"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.
Respondent Access Portal: EOIR’s Respondent Access allows Respondents to file forms with the immigration court and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
AO Covid Update: USCIS has updated the public website to reflect that field offices are expanding occupational capacities. Beginning November 29, 2021, the New York Asylum Office (ZNY) will be resuming in-person interviews, with the officer and the applicant’s party (including the attorney) in the same room.
Law360: The Biden administration’s proposed rule to reinforce the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program has attracted more than 9,300 responses ahead of Monday’s deadline for public comments, with many calling for broader changes than the regulations set out.
NYT: The City Council is planning to approve a bill that would allow more than 800,000 noncitizen New Yorkers to register as members of political parties and vote in municipal elections, provided they are green card holders or have the right to work in the United States. The measure is expected to be approved on Dec. 9 by a veto-proof margin. It would allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, and would not apply to federal or state contests.
Reuters: The Biden administration and Mexico have not yet agreed to restart a Trump-era program obliging asylum seekers to await U.S. court hearings in Mexico, because certain conditions must first be met, two Mexican officials said on Wednesday. News outlet Axios reported earlier that returns under the program officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) could restart as soon as [this] week.
WaPo: Despite mounting concerns about discriminatory policing, the Trump administration aggressively recruited local law enforcement partners and courted sheriffs who championed similar views on immigration policy, according to dozens of internal ICE emails obtained by The Post.
Reuters: Some 2,000 migrants and asylum seekers departed the southern Mexican city of Tapachula near the Guatemalan border overnight on Sunday in the latest in a series of caravans setting out for the United States.
WaPo: Record numbers of Venezuelan migrants have been crossing into the United States in recent months, posing a new border challenge for the Biden administration and raising concerns that more of the nearly 6 million people displaced from the South American nation could be heading north.
AP: He said he repeatedly told authorities he was American but was rebuffed by immigration agents, according to the suit. Bukle, who derived citizenship when he was 9 and his parents naturalized, was sent to the Mesa Verde Detention Facility in Central California for more than a month until an attorney got immigration authorities to verify his citizenship status and release him.
LexisNexis: SCOTUSblog case page for Egbert v. Boule, Docket No. 21-147 ” Issues : (1) Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics for First Amendment retaliation claims; and (2) whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for claims against federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating a plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right
Law360: A Mexican woman facing removal for using a fake Social Security number lost her case Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her arguments for why the offense shouldn’t disqualify her from receiving deportation relief.
AILA: The court held that the IJ erred in informing the pro se petitioner he was eligible for potential relief only under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and in treating his conviction for drug trafficking as if it were a per se bar to withholding of removal. (DeCarvalho v. Garland, 11/17/21)
Law360: The Fifth Circuit on Monday upheld a ruling that a Mexican citizen who sought refuge in the United States because he is gay cannot remain in the country because the Mexican government “was able and willing to protect” him.
AILA: The court held that the BIA did not err in finding that the petitioner’s second motion to reopen for lack of notice was time and number barred under 8 CFR §1003.2(c)(2), because the petitioner had failed to inform the immigration court of his change in address. (Maradia v. Garland, 11/17/21)
AILA: The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum, finding that the Board did not err in holding that governmental changes in the Congo—namely, that the petitioner’s own political party had assumed power—made any future political persecution unlikely. (Mbonga v. Garland, 11/22/21)
LexisNexis: Elhady v. Bradley Maj. – “In short, when it comes to the border, the Bivens issue is not difficult—it does not apply. And district courts would be wise to start and end there.
Law360: A fractured Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday undid a removal order against an Indonesian couple who say they fear persecution for their evangelical Christian beliefs, handing the parents of three a win on their third turn before the appeals court.
AILA: The court issued an order denying the rehearing en banc of Soto-Soto v. Garland, in which the court held that the BIA erred by reviewing the IJ’s decision de novo rather than for clear error. (Soto-Soto v. Garland, 11/18/21)
AILA: Where petitioner had filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that a recent Supreme Court ruling rendered his conviction no longer a “crime of violence” aggravated felony, the court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling. (Goulart v. Garland, 11/18/21)
AILA: The court held that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to the Sri Lankan petitioner’s claim that, as a Tamil failed asylum seeker, he had a well-founded fear of future persecution, and thus remanded his asylum and withholding of removal claims. (Jathursan v. Att’y Gen., 11/17/21)
AILA: The BIA found that the respondent’s conviction for carjacking under section 215(a) of the California Penal Code is categorically a conviction for an aggravated felony crime of violence. Matter of A. Valenzuela, 28 I&N Dec. 418 (BIA 2021)
AILA: The White House issued a proclamation suspending and limiting the entry for certain immigrants and nonimmigrants who were physically present in countries where the Omicron variant of COVID-19 has been detected. Effective 11/29/21.
AILA: DHS issued updated guidance on the enforcement of civil immigration law. Guidance is effective on 11/29/21 and will rescind prior civil immigration guidance.
AILA: USCIS issued a policy alert that it is incorporating and superseding existing guidance into the USCIS Policy Manual addressing topics in the context of general adjudications, including evidence, sworn statements, and adjudicative decisions.
AILA: EOIR issued guidance to address administrative closure in light of Matter of Cruz-Valdez. Where a respondent requests administrative closure, and DHS does not object, the request should generally be granted and the case administratively closed. Guidance effective as of 11/22/21.
AILA: EOIR announced it will open a new immigration court in Santa Ana, California, on November 29, 2021. The court will include 22 immigration judges. At the time of opening, three judges will hear cases transferred from the Los Angeles – Olive Street court. EOIR has notified the affected parties.
AILA: DOS stated that the guidance to posts for the prioritization of consular services issued in November 2020 has been rescinded. Embassies and consulates have discretion on prioritizing visa appointments among the range of visa classes.
The emphasis on “border security” would make more sense if the Administration had restored the legal process for applying for asylum at ports of entry. Without such a process, how are individuals’ supposed to exercise their legal rights under domestic and international law to seek protection in the U.S.?
Expect these guidelines to be quickly challenged in Federal Courts by nativist GOP AGs. We’ll see how they fare!
Provide guidance to adjudicators on administrative closure in light of Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021)
David L. Neal, Director 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)
On July 15, 2021, the Attorney General issued a precedential decision in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021). In that decision, the Attorney General restored the authority of immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) to administratively close cases. This memorandum discusses the practical implications of the Attorney General’s decision, particularly in light of the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) pending caseload.
II. Administrative Closure to Date
Administrative closure “is a docket management tool that is used to temporarily pause removal proceedings.” Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17, 18 (BIA 2017). An immigration judge’s or appellate immigration judge’s administrative closure of a case “temporarily remove[s] [the] case from [the] Immigration Judge’s active calendar or from the Board’s docket.” Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688, 692 (BIA 2012). Administrative closure came into widespread use by EOIR adjudicators in the 1980s. Cases have been administratively closed for a variety of reasons over the years, and the Board has issued several decisions addressing when administrative closure is appropriate. The Board’s two most recent such decisions are Matter of Avetisyan and Matter of W-Y-U-, issued in 2012 and 2017, respectively.
In 2018, Attorney General Sessions issued Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018). He held that, with limited exceptions, “immigration judges and the Board do not have the general authority” to administratively close cases. Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. at 272. The Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits subsequently ruled on challenges to Matter of Castro- Tum. A circuit split emerged, with the Third, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits holding that
OWNER:
AUTHORITY: CANCELLATION: None
I. Introduction
1
adjudicators have the general authority to administratively close cases,1 but with the Sixth Circuit holding that adjudicators have the authority to administratively close cases only in limited circumstances.2 In 2020, the Department of Justice (Department) promulgated a final rule that essentially codified Matter of Castro-Tum, restricting EOIR adjudicators’ ability to administratively close cases. See “Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings; Administrative Closure,” 85 Fed. Reg. 81588 (Dec. 16, 2020). However, this rule has been preliminarily enjoined nationwide. See Centro Legal de La Raza v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, 524 F.Supp.3d 919 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021).
In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, the Attorney General noted that Matter of Castro-Tum “departed from long-standing practice” by prohibiting administrative closure in the vast majority of circumstances. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. at 329. He also noted that the Department is “engaged in a reconsideration” of the enjoined 2020 rule. Id. Given these factors, the Attorney General, in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, “overrule[d] [Matter of Castro-Tum] in its entirety,” and he “restore[d] administrative closure” pending the current rulemaking. Id. He specified that, in deciding whether to administratively close cases pending the rulemaking, “except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, immigration judges and the Board should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Avetisyan and W-Y-U-.” Id.
