the Department of Homeland Security in Maryland federal court Wednesday, claiming an unreasonable delay in processing his wife’s spousal visa application, which he says has not been acted on since it was filed in January 2020.
USCIS issued three policy updates in the Policy Manual to clarify the expedited processing, improve RFE and NOID guidance, and increase the validity period for initial and renewal EADs for certain pending adjustment of status applications. AILA Doc. No. 21060934
USCIS updated policy guidance in its Policy Manual regarding the criteria used to determine whether a case warrants expedited treatment. AILA Doc. No. 21060936
USCIS: USCIS is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to implement a new process, referred to as Bona Fide Determination, which will give victims of crime in the United States access to employment authorization sooner, providing them with stability and better equipping them to cooperate with and assist law enforcement investigations and prosecutions.
USCIS: USCIS has made historical versions of the USCIS Policy Manual available to the public. These historical versions will reflect the pertinent policy in effect on a particular date and are being provided for research and reference purposes only. Users can find the historical versions under the “History” tab within the Policy Manual chapters. However, this tab will only reflect historical changes moving forward. For historical versions before June 11, you can visit the Internet Archive.
ICE provided interim guidance on motions to reopen in light of SCOTUS’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, stating that some noncitizens may now be eligible for cancellation of removal. Until 11/16/21, ICE attorneys will presumptively exercise prosecutorial discretion for these individuals. AILA Doc. No. 21061030
ICE provided guidance on submitting a prosecutorial discretion request to OPLA including a listing of relevant email addresses that can be used when submitting a request to OPLA field locations. AILA Doc. No. 21061430
EOIR issued a memo that provides EOIR policies regarding the effect of DHS’s updated enforcement priorities and initiatives. Memo is effective as of 6/11/21. AILA Doc. No. 21061133
EOIR: As part of EOIR’s ongoing efforts to improve operations and review existing policy memoranda, the following Policy Memorandum (PM) is rescinded: 1.PM 21-10, Fees.
I note that Judge Robert A. Katzmann spoke at several of our Immigration Judge Conferences and also attended a Georgetown Law Judicial seminar on inconsistency in asylum adjudication that I participated in as an Immigration Judge. He was instrumental in creating both the Immigrant Justice Corps and the NYC representation program for migrants.
Notably, Liz Gibson, of “The Gibson Report,” one of my former Georgetown Law students was also selected by Judge Katzmann and other experts for the super-competitive Immigrant Justice Corps! And we can see what a difference Liz is making every day!
Those of us committed to due process and fundamental fairness mourn Judge Katzmann’s passing. His enlightened, humane, and compassionate leadership will be missed.
Lots of important information for practitioners here. It illustrates that while ICE and USCIS are moving forward with some modest, long overdue due process and “best practices” reforms, EOIR under Garland continues to lag behind.
This week’s disclosures about the deep problems at the Trump DOJ, which have not been effectively addressed, show that under Garland the DOJ isn’t inclined to fix even the most obvious defects at Justice until they are exposed by outside groups and the public pressure grows. At a time when the DOJ needs bold, proactive progressive leadership, Garland’s “reactive” style of management and lack of aggressive progressive leadership continues to erode confidence in our justice system.
As illustrated by last week’s NBC Nightly News report on dysfunction, polarization, and lack of due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR, the ongoing disaster in our Immigration Courtsactually dwarfs all of the other problems at the DOJ. And, it certainly adversely affects more human lives and American communities.
Due process, human rights, and racial justice advocates and experts should not trust Garland and his team to fix EOIR before it’s too late. In the first place, he currently has nobody on his “team” with the Immigration Court experience and the progressive expertise to get the job done!
So it’s going to take more aggressive litigation, more demands to Congress for Article I, more op-eds, more front page articles and news reports, more calls and letters to the White House, and more “creative disruption” to force Garland’s hand on EOIR reform.
Additionally, rather remarkably, and contravening the Biden Administration’s pledge of honoring diversity, the DOJ has done nothing on its own to recruit or attract a diverse group of expert progressive judges. Indeed, Garland actively undermined the effort with an outrageous “17-judge giveaway” to the disgraced Billy Barr. This week’s revelations showed just how ridiculous was Garland’s inappropriate “deference” to Barr-selected, non-progressive, non-diverse judges!
Therefore, it’s absolutely critical that the rest of us keep beating the drum and encouraging the “best and brightest” progressive immigration experts to apply for judicial and executive positions at EOIR. In particular, the immigration judiciary lacks representation by talented Latina and Latino judges with experience representing asylum applicants and other migrants.
They are out there, for sure! But EOIR’s aggressively anti-Hispanic, often misogynist culture, the anti-Hispanic “jurisprudence” churned out by Sessions, Barr, and the BIA, and the demeaning and “dumbing down” of the Immigration Judge jobs to be nothing more than glorified “deportation clerks” has effectively discouraged the folks we need on the bench from applying. And, posting for short periods on “USA JOBS” is not a serious effort at recruiting from the outside or creating a more representative pool of applicants.
NAIJ is doing some of the “diversity outreach” that that should be DOJ’s job. But, they need help! Another reason why Garland’s failure to restore NAIJ as the representative of Immigration Judges is highly problematic! These things should be “no brainless” under a Dem Administration. Instead, at Garland’s DOJ, it’s like pulling teeth!
A number of minority attorneys have told me that they felt unwelcome at the “Trump EOIR” or thought that they couldn’t function independently and effectively in a culture that obviously demeaned and dehumanized people of color.
We can’t force positive, progressive change in the toxic culture at EOIR without getting “agents of change” and judicial role models from currently underrepresented communities on the inside, where they belong. Also, those who actually have represented individuals in Immigration Court have both organizational skills beyond those of many government bureaucrats and practical problem solving ability that simply isn’t promoted or recognized within the inefficient “top-down” EOIR bureaucracy.
So, members of the NDPA, get those EOIR applications in there! Garland is tone deaf to the necessity and the opportunity for a progressive judiciary at EOIR that he squanders every day with his lackadaisical non-leadership. So, as is often the case with Dem Administrations, you’re going to have to take the initiative, break down the the doors of bias and incompetence at EOIR, and create the progressive judiciary of the future with or without Garland’s support!
EOIR is going to have trouble continuing to keep the “best and brightest” progressives out of the Immigration Judiciary. Don’t wait for change to come to you — not going to happen under Garland! Be an agent of aggressive, progressive change! Take the due process/racial justice revolution to the halls of justice @ Justice!
Vice President Kamala D. Harris Vice President of the United States — She thinks that laws are for others and that platitudes solve problems. (Official Senate Photo)
VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS THINKS RULE OF LAW DOESN’T APPLY TORICH NATION THAT ILLEGALLY TURNS DESPERATE REFUGEES AWAY, SUGGESTS GUATEMALANS SHOULD DIE IN PLACE! — “Deterrence Statement” Won’t Stop Migration, Won’t Appease Nativist-Restrictionists, But Will Cost Her Support From Human Rights Progressives Who Helped Elect Her!— There Will Be No Workable Solutions At Our Southern Border Without a Functional, Robust Legal Asylum System That Complies With Due Process!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
June 9, 2021
Every individual, regardless of status, has a legal right to apply for asylum at our border. This law was enacted on 1980 to carry out our legal obligations under the U.N. Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, to which we have been party since 1968.
Right now, the U.S. has neither a legal asylum system operating at ports of entry nor does it have a functioning refugee program in Central America. Borders were illegally closed and legal immigration avenues were suspended by the White Nationalist Trump Administration on various pretexts involving false narratives about COVID, labor market impact, and national security, among others. At one point Trump even made the absurdist claim that America is “full!”
The Biden Administration has peddled rhetoric about re-establishing legal immigration. But, to date they have neither re-established the rule of law for asylum seekers at our Southern Border nor have they instituted an operational refugee program for Central America.
How bogus is the Biden/Harris continuation of the COVID facade for closing the border? Well, I didn’t hear much mention from Harris in Guatemala of COVID as a reason not to come or any promise to restore the legal asylum system once the “fake COVID emergency” is resolved.
So, there is no legal way for those in Guatemala and other countries to seek refuge in the U.S. Ignoring requests from experts and humanitarian NGOs, the Biden Administration has also stubbornly failed to repeal biased “precedents” from the Trump DOJ designed to make it difficult for refugees fleeing Latin America, particularly women, to qualify for legal protection despite the fact that their lives and safety will be in danger if returned.
Our scofflaw actions actually leave refugees needing protection no choice but to cross the border surreptitiously. We have suspended the rule of law for legal asylum seekers, while dishonestly claiming that they, not we, are the “law breakers.” After nearly 50 years in and sometimes out of the immigration bureaucracy, I know bureaucratic doublespeak when I hear it.
Remarkably, Vice President Harris seems to have cribbed her public statements on Guatemalan asylum from Gauleiter Stephen Miller. Even more astoundingly, Miller’s influence on the Biden Administration’s failing immigration policies, particularly at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, continues to far exceed that of the diverse coalition of progressive experts, human rights advocates, and civil rights leaders who helped elect Biden and Harris! Talk about disrespect and being taken for granted!
In other words, America has totally “welched” on our legal and moral obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. Yet, incredibly, Harris warns them to stay in places where their lives and safety are in immediate danger, rather than taking a calculated risk of finding safety in the United States.
Since the U.S. no longer has a rule of law for asylum seekers or refugees, this usually means trying to enter with the aid of paid smugglers who offer them something the U.S. is unwilling to provide — a realistic possibility of refuge in time to save their lives! It’s certainly “not rocket science!” But, disturbingly, it appears to be above Harris’s pay grade!
As smugglers point out, the possibility of getting to the interior of the U.S., and there finding “do it yourself” refuge in our intentionally-created and often exploited “underground population,” actually far exceeds the chance of being granted asylum, even when we had a “somewhat” functioning asylum system. That’s largely because our law has long been improperly politically “gamed” (by Administrations of both parties) against asylum seekers from Central America.
So, nobody actually knows how many would qualify for asylum under a fair and unbiased system. We’ve never had the moral courage to set up such a procedure. Instead, we have used imprisonments, family separations, racist rhetoric, criminal prosecutions, and skewed legal denials from “captive courts” tilted in favor of DHS enforcement as “deterrents” to desperate refugees from our own Hemisphere.
Our nation fears complying with our own laws! Not much of a “profile in courage” here!
The Vice President concedes that the “in place” assistance she is offering to individuals in some of the world’s most corrupt and lawless countries is unlikely to have any impact for years to come. And, that’s assuming that the Biden Administration’s aid plan is better than those that have failed in the past, which it well might be. It certainly will be better than the insane cruelty and improper “enforcement only” efforts of the Trump Administration.
She is correct that most, but not all, Guatemalans would prefer to live in Guatemala if that were possible. But, the problem she insists on “papering over” is that survival in Guatemala currently is not reasonably likely for many Guatemalans. Unless and until Congress creates a more realistic legal immigration system, there is simply no realistic opportunity for many Guatemalans other than to apply for asylum at the border.
While asylum law would not cover them all, a proper interpretation and application through a re-established and meaningfully reformed system, overseen by expert judges (currently eschewed by Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts) could admit many more legally and timely than the current non-existent system or past ones intentionally skewed against asylum seekers in a futile, improper attempt to use the legal process as a “deterrent.” It would also encourage and motivate asylum seekers to apply at legal ports of entry rather than crossing surreptitiously.
Yet Harris’s “clear message” (of non-hope) to the oppressed people in the Northern Triangle is for them to “die in place,” while awaiting long-term solutions that might or might not ever happen. Meanwhile, the world’s richest nation lacks the will and determination to re-establish a legal asylum screening and adjudication system at our Southern Border.
Harris also wants the desperate masses “yearning to breath free” to know that the beacon of freedom no longer burns in America. We think it would be better if they died where they are, largely out of our sight and out of our mind.
We resent their efforts at survival, forcing us listen to their screams at our border for help that we prefer to deny (in violation of our legal obligations). We are bothered by the stench of the dead and annoyed by the news media’s incessant reporting on the Administration’s continuing failures of legality and humanity. Better (for us, not them) if they don’t come.
It’s an interesting “lesson” on racial and immigrant justice, as well as gender justice, from a Vice President who apparently prefers “inspiring” future generations to taking the tough, courageous moral and legal stands necessary to preserve and protect the current ones!
The Vice President might be correct on the rudiments of a better and more realistic long-term migration and economic plan for the Northern Triangle. But, her failure to recognize the essential first step of making the existing legal asylum asylum system work, and her unwillingness to tell Garland and Mayorkas to stop the foot-dragging and start complying with our laws and our Constitution, will doom her efforts long before they could ever have any positive impact.
The Southern Border is a big challenge. The solution has eluded all of Harris’s male predecessors, including her current boss, for the last half-century.
It requires an end to “Milleresque” platitudes and an honest recognition of the human realities of forced migration. It cries out for a strong knowledgeable leader who will re-establish the legal asylum system already in the law, insist that for the first time in our history it be operated by experts with robust humanitarian protection goals, real progressive expert judges, and full constitutional due process. It demands an end to the mindless dehumanization and demeaning of asylum seekers and recognition that those granted asylum are legal immigrants, a source of strength, and a benefit to our nation, not a phenomenon to be demonized and feared.
It requires a robust refugee program in the Northern Triangle that takes the pressure off the border asylum system until needed changes in the legal immigration system can be pushed through Congress and the longer-term improvements in infrastructure and governance in the Northern Triangle take effect.
It also requires a leader with the comprehensive knowledge and moral courage to defend robust legal refugee and asylum systems and more legal immigration from the onslaught of racially-charged, myth-based attacks from White Nationalists and nativists that are sure to follow. She would also have to deal with pushback from an entrenched immigration bureaucracy and weak leadership from Garland and others who have continued to feed the problems rather than solve them.
Unfortunately for Vice President Harris, our nation, and, most of all, the forced migrants whose lives and humanity are on the line every day, right now the job appears to be bigger than the person.
Judge Amiena Khan, President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)
June 7, 2021
The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20500
RE: Department of Justice Should Support the National Association of Immigration Judges and Withdraw the Petition to Decertify its Union
Dear Attorney General Garland,
We, the undersigned unions, organizations, immigration law professors and scholars, and other immigration court stakeholders call your attention to the urgent need to preserve and protect the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and support collective bargaining by Department of Justice (DOJ) career civil servants. We are heartened by President Biden’s announcements on January 22, 2021, that both overturned his predecessor’s policies limiting employee rights to collectively bargain and also implement a wide-ranging policy to protect, empower, and rebuild the career federal workforce. President Biden’s announcements specifically encourage union organizing and collective bargaining.1
After four relentless years of union-busting, decisive leadership is needed to refortify the federal workforce. NAIJ and its 500+ bargaining unit members—immigration judges who are DOJ attorney employees—are in need of protection right now! NAIJ has been the collective bargaining representative for immigration judges since 1979. Yet, in 2019, the Trump administration filed a petition to strip immigration judges of their statutory right to be represented by a union and decertify NAIJ.
The Trump administration targeted NAIJ in retaliation for NAIJ’s criticism of both the unreasonable working conditions that DOJ managers imposed on its members and the sweeping curtailment of due process rights in immigration court.
While the decertification attempt was initially and thoroughly rejected in a decision by a career employee of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the decision was abruptly reversed
1 Executive Order 14003, on Protecting the Federal Workforce. 1
in a politically-motivated decision by the FLRA. That FLRA decision ignored the detailed fact-finding of the career employee and reversed long-standing FLRA precedent that 20 years earlier had found that immigration judges were not in a position to influence agency policy.
The FLRA decision is devoid of any reasoned analysis and creates an extremely dangerous precedent for professional workers throughout the federal government. Future administrations could wield this decision like a sword to preclude other professional employees such as physicians, scientists, engineers, and others from unionizing. Indeed, this ill-conceived anti-union precedent could have devastating repercussions for decades to come.
At this moment, a motion to reconsider is currently pending at the FLRA, and we call on the DOJ to withdraw its opposition to that motion, withdraw its decertification petition, and take all steps to restore collective bargaining rights for NAIJ members. President Biden has committed to restoring labor unions and fair working conditions for federal employees. We ask the DOJ to do its part in supporting that objective by taking all necessary actions to ensure that the NAIJ remains a union so that it can continue to represent its members in support of fair working conditions. Doing so will be a service to Immigration Court stakeholders and the public at large.
