"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.
2023 01 02 — Bouarfa v. Sec. — IJs Amicus Brief
Bouarfa – Petition for Certiorari
*******************************
Many thanks to Richard W. Mark, Esquire, and his team at Gibson Dunn for their pro bono representation on our brief!
PWS
01-05-24
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/08/20-71977.pdf
“Mario Fonseca-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen. Fonseca-Fonseca sought to reopen his immigration proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. The BIA found that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not submit new evidence that would likely change the result in his case. The parties disagree on a threshold issue—whether the BIA applied the correct burden of proof. … Today, we clarify that prima facie eligibility for relief requires only a threshold showing of eligibility—a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on the merits if the motion to reopen were granted. As the BIA previously explained, a noncitizen “demonstrates prima facie eligibility for relief where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.” In re S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1308 (B.I.A. 2000) (en banc). Because the BIA applied the wrong standard in denying Fonseca-Fonseca’s motion to reopen, we remand to the agency to adjudicate his motions under the proper standard.”
[Hats off to Andrew J. S. Newcomb and Elias Mendoza!]
****************************
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112709.pdf
“This appeal requires us to decide how to apply the categorical approach to a conspiracy crime—a question of first impression in our Circuit. The United States seeks to revoke Lisette Lopez’s naturalization on the ground that she committed a crime of moral turpitude within five years of applying for citizenship and willfully concealed or misrepresented during the application process the fact that she had committed a crime. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the government on the ground that Lopez had committed a crime of moral turpitude during the statutory period. Because the crime to which Lopez pleaded guilty—conspiring to launder money—did not categorically involve moral turpitude, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
[Hats way off to the indefatigable Matthew Hoppock! An audio recording of the oral argument is here.]
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/22/22-60336.0.pdf
“Mancia would like to have her removal proceedings reopened so that her request for suspension of deportation can be adjudicated according to the still-extant substantive NACARA standards. … She contends that nothing in NACARA limits the Board’s general discretionary power to reopen sua sponte a case in which it has rendered a decision. Indeed, that inherent discretion is codified. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). So, she reasons, even though the special and more petitioner-friendly reopening avenue of section 203(c) closed to her in 1998, there is no reason why she cannot ask the Board to grant reopening under its discretionary authority, subject to all the limits that otherwise apply to that authority. … We agree with Mancia. The Board’s reliance on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h) — requiring filing of section 203(c) reopening requests with the Immigration Court — is misplaced because that requirement only applies to “any motion to reopen filed pursuant to the special rules of section 309(g) of IIRIRA, as amended by section 203(c) of NACARA.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h)(1). Mancia’s motion to reopen is no such motion. And nothing in NACARA requires those seeking relief under its provisions to do so by filing a section 203(c) motion. The government points to no statute, rule, or precedent to the contrary. And we see no reason why NACARA should be read as implicitly divesting the Board of its discretion to sua sponte reopen a proceeding. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant Mancia’s petition by vacating the Board’s rejection of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to the Board’s sua sponte authority and remanding for further consideration of that motion consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to Margaret “Meg” Moran!]
****************************
Unnecessary mistakes such as this, including ones like USA v. Lopez, above, which carry over into naturalization and other areas, could largely be avoided if Garland heeded expert advice and appointed a BIA of all expert judges. That would be those with universally respected comprehensive knowledge of immigration and human rights, an unswerving commitment to due process, and a demonstrated focus on fair results — NOT the current “any reason to deny, let’s just go with the DHS flow” attitude that infects all too much of the BIA’s decision-making these days.
There is also some irresponsible performance going on at OIL where they are defending flawed results that expert advocates would or should know are unjust and in many cases just flat out wrong or misguided!
The above things are supposed to be “easy fixes” for Dem Administrations. Instead, the EOIR/DOJ continues to a large extent as it did under Trump — with serious adverse human, legal, and future consequences for American democracy.
If you can’t or won’t fix that which you control, what good are you? That’s the question that Dems should be asking about Garland’s indifferent performance on human rights, racial justice, and immigration — all inextricably related whether he and his lieutenants want to admit it or not!
PWS
08-09-23
CA11 on VAWA, “Extreme Cruelty,” Chevron: Ruiz v. Atty Gen.
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210445.pdf
“Esmelda Ruiz, a native and citizen of Peru, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is ineligible for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), a provision whose language was originally adopted as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and that outlines the conditions under which certain “battered spouse[s] or child[ren]” qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal. As relevant here, it requires a petitioning alien to show that she “has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” by her spouse or parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i). Ruiz contends that the Immigration Judge and the BIA made two errors in refusing her cancellation request. First, she maintains that, as a matter of law, they misinterpreted the statutory term “extreme cruelty” to require proof of physical—as distinguished from mental or emotional—abuse. And second, she asserts that, having misread the law, the IJ and the BIA wrongly concluded that she doesn’t qualify for discretionary relief. We agree with Ruiz that the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted § 1229b(b)(2) and thereby applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review and remand to the BIA for further consideration. … For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Ruiz—and hold— that the BIA misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The term “extreme cruelty” does not require a petitioning alien to prove that she suffered physical abuse in order to qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal; proof of mental or emotional abuse is sufficient to satisfy the “extreme cruelty” prong of § 1229b(b)(2)’s five-prong standard. We therefore GRANT the petition in part and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats way off to Anabella Trujillo! And listen to the oral argument here.]