III. Administrative Closure after Matter of Cruz-Valdez
With administrative closure restored, EOIR adjudicators have the authority, under the Board’s case law, to administratively close a wide variety of cases. Going forward, pending the promulgation of a regulation addressing administrative closure, adjudicators must evaluate requests to administratively close cases under Matter of Avetisyan and Matter of W-Y-U-, as well under as the Board’s case law predating those decisions, to the extent that case law is consistent with those decisions. Adjudicators should accordingly familiarize themselves with Matter of Avetisyan, Matter of W-Y-U-, and the Board’s prior case law addressing administrative closure.
The restoration of administrative closure will assist EOIR adjudicators in managing their dockets given EOIR’s caseload. In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, the Attorney General recognized that administrative closure has in the past “served to facilitate the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, allowing government counsel to request that certain low-priority cases be removed from immigration judges’ active calendars or the Board’s docket, thereby allowing adjudicators to focus on higher-priority cases.” Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. at 327. EOIR has finite resources and a daunting caseload. Given this reality, it is important that adjudicators focus on two categories of cases: those in which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deems the respondent to be an immigration enforcement priority,3 and those in which the respondent
1 See Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen., 997 F.3d 113, 121-24 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656, 667 (7th Cir. 2020); Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282, 292-94 (4th Cir. 2019).
2 Specifically, the Sixth Circuit initially held that the regulations do not delegate to immigration judges or the Board the general authority to administratively close cases. Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459, 466 (6th Cir. 2020) . But the Sixth Circuit later held that the regulations provide adjudicators “the authority for administrative closure” to allow respondents to apply with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for provisional unlawful presence waivers. Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 999 F.3d 986, 991 (6th Cir. 2021).
3 Effective November 29, 2021, DHS’s immigration enforcement priorities are noncitizens DHS deems to pose risks to national security, public safety, and border security. See Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary,
2
desires a full adjudication of his or her claim or claims. Being able to administratively close low priority cases will help adjudicators do this.
Under case law, where DHS requests that a case be administratively closed because a respondent is not an immigration enforcement priority, and the respondent does not object, the request should generally be granted and the case administratively closed. See Matter of Yewondwosen, 21 I&N Dec. 1025, 1026 (BIA 1997) (stating that the parties’ “agreement on an issue or proper course of action should, in most instances, be determinative”); Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. at 327 (recognizing the role of administrative closure in “facilitat[ing] the exercise of prosecutorial discretion”).
Administrative closure is appropriate in many other situations as well. For example, it can be appropriate to administratively close a case to allow a respondent to file an application or petition with an agency other than EOIR. See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 696 (identifying “the likelihood the respondent will succeed on any petition, application, or other action he or she is pursuing outside of removal proceedings” as a factor for adjudicators “to weigh” in evaluating requests for administrative closure); 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iii) (permitting a respondent in removal proceedings to file a Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services where the “proceedings are administratively closed and have not yet been recalendared at the time of filing the application”). It can also be appropriate to administratively close a case while an agency adjudicates a previously filed application or petition, or, if a visa petition has been approved, while waiting for the visa to become available. See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 696. It is generally appropriate to administratively close a case where a respondent has been granted temporary protected status. See Matter of Sosa Ventura, 25 I&N Dec. 391, 396 (BIA 2010). This is only a partial list; administrative closure can be appropriate in other situations not mentioned here. See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 696 (stating that each request for administrative closure “must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances of the particular case”).
Where a respondent requests administrative closure, whether in a scenario described above or another scenario where administrative closure is appropriate, and DHS does not object, the request should generally be granted and the case administratively closed. See Matter of Yewondwosen, 21 I&N Dec. at 1026. Where a request for administrative closure is opposed, “the primary consideration . . . is whether the party opposing administrative closure has provided a persuasive reason for the case to proceed and be resolved on the merits.” Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. at 20. But adjudicators should bear in mind that “neither party has ‘absolute veto power over administrative closure requests.’” Id. at n. 5 (quoting Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 692).
Where at all possible, issues involving administrative closure should be resolved in advance of individual calendar hearings and not at hearings. Immigration judges are therefore encouraged to send scheduling orders to parties well before the hearing takes place, inquiring of DHS whether the respondent is an immigration enforcement priority, and otherwise soliciting the parties’ positions on administrative closure and other issues related to prosecutorial discretion. Where
Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (Sept. 30, 2021), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/guidelines-civilimmigrationlaw.pdf.
3
such issues have not been resolved in advance of an individual calendar hearing, the immigration judge should ask DHS counsel on the record at the beginning of the hearing whether the respondent is an immigration enforcement priority. Where DHS counsel responds that the respondent is not a priority, the immigration judge should further ask whether DHS intends to exercise some form of prosecutorial discretion in the case. As part of this colloquy, the 4 immigration judge should ask whether the parties want the case administratively closed.
IV. Conclusion
Administrative closure is a longstanding, and valuable, tool for EOIR adjudicators. As the Attorney General noted in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, the Department is currently engaged in rulemaking that will address adjudicators’ authority to administratively close cases. Pending that rulemaking, adjudicators have the authority under Matter of Cruz-Valdez to administratively close many cases before them when warranted under Board case law. Adjudicators should familiarize themselves with the situations in which administrative closure is appropriate, and adjudicators should be proactive in inquiring whether parties wish for cases to be 5 administratively closed. If you have any questions, please contact your supervisor.
4 There is one potential caveat to the guidance and instructions in this section. As noted above, the Attorney General stated that, pending the promulgation of a regulation addressing administrative closure, immigration judges and the Board should apply the Board’s case law “except when a court of appeals has held otherwise.” Matter of Cruz- Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. at 329. For cases arising in the Sixth Circuit, adjudicators must determine to what extent administrative closure is permitted given that court’s case law, and they must handle issues involving administrative closure accordingly. See Garcia-DeLeon, 999 F.3d 986; Hernandez-Serrano, 981 F.3d 459.
5 This memorandum does not create any legal rights or benefits for either party, and it does not mandate that a particular motion for administrative closure be granted or denied. In all cases, immigration judges and appellate immigration judges must exercise their independent judgment and discretion in adjudicating motions for administrative closure consistent with the law. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), 1003.10(b).
4
*******************
WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED: Garland should have appointed the “Chen-Markowitz BIA” and empowered them to aggressively clean up the backlog, using administrative closing among others tools (such as referral to USCIS and more favorable precedents requiring the granting of relief in meritorious cases).
In a properly functioning quasi-judicial system, this same “guidance” should have come in a series of BIA precedents that would require BIA panels and the Article IIIs to enforce compliance among recalcitrant Immigration Judges. That could be accompanied by unilateral action by the BIA to close “deadwood” cases on the appellate docket. Either party could request re-docketing, with a justification. (Hint: In my BIA career, we closed thousands of cases of this way and I could count on one hand the number of “redocketing” motions we received.) Also, in a better system, the Immigration Judges already would be aggressively taking these “common sense” steps. Precedents properly applying asylum, withholding, and CAT would be cutting into the largely “manufactured” backlog.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Typical Dem timid approach.
Unless the BIA actually believes in this “guidance” (doubtful, given it’s current “packing” with notorious anti-immigrant judges by Sessions and Barr, unaddressed by Garland) and is willing to enforce it and incorporate it into precedents, it won’t achieve its objective of promoting fairness and efficiency! Nor will it significantly reduce the backlog.
Perhaps the “rulemaking” referenced in Director Neal’s memo will solve the problem. But, EOIR’s history of completing such rulemaking, particularly in Dem Administrations, has been less than stellar. See, e.g., Gender-Based Asylum Regs (3 Dem Administrations, 0 Regs); Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Regs (2 Dem Administrations, 0 Regs).
One problem: Dem Administrations often feel compelled to engage in false “dialogue,” look for an unachievable “consensus,” and pay attention to public comments; GOP Administrations simply plow ahead with their preconceived agenda without regard to expert input, public opinion, or empirical data.
Consequently, although Dems have failed over more than two decades to finalize final gender-based asylum regulations, Stephen Miller was able to publish outrageous final regulations eliminating more than two decades of gender-based case law progress in a few months. Fortunately, those regs were promptly enjoined!