We seek your immediate review and leadership in this matter. Sincerely,
Amiena Khan
Amiena Khan, President
National Association of Immigration Judges
Unions: AFL-CIO
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 511
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 3525
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees American Federation of Teachers
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
2
Communications Workers of America (CWA)
Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO
Federal Education Association
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement National Association of Government Employees National Education Association
National Federation of Federal Employees National Nurses United
National Treasury Employees Union
National Weather Service Employees Organization Patent Office Professional Association
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) The International Brotherhood of Teamsters UNITE HERE
United Mine Workers of America
United Power Trades Organization
Organizations:
African Services Committee
Alliance for Justice
American Immigration Lawyers Association AsylumWorks
3
Bellevue Program for Survivors of Torture Brooklyn Law School Safe Harbor Project Catholic Labor Network
Catholic Legal Services, Archdiocese of Miami Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. Center for Gender & Refugee Studies
Columbia Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Disciples Immigration Legal Counsel
Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project Immigrant Defenders Law Group
The Legal Aid Society
Migrant Center for Human Rights
Minnesota Interfaith Coalition on Immigration Mississippi Center for Justice
National Immigration Law Center
National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights The Right to Immigration Institute
Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Law Professors and Scholars with Institutional Affiliation for Identification Purposes only:
Sabi Ardalan
Clinical Professor of Law
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Harvard Law School*
Roxana C. Bacon
4
Adjunct Professor of Law Arizona State University* University of Arizona* University of Miami*
David Baluarte
Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington & Lee University School of Law*
Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law*
Lenni B. Benson
Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School*
Matthew Boaz
Professor
Washington & Lee School of Law*
Stacy Caplow
Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School*
Rose Cuison-Villazor
Vice Dean and Professor of Law Rutgers Law School*
Ingrid Eagly
Professor of Law
University of California Los Angeles School of Law*
Lauren Gilbert
Professor
St. Thomas University College of Law*
Lindsay M. Harris
Associate Professor & Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law*
Katie Herbert Meyer
Associate Professor of Practice and Director of the Immigration Law Clinic Washington University*
Geoffrey Hoffman
Clinical Professor and Immigration Clinic Director
5
University of Houston Law Center*
Alan Hyde
Distinguished Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar Rutgers Law School*
Erin Jacobsen
Professor and Director at Vermont Law School’s South Royalton Legal Clinic Vermont Immigrant Assistance
Vermont Law School*
Hiroko Kusuda
Clinic Professor and Director of Immigration Law Section
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law*
Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic and Center for Center for Social Justice
Vanessa Merton
Professor of Law
Immigration Justice Clinic Elizabeth Haub School of Law*
Karen Musalo
Professor and Founding Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic
U.C. Hastings College of the Law*
Lori A. Nessel
Professor
Seton Hall University School of Law*
Michael A. Olivas
Wm B. Bates Distinguished Chair (Emeritus) University of Law Center*
Maria Mercedes Pabon Professor of Law
Loyola University New Orleans*
Carrie Rosenbaum
Lecturer in Legal Studies University of California, Berkeley*
Faiza Sayed
Visiting Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Director Safe Harbor Clinic
6
Brooklyn Law School*
Gemma Solimene
Clinical Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law*
Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor and Co-director Immigration Clinic University of Texas School of Law*
Mark E. Steiner
Professor of Law
South Texas College of Law Houston*
Enid Trucios-Haynes Brandeis School of Law University of Louisville*
Irene Scharf
Professor
Immigration Law Clinic University of Massachusetts*
Doug Smith
Lecturer in Legal Studies Brandeis University*
Paul Wickham Schmidt Immigrationcourtside.com
Erica B. Schommer
Clinical Professor of Law
St. Mary’s University School of Law*
Michael J. Wishnie
William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School*
*Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only
7
*****************************
FULL DISCLOSURE:I am a retired member of the NAIJ.
Thanks to my friend Judge Amiena Khan and the rest of her leadership group at the NAIJ for all they do to fight for due process for individuals in Immigration Court!
To date, Garland and his team have been busy defending Billy Barr’s and Trump’s corruption from legal accountability, appointing Barr’s hand-picked “judges” to their overtly non-progressive judiciary, attempting to intimidate the press (until the White House finally had to intervene), and carrying out pre-existing Stephen Miller inspired precedents and policies. Oh yeah, and engaging in their own mindless unilateral round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (a/k/a yet another designed to fail “Dedicated Docket”) in Immigration Court while continuing to build on the pre-existing 1.3 million case backlog. They have also been occupied with ignoring every progressive and expert suggestion and NOT appointing progressives to leadership and judicial positions. Wow! That’s a very full plate (of unappetizing food)!
So, I’m not holding my breath for a favorable response to the latest request for the injection of some legality, common sense, and decency into EOIR. Nor am I expecting Biden and Harris to honor their commitment to Federal Employee Unions, after watching their performance to date on immigration and human rights. Additionally, given the continuing abysmal performance of EOIR and its ongoing waste and incompetence, I doubt whether they want any “internal critics” speaking truth to power.
So far, Garland is on course to be “Billy Barr, Jr.” While that might help Barr to avoid legal accountability for his corrupt administration of justice @ Justice, it’s not so good for progressives who would like to see (and once believed they would see) some “justice from Justice” particularly for racial minorities, women, children, asylum seekers, and other migrants.
They also would like to see at least minimally professional and respectful treatment of those appearing and representing individuals in Immigration Court. While Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke are all being paid comfortable “top of the line” USG salaries for ignoring long-overdue progressive reforms @ EOIR, many attorneys representing individuals in their “Star Chambers” are operating pro bono or low bono in their attempts to keep Garland’s failing and flailing system afloat.
Just more reasons why we need an independent Article I Immigration Court to deliver due process, racial, and gender justice to individuals, regardless of status.
Lowering The Barr by Randall Enos, Easton, CT Republished By License. Guess Garland forgot to flush!
Gender Violence continues to to be endemic in Latin America! Yet, shockingly, its victims, refugee women of color, can expect little protection in Garland’s Immigration Courts still applying Jeff Sessions’s inaccurate, misogynistic precedent in Matter of A-B- and continuing to be staffed by too many “judges” selected or promoted by the Trump Administration because of their perceived willingness to support anti-asylum policies targeting many women of color! Recently Garland outraged progressives by appointing 17 “Miller/Barr Holdovers” to powerful, life or death, Immigration Judge positions while eschewing better-qualified progressive experts from the private sector who could bring diversity and gender and racial justice to his dysfunctional Immigration “Courts!” PHOTO: UNHCR website
Migrant women carry children in the rain at an intake area after turning themselves in upon crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, late Tuesday, May 11, 2021, in La Joya, Texas. The U.S. government continues to report large numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border with an increase in adult crossers. But families and unaccompanied children are still arriving in dramatic numbers despite the weather changing in the Rio Grande Valley registering hotter days and nights. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)(Gregory Bull)Natalie Gonnella-Platts Director, Women’s Initiative George W. Bush Institute PHOTO: Bush InstituteJenny Villatoro Associate, George W. Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative PHOTO: George W. Bush Institute
By Natalie Gonnella-Platts and Jenny Villatoro In the Dallas Morning News:
When U.S. Border Patrol found him in the Texas desert, 10-year-old Wilton was crying, “they abandoned me.” Exhausted and alone, his image went viral — a poignant visual of the struggle faced by thousands seeking safety.
But Wilton’s story actually began in Nicaragua when his mother, Meylin, wasn’t able to get legal protection from an abusive partner. Mother and son fled to the United States, seeking asylum, but were expelled under a public health rule and sent to Mexico, where they were kidnapped, according to an account in El Pais. Meylin’s brother in Miami could pay only half the ransom — enough for Wilton alone to be released.
Although Meylin was ultimately released and reunited with her son, the tale that led to Wilton’s arrival at the border as an unaccompanied minor isn’t unique. It illustrates the fact that gender-based violence, revictimization and lack of justice affect children, families and communities thousands of miles away. It also highlights the importance of a safe and legal pathway into the United States for survivors of gender-based violence and other asylum-seekers. For many, arriving at the U.S. border seeking asylum is the only legal pathway available.
Immigration reform in the United States is essential to assuring that we have a secure and efficient border, a system flexible enough to handle changes in migrant flows, and the capacity to treat each migrant with dignity. But more needs to be done in the migrants’ home countries, too, so that they are not forced to flee for their safety in the first place.
Any comprehensive plan on Central America and immigration reform should address gender inequity and gender-based violence.
They are not siloed issues to acknowledge only when horrific stories of femicide and human trafficking force us to pay attention. Rather, they are deeply entangled with broader challenges of corruption and poverty. Proposed solutions shouldn’t overlook the impact of gender-based violence on migrant flows, economic development, education and health.
Fourteen of the 25 most dangerous places for women are in the Western Hemisphere, including countries within Central America. Patriarchy and gang violence subject women and girls to abhorrent actions of abuse and control.
Honduras and El Salvador saw some of the highest incidences of femicide within Latin America in 2019, at rates of 6.2 and 3.3 per 100,000, respectively. In Guatemala, adolescent girls are at a high risk of being “disappeared,” with 8 out of every 10,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 17 reported missing each year.
COVID 19-related lockdowns are being exploited by gangs looking to strengthen control: El Salvador alone has seen a 70% increase in gender-based violence since the beginning of the pandemic. And lockdowns have forced vulnerable individuals to stay in close proximity to their perpetrators. Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador reported an increase in intrafamily violence, with El Salvador reporting an increase in intrafamily femicides as well.
Justice systems and access to services need to be strengthened to ensure adequate protection for all under the law. Legal protections often are inhibited by weak institutions, corruption and a culture of impunity toward perpetrators.
According to a 2017 national survey, two-thirds of Salvadoran women over the age of 15 have experienced violence, but only 6% have ever reported it. While laws against child marriage exist across the region, in some countries about 1 in 3 young women are in a union before age 18. Post-trauma support and efforts that inform Central American women of their rights and agency are critical interventions that could help women like Meylin.
Females have been disproportionately affected by the devastating impact of hurricanes Eta and Iota, but the status of women and girls is chronically overlooked in response efforts, exacerbating the risk of violence.
Women and girls must be seen and heard. Greater focus on gender and age-disaggregated data collection and in tracking the effectiveness and efficiency of legal systems is crucial. And women and their lived experiences need to be more fully represented at all leadership levels.
Finally, direct outreach to local communities should be a priority for U.S. government and private sector-led programs. This includes resource and capacity support for advocates and organizations that serve as lifelines for those affected by violence, often at great personal risk. Engagement with men and boys is equally imperative.
How can anyone be expected to thrive when her day-to-day priority is simply to survive? The United States needs to recognize that gender-based violence and gender inequity drive migration.
Immigration reform must include strategies to address the root causes of migration from Central America in effective and lasting ways to prevent situations like Wilton’s and Meylin’s. Women and girls must be front and center in these solutions.
Natalie Gonnella-Platts serves as the director of the Women’s Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute.
Jenny Villatoro is an associate for the George W. Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative.
**************************
“Deterrents” and illegally abusing asylum seekers DON’T WORK! It’s not that difficult a concept. Indeed, these misguided attempts at deterrence have been failing consistently under Administrations of both parties for the past four decades. One would think that an “enlightened nation” would try a different approach rather than simply repeating the costly failures of the past in various forms.
What we need are functioning refugee and asylum systems, led and staffed by progressive experts, operating from INSIDE Government, that will grant status to qualified refugee women in a fair and timely manner and set favorable precedents even while separately addressing the endemic problems in the “refugee-sending countries.” Of course, it will result in more legal immigration of refugees and asylum seekers to the U.S. That’s a good thing for both us and those individuals, not something to be feared or unlawfully and dishonestly “deterred!”
With stagnating population growth, we should welcome and facilitate legal immigration of courageous, talented, dedicated refugee women from all countries and their children through the refugee, asylum, and a much more robust legal immigration system!
Debi Sanders ESQ “Warrior Queen” of the NDPA PHOTO: law.uva.edu
Thanks to NDPA warrior-queen Debi Sanders for sending in this item. This report should be great evidence for those litigating to halt the Garland misogyny mess at EOIR and, sadly, to some extent in U.S. Courts of Appeals that have chosen to sweep both reality of what’s happening in the Northern Triangle and the patent unconstitutionality of a system governed by bogus precedents entered or promoted by AG’s affiliated with DHS Enforcement who also packed and reshaped the immigration “judiciary” in the image of nativist restrictionists! However, compelling as it is, the report only adds to the existing body of documentation of the dishonest approach by Administrations of both parties to Latin American asylum claims, particularly those of women and children.
For Pete’s sake, first and second year law students know that the EOIR travesty is unconstitutional! Why are life-tenured Article III Judges covering it up? Hopefully, history will take note of their mal-performance on the bench! These guys are life-tenured! So, what’s their excuse for not upholding the Constitution against clear Congressional and Executive abuses?
Hard for me to say this. But, former President George W. Bush is doing more for human rights, gender rights, civil rights, and immigrants rights’ than Garland or anyone else at the Biden DOJ! At least he speaks out publicly for the humanity and contributions of migrants and for their fair and generous treatment, which is more than any member of the Biden Administration has done as they continue to mistake softening the rhetoric with taking firm action to reverse White Nationalist policies and replace them with readily achievable progressive ones.
030114-O-0000D-001.President George W. Bush. Photo by Eric Draper, White House. “Why is this guy willing to speak up for immigrants’ rights . . . .
Meanwhile, despite pleas from nearly every expert, progressive, human rights, immigrants’ rights, and gender rights group in the U.S., Garland continues to allow Sessions’s wrong, toxic, and misogynistic decision in Matter of A-B – to remain in place and threaten the lives of female refugees while ignoring the misogynistic, anti-asylum, culture inculcated by Sessions and Barr at EOIR that continues to flourish and daily dish out abuse to migrants and their representatives without meaningful consequences.
“ . . . while this guy continues to apply misogynistic precedents, eschew progressive experts, recycle failed ‘Aimless Docket Reshuffling’ gimmicks, and allow the Trump-era anti-asylum culture to continue to flourish at EOIR and DOJ?” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
What, indeed, is someone like AAG Vanita Gupta doing with herself at Garland’s anti-progressive, and anti-due-process mess at DOJ? Why are folks like her and Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke there in the first place if they aren’t going to stand up to Garland’s tone-deaf, inept approach to gender rights, human rights, and racial justice @ EOIR? How, on earth, do you lead a “Civil Rights Division” while turning a blind eye to grotesque violations of civil and human rights going on daily in your “Boss’s” wholly owned “court” system that functions like no “real court” in America? What’s DAG Lisa Monaco doing presiding over a gender disaster at EOIR? It’s straight out of “Jim Crow!”
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American Racism, still right at home at Garland’s EOIR!“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — “Do Garland, Monaco, Gupta, & Clarke work in ‘sound-proofed offices’ where they can’t hear our tortured screams and moans? What’s wrong with those guys? We’re suffering and dying while they are fiddling and diddling!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
And, I wouldn’t say that Vice President Harris is looking very good either, as she “swallows the whistle” on notorious scofflaw human rights violations that she was well aware of from her time in the Senate! Doesn’t anyone in the Biden Administration have the backbone to speak up for human rights, human decency, and restoring the rule of law? Is it REALLY our position that following the Constitution, our statutory laws, and the international treaties to which we are party is beyond the capabilities of the U.S. Government? If so, what, may I ask, is the difference between us an any third world dictatorship where laws have no meaning?
Vice President Kamala D. Harris. “Our first African-American, AAPI, child of immigrants VEEP seems curiously deaf and indifferent to the gross abuses being heaped on migrants and women of color at EOIR and at our Souther Border! What’s her excuse for turning her back on the progressive, human rights, gender equality groups that helped put her in office. Why is she remaining silent as Garland continues to appoint Billy Barr’s hand-selected non-progressive, non-diverse Immigration Judges to a life-determining “judiciary” that the Biden Administration wholly controls? How can you create a progressive, diverse, Article III Judiciary that will promote racial equity when you’re unwilling to apply those values and selection criteria to a huge judiciary that you actually control? What message are you sending to ‘next generation progressive attorneys of color’ when you allow Garland to ignore them in favor of lesser qualified candidates? Why aren’t you out there actively recruiting more attorneys of color and other underrepresented groups for the Immigration Judiciary rather than allowing Garland to use same-old, same old bogus “USA Jobs Phantom recruitments?” Lots of unanswered questions here! Vice President of the United States (Official Senate Photo)
I can’t figure it out! But, I do know that Garland’s lousy stewardship at EOIR, failure to speak out for fundamental fairness, usher in progressive changes, and restore due process @ EOIR has reached “crisis proportions” affecting our entire justice system and threatening democracy!
Hopefully, progressive advocacy, human rights, and civil rights groups will keep up the pressure and demands for long, long, long overdue and readily achievable changes at EOIR: in leadership, precedents, culture, and administration of justice! (Get this: Garland just created yet another bogus “Dedicated Docket” without a functional e-filing system to make it work! That’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling 101,” as anyone who has actually had to deal with the mess in his Immigration Courts could tell him. But, he’s apparently not interested!) Right now, it’s an unmitigated “disaster zone” continuing to spiral downward!
There is a direct link between the “Dred Scottification of the other” that Garland countenances at EOIR and the overall failure of our justice system to deal effectively with institutionalized racism! The U.S. has a long, disreputable history of treating women and persons of color as “non persons” under the Constitution. Much of it traces to our immigration laws where “the others” are routinely dehumanized, stereotyped, demonized, and abused by those who falsely claim to be furthering the “rule of law!” We will NOT achieve racial justice for all in America until we deal with the festering wounds intentionally inflicted on women, children, and people of color in our immigration system, at EOIR, and illegally continuing at our borders!
By choice, Garland now “owns” the misogynistic, anti-due-process, anti-asylum disaster @ EOIR. Make him deal with it in a constructive way!
🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! Garland’s continued tolerance of misogyny and the anti-due-process, anti-asylum culture at EOIR, NEVER! Stop Garland’s continuing misogynistic nonsense before more refugee women and people of color needlessly die! What’s it going to take finally to get some “real justice @ Justice?”
A FEW MONTHS BEFORE COVID-19 descended, I spent a week in Dilley, Texas, as a volunteer attorney at the South Texas Family Residential Center, which is essentially a holding center, specifically for women and their children. It’s the last stop before expedited removal and the place where many women and children are sent once they’ve claimed fear of persecution for the purpose of applying for asylum, or for those who have also been apprehended internally.
I was working with asylum seekers at the Mexican border port of entry, where people were held without answers for weeks, even months, while they awaited the next step in their asylum claims: the credible fear interview. If asylum seekers, fleeing persecution in their home countries, declare their fear of returning, they are detained as they await this interview, which will determine whether they can proceed to the next step: appearing before an immigration judge to request asylum. The conversation leads to a proverbial thumbs up or down, a trip to a courtroom or the border they just fled. If an asylum officer determines that their story has objective elements of credible fear, they may proceed to the next legal step. Officers essentially check required elements off a list, including what the specific act of persecution is, if the asylum seeker knows the reason why she’s been persecuted, how many times it happened, if she has sought help to remediate it, and more. In other words, asylum seekers’ lives depend on the hour or so answering questions spent either in a small room or, more likely, over the phone with a government official and interpreter.
Right now, our country again faces a critical point in defining our identity: are we in fact a country founded on freedom and designed to welcome those in need? The Biden administration states that it aims to help asylum seekers, but in order to do so we need to reevaluate how we approach asylum at all levels. That begins with reassessing how we determine credible fear.
During my brief time working in Dilley, I helped women prepare for their credible fear interviews. Many asylum seekers might not understand the process, nor necessarily know which details of their stories determine what the United States has deemed credible fear. Asylum is not a guaranteed right, and attorneys are not permitted to help during the interview; thus, preparation is key.
I spoke with a woman who fled five countries to escape her abusive boyfriend. The man followed her from country to country, raping her and threatening her life in each country. No matter where she fled in South and Central America, he followed her. Her five-year-old son, a product of one of these rapes, held her hand during our conversation in the detention center. I spoke with another woman who was threatened by a well-known drug cartel. Through her tears, she could barely communicate to me that they had already killed her brother, taken her money, patrolled the school where she taught, and routinely policed her town, spitting bullets as easily as words. As I interviewed the women, they cradled their young children, who were also visibly traumatized by what they had experienced in their home countries, by their journeys to the United States, and finally by the process to gain safety on this side of the border.
The credible fear interview places the burden of establishing fear on the applicant and is supposed to be non-adversarial, but given the nature of everything that precedes the interview — the lack of representation during the process, the jail-like location in which it takes place, the asylum officer’s constant questions — it feels adversarial. And this is just the first step. If the officer determines that she does have credible fear, the next step is to present her case to an immigration judge in a proper hearing.
. . . .
******************
Sadly, and completely unnecessarily and inappropriately, there is nobody in a leadership position at DOJ right now with Elizabeth Silver’s practical insights and understanding of our broken asylum system and how it can be fixed! I’ll bet that neither Garland nor anyone on his senior staff has spent a week at Dilley or any comparable site in the “New American Gulag” trying to represent vulnerable asylum seekers in Garland’s “wholly owned star chamber courts.”
Has Garland even taken the time to observe what’s happening in Dilley, Pearsall, Texas (“home of the Big Peanut”); Jena, Louisiana; Lumpkin, Georgia (“where asylum cases go to die”), or any of the other comparable “courts” (that don’t function like “courts” at all)? Has he ever spoken to asylum applicants and their pro bono lawyers trying to negotiate his fatally flawed and intentionally “user unfriendly” system? Has he gone out and hired progressive “practical scholars” to fill in his “blind spots?”
Round Table Judges John Richardson and I have “seen the Peanut” and lived to tell about it! Pictured here in 2015 with then Pearsall JLC B. Atenis Madico.
That says loads about AG Merrick Garland — none of it good! “Ignorance,” “intransigence,” and “good enough for government work” are not acceptable approaches for the Biden Administration! Yet that’s exactly what Garland has “delivered” on immigration, human rights, racial justice, and gender equity during his first three months at “Justice.”
Of course it’s adversarial! Totally, these days!
The White Nationalist racists in the Trump regime like Miller, “Gonzo” Sessions, “Wolfman,” “Cooch Cooch,” and “Billy the Bigot” hated asylum seekers, people of color, and women and “biased out” the system and selection processes accordingly. Heck, in clear violation of the statute, Trump even replaced USCIS Asylum Officers with totally unqualified Border Patrol Agents to insure denial of even the most compelling claims!
Sessions bogusly bellyached about too many individuals passing “credible fear.” To the contrary, this was totally appropriate, given the “super generous” standards that are supposed to be applied at the “access to the system gateway.” The real systemic problem was in the historically poor performance of the Immigration Courts on asylum grants that got immeasurably worse under Sessions and Barr. (And has remained beyond horrible under Garland’s non-existent “leadership!”)
As almost all legitimate human rights experts would confirm, the “high rejection rate” later in Immigration Court results from far, far, far too many unqualified, non-expert, improperly selected, poorly trained, Immigration “Judges” — at both the trial and appellate levels — operating in a “culture of institutionalized racism, misogyny, and default denial” rather than the generous atmosphere and culture required by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca but never truly implemented at EOIR.
“Herculean” although the task might appear, there are thousands of well-qualified immigration and human rights experts, most of them in the private sector right now, who could solve this problem and establish due process, fundamental fairness, real asylum expertise, and the rule of law in short order. But, Garland and Mayorkas have failed to remove the deadwood and the Trump/Miller holdovers and have not brought in the expert problem solvers to get this currently deadly, defective, illegal, and blatantly unconstitutional system under control. Additionally, qualified, expert Immigration Judges, REAL independent, courageous Federal Judges, not “go along to get along “bureaucratic retreads,” could also train and effectively supervise the Asylum Officer Corps, rather than woodenly and often ignorantly “rubber stamping” defective denials of “credible fear.”
Incredibly, Garland aggravated this festering problem “right off the bat” by improperly hiring 17 new, non-expert, not judicial quality Immigration Judges from flawed recruitments, skewed lists, and bogus recommendations developed by “Billy the Bigot” Barr! What an amazing lack of awareness and “open dissing” of humane progressive values and commitment to quality in Government!
Does this group represent the type of diverse, progressive candidates that President Biden would nominate for Article III Judgeships? OF COURSE NOT! Then, what possible excuse is there for “gifting” them some of the most powerful and important Federal Judgeships — those with probably more “life or death” authority and discretion over individuals than even the Supremes? No excuse whatsoever!
Our asylum system is totally “fixable.” Immediate improvements can be made and noticeable systemic changes could and should be in place before the end of this year! But, not the way that Garland and Mayorkas are going about it! The deadwood needs to go NOW, and be replaced with expert, progressive leadership, judges, and adjudicators!
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color! His indolent and ineffective approach to asylum decision making in Immigration Court is harming and killing vulnerable individuals and bringing our entire justice system into disrepute!
Still on “our” public payroll, still in charge of immigration and racial justice policy @ the Department of “Justice.” Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.comAttorney General, Hon. Merrick B. Garland — Exactly what does this guy and the rest of his “team” do to earn their pay over at “Justice?” Not much, from a progressive’s point of view! Can’t even seem to work up the initiative to repeal an outrageous “Stephen Miller Special” fee regulation @ EOIR! Official White House Photo Public Realm
May 21, 2021
The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General of the United States United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Honorable Vanita Gupta Associate Attorney General
United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Honorable Lisa Monaco
Deputy Attorney General of the United States United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Honorable Jean King
Acting Director
Executive Office for Immigration Review 5107 Leesburg Pike, 18th Floor
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Re: Request to Repeal EOIR Rule Imposing Draconian Fee Increases for Critical Immigration Filings
Dear Attorney General Garland, Deputy Attorney General Monaco, Associate Attorney General Gupta, and Acting Director King:
The undersigned are refugee and immigrants’ rights advocacy organizations, legal services providers, law school professors, and providers of other services and supports for unaccompanied children, adults, and families in proceedings before the Immigration Courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board).1 We write to address the EOIR Fees Rule, finalized by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the waning days of the previous administration, which adopts a harsh new fee schedule for applications, motions, and appeals in Immigration Court and BIA proceedings.2
The EOIR Fees Rule is in every way contrary to the principles of our nation’s legal system and to the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to improving the operation of the Immigration Courts and protecting the vulnerable individuals who appear before them.3 We understand that this Rule is among the anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rules under review pursuant to the February 2, 2021 Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans.4 We urge DOJ and EOIR to take the steps necessary to repeal the EOIR Fees Rule and ensure that any further rulemaking involving fees in EOIR proceedings adheres to the principle that no person be denied due process
1 As you are aware, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, within the Department of Justice, oversees the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals and sets the policies governing these adjudicative bodies.
2 Department of Justice and Executive Office for Immigration Review; Fee Review, 85 Fed. Reg. 82750 (Dec. 18, 2020).
3 The White House has issued several Executive Orders and proposed legislation, the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, that convey the Biden Administration’s transformative vision and commitment to building a 21st century immigration system that welcomes immigrants and refugees and keeps families together. See, e.g., The White House, Fact Sheet: President Biden Sends Immigration Bill to Congress as Part of His Commitment to Modernize our Immigration System (Jan. 20, 2021).
or access to asylum and other congressionally-authorized protection from deportation based on inability to pay.
Overview: The EOIR Fees Rule Creates Unacceptable Barriers to Justice
The EOIR Fees Rule imposes excessive fees on already vulnerable noncitizens—many of them unrepresented—seeking to defend their liberty, and often their lives, in proceedings before the Immigration Courts and the BIA. The new fees apply to the filing of applications, appeals, and motions that are integral to due process and to access to humanitarian protection and relief from deportation that Congress intended be available to those who are eligible. They include, for example, a nearly 9-fold increase to file an administrative appeal, which is a prerequisite to federal court review.
The new fees erect an insurmountable barrier to justice. The consequences of this impeded access are severe. Long-time immigrants face permanent exile from the country they consider home and permanent separation from loved ones, who oftentimes are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. For those fleeing persecution or torture, a financial barrier to humanitarian protection can mean death. Those who will suffer a wrongful deportation as a result of the EOIR Fees Rule thus face the gravest impact, but the harm for those left behind will also be devastating.5
The gravity of the harms posed by the EOIR Fees Rule has not been felt, but that is only because a federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction stopping nearly all of the new fees from taking effect.6 The threat nevertheless remains until the EOIR Fees Rule is formally vacated by the court or a new rulemaking rights the course.
A fundamental value of our nation’s system of laws is that access to justice and basic liberty not hinge on one’s wealth or lack thereof. Repeal of the EOIR Fees Rule is critical to restoring trust in the nation’s legal immigration system and ensuring that no person is deprived of a full and
5 Numerous studies have documented a range of harms flowing from deportation-forced family separations, including income, housing, and nutritional instability, trauma, and poor health and education outcomes. In view of these and other harms, the District of Columbia and the States of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington filed an amicus curiae brief, available at https://bit.ly/3whOiEH, in support of litigation challenging the EOIR Fees Rule. As other studies have shown, these harms fall disproportionately to those who are unrepresented in their proceedings and to their families because not having counsel substantially decreases the likelihood of prevailing in removal proceedings. See, e.g., Ingrid Eagly & Steven Shafe, American Immigration Council, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court (Sept. 28, 2016), https://bit.ly/3uKOj3z. As noted here and in comments opposing the EOIR Fees Rule, the new fees will diminish access to counsel.
6 Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Executive Office of Immigration Review, No. 20-CV- 03812, — F. Supp. 3d –, 2021 WL 184359 (D.D.C. Jan. 18, 2021) (Mehta, J.). In enjoining the new fees, the Court focused on the failure of DOJ and EOIR, under the prior administration, to consider the EOIR Fees Rule’s impact on legal services providers and the diminished access to counsel that would result for indigent adults, families, and unaccompanied children in proceedings before EOIR. See id. As discussed further below, the Rule’s promulgation violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s substantive and procedural requirements for rulemaking in a host of additional ways.
May 21, 2021 Page 3
fair day in court based on an inability to pay. Indeed, given the nature of the proceedings at issue here, the attachment of fees itself ought to be questioned in the first instance. And if fees are to be required at all, they should be returned to their previous level or lower, and be coupled with a principled, transparent fee waiver process that ensures there is access to justice, without unduly burdening legal services providers and adjudicators.
The Trump Administration’s EOIR Fees Rule: Unprecedented Increases for Appeals, Motions, Applications for Relief from Removal; a New Mandatory Asylum Application Fee; Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act; and Disregard for Access to Justice
A. The Fees Rule Imposed Radical Multi-Fold Fee Increases for Critical Filings.
The EOIR Fees Rule dramatically increased fees to file appeals, motions to reopen or reconsider, and applications for cancellation of removal or suspension of deportation. The Rule increased nearly 9-fold the fee for appealing removal orders to the BIA (from $110 to $975), raised more than 8-fold the cost of motions to the BIA to reopen or reconsider (from $110 to $895), increased fees more than 5-fold to appeal certain DHS decisions to the BIA (from $110 to $595), and more than tripled the fees to apply for cancellation of removal (from $100 to $305 for cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or suspension of deportation and from $100 to $360 for non-LPR cancellation). With the exception of the fee to file a motion to reopen or reconsider (increased over 30%) before an Immigration Judge, every increase substantially exceeded the rate of inflation for the period of time since the fees were last adjusted.7
B. The Fees Rule Added an Unprecedented, Non-Waivable, Defensive Asylum Fee.
The EOIR Fees Rule also for the first time ever imposed a fee to file an asylum application before the Immigration Court. DOJ and EOIR attributed imposition of this mandatory, non- waivable asylum application fee to the Department of Homeland Security’s adoption of such a fee for affirmative asylum applications submitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). But in fact it was an independent, voluntary decision on the part of DOJ and EOIR to require the fee for the very different context of defensive asylum application filings.
DOJ and EOIR adopted this fee without examining the notable differences in the circumstances of those who can apply affirmatively for asylum and those who must apply defensively in Immigration Court proceedings—including that proceedings before the Asylum Office are non-adversarial and affirmative asylum applicants may have other lawful immigration status at the time of filing whereas defensive asylum applicants frequently are detained, have often only recently arrived in the United States with just the clothes on their backs, and lack work authorization at the time of filing. DOJ and EOIR also made no assessment of the impact that a mandatory fee would be expected to have on access to asylum and related humanitarian protection.
7 See Executive Office for Immigration Review; Fee Review, 85 Fed. Reg. 11866, 11870 (Feb. 28, 2020).
May 21, 2021 Page 4
C. Promulgation of the EOIR Fees Rule Violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
The rulemaking that led to these fee increases violated the letter and spirit of Administrative Procedure Act by preventing meaningful notice and comment by the public. For the entire comment period, DOJ and EOIR withheld the data and much of the methodology for the study on which they based the proposed fee increases. The agency also failed to disclose the data it possessed regarding fee waivers and provided no information addressing the expected impact that fee increases would have on an already problematic fee waiver system. The inadequate record hindered public comment by depriving the public of crucial information relating to the putative basis for the EOIR Fees Rule.
Additionally, the comment period was limited to 30 days, during the onset of the COVID- 19 pandemic-driven lockdown in the United States that forced businesses, courts, government agencies, nonprofit services providers, schools, and daycare providers to close their doors and to move to a new world of remote work. The comment period was not extended despite repeated requests for more time.