Over the past two decades, the GOP has radically “weaponized” EOIR as an enforcement tool. Dems have pretended not to notice and have squandered at least nine years of basically “unrestricted” opportunities to restore some semblance of due process, sanity, and humanity @ EOIR! As my friend Karen Musalo said in her recent LA Times op-ed, “actions speak louder than words.”
EOIR’s latest “actions,” while better than nothing, are unnecessarily ineffective.This is supposed to be a “court system,” not a bureaucratic “agency,” run by “policy directives” and a top-heavy, bloated bureaucracy with fancy-titled “supervisors” and superfluous “program managers.”
Until we get an Attorney General who considers migrants to be persons (humans), views immigrant justice as important, understands what a court is, how it operates, and has the guts to install the practical progressive experts who can make it happen, EOIR will continue to be an embarrassment to American justice.
🏈SPORTS: EXPOSED!— Badgers End B-10 Season With Inept Effort @ MN!— No Offense, Little D, Lead To Embarrassing Loss, Avoids Facing Michigan In Big-10 Title Game!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
November 28, 2021
When the Wisconsin Badgers took the field in Minneapolis on Saturday, afternoon they knew they were one win over the then 7-4 Gophers away from a rematch with the Michigan Wolverines in the Big Ten Title Game next Saturday. For the next 60 minutes, the Badgers looked every bit like a team that wanted to avoid that potential matchup. (Michigan beat the Badgers 38-21 at Camp Randall in October). In the process, the Badgers also lost “Paul Bunyun’s Axe” for the second time in the past four years while being subjected to the Gopher fans’ imitation of Wisconsin’s “patented jump around.”
Wisconsin was soundly beaten on both sides of the ball by a modestly talented, yet better coached and clearly more motivated, Gopher team. The Badgers failed to score an offensive touchdown. Their sole trip to the end zone came in the first half on a lucky tipped “pick six” by Scott Nelson.
For the second straight week, Coach Jim Leonhard’s “shut down” Badger defense couldn’t get a “less than awesome” offense off the field, particularly yesterday when it counted. The Gophers controlled the tempo of the game from opening kickoff to final whistle.
Perhaps the “best” illustrations of Badger futility came early in the second half. Ahead 10-6 despite a lackluster first half, the Badgers received the second half kickoff with a chance to “make a statement.” They did! But, not the kind they wanted.
Deep in his own territory, Badger QB Graham Mertz lofted a weak pass to 6th year receiver Kendrick Pryor, who made only a half-hearted effort to catch it. Instead the Gopher defender took the ball away, setting up a short field. Three plays later, the Gophers trotted into the end zone to take a 13-10 lead as a bewildered Badger “D” passively looked on.
On the following possession the Badgers drove methodically inside the Minnesota 10. With second and two from the Gopher five, three downs to make 2 yards, and a then a potential four downs to score, the Badgers appeared destined to retake the lead. Instead, they were forced to settle for a tying field goal that proved to be their last score.
The Golden Gophersthen scored the final 10 points and held the Badgers at bay to notch the 23-13 victory. Badger freshman “sensation” running back Braelon Allen was a non-factor. The Badger “O Line’s” inability to open holes was matched by Allen’s failure to break tackles. The few attempts to hit Allen ‘in space” ended with him being stoned by Gopher defenders.
Badger senior tight end Jake Ferguson was another non-factor. Big Ten defensive coordinators have finally figured out how to defend him, particularly in the “red zone.” By contrast, Badger Coach Paul Chryst doesn’t seem to have developed an alternative.
Mertz is a good athlete, but at best an average “pocket passer.” Why not roll him out to create a run option when the receivers are covered? At least force the opposing D to make some difficult choices!
So, instead of a trip to the Big Ten Title Game in Indianapolis next week, the Badgers (8-4, 5-3) “earned” another trip to a “Podunk City Piddly Bowl” against a failed team from a different conference. The “B-Team” announcers sentenced to that (non) “classic,” will be required to shill about the wonders of the Badger defense, the prowess of Allen, and the brilliance of Head Coach Paul Chryst and Defensive Coordinator Jim Leonhard.
But, that won’t hide the truth about a mediocre team that once again underperformed preseason expectations.
The so-called Title 42 border closure, which uses the COVID-19 pandemic to justify immediate expulsion or deportation of people fleeing persecution and torture, has always been heartless and illegal. So why is the Biden administration indefinitely continuing this most egregious and unlawful of Trump’s immigration policies? Recent reports confirm that it’s in part because the White House doesn’t want the political repercussions of ending it.
That craven position would be a flimsy defense in court. It’s also simply bad politics.
Biden continues to be accused of advocating open borders. It is likely that nothing he can do will placate those who supported Trump’s anti-immigrant policies. On the other hand, recent polling shows that a majority of Americans believe “immigration is a good thing” for the country, and American support for resettlement of Afghan refugees was at 81% in August. It is not necessarily true that harsh immigration policies are winning strategies.
Even if it were politically expedient to keep the border closed to those seeking safety, turning away these individuals without any opportunity to apply for protection is a violation of U.S. law, as well as of international treaties to which the U.S. is a party. The pretext of Title 42 does not make our actions any less a violation of law. This point was made quite clear by Harold Koh, a senior State Department legal advisor and former dean of Yale Law School, who has served in four presidential administrations. In a stern rebuke, Koh wrote that the use of Title 42 was “illegal” and “inhumane,” inconsistent with American values and not worthy of the Biden administration.
Just as the Trump administration invoked it in March 2020, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced this summer that it would continue, the Biden administration could revoke Title 42 now, permitting asylum applications again in compliance with our legal obligations.
This misuse of Title 42 authority, a public health law, was the brainchild of former President Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller. Evidently not satisfied with the administration’s brutal “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forced asylum seekers to await their hearings in Mexico, once COVID-19 struck Miller decided the pandemic could be used as a pretext to close the border, denying migrants the right to even seek asylum. Officials at the CDC maintained that this measure was not justified by public health considerations and only acceded as a result of sustained White House pressure.
The Title 42 policy has resulted in untold suffering. People refused entry are either expelled to Mexico, where they face kidnapping, rape and other brutal assaults, or they are forcibly returned to their home countries — regardless of the human rights violations they may encounter there. Since September, thousands of Haitians have been deported despite the U.S. government’s acknowledgement that Haiti is “grappling with a deteriorating political crisis, violence, and a staggering increase in human rights abuses.” The kidnapping for ransom of American missionaries in October highlighted the acute dangers that persist in the island nation.
. . . .
*************************
Read Karen’s full op-ed at the link.
I’m thankful for Karen and other extraordinary leaders of the NDPA who continue to confront the “power structure” with “uncomfortable truth!”
An orderly refugee processing system abroad and a properly staffed and run asylum system at the border that timely recognizes those needing protection and enlists and cooperates with NGOs to ensure representation and resettlement in locations where they can quickly contribute should actually be more “popular” than the current “scofflaw chaos” resulting from misguided and ultimately futile “maximum enforcement and deterrence” efforts by our Government.
This is not to suggest that “popularity” should be the “test” for whether we comply with our legal and moral obligations to refugees. Given the many documented contributions that refugees and immigrants make to America, there is no reason to assume that a viable asylum program can’t be part of a robust legal immigration program that benefits everyone.
RESEARCH | FALL 2021 ISSUE
SPECIAL REPORT: IMMIGRATION AND THE DUTY TO HELP
“Bringing the university into the streets”
BY BILL BOYARSKY
ACADEMICS, UNIVERSITY STUDENTS and activists are creating an informal network reaching throughout California and beyond to seek justice for the more than 25,000 immigrants held in federal detention centers across the nation. It is eye-opening work and often distressing.
Members of the network struggle to penetrate the secrecy in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shrouds its immigration centers, many located far from attorneys who might be able to help. When the network pierces the concealment, it often finds babies imprisoned with their mothers, random mistreatment by guards and an ever-growing backlog of cases awaiting hearings in immigration court.
“As a state university, we have an obligation to train students who will give back to the state, and immigrants are terribly important. Immigrants contribute greatly to the state,” Ingrid Eagly, a UCLA law professor who is part of the network, told me in a recent telephone interview.
Victor Narro, project director at the UCLA Labor Center and one of Eagly’s network colleagues, put it this way: “We are activist scholars, bringing the university into the streets.”