The public’s ability to meaningfully comment on the impact of the proposed fee increases was also hobbled because DOJ and EOIR waited until the comment period closed before announcing a series of interrelated rulemakings that would exacerbate the impact of the fee increases.8
Finally, the agency issued the final rule without adequately addressing the concerns raised in the comments that were filed about how the proposed rules would lock low-income individuals out of court because of the inadequacy of EOIR’s fee waiver practices and deprive them of legal representation by devastating the legal services providers on whom they rely.
D. The EOIR Fees Rule Violates the Biden Administration’s Stated Values and Fundamental Principles of Fairness, Access, and Due Process.
The most serious flaws of the EOIR Fees Rule include the following.
1. Requiring noncitizens to bear nearly the full cost of adjudications in adversarial proceedings reverses decades of agency policy and defies legal norms.
EOIR is an appropriated agency, not one that is fee-based. Nonetheless, in a sharp departure from decades-long policy, the EOIR Fees Rule employed an “activity-based” or “cost recovery” model that assigned to respondents in removal proceedings the dollar value of nearly all of the staff time involved in processing, adjudicating, and transmitting Immigration Judge and BIA
8 See, e.g., Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review, 85 Fed. Reg. 36,264 (June 15, 2020); Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings; Administrative Closure, 85 Fed. Reg. 52,491 (Aug. 26, 2020); Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, 85 Fed. Reg. 59,692 (Sept. 23, 2020); see also Centro Legal de la Raza v. EOIR, No. 21-CV-00463-SI, 2021 WL 916804, at *26 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021) (noting serious concerns with staggered, piecemeal rulemaking by EOIR, including the EOIR Fees Rule).
May 21, 2021 Page 5
decisions on motions, appeals, and applications for cancellation of removal or suspension of deportation.9
EOIR is an adjudicative body. Nearly all the proceedings before it are adversarial and initiated and prosecuted by the Government. We are aware of no judicial or quasi-judicial adversarial proceedings in which any party—let alone the one whose liberty is at stake—bears nearly the entire cost of the court staff time involved in adjudicating a motion, an appeal, or an application of the type that is presented in immigration court as a defense to removal.10 The decision to employ a cost recovery model and impose such radical fee increases was a marked and unjustified departure from decades of agency commitment to keeping costs “at less than full recovery recognizing longstanding public policy and the interest served by these processes.”11
2. A new mandatory asylum fee defies the Biden Administration’s commitment to undoing the prior administration’s evisceration of U.S. asylum law and policy.
The decision to adopt an asylum application fee, let alone one that would be mandatory and not waivable, was also an historic and unjustifiable departure from decades-long policy and the practice of nearly every other party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. A host of concerns were raised when this fee was proposed for affirmative asylum applications.12 As explained above, those concerns apply with even greater force to any fee required for defensive asylum applications, let alone one that is mandatory.
9 The only costs not assigned to respondents under the rule were office overhead, fringe benefits, and certain other costs such as interpreters. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking noted that such costs could not be included because, for example, they would be incurred in any event for other agency work, do not arise in all cases, and/or are infeasible to calculate because they hinge on decisions such as individual employee benefits selections. See 85 Fed. Reg. at 11870, 11872.
10 Contrasting examples are abundantly available. To name just a few, unlike the heavy fees here, the fee to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court is only $5, and there is no cost for any level of administrative review of the denial of Social Security benefits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (establishing $5 filing fee for writ of habeas corpus); Social Security Administration, The Appeals Process, Publication No. 05-10041 (Jan. 2018), https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10041.pdf (describing the various levels of administrative review and listing no cost for review). There also is no fee to file a motion for reconsideration in federal district court. Under the EOIR Fees Rule, the fee for an appeal to the BIA is nearly double the cost of docketing an appeal before a federal circuit court and more than twice as high as the fees for filing a complaint in federal court. See U.S. Courts, Court of Appeals Miscellaneous Fee Schedule (Oct. 1, 2019), https://bit.ly/3fke1oO ($500 docketing fee for appeals before the federal courts of appeal); U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Fee Schedule, https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/fee-schedule (last visited Mar. 24, 2020) ($400 docketing fee for complaint before the federal district court). None of these tribunals seeks to recover anything approximating the full cost of the staff time needed for their adjudications. That is simply not how the justice system works in this country.
11 Powers and Duties of Service Officers; Availability of Service Records, 51 Fed. Reg. 39993, 39993 (Nov. 4, 1986) (Final Rule amending fee schedule of the former INS and EOIR).
12 See, e.g., 85 Fed. Reg. at 46844 (summarizing commenters’ concerns with an affirmative asylum application fee).
May 21, 2021 Page 6
3. The EOIR Fees Rule placed undue reliance on EOIR’s inadequate fee waiver process.
In response to the obvious concerns about the unaffordability of multi-fold increases in fees that many respondents could not afford even at their previous level, DOJ and EOIR pointed to the “possibility” of a fee waiver as protection for indigent respondents.13 The wholesale reliance on this “possibility” was another fundamental flaw of the rulemaking. As evidence in the record made clear, fee waivers were an inadequate safety valve even before promulgation of markedly higher fees.14 Of particular note, there are no clear standards for fee waiver eligibility, and the decision to grant or deny a fee waiver request is entirely discretionary.15 Not surprisingly, fee waiver requests are inconsistently adjudicated, as DOJ and EOIR have themselves admitted.16
4. Fee increases and the increased need for fee waivers harm legal services providers and undermine access to counsel.
Immigration court respondents who have legal representation are substantially more likely to succeed at every stage of their proceedings. But many cannot afford counsel. As comments opposing the EOIR Fees Rule explained, the prior administration’s fee increases ensure that even greater numbers will be forced to go without representation.
In promulgating the Fees Rule, DOJ and EOIR failed to consider the harmful impact of fee increases and a new asylum fee on nonprofit legal services providers and the new fees’ adverse impact on low-income respondents’ access to counsel. Among the expected impacts of the Final Rule was an explosion in the need for fee waivers and the corresponding need for fee waiver requests, adding to the time required for each individual case and diminishing the capacity of legal services providers to provide free or low-cost legal representation to those unable to afford counsel. DOJ and EOIR dismissed these concerns, but as the federal district court that enjoined the bulk of EOIR’s new fees found, “the APA required EOIR to acknowledge those concerns and respond to them in a meaningful way, not blithely dismiss them as ‘outside the limited scope of this rulemaking.’”17
13 See, e.g., 85 Fed. Reg. at 11874.
14 See, e.g., 85 Fed. Reg. at 82758.
15 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.8(a)(3), 1003.24(d); see also DOJ, EOIR POLICY MANUAL pt. II, ch. 3, § 3.4(d)
(“When a fee to file an application or motion is required, the Immigration Judge has the discretion to waive the fee upon a showing that the filing party is unable to pay the fee.”) (Jan. 28, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-policy-manual/3/4; id. pt. III, ch. 3, § 3.4(c) (“When an appeal or motion normally requires a filing fee, the Board has the discretion to waive that fee upon a showing of economic hardship or incapacity.”) (last updated Dec. 22, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-policy-manual/iii/3/4; 85 Fed. Reg. at 82759 (“fee waivers are discretionary by nature”).
16 See, e.g., 85 Fed. Reg. at 82759 (“differences in adjudicatory outcomes are inherent in any system rooted in adjudicator discretion”); see also id. (“Any calculations attempted by the Department to ‘account for’ the effects of fee waiver adjudications in light of the updated fees would be unreliable because fee waivers are discretionary by nature.”).
17 Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. EOIR, No. 20-CV-03812, — F. Supp. 3d –, 2021 WL 184359 (D.D.C. Jan. 18, 2021) (quoting 85 Fed. Reg. at 82775).
May 21, 2021 Page 7
5. The EOIR Fees Rule disregards noncitizens’ inability to pay exorbitant fees and the attendant impact on access.
DOJ and EOIR did not undertake their own examination of the impact that fee increases would have on access to due process and justice before the Immigration Courts and the BIA. The Final Rule then failed to heed the substantial concerns that commenters raised in this regard. Indeed, in the Final Rule’s publication, DOJ and EOIR stated that the agency’s authority to set fees was “not restricted by . . . principles of ‘affordability’ or ‘accessibility.’”18
The Final Rule, embodying this lack of regard for affordability and access, has no place in a system of justice.
Recommendations
The prior administration undermined the strength and integrity of the Immigration Court system in myriad ways. There is much work to be done to ensure that noncitizens in removal proceedings have fair access to justice and the families of those noncitizens and the entire public see the system has integrity. Repealing the EOIR Fees Rule is not sufficient to achieve this end, but it is a necessary step. Toward this end, we make the following recommendations:
1. The EOIR Fees Rule must be repealed. As outlined above, there is reason to question the imposition of fees on Immigration Court respondents at all given the nature of the proceedings and the liberty interests at stake. At a minimum, fees should be restored to their prior level or be lowered.
2. Such repeal should make explicit the principle—long understood until its upending by the EOIR Fees Rule—that no person should be denied access to the appeals, motions, humanitarian protection or other congressionally-authorized protection or relief from removal, based on an inability to pay.
3. The prior administration’s rulemaking exposed deficiencies in EOIR’s approach to fee waivers that should be rectified. Standards should be clear, adjudications should be consistent, and safeguards should be adopted to account for special circumstances to ensure that no person is prevented from filing necessary applications, motions, or appeals because of cost.
4. Exemptions from any required fees should be codified for particularly vulnerable populations, including asylum applicants, children, those who are detained, those lacking representation, and those who are incompetent or otherwise have disabilities that interfere with their ability to access justice.
18 85 Fed. Reg. at 82754.
May 21, 2021 Page 8
5. EOIR must improve its data collection and analysis, ensure transparency, and provide a clear channel for low-income noncitizens to seek a remedy where denial of a fee waiver precludes the filing of any application, motion, or appeal.
In closing, we thank you for the careful review that is underway and your consideration of the foregoing. We look forward to working with the Biden Administration to bring about a more just approach. For further discussion of the EOIR Fees Rule, please contact Avideh Moussavian at moussavian@nilc.org or Jorge Loweree at jloweree@immcouncil.org.
Respectfully submitted,
African Public Affairs Committee
Ahri Center
Alein Haro, University of California, Berkeley*
American Friends Service Committee
American Gateways
American Immigration Council**
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Americans for Immigrant Justice
America’s Voice
Anita Sinha, American University, Washington College of Law*
Anne Schaufele, International Human Rights Law Clinic, American University Washington
College of Law*
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Atlanta Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles Asian Counseling and Referral Service (ACRS) Asian Law Alliance
Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence Asian Resources, Inc
ASISTA
Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) AsylumWorks
Bellevue Program for Survivors of Torture
Black and Brown United in Action
BPSOS Center for Community Advancement Bridges Faith Initiative
Campesinos Sin Fronteras
Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition
CARE Fund
Carol Bohmer, Dartmouth College*
CASA
May 21, 2021 Page 9
Catholic Charities Dallas
Catholic Charities NY, Immigrant and Refugee Services
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.***
Causa Oregon
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies
Center for Immigrant Advancement (CIMA)
Center for Victims of Torture
Chaldean Community Foundation
Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.
Church World Service
Cleveland Jobs with Justice
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)***
Coalition on Human Needs
Colorado Asylum Center
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto***
Connecticut Shoreline Indivisible
David B Thronson, Michigan State University College of Law*
Democratic Socialists of America – Coachella Valley
Denise Gilman, University of Texas School of Law*
Desert Support for Asylum Seekers
Education and Leadership Foundation
Elissa Steglich, University of Texas School of Law*
Ellen Forman, LICSW, Massachusetts General Hospital, Social Service Department* Employee Rights Center (ERC)
Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
First Friends of New Jersey and New York
Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project
Free Migration Project
Freedom Network USA
Geoffrey Heeren, University of Idaho College of Law*
Geoffrey Hoffman, University of Houston Law Center*
Greater Portland Family Promise
Haitian Bridge Alliance
HIAS
¡HICA! Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama
Human Rights First
Human Rights Initiative of North Texas
Immigrant Action Alliance
Immigrant Defenders Law Center
Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project
Immigrant Legal Defense
Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) Immigrant Welcome Center
Jewish Activists for Immigration Justice of Western MA
Jon Bauer, Asylum and Human Rights Clinic at the University of Connecticut School of Law* Jonathan Weinberg, Wayne State University Law School*
Kate Evans, Duke Immigrant Rights Clinic*
Katie Herbert Meyer, Washington University Immigration Law Clinic*
Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)***
Korean Community Center of the East Bay
La Resistencia
Las Américas Immigrant Advocacy Center
Legal Aid Justice Center
Lincoln United Methodist Church
Louisiana Advocates for Immigrants in Detention
Lutheran Social Services of New York
Lynn Marcus, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law*
M Isabel Medina, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law*
Make the Road Nevada
Make the Road New York
Memphis United Methodist Immigrant Relief
Mexican American Opportunity Foundation (MAOF)
Mi Familia Vota Nevada
Michael Kagan, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Immigration Clinic*
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center
Migrant Center for Human Rights
Minkwon Center
Mississippi Center for Justice
Mixteco/Indígena Community Organizing Project
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Health Law Program
National Immigrant Justice Center
National Immigration Forum
National Immigration Law Center**
National Immigration Litigation Alliance
May 21, 2021 Page 10
National Immigration Project (NIP-NLG)
National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
New Mexico Immigrant Law Center
New Sanctuary Coalition
New York Immigration Coalition
New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG)
North Carolina Asian Americans Together
Northern Illinois Justice for Our Neighbors
Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
Oasis Legal Services
OCA-Greater Houston
OneAmerica
PARS Equality Center
PG ChangeMakers Coalition
Philip G. Schrag, Georgetown University*
President and CEO, Self-Help for the Elderly
Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York
Project Blueprint
Project Lifeline
Public Counsel
Public Law Center
Pueblo Sin Fronteras/Familia Latina Unida
Puentes de Cristo, Inc.
Quixote Center
RAICES
Rainbow Beginnings
Refugee Action Network of Illinois
RefugeeOne
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network
SAAVI Michigan
Sanctuary DMV
Sarah H. Paoletti, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School* Sarah R Sherman Stokes, Boston University School of Law* Saratoga Immigration Coalition
Tahirih Justice Center
Takoma Park Mobilization, Equal Justice Committee
Tania Valdez, University of Denver Sturm College of Law*
The Asylum Program of Arizona
The International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit
The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights
May 21, 2021 Page 11
UndocuBlack Network
Unidos Bridging Community
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
UNITED SIKHS
UnLocal
UpValley Family Centers
Valeria Gomez, University of Connecticut School of Law* VECINA
Volunteers of Legal Service
W.M. Jewish Activists for Immigration Justice Washington Defender Association
Witness at the Border
* The institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only.
** The National Immigration Law Center and the American Immigration Council are counsel in Cath. Legal Immigr. Network, Inc. v. Exec. Off. for Immigr. Rev., No. 20-CV-03812 (D.D.C.), which seeks to enjoin the EOIR Fee Rule that is the subject of this letter.
*** Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, and Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) are plaintiffs in Cath. Legal Immigr. Network, Inc. v. Exec. Off. for Immigr. Rev., No. 20-CV- 03812 (D.D.C.), which seeks to enjoin the EOIR Fee Rule that is the subject of this letter.
cc: Susan Rice, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Esther Olavarria, Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council for Immigration
Tyler Moran, Special Assistant to the President for Immigration, Domestic Policy Council Margy O’Herron, Senior Counsel, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
May 21, 2021 Page 12
*************************
Thanks to my good friend and NDPA Superstar Laura Lynch over at NILC for reporting and forwarding this!
Laura Lynch Senior Immigration Policy Counsel National Immigration Law Center
How many “Team Garland” officials at DOJ does it take to change a light bulb?
A: About the same number as the total of EOIR “managers” over the past two decades who have failed to provide any semblance of an operational, nationwide e-filing system (perhaps this would have been useful during COVID?) for the past 20 years and then had the “chutzpah” to astronomically raise filing fees for the public to cover up and divert attention from DOJ/EOIR’s gross incompetence and contempt for “good government.”
Yeah, these problems were there when Garland arrived. But, his failure for going on three months to take the elementary steps necessary to repeal Trump-era travesties makes him complicit! Rescinding a totally unjustified regulation, panned by progressive groups across the board, would be about a four-hour job for an expert who knew what they were doing. Too bad the basic progressive changes necessary to restore sanity @ EOIR appear to be “above the pay grade” of Team Garland.
We also are paying “top dollar (for USG) for Garland, Monaco, and Gupta NOT to undo any of the racist, misogynist White Nationalist policies Miller and his cronies instituted at Justice, NOT to remove all of the unqualified Sessions/Barr/Miller “plants” at EOIR, and, get this, to mindlessly CONTINUE TO HIRE less qualified, non-progressive, non-expert, non-diverse Immigration “Judges” under a totally discredited, biased, anti-diversity process developed under Miller, Sessions, and Barr FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF PRODUCING A XENOPHOBIC, ANTI-DUE-PROCESS, ANTI-ASYLUM “JUDICIARY @ EOIR” (doubly outrageous 🤮🤮)!
Let’s be clear about this: Every day that Garland & co. continue to dwaddle over long overdue progressive reforms @ EOIR means innocent lives and futures — futures that will be essential to our national success — are flushed down the toilet by EOIR. 🚽 This human damage is both irresponsible and irreparable! Garland’s inaction and lack of expertise and concern about immigration, human rights, and due process is also a DIRECT INSULT to legions of advocates — all members of the NDPA — who have put their professional lives, as well as in many cases their health and safety, “on the line” to save vulnerable lives and preserve American democracy against the Trump/Miller onslaught! And, this is the “thanks” they get from Garland and others who spent the last few years in the “ivory tower” of the Article III appellate judiciary or otherwise above the fray and out of the line of fire! Simply unacceptable!
Not what we expected nor what we deserved from the Biden Administration and “Team Garland” @ (continuing parody of) “Justice!”
“TEAM GARLAND” TO ASYLUM SEEKERS & THEIR LAWYERS: “OF COURSE, YOU SHOULD PAY MORE, MUCH MUCH MORE, FOR THESE TYPES OF “CUSTOMER SERVICES” FROM EOIR! WHERE ELSE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM COULD YOU GET THIS LEVEL OF “RED CAPRET” TREATMENT (CUSTOM DESIGNED BY STEPHEN MILLER HIMSELF):
“Justice” Star Chamber Style“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons — This picture must be changed @ EOIR NOW! There is no excuse for Garland’s & Monaco’s failure to make the end of White Nationalist bias, immediate progressive reforms, and progressive expert personnel appointments at EOIR their HIGHEST national priority. There can be NO racial and gender justice in America while Garland operates Miller’s White Nationalist Star Chambers @ EOIR! DUE PROCESS FOR MIGRANTS CAN’T “WAIT FOR GODOT!”
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Honorable Lisa O. Monaco
Deputy Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: The U.S. Department of Justice Must Review EOIR Personnel and Install New Leadership
To Attorney General Garland and Deputy Attorney General Monaco:
We, the undersigned immigration, civil rights, human rights, and democracy protection organizations, are deeply concerned that politically motivated personnel installed under the Trump administration remain in key leadership positions at the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The prior administration appointed highly problematic personnel in positions of power throughout the EOIR, from Immigration Judges to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members to EOIR headquarters staff. After numerous allegations of politicized hiring and mismanagement of the immigration courts, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has launched an investigation into EOIR.i The DOJ plays a critical role in the oversight and management of the immigration court system and we urge you to conduct a review of all EOIR personnel decisions made by the previous administration, immediately install new leadership to all key posts, and diversify the immigration judge corps.
DOJ and EOIR must overhaul the agency’s culture
The prior administration turned the immigration courts into a conveyor belt for deportation, systematically hiring personnel to carry out President Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda and introducing new hiring, training, and courtroom policies.ii Recent reporting has also exposed widespread sexual harassment and sexism within the agency.iii Following this investigation, the Director of EOIR was transferred to another division but DOJ and EOIR have yet to provide any plans to address the rampant misconduct.iv Critical and urgent personnel changes are needed to rehabilitate the radically transformed immigration court system that continues to cause irreparable harm and suffering for immigrants and their families.
EOIR Headquarters
We are deeply concerned that the Trump administration embedded multiple political appointees into career government leadership positions at EOIR headquarters. As Senator Durbin outlined in his recent letter, “Any such conversions to civil positions at EOIR deserve substantial scrutiny given the Trump Administration’s pernicious attempts to implement and enforce an ideological agenda by politicizing the immigration court system.”v Below are examples of Trump administration political appointees that burrowed into career positions in just the last year.
● In May of 2020, David Wetmore was hired to be the Chief Appellate Immigration Judge.vi Prior to this position, he was a political appointee for the Trump Administration, working as the Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and, in 2017-2018, as an immigration advisor to the White House Domestic Policy Counsel.vii While in these positions, he worked closely with Stephen Miller, the well-known architect of President Trump’s anti-immigrant policies.viii David Wetmore did not have prior experience as a judge or a manager, yet he was installed in a position that serves as the general manager of all aspects of the BIA’s operation, both legal and operational.
1
● In June of 2020, Tracy Short was hired to be the Chief Immigration Judge.ix Prior to this position, Tracy Short was a political appointee for the Trump Administration working as the Principal Legal Advisor for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).x While in this role, Tracy Short issued a memo on immigration enforcement, restricting ICE trial attorneys’ ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion, contributing to an immigration court backlog of over 1.3 million cases.xi Tracy Short did not have prior experience as a judge yet the position of Chief Immigration Judge is responsible for running all of the immigration courts and managing more than 500 immigration judges.xii
Appellate Judges, BIA Members, and Immigration Judges
Under the leadership of Trump Administration Attorneys General, the DOJ faced allegations of politicized hiring based on candidates perceived political or ideological views. On April 11, 2017, then-Attorney General Sessions announced that he “implemented a new, streamlined hiring plan” to reduce the time it takes to hire immigration judges.xiii However, the new plan amended the hiring process to provide political appointees with greater influence in the final selection of IJs. In addition to procedural changes, DOJ also made substantive changes to IJ hiring requirements, “over-emphasizing litigation experience to the exclusion of other relevant immigration law experience.” Both Senate and House Democrats requested an investigation with the DOJ Inspector General to examine allegations that DOJ had targeted candidates and withdrew or delayed offers for IJ and BIA positions based on their perceived political or ideological views.xiv Moreover, on March 8, 2019, then-Attorney General Barr approved a redesigned hiring plan for both immigration judges and the BIA which allowed EOIR to pack the courts with judges biased towards enforcement and/or with histories of poor judicial conduct.xv
The effects of such bias are evident in the makeup of the BIA and the immigration courts.
● BIA. Under the Trump administration, EOIR rapidly expanded the BIA from 17 to 23 members and appointed several immigration trial judges with troubling records of bias and/or abusive behavior to serve as appellate judges.xvi EOIR promoted primarily former immigration judges from the harshest immigration court jurisdictions with the lowest asylum grant rates in the nation.xvii According to a Reuters analysis, those appointments had ordered immigrants deported 87% of the time, compared to 58% for all other judges over the last 20 years.xviii
● Immigration Judges. The new hiring policies allowed the Trump administration to hire two-thirds of the more than 500 sitting immigration judges and an investigation by Reuters revealed that “judges hired under Trump ordered immigrants deported in 69% of cases, compared to 58% for judges hired as far back as the administration of President Ronald Reagan.”xix In addition to hiring an excess of former prosecutors, EOIR appointed a former employee of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) – an organization designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – to be an immigration judge.xx
New EOIR Hires
Despite the Biden-Harris administration’s stated commitment to restoring fairness and balance to the immigration courts, the DOJ continues to rely on Trump-era policies and hiring practices that bias the immigration court system towards prosecution.xxi We are deeply concerned that instead of taking immediate steps to diversify the bench, the DOJ just appointed 17 new immigration judges and all but 1 of these judges come from enforcement-oriented backgrounds.xxii In order to begin to restore credibility to the immigration courts, DOJ and EOIR must take immediate steps to hire diverse judges who have worked for non-profits
2
or in private practice. This recommendation is consistent with a 2017 EOIR-commissioned study that advised DOJ to broaden the hiring pools and outreach programs to increase diversity of experience among judges.xxvii
Sincerely,
Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus
Alianza Nacional de Campesinas
American Constitution Society
American Immigration Lawyers Association American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) America’s Voice
Arab American Association of New York
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action – Prince George’s County, MD Bridges Faith Initiative
CAIR-SV/CC
Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington Catholic Charities, NY // Immigrant and Refugee Services Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
Catholic Legal Services, Archdiocese of Miami
Catholic Migration Services
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies
Chhaya CDC
Cleveland Jobs with Justice
Farmworker Association of Florida
Free the People Roc
Government Accountability Project
Government Information Watch
Human Rights First
Human Rights Initiative of North Texas
Immigrant ARC
Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project
Immigrant Legal Defense
Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)
Immigration Center for Women and Children
Immigration Hub
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice
Interfaith Community for Detained Immigrants International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP)
Jewish Activists for Immigration Justice of Western MA
La Resistencia
League of Women Voters of U.S.
Legal Aid Justice Center
Louisiana Advocates for Immigrants in Detention
Lutheran Social Services of New York
Make the Road New York
Maryland Legislative Coalition
Memphis United Methodist Immigrant Relief
National Equality Action Team (NEAT)
3
National Immigrant Justice Center
National Immigration Law Center
National Immigration Project (NIP-NLG)
National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights Neighbors Link – Community Law Practice NETWORK Lobby for Social Justice
New Mexico Immigrant Law Center New Sanctuary Coalition’s Northwest Immigrant Rights Project People’s Parity Project
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)
South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)
Takoma Park Mobilization, Equal Justice Committee
TASSC (Torture Abolition & Survivors’ Support Coalition) International The Legal Aid Society (New York)
UndocuBlack Network
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee UnLocal
Women Watch Afrika
Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights
CC:
Jean King, Acting Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review
Margy O’Herron, Senior Counsel, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice Susan Rice, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Tyler Moran, Special Assistant to the President for Immigration, Domestic Policy Council Esther Olavarria, Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council for Immigration
i Senators Announce GAO Investigation of Trump Politicization of Immigration Courts as COVID-19 Crisis Rages, (Sept. 14, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-announce-gao-investigation-of-trump- politicization-of-immigration-courts-as-covid-19-crisis-rages.
ii AILA Policy Brief: Why President Biden Needs to Make Immediate Changes to Rehabilitate the Immigration Courts, (Feb. 12, 2021), https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-policy-briefs/policy-brief-why-president-biden-needs- to-make.
iii Tal Kopan, Bad Conduct, Leering ‘Jokes’ — Immigration Judges Stay on Bench, San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 22, 2021), https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sexually-inappropriate-behavior-runs-rife-in-15889003.php. iv Tal Kopan, Immigration courts director transferred – oversaw judges on bench despite misconduct, San Francisco Chronicle, (Jan. 27, 2021), https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Immigration-courts-director-transferred- 15902142.php.
v Letter from Senator Durbin to Attorney General Garland, (Apr. 20, 2021), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20DOJ%20- %20RFI%20Trump%20Appointees%20EOIR.pdf.
4
vi Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces New Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman, (May 29, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1281596/download.
vii Felipe De La Hoz, The Shadow Court Cementing Trump’s Immigration Policy, The Nation, (June 30, 2020), https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-immigration-bia/.
viii Tanvi Misra, Roll Call, Tweet on July 21, 2020, https://twitter.com/Tanvim/status/1285738577087934465.
ix EOIR Announces New Chief Immigration Judge, (Jul. 2, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1291891/download.
x Hamed Aleaziz, A Top Immigration Court Official Called For Impartiality In A Memo He Sent As He Resigned, Buzzfeed News, (Jul. 3, 2020), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/immigration-court-official- called-impartiality-memo.
xi Hamed Aleaziz, An ICE Memo Lays Out the Differences Between Trump and Obama on Immigration Enforcement, Buzzfeed News, (Oct. 8, 2018), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/trump-ice- attorneys-foia-memo-discretion.
xii Lydia DePillis, How Dozens of Trump’s Political Appointees Will Stay in Government After Biden Takes Over, ProPublica, (Dec. 3, 2020), https://www.propublica.org/article/how-dozens-of-trumps-political-appointees-will- stay-in-government-after-biden-takes-over.
xiii Human Rights First, Immigration Court Hiring Politicization, (Oct. 18, 2018), https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/immigration-court-hiring-polticization.
xiv Congressional Letter to DOJ’s Office of Inspector General, (May 8, 2018), https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e/f/efd39e65-d848-487c-be07- 903b481046c2/483B788842A2BF3791F0585EBACFD50A.dems-to-horowitz.pdf.
xv AILA and the American Immigration Council Obtain EOIR Hiring Plan via FOIA Litigation, (May 5, 2020), https://www.aila.org/EOIRHiringPlan.
xvi EOIR Interim Final Rule, Expanding the Size of the Board of Immigration Appeals, 85 Fed. Reg. 18105 (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-06846/expanding-the-size-of-the-board-of- immigration-appeals; EOIR Interim Final Rule, Expanding the Size of the Board of Immigration Appeals, 83 Fed. Reg. 8321, (Feb. 27, 2018), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/27/2018-03980/expanding-the-size- of-the-board-of-immigration-appeals.
xvii Tal Kopan, AG William Barr promotes immigration judges with high asylum denial rates, San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 23, 2019), https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/AG-William-Barr-promotes-immigration- judges-with-14373344.php; Suzanne Monyak, Immigration Board Picks Under Trump to Set Lasting Policy, Law360, May 8, 2020, https://www.law360.com/articles/1271825/immigration-board-picks-under-trump-to-set- lasting-policy.
xviii Reade Levinson, Kristina Cooke, Mica Rosenberg, Special Report: How Trump administration left indelible mark on U.S. immigration courts, Reuters, (Mar. 8, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration- trump-court-special-r/special-report-how-trump-administration-left-indelible-mark-on-u-s-immigration-courts- idUSKBN2B0179.
xix Id.
xx Colin Kalmbacher, Barr Appoints Former Research Director of SPLC-Alleged ’Hate Group’ as Immigration Judge, Law & Crime, (Jul. 18, 2020), https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/barr-appoints-former-research-director- of-splc-alleged-hate-group-as-immigration-judge/.
xxi The White House has issued several Executive Orders and proposed legislation, the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, conveying the Administration’s transformative vision and vision and commitment to building a 21st century immigration system that welcomes immigrants and refugees and keeps families together.
Thanks, friends and colleagues, for letting your collective voices for due process, human dignity, humane values, competency, common sense, racial justice, and accountability be heard! Loud and clear!
Restoring some semblance of due process, fundamental fairness, simple human decency, and competent government should NOT be so hard and time consuming in a Dem Administration that ran and was elected on promises too do just that!
The grotesque administrative incompetence and squandering of resources continuing in EOIR’s failed, “bad joke” court system demand IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION, NOT more wasteful studying of well-documented problems for which experts have developed clear, straightforward, well-known, readily achievable, fiscally feasible solutions!
We must keep up the fight and not let up the pressure on Garland until the egregious misconduct and gross abuses at EOIR and DOJ end, progressive leadership is brought in and empowered to solve problems, and due process, expertise, and competence are restored, promoted, and honored! That’s what we voted for, not the continuing “Miller Lite” Clown Show @ EOIR! And certainly not totally inappropriate, unjustifiable continuing appointments of “Trump-list judges!” Just beyond outrageous, compounded by the lame, disingenuous, inaccurate explanation put forth by Garland’s DOJ!
Let me make it simple: NOBODY has a “RIGHT” to be an Immigration Judge! Those with legal rights are the MIGRANTS appearing before Immigration Judges. Those legal rights are being trampled every single day at EOIR under Garland just as they were under Trump! It must stop! Now!
“Justice” Star Chamber Style @ EOIR; Despite the glaring problems, obvious answers, and wide availability of new progressive leadership who should already be removing the deadwood, changing ill-conceived policies, and actually SOLVING representation and other problems at EOIR — America’s most dysfunctional “court” system — Judge Garland would like to study (while ignoring) what’s wrong rather than take needed progressive action!
You can read it here in all of its glorious bureaucratic nothingness and hollow rhetoric:
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Attorney General Launches Review to Reinvigorate the Justice Department’s Commitment to Access to Justice
U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today announced that the Justice Department will immediately begin work to reinvigorate its Office for Access to Justice and to restore the Justice Department’s role in leading efforts across government to seek and secure meaningful access to justice.
“Trust in the rule of law – the foundation of American democracy – depends upon the public’s faith that government seeks equal justice for all. That is the Justice Department’s core duty, and the mission upon which it was built. But without equal access to justice, the promise of equal justice under law rings hollow,” wrote Attorney General Garland in a memo to departmental leadership this afternoon.