Championing justice is crucial now, when immigrants are arriving in California and throughout the United States in ever-growing numbers, and it will become ever more urgent as desperate newcomers — refugees hoping for asylum after President Biden’s end to the war in Afghanistan — attempt to enter the country. This is the immediate future of the battle over immigration, one that will shape the future of Los Angeles and the larger nation. It is far from settled.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll in early September showed, for example, general support for the resettlement of Afghans in the United States, after security screening. But granting them entry is likely to anger Americans bitterly opposed to immigration of any kind.
UCLA and beyond
UCLA is at the center of this informal network of professors, students and activists pursuing justice for immigrants. But it is hardly alone.
Immigration clinics at the USC Gould School of Law and Southwestern Law School send students into the community to represent immigrants in deportation hearings. Centers for undocumented students at California State University, San Bernardino, and other Cal State campuses provide gathering places for students and faculty, as well as on-campus locations from which activists can enter the community and fight for those fearing deportation. There are many such examples around the state.
As faculty director of the UCLA Law School’s criminal justice program, Prof. Eagly is deeply involved. She took her students to rural Texas to work with immigrants arrested by federal officers who accused them of illegal entry into the country. The immigrants were jailed by ICE officers after seeking amnesty at the border, or they were caught during raids on their workplaces.
The students went from familiar surroundings at UCLA to ICE’s South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, 70 miles southwest of San Antonio, where the company that runs the center for the federal government had been accused of treating the immigrants as if they were dangerous criminals. The students met with migrants from Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, Ecuador and Honduras.
The center is tantamount to a prison for families as they await hearings in which they try to convince an immigration court that they fled their countries because they had feared death or injury at the hands of criminal gangs or corrupt police. These hearings are called “credible fear” interviews. If the immigrants are not persuasive enough, deportation proceedings begin. Like most detention centers, the South Texas facility is far from the immigration lawyers and translators the immigrants need to guide them through the complex process. Among Guatemalans, for example, 22 languages are spoken.
Visiting the South Texas Center gave Eagly’s students a unique experience, she said. “They had deep concerns. We saw babies in arms being detained. We would hear about inadequate health care and mistreatment by guards.” Even though the observers were only law students, Eagly added, the fact that the inmates had any representation at all made a difference in the process and getting people released.
It was an intense introduction to a system bogged down in bureaucracy and shaped by years of hostility toward immigrants, extending through Democratic and Republican administrations. Democrats, fearing an electoral backlash, promoted laws increasing penalties for immigration violations. President Trump, elected as an anti-immigrant crusader, carried them to new extremes. The students learned that the backlog of cases awaiting hearings in immigration court numbered almost 1.4 million, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Someone seeking a hearing at the Texas center could wait as long as 2.4 years, TRAC said.
When Eagly’s students returned from Texas, they recruited lawyers who would take immigration cases without charge and try to help immigrants through the legal maze.
UCLA SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR Cecilia Menjivar and her students focused on the inequalities that immigrants found in the United States. For many, it was simply a continuation of the hard life they had left in Central America. “Because it is so difficult to access people in detention, we approached it through lawyers,” Menjivar said. “What we wanted to do was capture the everyday life in detention centers. We wanted to focus on what life is like in detention centers. We also interviewed immigrants who had left detention.”
Menjivar recalled visiting a detention center in Eloy, Arizona, about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix, to attend immigration court. “I had to go through three gates before entering the facility, first a barbed-wire gate, then two [more],” she said. “A guard accompanied me until I got to the courtroom. Six gates or doors [total] to get to the courtroom.
“Immigrants are often moved from one place to another. Lawyers may lose contact with them. Immigrants can’t be found, [are] moved to a different facility, sometimes to a different state. So families have to locate relatives.”
Studying the crisis
Narro, the UCLA Labor Center project director, told me about students venturing into Pico-Union in Los Angeles, where impoverished immigrants from Central America and Mexico crowd into apartments, making it one of America’s densest neighborhoods. Some of the immigrants try to find work in the food industry.
The students enroll in classes such as “Immigrants, Students and Higher Education,” taught by Labor Center Director Kent Wong. From these classes come academic studies like the center’s examination of the impact of robots on food workers. The studies, in turn, help shape legislation on the federal, state and local levels.
“Two summers ago, they did a project on gig workers,” Narro said. “We train students on how to survey workers. They interviewed gig drivers. They collected data and analyzed it, and the information was used by community activists.
“[In that way], the activists become scholars.”
Shannon Speed combines many of the attributes of scholars and activists. Speed is a professor of gender studies and anthropology at UCLA and director of the American Indian Studies Center. She also is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma.
The center brings together indigenous American Indian students with faculty, staff, alumni and members of the indigenous community. Its goal is to address American Indian issues and support native communities. It also acts as a bridge between the academy and indigenous peoples locally, nationally and internationally.
One of Speed’s accomplishments has been to lead a successful effort to have Los Angeles adopt Indigenous People’s Day, the largest city to do so. As director of the Community Engagement Center at the University of Texas in Austin, she was one of a corps of volunteers who inspected detention centers.
“We would talk [to immigrants] about how things were, what their needs were, how they came to be there,” she said. “Almost all had been kidnapped for ransom.” Now, Speed said, they had no idea when — or whether — they might be released from detention.
She collected some of their stories in a book, Incarcerated Stories: Indigenous Women Migrants and Violence in the Settler-Capitalist State. The subtitle reflects Speed’s thesis: that European settlers imposed a violent culture on Indians living throughout the length and breadth of South and North America, a violence that continues in the treatment of the indigenous people Speed grew up with and whom she and her students met every day.
“What the stories of indigenous women migrants make evident, above all else,” Speed wrote, “is their strength and resilience as they seek to free themselves of the oppression and violence that mark their lives.”
These are the lessons, learned in migrant communities, that students and their academic and activist mentors will take with them as the United States meets its ongoing challenge of immigration, with its newest confrontation: this one between those who approve of Afghan resettlement and those who do not.
There is work left to do: Even as Americans have voiced their sympathy for Afghans who helped U.S. soldiers fight the 20-year war in Afghanistan, the Post-ABC News poll shows that 27% of Americans oppose resettling Afghans here.
IN TOPICS: BIDEN CIVIL RIGHTS FAMILIES IMMIGRATION SANCTUARY TRUMP
TAGGED:IMMIGRATION, PUBLIC POLICY, UCLA
Bill Boyarsky
Veteran American Journalist & Author
PHOTO: UCLA
BILL BOYARSKY
Boyarsky is a veteran journalist and author. He was with the L.A. Times for 31 years, serving as city editor, city county bureau chief, political reporter and columnist. He is the author of several books, including: “Inventing LA, The Chandlers and Their Times.”
Republished with author’s permission.
***************************
Thanks, Bill, for forwarding this great and timely article!😎👍
Courtside recently has highlighted the extraordinary efforts of other All-Star 🌟 Immigration Clinics at Wisconsin, Cornell, and George Washington.
These are just a few of the many law schools across our nation that have answered the call for due process and human dignity for all migrants in America!
I’ve made the point many times that Professor Eagly and other leaders of the NDPA like her are the folks who rightfully should be on the BIA, the Immigration Judiciary, and in the key “sub-cabinet” policy positions at DOJ & DHS. These are critical jobs that generally do not require the delays and inefficiencies associated with Presidential appointments.
I’m thankful for Professor Eagly, her students, and all of the other extraordinary members of the NDPA and the Round Table for courageously and steadfastly standing tall every day for due process for all persons in the U.S., regardless of race, creed, gender, or status! Also, as I always tell my students, I’m personally thankful: 1) that I woke up this morning; and 2) that I’m not a refugee!
Additionally, my condolences ☹️ to UCLA “Bruin Nation” 🐻 for the drubbing their (previously) #2 Men’s hoopsters took at the hands of #1 Gonzaga Tuesday night!🏀
On page 17, the White House report acknowledges that existing legal instruments for addressing displacement caused by climate change are limited. Encouragingly, the report advises that “the United States should endeavor to maximize their application, as appropriate” to such displaced individuals.
The report next cites both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol and their application to climate-induced displacement, referencing recent UNHCR guidance on the topic. The report then offers three examples in which climate change issues might arise in the asylum context.
First, the report recognizes that where “a government withholds or denies relief from the impacts of climate change to specific individuals who share a protected characteristic in a manner and to a degree amounting to persecution, such individuals may be eligible for refugee status.”
Secondly, the report acknowledges that “adverse impacts of climate change may affect whether an individual has a viable relocation alternative within their country or territory.” This language relates to the regulatory requirement that in order to have a well-founded fear of persecution, an asylum applicant could not avoid persecution by relocating within their country of nationality “if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.”1
The applicable regulations instruct that:
adjudicators should consider, but are not limited to considering, whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties. Those factors may, or may not, be relevant, depending on all the circumstances of the case, and are not necessarily determinative of whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.2
While the regulatory language is broad and non-exhaustive, the specific mention of climate change factors in the White House report is most welcome, as such circumstances might not otherwise jump out at immigration judges and asylum officers as being relevant to the relocation inquiry.
Thirdly, the White House report states that “[c]limate activists, or environmental defenders, persecuted for speaking out against government inaction on climate change may also have a plausible claim to refugee status.”
Although not specifically cited in the White House report, UNHCR issued guidance on the topic in October 2020.3 Practitioners should file both the White House report and the UNHCR guidance with EOIR and DHS in appropriate cases, as the latter clearly served as an influence for the former, and provides greater detail in its guidance.4 For instance, in discussing how climate change factors can influence internal relocation options, the UNHCR document at paragraph 12 makes clear that the “slow-onset effects of climate change, for example environmental degradation, desertification or sea level rise, initially affecting only parts of a country, may progressively affect other parts, making relocation neither relevant nor reasonable.” This detail not included in the White House report is important; it clarifies that the test for whether relocation is reasonable requires a long view, as opposed to limiting the inquiry to existing conditions, and specifically flags forms of climate change that might otherwise escape an adjudicator’s notice.
Also, in paragraph 10, the UNHCR document’s take on the White House report’s third example is somewhat broader, stating that “[a] well-founded fear of being persecuted may also arise for environmental defenders, activists or journalists, who are targeted for defending, conserving and reporting on ecosystems and resources.”5 UNHCR’s inclusion of journalists as potential targets, and its listing of “defending, conserving, and reporting” as activities which a state might lump into the category of “speaking out” and use as a basis for persecution, should be brought to the attention of adjudicators.
Given how early we are in the process of considering climate change issues in the asylum context, the above-cited language in the White House report is important, as it provides legitimacy to theories still unfamiliar to the ears of those adjudicating, reviewing, and litigating asylum claims. It is hoped that EOIR and DHS will immediately familiarize its employees who are involved in asylum adjudication with the report. And as EOIR and DHS consider next steps in developing guidance and training, it is hoped that they will consider a collaborative approach, including in the discussion those outside of government who have already given the topic a great deal of thought.6
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
8 CFR 208.13(b)(2)(ii).
Id.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Legal considerations regarding claims for international protection made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters, 1 October 2020, https://www.refworld.org/docid/5f75f2734.html, at para. 12.
Although UNHCR’s views on interpreting the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol are not binding on the U.S. Immigration Courts, they have been found by the BIA to be “useful tools in construing our obligations under the Protocol.” Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985). See also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 438-39 (1987).
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
The climate crisis could cause mass displacement as land is left uninhabitable – nations have to work together to plan for this
Thu 11 Nov 2021 03.00 EST
Last modified on Thu 11 Nov 2021 03.02 EST
As scientists wrestle to predict the true impact and legacy of Cop26, one speech, given at a rally organised by Global Justice Now, insisted upon a perspective not data-driven but moral. Lumumba Di-Aping, a South Sudanese diplomat and former chief negotiator for the G77, said: “The first resolution that should be agreed in Glasgow is for annex I polluters to grant the citizens of small island developing states the right to immigration.”
It was a tactful way of putting it: annex I nations are those with special financial responsibilities in tackling the climate crisis. They have these special responsibilities because their early industrialisation created so much of the carbon burden. A more pugilistic diplomat might have said “the people who created this disaster have to offer sanctuary to those displaced by it”, but then, he wouldn’t be a diplomat.
Di-Aping went on to note article 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” “Small island states,” he concluded, “should not be drowned alive like Zealandia.”
. . . .
As old debates around the climate crisis and whether or not it is anthropogenic give way to consensus, new ambiguities and uncertainties are constructed around refugees: can they really be called the victims of environmental degradation? We will grapple with any other explanation – they’re actually economic migrants, or they’re the victims of civil strife, or they fell foul of a dictatorship, the one-bad-man theory of geopolitics – rather than trace these proximal causes back to their roots. Most political efforts, currently, are geared towards building a positive picture of a sustainable future; the alternative is despair or denial, neither of which are generative forces for change. A coherent, practical plan detailing the probable scale of displacement and figuring out a just distribution of the climate diaspora will look radical and unsettling.
One group is extremely comfortable on that territory, however: the far right. Steve Bannon sent a chill down the spine in 2015 when he talked about a “Camp of the Saints-type invasion into … Europe”. He made the reference again and again, until finally onlookers were forced to read the source: Jean Raspail’s racist novel of 1973, which one contemporary reviewer called “a major event … in much the same sense that Mein Kampf was a major event”. The title comes from a passage in the Book of Revelation about the coming apocalypse – civilisation collapses when the hordes arrive from the four corners of the Earth to “surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city” – and Raspail took up the idea; it was inevitable, he said, that “numberless disinherited people of the south would set sail one day for this opulent shore”.
Through Bannon and others, this idea has replicated, mutated and engulfed others, to become the “great replacement theory” of white supremacists, which Paul Mason describes in his recent book How to Stop Fascism as the toxic political view that “immigration constitutes a ‘genocide’ of the white race”. Feminists help it along by depressing the birth-rate, and cultural Marxists bring the mood music, by supporting both migrants and feminists.
Other far-right movements are sucked into the vortex of this wild but coherent theory, and yet more are spawned or shaped by it: the cosmic right (embodied in Jake Angeli, the QAnon figure in the animal-skin cap who stormed the Capitol in January, then went on hunger strike in prison because the food wasn’t organic), or the eco-minded white supremacists who make this explicit – you can be a humanitarian or an environmentalist. Choose one.
As fanciful and irrational as many far-right arguments are, they have a rat-like cunning. They find these spaces that are untenanted by mainstream debate – there will be climate refugees and they must be accommodated – and they run riot in them. Nations who ignore Lumumba Di-Aping aren’t doing anything to avert the consequences he describes: their silence merely creates an open goal for the professed enemies of a peaceful and prosperous future.
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
*********
Read Zoe’s complete article at the link.
Usually White House Reports and other quasi-academic “White Papers” produced at public expense are accompanied by major press releases and momentary hoopla. Then, they are rapidly consigned to the “Dustbin of History.”
They are widely ignored by politicos and bureaucrats who all too often are pursuing policies with little or no empirical basis, but designed to appease or “fire up” some voting block or to further the institutional self-preservation upon which bureaucracies thrive, expand, and prosper, even at the expense of the well-being of the governed!
This report, however, is one that deserves to be the basis for policy action! Too bad it isn’t!
Obviously, an Administration that failed to restore existing refugee and asylum systems, continues to subject migrants to due process denying “star chambers,” thinks “die in place” is an acceptable and effective refugee policy, and wrongly views asylum as a “policy option” rather than a well-established legal and human right, is playing right into the hands of Bannon, Miller, and their 21st Century nihilist movement! It’s also an Administration that didn’t learn much from World War II and the Cold War.
And, on future inevitable and predictable forced migrations, the world isn’t going to get much leadership from a rich nation that can’t even deal fairly, generously, and efficiently with today’s largely predictable, potentially very manageable, refugee situations. Many are situations that our nation either created or played a significant role in creating. See, e.g., environmental migration.
There is actually “room at the inn” for everyone and creative ways for nations to work together to resettle refugees of all types while prospering and working together for the benefit of humanity. Sure, they contradict the nationalist myths upon which many past and current refugee and migration restrictions are based.
Clearly, the realistic, constructive, humane solutions necessary for survival aren’t going come from the racist far right! And, currently the Biden Administration’s failure to stand up for the legal, moral, and human rights of asylum seekers and other referees isn’t doing the job either! Constructive, democratic, moral leadership and courage, oh where, oh where, have you gone?