The Attorney General directed the Justice Department’s leadership offices to immediately begin a review process that will engage all relevant stakeholders, both within the department and beyond. The review will initially explore, among other things, how the Justice Department and partners across federal, state, territorial, and tribal governments can alleviate entrenched disparities in our criminal justice system, address barriers to access in our immigration and civil legal systems, and advance health, economic, and environmental justice efforts. The Attorney General’s memo also charged Deputy Attorney General Lisa M. Monaco and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta with developing recommendations regarding the resources that will be required to reinvigorate the department’s Office for Access to Justice including a staffing strategy and placement within the department in light of its responsibilities.
The Attorney General will submit a detailed plan to the President for expanding the department’s role in leading access to justice initiatives across government within 120 days.
The Justice Department first launched an access to justice initiative in 2010. Building upon that important effort, the Office for Access to Justice was formally established in 2016 to plan, develop, and coordinate the implementation of access to justice policy initiatives of high priority to the department and the executive branch, including in the areas of criminal indigent defense and civil legal aid. However, during the prior administration, the office was effectively shuttered.
In addition to leading this strategic review within the Justice Department, Attorney General Garland will also help to lead access to justice initiatives across government as co-chair of the Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable, which the President reconvened today. That initiative will bring together more than two dozen federal departments and agencies to address the most pressing legal services challenges that low-income communities, communities of color, and many others across our country face today.
As always, actions speak louder than words or bureaucratic promises to “think about it, and get back to you!”
So hopefully somebody will ask Garland how the following things going on in HIS EOIR right now “assist access to justice:”
Continuous, ongoing “Aimless Docket Reshuffling“ at EOIR that generates an astounding, unnecessary, growing, unaddressed by Garland 1.3 million case backlog that generally disadvantages and wears down the private bar;
Elimination of reasonable continuances @ EOIR for the express purpose of favoring the DHS and making it more difficult to represent individuals in Immigration Court consistent with ethical requirements relating to adequate preparation and verification of claims;
“Courts” improperly located in obscure, out of the way DHS detention centers where lawyers are seldom readily available and substandard conditions are intentionally used to duress individuals into giving up viable claims;
Court schedules controlled by unqualified bureaucrats in Falls Church who arbitrarily and capriciously set cases without regard to the needs of parties for preparation time, ethical guidelines, or their workloads;
Unreasonable, shortened, cookie cutter “briefing schedules,” designed to expedite removals at the expense of quality and legal excellence and to artificially “stress out” private attorneys, many serving pro bono or low bono;
Kids and other vulnerable individuals forced to “represent” themselves in Immigration Courts;”
“Judges” who lack immigration expertise and practical experience, therefore forcing already overburdened immigration counsel to “train” these judges, who never should have been appointed in the first place;
Hiring of “judges” at the trial and appellate level renowned for their hostility to asylum seekers (particularly women and those of color) and sometimes with established records of bias, rudeness, hostility, and unprofessional conduct toward the private bar;
Systemic exclusion of private bar immigration, human rights, clinical advocates and experts from the Immigration Judiciary;
Bogus, due-process-denying “deportation quotas” that discourage scholarship and thoughtful complete litigation of life or death cases in favor of meeting artificial production requirements and timelines designed to keep the “EOIR deportation railroad” running;
Promulgation of “operating produces” for Immigration Courts by Falls Church bureaucrats who have never appeared in Immigration Court, without prior consultation with either sitting Immigration Judges or “stakeholders” in the private bar;
Failure after two decades of wasted effort and false starts to implement even a rudimentary nationwide e-filing system, thereby increasing the burden on private practitioners;
Wrong-headed, anti-immigrant “precedents” intended to discourage individuals from pursuing claims in Immigration Court and to require advocates to appeal to Courts of Appeals to have any chance of obtaining justice for their clients;
Following of “worst practices” designed to abuse and increase the stress for advocates in Immigration Court, including failure to follow best health and sanitation practices;
Failure to have any qualified progressive immigration practical scholar “on staff” at DOJ who has actually practiced before the Immigration Courts and could credibly lead the reform effort.
Actually, I’m just getting started! But, I have other things on my agenda today, and you get the point!
Unless progressive immigration advocates “raise hell” with the higher-up in the Biden Administration and on the Hill about Garland’s gross mismanagement of EOIR to date and his lack or expertise or genuine interest in long overdue, badly needed reforms, this is just another Dem “designed to fail” cosmetic effort; yet another insulting attempt by DOJ to fob off immigrants, the private bar, progressives, and their very legitimate needs with more BS “all talk, no action” ineffective policies and plans where immediate, radical progressive, due process reforms are needed, led by progressive experts!
To state the painfully obvious, Vanita Gupta has enough knowledge and enough contacts in the human rights/civil rights community to have gotten someone from the outside in to take control of EOIR, empowered to knock heads, transfer the Trump/Miller anti-due-process “denial club” crowd and their enablers out, and start recruiting and hiring competent administrators, well-qualified progressive judges, and instituting due process enhancing procedures. Things should already be operating much better; and, as many of us told the Biden Transition Team, having “due process take hold and start acting” would send much needed “shock waves” throughout the “go along to get along” bureaucracy at EOIR who assisted Trump and Miller in putting the “final nail in the coffin” of the already-reeling Immigration Courts.
Advocates and members of the NDPA, the first step in vindicating your clients’ legal rights is to insist that your rights, professionalism, and expertise be respected by those in power. Team Garland is effectively “giving you the big middle finger!” 🖕 If you don’t stand up to this outrageous, dismissive treatment from a Dem Administration, how can you make things better for your clients?
President Joseph R.Biden 46th President of The United States (Official portrait of Vice President Joe Biden in his West Wing Office at the White House, Jan. 10, 2013. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)..This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.)
Today, President Biden will sign a Presidential Memorandum to expand access to legal representation and the courts. As President Biden knows from his experience as a public defender, timely and affordable access to the legal system can make all the difference in a person’s life—including by keeping an individual out of poverty, keeping an individual in his or her home, helping an unaccompanied child seek asylum, helping someone fight a consumer scam, or ensuring that an individual charged with a crime can mount a strong defense and receive a fair trial. But low-income people have long struggled to secure quality access to the legal system. Those challenges have only increased during the public health and economic crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, civil legal aid providers and public defenders have been under-resourced, understaffed, and unable to reach some of the people in greatest need of their services.
The federal government has a critical role to play in expanding access to the nation’s legal system and supporting the work of civil legal aid providers and public defenders. President Biden’s executive action today will reinvigorate the federal government’s role in advancing access to justice, and help ensure that the Administration’s policies and recovery efforts can reach as many individuals as possible.
The Presidential Memorandum is the Biden-Harris Administration’s latest action to protect vulnerable Americans, reform the justice system, and advance racial equity. On his first day in office, the President issued an executive order establishing a government-wide initiative to put equity at the heart of each agency’s priorities and management agenda. His discretionary budget request called for $1.5 billion in funding for grants to strengthen state and local criminal justice systems, including by investing in public defenders. Improving access to counsel in civil and criminal proceedings builds on each of these efforts.
Specifically, President Biden is directing the following actions:
. . . .
*************************
Read the rest of the “White House Fact Sheet” at the above link.
On one hand, this is welcome news for the NDPA and all who favor equal justice under law in America.
On the other hand, four months into his Administration, President Biden has just gotten around to undoing some of the inane, White Nationalist actions of the Trump Administration by re-establishing initiatives that failed to solve the problems under the Obama Administration only to be completely eradicated by Trump. In plain terms, more study and dialogue, no real action that helps any of the more than one one million poor souls and their loved ones caught up in Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
I submit that the huge problems with lack of effective representation in Immigration Court were well known at the outset of the Trump Administration. Over the last four years, lots of creative ideas have surfaced and a number of states, localities, and NGOs have substantially “upped” their commitment to pro bono or low bono services for asylum seekers, detainees, and other migrants. There is lots of “practical scholarly” literature out there on the subject.
Therefore, it would have been reasonable to expect the Biden Administration to take office with specific plans in hand to immediately start building on existing structures and to have immediately re-started the dialogue with legal service providers. Instead, more than 100 days in, we have plans for more study, talk, and recommendations, but no action; the actual situation in the Immigration Courts under Garland continues rapidly to deteriorate; progressive groups of experts with plans on how to solve representation issues have basically been “frozen out” by Biden — writing op-eds, “white papers,” and studies, rather than leading the representation effort from within the Biden Administration and working as part of a team to solve problems in “real time.”
I’ve heard that some plans for improving representation, at least for “vulnerable groups,” are “in the offing” at DOJ. To date, we’ve seen nothing!
And, I can’t name anyone on “Team Garland” or in current EOIR senior management who actually has first-hand experience with pro bono representation in Immigration Court or who has previously offered concrete, positive suggestions for immediate actions to solve this pressing problem. Consequently, I’m frankly skeptical that the expertise exists, particularly at DOJ, to solve this problem without some dramatic personnel shakeups, more aggressive due process restoring actions, and bringing in progressive experts from the outside to administer and improve judging at EOIR. So far, Garland has shown little interest in addressing the dysfunction in his “wholly owned courts,” nor has he shown any ability to reach out and actively recruit the progressive experts he needs to fix EOIR.
Given the disaster of the last four years and Garland’s poor start (including “in your face” judicial appointments and retention of non-progressive Barr holdovers) its going to take a positive outreach campaign to progressives by Garland to stop the bleeding at DOJ.
Therefore, I personally view the White House announcement with “very cautious optimism,” hoping to be pleasantly surprised when it spurs immediate practical action.
It’s “Miller Lite Time” @ Garland’s DOJ as this Dude gets the last laugh over immigration/human rights/due process advocates and experts who worked for Biden’s election! — Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
Every member of the NDPA should be outraged by Garland’s treachery:
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced 17 new Immigration Judges (IJs), including one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ) and six Unit Chief Immigration Judges (UCIJs). ACIJs are responsible for overseeing the operations of their assigned immigration courts. In addition to their management responsibilities, they will hear cases. UCIJs serve as IJs in formal judicial hearings conducted via video teleconference and supervise the staff assigned to their virtual courtroom. IJs preside in formal judicial hearings and make decisions that are final unless formally appealed.
After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Megan B. Herndon, Wade T. Napier, Tamaira Rivera, David H. Robertson, Elizabeth Crites, Bryan E. DePowell, Nicholle M. Hempel, Kathy J. Lemke, Martinque M. Parker, David M. Paxton, Bryan D. Watson, Kenya L. Wells, and Mark R. Whitworth to their new positions; then-Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson appointed Adam Perl to his new position; then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen appointed William H. McDermott to his new position; and then-Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Elliot M. Kaplan and Jeb T. Terrien to their new positions.
Biographical information follows:
Megan B. Herndon, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center
Megan B. Herndon was appointed as an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration court duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Herndon earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Occidental College and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from the University of San Diego School of Law. From 2020 to 2021, she served as Senior Regulatory Coordinator, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State (DOS), in the District of Columbia. From 2018 to 2020, she served as Deputy Director of Legal Affairs, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, DOS. From 2015 to 2018, she served as Chief of the Legislation and Regulations Division, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, DOS. From 2013 to 2015, she served as a Section Chief, Immigration Law and Practice Division, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in the District of Columbia and Falls Church, Virginia. From 2009 to 2013, she served as an Appellate Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Falls
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges
Page 2
Church. From 2007 to 2009, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Diego. From 2002 to 2007, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Los Angeles, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Herndon is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and State Bar of California.
Wade T. Napier, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center
Wade T. Napier was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Napier earned a Bachelor of Science in 2001 from Transylvania University and a Juris Doctor in 2005 from Northern Kentucky University–Salmon P. Chase College of Law. From 2008 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, in Lexington. In 2008, he served as a Staff Attorney for a Trial Court Judge, in Boone County, Kentucky. From 2005 to 2007, he worked in the Claims Litigation Department of Great American Insurance Company, in Cincinnati. Judge Napier is a member of the Kentucky Bar.
Tamaira Rivera, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center
Tamaira Rivera was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Rivera earned a Bachelor of Science in 1991 from Florida State University, a Juris Doctor in 1995 from California Western School of Law, and a Master of Laws in 2004 from The George Washington University Law School. From 2019 to 2021, she was an Immigration Practitioner with Advantage Immigration PA, in Orlando, Florida. From 2017 to 2019, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Orlando. From 2012 to 2017, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Antonio. From 2010 to 2012, she served as an Attorney Advisor and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Air Force, in San Antonio. From 2009 to 2010, she served as a Senior Democracy Fellow, U.S. Agency for International Development, in the District of Columbia. From 2007 to 2009, she was a Senior Associate Attorney and Program Manager with BlueLaw International LLP, in the District of Columbia. From 1996 to 2006, she served as a U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate, in the following locations: Madrid, Spain; Tucson, Arizona; San Antonio; and Okinawa, Japan. Judge Rivera is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Florida Bar.
David H. Robertson, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center
David H. Robertson was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Robertson earned a Bachelor of Science in 1986 from James Madison University, a Juris Doctor in 1989 from the University of Richmond School of Law, and a Master of Laws in 1999 from the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. From 1990 to 2020, he served as a U.S. Army Judge Advocate in various locations throughout the U.S. and Germany. During that time, from 2010 to 2020, he served as a Military Judge in the following locations: Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Kaiserslautern, Germany; and Fort Stewart, Georgia. While serving as a Military Judge, he also presided over trials in Kuwait and Afghanistan. From 2004 to 2006, he served as a Regional Defense Counsel; from 1999 to 2001, as a Senior Defense Counsel; from 1995 to
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges
Page 3
1997, as a Prosecutor; and from 1993 to 1995, as a Defense Counsel. From 1995 to 1996, he deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and from 2007 to 2008, he deployed to Kosovo. In 2020, he retired in the rank of Colonel. Judge Robertson is a member of the Virginia State Bar.
Elizabeth Crites, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court
Elizabeth Crites was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Crites earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005 from Ball State University and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Law School. From 2016 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From 2009 to 2016, she was an Associate Attorney with Broyles, Kight & Ricafort PC, in Chicago. Judge Crites is a member of the Illinois State Bar.
Bryan E. DePowell, Immigration Judge, Adelanto Immigration Court
Bryan E. DePowell was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge DePowell earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from the University of Hawai’i at Manoa and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Widener University Commonwealth Law School. From 2019 to 2021, he served as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Felony Trials Division – Office of Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu. From 2018 to 2019, he served as Chief Counsel for the House Minority Research Office, State of Hawai’i, in Honolulu. From 2012 to 2018, he was an Associate Attorney with Crisp and Associates LLC, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Judge DePowell is a member of the Hawaii State Bar and the Pennsylvania Bar.
Nicholle M. Hempel, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court
Nicholle M. Hempel was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Hempel earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from California State University, Fresno and a Juris Doctor in 2000 from Chicago-Kent College of Law. From 2010 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Los Angeles. From 2003 to 2010, she served as an Assistant State Attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, in Chicago. From 1998 to 2003, she served as a Law Clerk for the First Municipal District, Circuit Court of Cook County, in Chicago. Judge Hempel is a member of the Illinois State Bar.
Kathy J. Lemke, Immigration Judge, Portland Immigration Court
Kathy J. Lemke was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Lemke earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1994 from the University of Chicago and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Arizona State University School of Law. From 2019 to 2020, she served as the City Prosecutor for Phoenix. From 2009 to 2019, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, in Phoenix. From 2004 to 2009, she served as an Assistant City Prosecutor for Phoenix. In 2003, she served as a Deputy County Attorney for Pinal County in Florence, Arizona. From 1998 to 2003, she served as a Deputy County Attorney for Maricopa County, in Phoenix. Judge Lemke is a member of the State Bar of Arizona and the District of Columbia Bar.
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges
Page 4
Martinque M. Parker, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court
Martinque M. Parker was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Parker earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005, a Bachelor of Science in 2006 from the University of Georgia, and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law. From 2017 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Lumpkin, Georgia. From 2011 to 2017, she served as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Judge Parker is a member of the Arkansas Bar and the State Bar of Georgia.
David M. Paxton, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court
David M. Paxton was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Paxton earned a Bachelor of Science in 1998 from Texas State University, a Master of Business Administration in 2004 from the University of Texas at Austin, and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Santa Clara University School of Law. From 2015 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, in McAllen and Corpus Christi. From 2011 to 2015, he served as a Deputy District Attorney for the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office, in San Luis Obispo, California. From 2010 to 2011, he served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Criminal Division of the Northern District of California, in San Jose. From 1997 to 2004, he served as a Systems Engineer for Advanced Micro Devices and Legerity Inc., in Austin, Texas. Judge Paxton is a member of the State Bar of California.