We can’t deport, imprison, prosecute, wall, threaten, mythologize, abuse, and hate our way out of forced migration situations. It’s going to take dynamic, courageous folks who can get beyond past failures and lead the way to a better future for humanity!
ICE: The ICE Appointment Scheduler is an appointment scheduling and management tool developed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to help manage the scheduling of individual and family unit (FAMU) noncitizens required to appear before ICE for further immigration case processing. Only noncitizens apprehended and released by U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) via Prosecutorial Discretion (PD) can schedule appointments on the website at this time. There is a video tutorial link on the right side of the website.
EOIR has changed the automated case information website. Even though it looks like you have to type the A# one digit at a time, the web form still allows you to copy and paste a complete A# into the form, even with hyphens. Depending on the device you are using to view the website, you may need to scroll down to view the English-Spanish toggle. The web address also has changed, although the old address automatically redirects you for the time being.
USCIS: USCIS mistakenly rejected certain applications for employment authorization (Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization) from petitioners for U nonimmigrant status that were filed without a fee (or request for fee waiver) from June 14 through Sept. 29, 2021.
WaPo: The reconciliation bill would create the largest mass-legalization program for undocumented immigrants in U.S. history, but it falls well short of a path to U.S. citizenship. Roughly 7 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants would be eligible to apply for work permits, permission to travel abroad, and benefits like state driver’s licenses, a major step for immigrants from Mexico, Central America and other lands who remain vulnerable to being deported. See also House Sends Biden’s $1.75T Budget Plan To Senate.
CNN: The Department of Homeland Security has stopped the practice of releasing migrants in the United States only with paperwork that tells them to report to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told senators Tuesday.
Law360: Millions of people living in the U.S. illegally face barriers to accessing affordable health care due to their immigration status, but the immigration provisions of a budget bill making its way through Congress could remove some of those obstacles.
Law360: U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas blasted the previous administration’s zero tolerance immigration policy and told senators at a contentious hearing Tuesday that possible settlement payments to separated families would not necessarily incentivize future migration.
Documented: In October 2021, all remaining detained immigrants from the Hudson County Jail, and just last week from the Bergen County Jail, were either transferred to other facilities, released or deported. Most were moved from New Jersey jails to two facilities in New York State: the Orange County Correctional Facility in Goshen and the Buffalo Service Processing Center in Batavia, near Buffalo.
Vox: At the current pace, the US won’t come within striking distance of the 125,000 cap by the end of the fiscal year — and, given the State Department’s new refugee guidance, it’s unlikely that refugee agencies will be able to expand capacity to ramp up that pace soon.
Business Insider: The current dearth of workers is mirrored by the number of working-age adults who would have lived in the United States if pre-Trump immigration trends persisted, according to 2020 US Census data.
AIC: The Court’s decisions on these cases will impact access to: Federal court review over certain immigration judge decisions.
Bond hearings for certain noncitizens who have spent months in detention. Personal liability and damages for federal officers’ unconstitutional actions. The Court also will consider whether states can defend immigration policies that the federal government will no longer defend.
BIA: The respondent’s conviction for carjacking under section 215(a) of the California Penal Code is categorically a conviction for an aggravated felony crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2018).
Law360: The First Circuit gave a Cape Verdean man a second shot at proving his conviction for possessing oxycodone doesn’t bar him from accessing deportation relief, ordering an immigration authority to weigh whether the decades-old precedent it applied is outdated.
AILA: The court found that the BIA erred by refusing to consider the Sri Lankan petitioner’s country-conditions evidence in its likelihood-of-torture assessment with regard to his Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, as required by 8 CFR §1208.16(c)(3). (Arulnanthy v. Garland, 11/8/21)
Law360: A legal advocacy group that seeks to restrict immigration to the U.S. urged the full Fifth Circuit on Monday to reverse a panel decision that kept in place the Biden administration’s policy curbing immigration enforcement operations.
AILA: The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner’s challenge to his expedited removal proceedings, concluding that a recent Supreme Court decision abrogated any colorable constitutional claim exception to INA §242(a)(2)(A). (Guerrier v. Garland, 8/16/21, amended 11/9/21)
AILA: Dismissing the petition for review of an order reinstating petitioner’s removal order, the court held that the petitioner had failed to establish a gross miscarriage of justice that would permit it to entertain a collateral attack on the underlying order. (Lopez Vazquez v. Garland, 11/12/21)
Law360: The Ninth Circuit dismissed a Mexican man’s deportation appeal, finding that his past state conviction for animal cruelty encompassed both a guilty mental state and reprehensible actions, qualifying him for removal, despite his claim that he injured the animal accidentally.
Law360: A divided Ninth Circuit panel refused to reopen a convicted burglar’s deportation case following a Supreme Court decision disqualifying his removal, with two judges locking horns over whether the migrant showed enough commitment to fighting for his rights in the interim.
Law360: The Eleventh Circuit breathed life into a Sri Lankan man’s bid for deportation protections on Thursday, finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals ignored evidence and misstated facts on the record when it denied him relief.
Law360: A Texas federal judge refused to expedite the federal government’s reimplementation of a Trump-era program requiring asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico, saying the government has clearly documented its efforts to reinstate the program formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols.
Law360: Arizona, Montana and Ohio sued the Biden administration Thursday over guidance issued to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that aims to narrow the agency’s enforcement operations, marking the second such suit brought by states challenging the policies.
AILA: DOJ provided a status update on the settlement negotiations, which states that on 11/11/21, DOJ made a counteroffer to publish BIA decisions, subject to certain limitations, on a prospective basis and going back approximately five years. (NYLAG v. BIA, 11/17/21)
Law360: The sheriff of Sacramento County has a “shadow” system for transferring inmates to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, violating California’s restrictions on local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities, according to a lawsuit announced Tuesday.
AILA: The Biden administration filed compliance reports after a district court ordered the administration to submit information on key pieces of data and steps it was taking toward implementation of MPP.
AILA: USCIS clarified that if a naturalization applicant requests oath modification but does not provide oral testimony or evidence, officers should issue a Request for Evidence. Guidance effective 11/19/21, comments due by 12/20/21.
Law360: The Biden administration on Tuesday barred Nicaraguan government officials from entering the U.S. over President Daniel Ortega’s continued assault on democratic processes, civil society and human rights, nine days after elections the White House called a “pantomime.”
Law360: The Biden administration on Thursday lifted Obama-era restrictions on Burundi government officials who that administration held responsible for the human rights abuses that plagued the African country during a former president’s controversial third term.
AILA: DHS provided an update on the horse patrol activity in Del Rio, Texas on September 19, 2021. DHS OIG declined to investigate and referred to CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility. Once an investigation is completed, CBP management will determine whether disciplinary action is appropriate.
Gillian Graham reports for the Portland Press Herald:
During the five years Betsy Paz-Gyimesi has been working as an interpreter and engagement specialist for Spanish-speaking families in Portland schools, she has seen the same scene play out many times.
When they go for help to a food pantry, they’re offered food they will not eat. Some are afraid of canned foods because they believe they are dangerous. Others have cultural or religious needs that aren’t met by the American items on the pantry shelves.
Most of the families Paz-Gyimesi works with come from Central America, and they don’t all qualify for benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and other similar programs. Because there are few options for them at the food pantry, their children often rely heavily on schools for meals, Paz-Gyimesi said.
But that will begin to change next month as Wayside Food Programs in Portland launches a pilot program to better address food insecurity in immigrant communities by providing food packs customized to the needs and preferences of those receiving emergency assistance.
Working with leaders of immigrant communities, Wayside developed lists of basic pantry items they commonly use and a guide to their specific food preferences that can be used by other food programs, said Mary Zwolinski, Wayside’s executive director.
“Our hope is that it helps with the issue of food equity,” she said.
The pandemic, which has disproportionately impacted Maine’s racial and ethnic minorities, laid bare that the state’s existing emergency food structure was not adequately serving all of their needs. Some of the people most vulnerable to hunger didn’t access existing food programs. When they did, many did not find food – Jasmine rice, dried fish, pork-free products – that fit their cultural, religious and dietary restrictions and preferences.
. . . .
******************************
Nice effort! Maine has been a bastion of community cooperation, creative encouragement of, and positive interaction with immigrant communities! Seems like a good model that can be replicated throughout America. Read the full article at the link!
From the dissent by U.S. District Judge Edward R.Korman, EDNY, sitting by designation:
Goulart is not a sympathetic character. I can understand the desire to remove convicted burglars from this country. Indeed, Judge VanDyke questions why I have bothered to “champion” the cause of a convicted burglar. The answer should be obvious. The judicial oath, which was adopted in the Judiciary Act of 1789, requires us to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” See 1 Stat. 73, 76 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 453). We take such an oath, which derives from biblical teachings, see Deuteronomy 1:17, so as not to be blinded by our like or dislike of the parties. We are not called to decide whether Goulart is a good person, but rather whether a person who has been banished from the United States without legal justification should be permitted to seek to return. The Supreme Court has held that the precise statute under which Goulart was deported violates the Constitution. Principles of law and equity require that he be permitted to move for reconsideration in this case. I respectfully dissent.
***********************
Wow! Three opinions on a three-judge panel! Been there, done that! Reminds me of my long gone days on the “Schmidt BIA” when we all took our jobs seriously, even if it often didn’t result in “fake unanimity” (the watchword of today’s dysfunctional BIA).
For those who like to apply “ideological analysis” to Article III decisions, this one doesn’t “fit the mold:”
Judge Richard A. Paez (“majority” opinion) is a Clinton appointee.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke (concurring opinion) is a Trump appointee.
Judge Edward R. Korman (dissenting opinion) is a Reagan appointee.
That being said, the majority’s rationale that a deported respondent should have been a “legal clairvoyant,” predicting the eventual Supreme Court decision finding the statute under which he was convicted unconstitutional, is a piece of absurdist legal sophistry. Wonder what the result might have been if the panel majority didn’t look at him as an “alien bank robber,” not deserving of fair treatment or legal rights? Reminds me of what my former “boss” the late “Iron Mike” Inman used to yell at me during heated arguments at the “Legacy INS OGC:” “What did they teach you at that law school!”
Please thank them all on my behalf. I’m extremely grateful for what each of them did on my case.” This is what our client, E-K- said upon receiving well wishes from several of his former student-attorneys after he was sworn in as a U.S. citizen yesterday. Please see the attached photo of E-K- with Prof. Vera after his oath ceremony. E-K- authorized our use of his picture.
E-K- became a Clinic client in 2009 after an unsuccessful interview at the Arlington Asylum Office. In February 2010, E-K-, a native of Cameroon, had his first Individual Calendar Hearing based on his political opinion and imputed political opinion following his involvement in a sit-in and his presence during a protest. DHS appealed the initial grant of asylum and on remand the Board of Immigration Appeals instructed the Immigration Judge to pay attention to credibility. However, the Immigration Clinic and E-K- prevailed again in 2013 and the asylum grant was finalized! The Clinic then assisted E-K- with his green card application, naturalization application, and naturalization interview. Next up: his wife’s green card application!
Please join me in congratulating Alexa Glock, Anca Grigore, Rebekah Niblock, Victoria Braga, Alex North, Jonathan Bialosky, and Paulina Vera, who all worked on the case.
Real life success stories from real life humans represented by well-trained law students in a “Surreal Immigration Court System!”
Brings to mind the disgraceful incident when former Trump-Era EOIR Director James McHenry created a bogus “Fact Sheet” with a ludicrous narrative in a dishonest attempt to show that lawyers and knowing individual rights in Immigration Court were irrelevant to success.
McHenry’s lies, myths, and intentional distortions were universally panned by immigration experts as reported by Courtside at the time.
Under Judge Garland, the DOJ claims to recognize and promote representation in Immigration Court. But, leaving aside the mushy rhetoric, their actions say otherwise:
“Dedicated Dockets” and sloppy mail-out notices established without consultation with the private bar;
Proposed asylum regulations almost universally opposed by the private bar;
Failure to slash the overwhelming, due process inhibiting, 1.5 million case backlog;
Continued “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” fueled by changing and misplaced administrative “priorities”that totally ignore the needs of the pro bono bar;
Continuing support for “imbedded Immigration Courts and TV Courts” established in or near DHS Detention Centers located in obscure places where attorneys are not easily obtainable;
Overly restrictive and widely inconsistent bond determinations in Immigration Court that inhibit effective representation;
Ridiculous backlog of Recognition and Accreditation applications that impedes new opportunities for well-qualified pro bono representatives in Immigration Court (See, e.g., VIISTA Program, Villanova Law);
Failure to “swap out” a legally substandardly performing BIA and some Immigration Judges for “real, well-qualified Judges with immigration and due process expertise;”
Long-delayed e-filing, making pro bono representation more difficultand less efficient;
Overall lack of dynamic court management and appropriate professional dialogue with the private bar;
Substandard EOIR “judicial training” that puts undue burden on private attorneys, particularly those operatingpro bono;
Lack of positive precedents, particularly on asylum, that would help parties and judges move many “grantable” asylum cases through Immigration Courts fairly, efficiently, and consistently with due process and “best practices;”
Continuing lawless use of Title 42 @ Southern Border causing diversion of legal resources that could otherwise be channeled into representation!
In other words, the DOJ under Garland has failed to deliver on the promise of restoring the rule of law and promoting representation in Immigration Court. Seems like nothing short of Article I will “get the job done!”
It’s painfully obvious that the politicos running the dysfunctional Immigration Courts @ DOJ have never actually had to practice before them, particularly pro bono! So, they just go on repeating many of the uninformed mistakes of their predecessors!
“The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that Janito DeCarvalho’s conviction for possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32A(a), constitutes a “particularly serious crime” that makes him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The BIA also denied DeCarvalho’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). DeCarvalho petitions for review of the BIA’s decisions, principally arguing that the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Y-L- unlawfully presumes that all aggravated felonies involving trafficking in controlled substances are particularly serious crimes. See 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274–75 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 2002). We deny his petition for review insofar as he seeks CAT relief. We grant the petition in part, however, because the immigration judge (IJ) informed DeCarvalho, who was proceeding pro se, that he was eligible for potential relief only under the CAT. In so doing, the IJ treated DeCarvalho’s conviction for drug trafficking as if it were a per se bar to withholding of removal, a position that the government now disavows on appeal. We remand to the agency with instructions to give DeCarvalho a new hearing to determine whether he is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“Pathmanathan Jathursan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). The BIA found no clear error in the immigration judge’s findings that Jathursan failed to establish (1) past persecution on account of a protected ground, (2) a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, or (3) that he would more likely than not be tortured in the event he returned to Sri Lanka. Following oral argument, we grant Jathursan’s petition for review in part, vacate the BIA’s order in part, and remand to the BIA for further consideration of his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims based on his fear of future persecution as a Tamil failed asylum seeker. We also vacate and remand on the BIA’s denial of relief under CAT.”
What’s the “worst of all worlds?” Let’s try a ”holdover BIA” still channeling Trump/Miller biased nativist restrictionism combined with a Dem AG with infinite tolerance for substandard judging, an anti-immigrant culture, and bad decision making that disproportionately adversely affects people of color! 😎 Add that to an out of control, largely self-created, jaw-dropping 1.5 million case backlog and you get a formula for national disaster!
These “TRAC Lowlights” show a totally unacceptable and inept performance by the DOJ and Judge Garland that should have every American who believes in due process, equal justice, and “good government” outraged and demanding a change at DOJ! https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/?category=eoir
Highlights from data updated today on immigrants facing deportation in court include the following:
Immigration Courts recorded receiving 49,817 new cases so far in FY 2022 as of October 2021. This compares with 21,154 cases that the court completed during this period.
According to court records, only 0.68% of FY 2022 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.
At the end of October 2021, 1,486,495 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.
Los Angeles County, CA, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of October 2021).
So far this fiscal year (through October 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 24.7% of completed cases, totaling 5,232 deportation orders.
So far in FY 2022 (through October 2021), immigrants from Guatemala top list of nationalities with the largest number ordered deported.
Only 20.7% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.
Immigration judges have held 2,011 bond hearings so far in FY 2022 (through October 2021). Of these 714 were granted bond.
You don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see how an undisciplined system run by clueless politicos and bureaucrats (rather than judges and experts) that takes in more cases than it can decide, picks on unrepresented individuals, deports large numbers of Guatemalans to a country that is clearly in crisis, and grants bond to only 1/3 of the custody cases even with a minuscule percentage of so-called “criminal immigrants” in proceedings is failing, miserably, every day.