Bryan D. Watson, Immigration Judge, Atlanta – W. Peachtree Street Immigration Court Bryan D. Watson was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Watson earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1993 from the University of Missouri, a Juris Doctor in 1996 from the University of Missouri, a Master of Arts in 2006 from Air University, and a Master of Science in 2014 from the National Defense University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as the Chief Trial Judge of the U.S. Air Force Trial Judiciary, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. From 2017 to 2019, he served as the Commandant of the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School, at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. From 2014 to 2017, he served as the General Counsel of the White House Military Office, in the District of Columbia. From 1996 to 2021, he served as a U.S. Air Force Active Duty Judge Advocate, in the following locations: Moody Air Force Base, Georgia; Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming; Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; Aviano Air Base, Italy; and the Pentagon, White House, Bolling Air Force Base, and Fort McNair, District of Columbia. He retired from the U.S. Air Force in 2021 as a Colonel. Judge Watson is a member of the State Bar of Georgia and the Missouri Bar.
Kenya L. Wells, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court
Kenya L. Wells was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Wells earned a Bachelor of Science in 2007 from Texas A&M University and Juris Doctor in 2010 from the University of Texas School of Law. From 2017 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. From 2010 to 2016, he served as an Assistant District Attorney with the New York County District Attorney’s Office, in New York. Judge Wells is a member of the New York State Bar.
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges
Page 5
Mark R. Whitworth, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court
Mark R. Whitworth was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Whitworth earned a Bachelor of Journalism in 1985 and a Juris Doctor in 1993, both from the University of Texas at Austin. From 2003 to 2021, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Harlingen, Texas. From 2001 to 2003, he served as an Assistant District Counsel with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Justice, in Harlingen. From 1994 to 2001, he served as an Assistant Attorney General and an Assistant Managing Assistant Attorney General for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, in Harlingen. From 1993 to 1994, he was an Associate Attorney with Roerig, Oliveira and Fisher LLP, in Brownsville, Texas. Judge Whitworth is a member of the State Bar of Texas.
Adam Perl, Immigration Court, New York – Broadway Immigration Court
Adam Perl was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Perl earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2006 from Florida International University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from St. Thomas University School of Law. From 2018 to 2021, he served as a Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in New York. From 2016 to 2018, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Newburgh, New York; from 2014 to 2016, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, in New York; and from 2011 to 2014, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, in Los Angeles. Judge Perl is a member of the Florida Bar.
William H. McDermott, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court
William H. McDermott was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge McDermott earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from Long Island University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. From 2019 to 2021, he served as the Deputy State’s Attorney for Wicomico County, Maryland. From 2011 to 2019, he served as an Assistant State’s Attorney, Deputy State’s Attorney, and Ad Interim State’s Attorney, in Worcester County, Maryland. Judge McDermott is a member of the Maryland State Bar.
Elliot M. Kaplan, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center
Elliot M. Kaplan was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Kaplan earned his Bachelor of Arts in 1998 from Antioch University, a Master of Business Administration in 1982 from Whittier College, and a Juris Doctor in 1982 from Whittier Law School. From 2019 to 2020, he was Of Counsel to Kutak Rock LLP, in Kansas City, Missouri. From 2004 to 2019, he was in private practice, in Kansas City. From 1995 to 2003, he was a Partner and Founder of Daniels & Kaplan PC, in Detroit and Kansas City. From 1991 to 1994, he was Of Counsel to Berman, DeLeve, Kuchan & Chapman LLC, in Kansas City. From 1990 to 1991, he was Of Counsel to DeWitt, Zeldin & Bigus PC, in Kansas City. From 1985 to 1990, he was Of Counsel to Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Cornfeld & Jenkins, in Kansas City. From 1983 to 1985, he was Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Air One Inc., in St. Louis. Judge Kaplan is a member of the Missouri Bar.
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges
Page 6
Jeb T. Terrien, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center
Jeb. T. Terrien was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Terrien earned a Bachelor of Science in 1994 from The University of Virginia and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Tulane Law School. From 2009 to 2021, he served as a Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, in Harrisonburg. During that time, from 2014 to 2015, he served as an Assistant Director, National Advocacy Center, Office of Legal Education, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department of Justice, in Columbia, South Carolina. From 2004 to 2008, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, in Cincinnati, and the Northern District of West Virginia, in Martinsburg. From 2000 to 2004, he served as a Regional Drug Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Virginia in Halifax, Charlotte, and Campbell Counties. From 1999 to 2000, he served as an Assistant Attorney General with the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, in Richmond. From 1998 to 1999, he served as an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for the Accomack County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office in Accomac, Virginia. Judge Terrien is a member of the Virginia State Bar.
— EOIR —
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
**********************
There’s a powerful message here NDPA! Elections DON”T matter, nor does your expertise, dedication, and hard work! Maybe it will be time to act on that message during the next election cycle. Stephen Miller? Judge “MillerLite?” What’s the real difference?
Here are some “early reactions” from the NDPA:
I just looked quickly, but was there only one new IJ coming from private practice? When I looked up the firm, it doesn’t practice immigration law.
I didn’t recognize any names. Shouldn’t the goal be to hire those with a scholarly understanding of immigration law, including at least some who have demonstrated a creative approach to asylum?
My take is why not put new IJ hiring on pause until the agency has figured out how it intends to move forward? EOIR should have their new Chief IJ in place, have revamped the IJ training, have figured out what AG precedents it intends to vacate, etc. Also, the quotas are still in place.
When new IJs with no immigration law background come on board, should they feel they can’t continue a case to study the law or consult with a colleague because they have to complete 4 cases that day to avoid being fired?
************
Ah, Justice from “Miller Lite” Justice @ Justice. What a “poke in they eyes with a sharp stick” to the immigration/human rights bar!
*************
Thanks for sharing Judge Schmidt. In addition to the new hires, it’s deeply concerning that AG Garland’s DOJ is expanding its use of secretive and inaccessible immigration adjudication centers- opening a new location in Richmond, Virginia.
********************
Of 14 IJs appointed under Biden (Acting AG Wilkinson or AG Garland), 7 have worked for ICE, 5 have been prosecutors of other types, 2 have worked for ICE and been prosecutors, and 2 have worked as immigration defense attorneys (though these two have also worked for ICE).
***********************
It is completely baffling. Two working theories: 1) EOIR is just so far down Garland’s radar that he just doesn’t care or have time to care; or 2) he has made a political decision to “hang tough” on immigration for the optics and to stave off Rethuglican encroachment in the mid-terms.
Neither theory speaks well of him.
*****************************
I don’t see how dissing the immigration/human rights bar is the key to success for the Dems in the midterms. I personally know lots of NDPA members who “busted tail” and donated lots of time and money to getting Biden & Harris elected. Don’t think that the “elections don’t matter for human rights/immigration/due process/racial justice” is going to “energize the base” for the midterms.
*********************************
I have essentially lost hope that anything will change….
*************************
I guess this answers the question of whether establishing an independent, progressive, due process focused Immigration Judiciary within the Executive Branch is possible. Obviously, it isn’t! Litigation and Article I appear to be the only solutions.
*******************************
What is that old adage, “the more things change the more they stay the same”???
***********************************
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! We need to translate Garland’s blatant disrespect, ignorance, and failure to stand up for racial justice, an end to misogyny, and progressive expertise in the Immigration Judiciary into action and resistance to his “Miller Lite” vision for the DOJ!
Judge Garland & Secretary Mayorkas continue to abuse asylum seekers at the Southern Border & in the U.S. Albrecht Dürer, Public Domain, via Wikimedia CommonsKevin Sieff Latin American Correspondent, Washington Post
MATAMOROS, Mexico — Carolina had memorized the date, but she triple-checked her documents just to make sure. For months, her life had revolved around the court hearing at which she could finally make her asylum claim.
Like tens of thousands of asylum seekers who reached the U.S. border during the Trump administration, the 36-year-old from Honduras had been sent to wait in Mexico for her immigration hearing. She was told to return to the border on her court date.
So on Feb. 26, 2020, she woke up early and put on her best blouse. She said a short prayer. But not long after her bus left for Laredo, Tex., gunmen stopped the vehicle. They kidnapped Carolina and her 15-year-old daughter, took them to a stash house packed with other kidnapped migrants and demanded thousands of dollars in ransom.
By the time they were released a few days later, Carolina had missed her day in court.
Her asylum case, it turned out, had been closed in absentia because she hadn’t shown up. Of the 68,000 asylum cases processed under the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols, the policy also know as “Remain in Mexico,” 28,000 were closed for the same reason: Because asylum seekers didn’t present themselves.
. . . .
“MPP deprived people of due process and fundamental fairness,” she said. “In order to restore access to asylum in a meaningful way, the Biden administration needs to reopen cases for people ordered removed under MPP and allow them to pursue their claims safely from within the United States.”
************************************
Read Kevin’s full article at the link.
The last statement, from Haiyun Damon-Feng, the director of the Adelante Pro Bono Project and assistant director of the William H. Gates Public Service Law Program at the University of Washington School of Law, sums it up. It’s not rocket science! It’s basic “Con Law 101” with some common sense and human decency thrown in! It’s also an essential part of the Biden Administration fulfilling basic campaign promises! Folks like Damon-Feng are the ones who should be running this system, solving the problems, and reconstructing the legal asylum system!
In what kind of “court” system are kidnapped individuals, some of them minors and children, further penalized and the Government allowed to get away with not keeping accurate addresses of individuals in their process and of knowingly sending them into danger zones? The victims remain in limbo and suffering while the perpetrators of these illegal outages — both current and former government officials — have not been held accountable. This is a national disgrace compounded by the fact that neither Judge Garland nor Secretary Mayorkas have taken corrective actions. Nor have they cleaned out the deadwood from their own legally and morally bankrupt systems and put competent individuals in charge!
Qualified Immigration Judges and competent administrators at the DOJ and DHS could have started solving these problems beginning the day after the inauguration. That 100 days into the Biden Administration this system is still operating illegally and taking a human toll is both a betrayal of campaign promises and an abuse of humanity! It’s also horrible and clearly illegal policy!
How does an Administration that is actively engaged in “Dred Scottifying” people of color at the border and in their wholly owned Immigration “Courts” — actually modern day “Star Chambers” — have any “legitimate voice” on racial justice in America?
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Human lives matter! The Constitution matters! Asylum law matters!
Suzanne Monyak Senior Reporter, Immigration
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Garland has yet to indicate whether he will rescind several decisions penned by attorneys general under the previous administration. In the last four years, Trump officials limited asylum eligibility for those fleeing violence by private actors, like gang members and domestic partners, and immigration judges’ ability to maintain their own dockets.
“There’s no reason that Attorney General Garland hasn’t done a thorough review of the attorney general certifications from the last administration,” said Susan Roy, a former immigration judge. “He should rescind any of them which he can. He has the authority to do that.”
. . . .
The Biden administration has also inherited a lengthy immigration court backlog — containing roughly 1.3 million cases — that have kept immigrants facing deportation and asylum-seekers waiting years for decisions in their cases.
The Biden administration has recognized that immigration judges may be key to processing these claims quickly and efficiently. In a preview of its budget request released earlier this month, the White House proposed increasing funding for the Justice Department’s immigration court agency from $734 million to $891 million to hire 100 new immigration judges.
Immigrant advocates and former judges say freeing the immigration court system from political influences is also critical to this effort.
“Without a union, there’s no way to protect judges against political ideologies of a given administration,” Roy said.
While judicial independence has “always been a concern” with a court system housed within a federal agency, “rarely has that been as problematic as it was under the Trump administration,” she said.
. . . .
Some advocates also want to see immigration courts be removed entirely from the DOJ and made an independent court system. The issue is on the agenda for the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s virtual “day of action” on April 22.
Roy, the incoming chair of AILA’s New Jersey chapter, acknowledged that Garland faces a number of competing priorities outside of the immigration courts. But she urged the administration against letting the system fall to the wayside.
“The immigration court is a subject that needs immediate attention,” she said. “Otherwise, it’s going to collapse under its own weight.”
**************
Thanks, Sue!
Today’s Immigration Courts, hotbeds of inefficiency, worst practices, racial bias, misogyny, and unnecessary backlogs, undermine everything that Biden and Harris campaigned on. They also make Judge Garland’s pledge to return justice and independenceto the Department of Justice look like a farce.
You simply can’t be responsible for something as totally broken, biased, and due process denying as the current Immigration Courts and have ANY shred of credibility on racial justice, independence, and “good government!”
“Eyore In Distress” “Why won’t Judge Garland help me get back on my feet? I”m so tired of being ‘belly up!’”“We were waiting for Judge Garland to free us from this chamber designed by Sessions, Miller, and Barr? Why is Garland diddling as we suffer and die?” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Judge Garland’s concept of “justice” for refugee women and people of color seems a little out of touch — anti-asylum, misogynistic, anti-due process, xenophobic, racially charged precedents remain in place; regressive, unqualified judges on the bench; “worst practices” continue to flourish; 1.3 million case backlog builds; & He hasn’t spoken to the naij:
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160He doesn’t look like Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions or “Billy the Bigot” Barr, but does he think like them? Or does he just not care about the lives of people of color at the border and in his Immigration “Courts” that aren’t “courts” at all by any Constitutional or rational standard? Has he ever studied “The St. Louis Incident?” He’s basically repeating it! Official White House Photo Public Realm
Opinion: The unjust nature of civil court without counsel
Erica Starkey, from Columbus, Ohio, did not have the assistance of a lawyer in a legal battle for custody of two of her children. (Maddie McGarvey/For The Washington Post)
Erica Starkey’s story exposes the unjust nature of civil court proceedings for people who cannot afford counsel. People facing deportation also face a similar “affront to justice” as immigration cases are also civil proceedings. The majority of people in detention (70 percent) have no legal representation because people facing deportation do not have the right to a public defender, leaving them to navigate an unjust legal system alone. As a result, many immigrants languish in detention facilities for months or even years, often in inhumane and deadly conditions.
We have seen leaders in communities as diverse as Philadelphia, Denver and Harris County, Tex., collaborate with advocates and lawyers to create and expand deportation defense programs that secure due process rights for all. Together with existing representation programs, these efforts that center fairness and dignity have paved the way for a federal defender system for all immigrants. This critical work must continue across all levels of government to undo the radiating impacts of continued criminalization, mass detention, and separation and deportation of immigrants, and advance a new vision of justice for our communities.
Kica Matos, New York
The writer is vice president of initiatives at the Vera Institute of Justice.
*******************
“Are you ready to proceed without a lawyer, sir?”
Attorney General Merrick Garland announced with great fanfare plans to investigate the Minneapolis Police Department.
Seems quite hypocriticalgiven the glaring lack of constitutional due process, institutionalized xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and incompetence infecting his own Immigration Courts.
How is a Department that has failed to address systematic injustice in its own dysfunctional and unfair “courts” going to credibly address problems in the rest of our American Justice system?
Due Process Forever! Tell Judge Garland To Fix His Unjust “Courts” @ Justice!
Is this Judge Merrick Garland’s Vision Of Justice For Refugee Women @ EOIR? If not, what’s he doing about it? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsJamie Gorelick American Lawyer & Public Servant PHOTO: Creative CommonsLayli Miller-Muro Founder & Executive Director, Tahirih Justice Center PHOTO: Creative Commons
Jamie Gorelick is a partner at Wilmer Hale. Layli Miller-Muro is founder and CEO of the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that serves immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Both were involved in Fauziya Kassindja’s asylum case in 1996: Gorelick was deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration and Miller-Muro was Kassindja’s student legal counsel, representing her in immigration court and at the Board of Immigration Appeals.
With the issue of migration in the news again, a glaring omission in U.S. asylum law should get more attention: The statute does not name gender as a possible ground for protection.
To be granted asylum in the United States, an applicant must be facing persecution by their government or someone that government cannot or will not control. The applicant must show that the persecution is on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in “a particular social group.” Persecution on account of gender is not included.
This makes sense when considering that the global treaty that obliges state parties to protect refugees was adopted 70 years ago, in 1951, when the legal rights of women were barely recognized. The treaty — called the Refugee Convention — says that countries have an obligation to protect those who have no choice but to flee or risk death in the face of injustice.
It is unsurprising that the needs of women facing persecution were not considered in 1951. It is also not surprising — though it is disappointing — that Congress wrote this outdated framework into the Refugee Act of 1980.
In the mid-1990s, some light was shined on this problem. Fauziya Kassindja, a 17-year-old from Togo, sought protection both from forced polygamous marriage to a much older man and from female genital mutilation. She was granted asylum after proving that she was a member of a “particular social group” — and thus covered by the Refugee Act. We were both involved in this case, which helped to crack open the door for women to argue that gender-based asylum claims should be granted under the “particular social group” category in the statute.