What’s even worse, is that there is NO credible plan to fix this! NONE! Throwing more bodies into the maelstrom, poorly thought out proposed asylum regulations, dedicated dockets, and misuse of Title 42 to block proper access to those seeking asylum and other forms of legal protection won’t do the trick. No qualified expert would propose any of the foregoing as the solution to fairly and legally reducing backlogs. That tells us all we need to. know about the qualifications of the folks “pulling the strings” on immigration in the Biden Administration.
The message: The GOP hates immigrants, and the Dems disrespect them!
We’ll see whether the Biden Administration’s contemptuous treatment of immigrants, their families, communities, and supporters, particularly their failure to “clean up, clean out, and reform” their wholly owned “courts” at EOIR, proves to be a great political strategy. Frankly, I can’t see how dumping on a key group of supporters from the last successful election proves to be a “winner” in 2022 or 2024!
The extraordinary quality of the work done by the NDPA all-stars 🌟highlighted above by Dan speaks for itself, as does the unacceptably poor quality of the legal work done by EOIR and a BIA that is bogusly presenting itself as “experts.” Obviously, as has been clear from the beginning of the Biden Administration, the wrong people are on the BIA and Team Garland has disgracefully failed to do the serious and gutsy “recruitment and replacement” necessary to fix this dysfunctional EOIR system and save lives!
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color
The absolute disaster for our legal system and the reprehensible result of Garland & Co’s failure to “pull the plug” on the “Miller Lite BIA” and to make wholesale merit-based positive changes in the recruitment, selection, and composition of the Immigration Judiciary will go down as a legacy that not only will reflect ill on Garland and his lieutenants, but will also be a major factor promoting the failure of American democracy.
You can tell a lot about the values of a society by the way it treats the most vulnerable among it. Right now, sadly, that’s “nothing to write home about!”🤮
CBS: The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plan, dubbed “Operation Horizon,” is designed to place tens of thousands of migrants who received ad hoc processing near the southern border into deportation proceedings. The agency will be sending migrants “notices to appear,” as well as other documents.
Hoppock: In a memorandum dated November 8, 2021, the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, David Neal, has rescinded the agency’s formal COVID-19 guidance, leaving a number of questions unanswered on how the courts will handle COVID-19 in the coming days and months.
NYT Editorial Board: The Biden administration says that border patrol agents are simply following orders from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that were put in place to keep the country safe from Covid-19. But there is little doubt that the administration has used the policy as a stopgap measure to quickly remove migrants who are gathering at the southern border in large numbers, pushed by the economic fallout from Covid in South and Central America and pulled by the rumors of lenient treatment under a more welcoming American president, among other factors. See also Trump CDC official: No ‘public health reason’ for border closure, Title 42.
WaPo: CBP figures show about 1,000 Haitians were taken into custody along the Mexico border last month, down from 17,638 in September, when huge crowds waded across the Rio Grande to a makeshift camp in Del Rio, Tex., creating a humanitarian and political crisis for the Biden administration.
AP: Roughly 35 of the country’s more than 530 immigration judges are assigned to the new docket, according to the most recent data provided by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees federal immigration courts. Many juggle the duties on top of their normal caseloads. While it’s still early, the effort has made progress: As of mid-September, it was handling nearly 16,000 cases, and more than 100 had received at least an initial decision, according to the agency.
Reuters: Inside the camp, which is fenced in and controlled by police, Reuters spoke to over 20 migrant children, four of whom had documents showing they were born in the United States.
Reuters: Mexico is considering setting tougher entry requirements for Venezuelans, partly in response to U.S. requests, after a sharp rise in border arrests of Venezuelans fleeing their homeland, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Law360: Workers in a half dozen countries, including Haiti, will be newly eligible to come to the United States on temporary, employment-based visas next year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday.
Lexis: He asserts that first-degree robbery under section 569.020(1) (now section 570.023) of the Mo. Rev. Stat. is substantially similar to the qualifying crime of felonious assault… the Petitioner has met his burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the offenses are substantially similar.
AILA: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s claim that the BIA erred by rejecting his proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Brazilian landowners,” finding that the petitioner had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Gomes v. Garland, 11/3/21)
AILA: The court upheld the denial of asylum to the petitioner, holding that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determination because inconsistencies in petitioner’s testimony were cumulatively persuasive of a lack of credibility. (Mashilingi v. Garland, 11/2/21)
AILA: The court concluded that the definition of crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) does not violate the U.S. Constitution, and that Virginia’s felony eluding statute, Va. Code §46.2-817(B), constitutes a CIMT. (Canales Granados v. Garland, 11/4/21)
Law360: The Ninth Circuit has upheld a 1996 deportation order against a Mexican man even though his guilty plea for possessing cocaine was vacated, saying the conviction that the order was based on was legally valid when it was issued.
AILA: The court held that the stop-time rule—which sets out the circumstances under which a period of continuous physical presence is deemed to end for cancellation of removal—is not triggered by a final order of removal. (Quebrado Cantor v. Garland, 11/3/21)
AILA: Applying a fact-based inquiry, the court held that the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance of the petitioner’s merits hearing deprived him of his right to counsel, and thus granted the petition for review. (Usubakunov v. Garland, 11/1/21)
AILA: Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court challenging USCIS’s rescission of a 30-year policy that allowed TPS holders to seek lawful permanent resident (LPR) status upon return from travel abroad. (Gomez, et al. v. Jaddou, et al., 11/8/21)
AILA: Five asylum seekers filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging USCIS’s allegedly unlawful delay in adjudicating applications to renew employment authorization documents (EADs) for asylum seekers. (Tony N. v. USCIS, 11/10/21)
AILA: AILA and litigation partners Wasden Banias and Steven Brown celebrate the historic settlement with DHS in Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, which provides structural changes for nonimmigrant H-4 and L-2 spouses suffering from long-delayed processing times for EAD applications.
AILA: EOIR announced that eRegistration for ECAS will be fully virtual. Starting November 15, two-phase eRegistration is required to validate a registrant’s identity, but practitioners no longer have to appear in-person to show photo ID. The memo lists registration times and contact information.
AILA: EOIR released guidance stating that its website will be the principal method of communication with the public regarding updates to EOIR’s protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic and will no longer issue these formal documents. Guidance is effective 11/8/21.
AILA: USCIS provided policy guidance stating that current or former members of the U.S. armed forces who serve honorably during specifically designated periods of hostilities may be eligible to naturalize. Guidance is effective 11/12/21, comments are due by 12/31/21.
AILA: ICE ERO updated its COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements (PRR) to set forth expectations and to assist detention facility operators in sustaining detention operations during the pandemic. The PRR sets mandatory requirements and best practices for all detention facilities housing ICE detainees.
AILA: DOS stated they can process visa applications for individuals physically present in Brazil, China, India, Iran, Ireland, the Schengen Area, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Applicants who were refused should request reconsideration, but should not expect readily available visa appointments.
AILA: DHS announced that it will exempt certain filing fees for Afghan nationals who were paroled into the United States for humanitarian reasons on or after July 30, 2021. They will also streamline processing requests for work authorization, Green Cards, and associated services.
AILA: USCIS stated that Afghan nationals with an approved Form I-360 who are employed by the U.S. government or ISAF in Afghanistan and plan to file Form I-485 must be physically present in the United States and provide a U.S. address on Form I-485. Filing fees for Form I-485 may be waived.
The inadequacy of mailed NTAs has been well-established. 80,000 notices mailed to addresses gathered in haste and confusion by an agency renowned for sloppy work! What could possibly go wrong?
Unanswered Questions:
How many older cases that might otherwise have been completed were “reshuffled” to achieve 100 “Expedited Docket” completions?
Jobs are more plentiful and increasingly well-paying, but asylum seekers can’t work for at least six months, sometimes longer – a willing and able workforce sidelined. They also can’t qualify right away for federal assistance programs like food stamps.
Every so often, staff members hear rumblings from someone in the community who suggests that asylum seekers are being helped at the expense of others, which isn’t true.
“There isn’t anything offered to them that isn’t offered to anyone else who walks through our door,” Guthrie said. “If someone presents, we try to help them.”
. . . .
*******************
With chronic labor shortages, Maine has benefitted greatly from doing the right thing, setting a great, positive example that could and should be a model for other states. Helping everyone to realize their ambitions and reach their full human potential is the way forward!