But progress for women has been slow and painful under a statute that does not explicitly recognize gender-based persecution. It took 14 years for the United States to grant asylum to a Guatemalan woman, Rodi Alvarado, who endured unspeakable brutalization by her husband, a former soldier. Regulations proffered by then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 2000 to protect women under the social-group category were never finalized, leaving women in the lurch. So much variance exists in the likelihood of success from court to court that filing a claim can feel like playing Russian roulette.
. . . .
This situation has been made much worse in recent years. Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, decades of progress were nearly wiped out by the stroke of a pen. Because the highest immigration court is part of the Justice Department, he was able to single-handedly reverse key legal precedents favorable to women’s claims and issue guidance to judges limiting gender-based asylum. As a result of these changes, the safety of many immigrant women hangs by a thread. The Refugee Act urgently needs to be changed to clearly protect women who would otherwise meet the stringent requirements for asylum.
. . . .
***************************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
The Rest of the Story
I wrote the decision granting asylum in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). Jamie Gorelick was the Deputy Attorney General during part of my tenure (1995-2001) as Chair of the BIA. Layli Miller-Muro worked for me as a BIA Attorney-Advisor for a time.
Following Kasinga, some of my colleagues and I put our careers on the line to vindicate the statutory, constitutional, and human rights of refugee women who suffered egregious persecution in the form of domestic violence. One of those cases was Rodi Alvarado (a/k/a “Ms. R-A-“), where we dissented from our majority colleagues’ misguided denial of protection to her following grotesque, clearly gender-based persecution. Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 906, 928 (BIA 1999) (Guendelsberger,Board Member, dissenting with Schmidt, Chair, Villageliu, Rosenberg, and Moscato, Board Members). Alvarado had properly been granted asylum by an Immigration Judge, building on Kasinga, before being unjustly stripped of protection by the majority of our colleagues.
The incorrect decision in R-A- was vacated by Attorney General Reno. Finally, after a 14-year struggle, Ms. Alvarado was granted asylum in an unpublished, unappealed decision based largely on the rationale of the dissenters. In the meantime, the “gang of four” dissenters (minus Moscato) had been exiled from the BIA by Attorney General John Ashcroft, assisted by his sidekick, Kris Kobach (the infamous “Ashcroft Purge” @ the BIA).
In 2014, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), the BIA finally recognized domestic violence based on gender as a form of persecution. They did so without acknowledging the pioneering work of the R-A- dissenters 15 years earlier. By this time, domestic violence as a basis for asylum had become so well established that it wasn’t even contested by the DHS (although, curiously, the case was remanded by the BIA for additional findings on issues that were beyond reasonable dispute)!
In the meantime, at the Arlington Immigration Court, my colleagues and I had consistently granted domestic violence asylum cases based on a DHS policy position known as the “Martin Memo,” after former INS General Counsel and later DHS Deputy General Counsel Professor David Martin (who, incidentally, argued the Kasinga case before the BIA in 1996 — famous gender-based asylum expert Professor Karen Musalo argued for Kasinga). Most of those grants were unappealed by DHS. Indeed, many were so compelling and well documented that DHS joined Respondents’ counsel in moving for asylum grants following brief testimony. These cases actually became staples on my “short docket,” promoting efficiency, fairness, and becoming one of the few “working parts” of the Immigration Courts.
Tahirih Justice Center, founded by, Layli Miller-Muro, was counsel in some of these cases and served as an essential resource and inspiration for attorneys preparing domestic violence cases. It also functioned as a training center for some of the “new all-stars” of the New Due Process Army. For a time, the progress in recognizing, documenting, and vindicating the rights and humanity of female asylum seekers, at least in the Arlington Immigration Court, was one of the few shining examples of the courts, DHS, and the private/NGO bar working cooperatively to improve the quality and efficiency of justice in Immigration Court. It should have been a model for all other courts!
Sadly, in 2018, Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, unilaterally intervened and undid two decades of progress for women refugees of color with his grossly incorrect and disingenuous decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of A-R-C-G- on completely specious grounds while intentionally misconstruing the facts of record. Significantly, Sessions’s intervention was over the objection of DHS, which had expressed continuing agreement with the A-R-C-G- framework for deciding domestic violence cases.
“Hanging by a thread,” as stated by the op-ed, unfortunately vastly understates the war on the legal rights and humanity of asylum-seeking women, particularly targeting women at color, being carried out at EOIR today. This effort is led by a BIA that has long since lost its way, basically “weaponizing” the legal distortions and vicious, openly misogynist dicta set forth by Sessions in Matter of A-B- to dehumanize, degrade, and deport vulnerable refugee women.
In numerous cases, the BIA actually intervenes at ICE’s request to reverse proper grants by courageous and scholarly Immigration Judges below. It’s all about churning out final orders of removal as a deterrent –a vile, disgusting, perverted “philosophy” advanced by Sessions, Barr, and Whitaker, and not yet effectively rejected by Judge Garland.
Judge Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
Judge Garland is in the job because he is not only an experienced DOJ senior executive, but a long-serving Federal Judge who was admired for his sense of justice. It shouldn’t take an army of “spear-carriers” and subordinates for a true leader of Judge Garland’s experience to seize control of the situation and start getting the “ship of justice” sailing in the right direction. Judge Garland’s political and bureaucratic travails are of no moment to, and pale in comparison with, the additional, unconscionable abuse and “Dred Scottification” being heaped on refugee women and their courageous representatives by his dysfunctional and unconstitutional “star chamber courts.”
“Refugee women get ‘special treatment’ in accordance with the ‘traditional values’ applied to their cases in Judge Garland’s Immigration Courts!”
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Please, Pick Up The Phone & Your Pen, Judge Garland!
Not rocket science, Judge Garland! All it takes is six calls and a signature to start ending misogyny at EOIR and achieving racial justice in the America.
First three calls: Call Judge Dana Marks (SF), Judge Noel Brennan (NYC), Judge Amiena Khan (Newark) and tell them that they are detailed to the positions of Acting EOIR Director, Acting BIA Chair, and Acting Chief Immigration Judge, respectively. (The first position is vacant and the other two positions are filled by Senior Executives subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion. The current Acting Director already has an SES position to which she could return, or she could be re-installed as the
EOIR General Counsel, a job for which she is well-qualified.)
Fourth call: Call the the head of of the Justice Management Division (JMD). Ask her/him to find suitable DOJ placements for the two current incumbents mentioned above and all current members of the BIA (all of whom are either SES or “Management Officials” subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion) in other DOJ positions at the same pay level where they can do no further damage to our justice system. Ask him/her to arrange for the temporary appointment of former DOJ employees Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro as Acting Appellate Judges at the BIA.
Calls five and six: Call Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro. Thank them, tell them you agree with their Post op-ed, and ask (or beg) them to come to DOJ on a temporary basis to help Judges Marks, Brennan, and Khan solve the current problems with asylum adjudications and take the necessary actions to get EOIR functioning as a legitimate, independent, due-process-oriented court system. In other words, turn their cogent op-ed into a “real life action plan” for restoring due process, humanity, and common sense to the Immigration Courts, with a focus on the now totally unprofessional, wrong-headed mis-adjudication of asylum cases.
Finally, sign this order:
All precedent decisions issued to EOIR by former Attorneys General Sessions and Barr, and former Acting Attorneys General Whitaker and Wilkinson, and all their pending actions certifying cases to themselves are hereby vacated. All cases shall be returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) for reconsideration. In the reconsideration process, the BIA shall, among other things, honor the letter and spirit of these binding precedents:
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)
Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987)
Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996)
In the reconsideration process the BIA shall also be guided by the principle of “through teamwork, innovation, and best practices, become the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
See, it’s not that complicated. By the end of this year, women will get the protection to which they legally are entitled from the Immigration Courts. We all will see dramatic changes that will lead the way toward “equal justice for all’” in America and become a blueprint for the Immigration Courts to fulfill the above-stated principle.
It would also be a far better legacy for Judge Garland to be viewed as the “father of the fair, independent, expert Immigration Courts,” than to be remembered as running the most dysfunctional, unfair, and misogynistic court system in America, his current path. And, as an extra added bonus, Judge Garland, you will have a great start on building a premier source of “battle tested,” due-process-oriented, progressive jurists for future Article III appointments!
It’s a “win-win-win” that you no longer can afford to ignore, Your Honor!
Merrick Garland was recently confirmed as attorney general, bringing back a much-needed sense of impartiality and integrity to the Justice Department and the immigration court system it oversees. In this sense, his appointment is critical because, less than two months into his presidency, Joe Biden is already confronting the reality that meaningful immigration policies don’t always match up with wishful campaign promises. As thousands of migrants, especially unaccompanied minors, continue to seek safety and opportunity in the United States; as changes to interior enforcement and immigration prosecutions are slow to implement; and as advocates apprehensively watch detention facilities expand and COVID-related border closures continue, immigration remains the most divisive of all political conversations.
But rather than be overwhelmed by the challenge, perhaps there is another place to start, one that has only been alluded to in Biden’s plans and never taken up by Congress: If we want to re-build a better, stronger immigration system, we need to start with immigration courts. In a Just Security piece published in November, Gregory Chen eloquently laid out the devastating harm caused by the Trump administration’s politicization of the immigration judiciary, pointedly describing the courts as “strained to the breaking point under a massive backlog of cases and a systemic inability to render consistent, fair decisions.”
Courts are the backstop of every legal system. Their most basic function is to ensure that applications of the law are fair, not arbitrary and capricious. In the U.S. immigration system, however, most of the oversight has fallen on administrative courts housed within the Department of Justice. As Chen argues, the courts “operate under the jurisdiction of a prosecutorial agency, the Department of Justice, whose aims and political interests often conflict with the fundamental mission of delivering impartial and fair decisions.” Further exacerbating the tension, beginning in 1996 Congress expanded the executive branch’s already far-reaching power on immigration by starting a 30-year trend of limiting the federal courts’ jurisdiction over immigration issues; efforts that were only reinforced by the 2002 Homeland Security Act and 2005 REAL ID Act. The recently introduced, White House-backed, U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 only slightly restores judicial oversight, allowing district courts to review allegations of violations of certain portions of the Act. For the foreseeable future, immigration courts remain under the direction of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a small and chronically under-funded sub-agency of the Justice Department, operating out of an office building in Falls Church, Virginia, removed from DOJ leadership in Washington, D.C.
While they by no means caused the issues that plague the EOIR today, the Trump administration’s policies put the proverbial final nail in the coffin of a quasi-functioning system, decimating the daily functions of immigration courts and showing how they can be used as political tools. The overwhelming backlog of cases –nearly 1.3 million at last count across all courts– exacerbated by the enforcement-first agenda, means that immigration judges have enormous caseloads with few support staff to help them manage the work. In addition, policies by the Trump administration removed judicial discretion from judges, prevented them from using simple control tools to manage their dockets, tied performance reviews to how many cases they closed out within a year while making it harder to avoid entering deportation orders, and created new administrative law to further restrict benefits a judge can grant. When the immigration bench pushed back, leadership dismantled the union that represented them. Hiring and rewards practices have politicized the bench even more. As Chen noted in his piece, the Trump administration “stacked the courts with appointees who are biased toward enforcement, have histories of poor judicial conduct, hold anti-immigrant views, or are affiliated with organizations espousing such views.”
This is not the hallmark of a functional legal system, and its ripple effects undermine our immigration system as a whole.
. . . .
Otherwise, we will prolong a situation that would be comical were the implications not so devastating. Returning to the individuals stranded in Mexico due to the MPP, for example – as of the time of this writing, they are being registered into a database and given COVID tests by various international organizations. Once cleared to enter the United States, they will fill out a form, by hand, which is handed to the Customs and Border Protection official. The CBP officer, overwhelmed and under-resourced as they are at the border, will then transmit this paper form to the immigration court officials, who will enter it into their systems and change the case to the appropriate court. In New York, these courts do not even have sufficient staff to assign one clerk, who also doubles as an administrative assistant, to each judge. As a result, calls to the court frequently go unanswered and are rarely returned. Furthermore, increasingly, understaffing has led to misplaced evidence submissions for pending cases. The responsibility to ensure that all of these obstacles are overcome will lie on the individual who just, finally, entered the United States.
An independent immigration judiciary, with its own resources and free from political oversight, is the only long-lasting remedy to this dysfunction. In the meantime, the agency, much like the DOJ it depends on, is in desperate need of thoughtful, measured leadership that values due process and impartiality and supports existing staff as it continues to navigate the complex problems posed by our immigration laws. There must be trained, dedicated staff ensuring efficient management of the court’s dockets and administrative systems so that the individuals whose cases are going through the courts understand what is required of them. Only then will the immigration system reflect American notions of justice, and only then can we begin to rebuild a strong, sustainable immigration system that meets our goals for foreign policy, national security, and domestic prosperity.
******************
Read Camille’s full article at the link.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Not rocket science! Just following the due process clause of the Constitution; implementing asylum laws in the fair, generous, and practical way they were intended; replacing today’s failed EOIR administrators, the entire BIA, and many Immigration Judges responsible for “asylum free zones” with competent, expert professionals; and treating migrants, regardless of race, color, creed, or gender, as human beings!
If you wonder why Judge Garland is continuing to run “star chambers” masquerading as “courts” @ DOJ, join the club!
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
As cogently described by my friend and fellow panelist at the Hispanic National Bar Association last night, Claudia Cubas, Litigation Director at the CAIR Coalition, in what other “court” system in America are you not entitled to a timely copy of your client’s file to prepare for litigation and file applications (often with artificially truncated “filing dates” to promote “summary denials”)? Making the Immgration Courts functional is neither impossible nor that complicated. All it takes is competent leadership with the guts to “clean house” at EOIR and “kick some tail” at an intransigent, contemptuous, and out of control DHS.
Claudia Cubas Litigation Director CAIR Coalition Photo: berkleycenter.georgetown.edu
So why is Judge Garland investing in the continuing, deadly “Clown Show,”🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️⚰️ rather than getting going on bringing “his” courts into compliance with due process? It’s not even that hard to get the right experts who could do the job in place, at least on a temporary basis.
Judge Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
If Judge Garland won’t do his job, what can we do to force change and rationality into this totally dysfunctional, stunningly unfair, scofflaw system? Here are some ideas from last night’s panel at the Hispanic National Bar Association (“HNBA”):
Apply for jobs at EOIR (sure, they are hidden away on “USA Jobs,” there is no effort whatsoever on Judge Garland’s part to diversify or recruit real experts, and the selection process is opaque). But, better judges, with actual experience representing migrants (particularly asylum seekers) in court, and some compassion and human understanding along with expertise, are the key to fixing the system. It’s particularly critical for minority attorneys (now a relative rarity in the “Immigration Judiciary”) to apply in overwhelming numbers and get into the system to start forcing change from within (“bore from within,” as Dan Kowalski says). Can’t complain about who’s selected if you don’t apply and compete!
Raise hell with your legislative representatives! As long as Immigration Court reform is #27 on their radar screens, the problem won’t get addressed.
Get involved with educating the public about the ungodly, un-American disaster in the Immigration “Courts” that don’t fit any normal definition of “courts” (except “kangaroo courts”). Join and support advocacy and social service groups; write op-eds; write for blogs; speak at community and church meetings; run for political office!
Sue, sue, sue, sue! Make sure that the systemic mistreatment of migrants and people of color in Judge Garland’s Immigration Courts are front and center in the Article III Courts and that we are making an historical record of where Federal Judges and public officials stand on the most critical racial and social justice issue in America today. Argue the very obvious Constitutional violations present in a system run by prosecutors, where judges can be neither fair nor impartial, and where many lack even minimal competence and qualifications for their “judicial” positions. Take the fight to the broken and dysfunctional DOJ in the only way they understand, by whacking them down in court! Make Judge Garland face and “own” his disgracefully failed, unprofessional “courts” by making it the #1 issue occupying his time. Make how he deals with the Immigration Courts his overriding “legacy” for better or worse!
Remember, GOP politicos like to use immigration as a “prop” to spread their message of racial vilification and dehumanization of the “other” because it “fires up” their White Nationalist base! By contrast, Dem politicos want to make immigration go away and pretend like the mess in the Immigration Courts doesn’t exist, can’t be fixed, isn’t that important (as in lives of migrants and asylum seekers, mainly of color, don’t count), and isn’t killing people! Don’t let either party get away with their respective dishonest, “designed for failure,” approaches!
Humanity and the future of American democracy are at stake here! They might be “Clown Courts” 🤡 but the damage they daily inflict on human lives ☠️⚰️ and values 🤮 is no laughing matter!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! Put an end to deadly “Clown Courts” 🤡 now!