—
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323@dkbib on TwitterFree Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com
Not only did the supposedly “expert” BIA get the standard completely wrong, but Garland’s OIL continued to throw up specious arguments defending the BIA’s abusive treatment of women!
When you start with “No,” and then “reason” backwards to get there, bad things happen. Frankly, the Biden Administration was elected to “clean house” 🧹 at EOIR and to bring systemic due process, expertise, best practices, and impartiality to our nation’s dysfunctional immigration tribunals — with literally millions of lives and the future of democracy at stake! Why haven’t they done it? How do they continue to get away with it?
PWS
05-20-23
CA11 on Credibility, Substantial Evidence, Cuba: Serra v. Atty. Gen.
“For decades, the authoritarian regime in Cuba has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island. Ignacio Balaez Serra, a Cuban immigrant seeking asylum in the United States, maintains he experienced this abuse first-hand after multiple arrests, imprisonments, and beatings by the Cuban police. Serra seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Serra’s application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) (together, “Application”). The IJ denied Serra’s Application, finding Serra’s testimony “not credible.” In reaching this adverse credibility determination, the IJ cited two inconsistencies between Serra’s hearing testimony and Application. The first purported inconsistency dealt with the timing of Serra’s passage of a kidney stone; specifically, whether he passed it on the day he was beaten by Cuban police or several days thereafter. The second pertained to the number of countries Serra passed through en route to the United States; he listed ten countries in his written Application but later testified that he traveled through “about 11 or 12.” The IJ also reached his adverse credibility determination based on Serra’s perceived non-responsiveness to certain questions. On appeal, the BIA rejected the IJ’s finding that Serra was non-responsive but affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the two inconsistencies alone. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude the record lacks substantial evidence that would allow us to affirm the adverse credibility determination. We therefore reverse and remand. … [T]he IJ perceived two instances of non-responsiveness and two discrepancies in the record, resulting in an adverse credibility determination. The BIA rejected the IJ’s findings of non-responsiveness. Thus, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination hinged only on two purported inconsistencies in the record. But upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it is clear these inconsistences are unsupported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence—and thus cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility determination. Therefore, we grant Serra’s petition. We further vacate the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s opinion and remand this case to the IJ to rule on Serra’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT in accordance with this opinion. In doing so, the IJ must ensure that all relevant factors are considered—and the totality of the circumstances ascertained—before reaching a conclusion as to credibility. PETITION GRANTED, VACATED and REMANDED.”
[Hats off to Marty High and Joshua Carpenter and Jonathan Morton for amici American Immigration Council and Immigration Justice Campaign!]
**************************
Super congrats to NDPA superstar litigators Marty High, Joshua Carpenter, and Jonathan Morton.
This respondent was a unrepresented before the IJ. Thus, we see another example of how EOIR routinely mistreats pro se litigants and why counsel is a due process necessity even in a very straightforward asylum case like this. Obviously, here, the IJ played the role of “co-counsel” to the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel. Yet, AG Garland has intentionally established “dedicated dockets” and bogus “adjudication timelines” that have been shown to reduce opportunities for representation and diminish the chances of success for asylum seekers.
To borrow a memorable phrase used by my late BIA colleague Appellate Judge Fred W. Vacca, “this pathetic attempt at an adjudication” by EOIR was actually defended before the Circuit by the DOJ’s OIL. The glaring problems with immigration and asylum adjudication at DOJ begin at EOIR, but by no means end there.
This case isn’t “rocket science,” nor is it legally or factually complicated. It’s a very straightforward asylum grant to somebody persecuted by Cuba, where, in the words of the 11th Circuit, “[f]or decades, the authoritarian regime . . . has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island!”
I also note the statutory provision on credibility that the IJ completely bolluxed here and the “any reason to deny” BIA then “rubber stamped” (in part, even while noting that some of the IJ’s analysis was wrong) was part of the REAL ID Act, passed in 2005. That’s 15 years before the the IJ hearing in this case! Heck, I used to give training classes for incoming EOIR JLCs where decisions very much like this IJ’s were used as “teaching examples” of how NOT TO APPLY Real ID! EOIR not only isn’t making “progress,” it’s actually stuck in reverse!
Having spent eight years as an Appellate Judge at the BIA and having reviewed thousands of records, I know that when an IJ goofs up one part of the analysis it’s often indicative of an overall careless, flawed analysis that should be viewed with considerable skepticism. Yet, here the IJ’s “clear error,” acknowledged by the BIA, in basically inventing “unresponsiveness” doesn’t appear to have inspired the BIA to critically examine the rest of the adverse credibility ruling below. On the contrary, it appears to have spurred the BIA to find “any other reason to deny” despite the indication that this was an inaccurate and unreliable analysis by an IJ having a bad day.
It also appears from the Circuit’s decision that there might have been interpretation issues before both the IJ and the Asylum Office. That makes the IJ’s “cherry picking” and “excessive focus on insignificant testimonial inconsistencies” particularly egregious.
The 11th Circuit decision here was written by U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II, SD FL, sitting by designation. Judge Ruiz is a Trump appointee. He was joined on the panel by Judge Jill Pryor (Obama) and Judge Charles R. Wilson (Clinton) of the 11th Circuit. Thus, apparently the abysmal performance of EOIR is one of the few things capable of uniting and creating “bipartisan agreement among Article III Judges!”
Perhaps Senator Gillibrand is right, and she will be able to obtain sufficient bipartisan support for her Article I Immigration Court bill, which would remove this system from the DOJ’s chronic mismanagement. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/17/⚖️🗽-teas-coffee- Because the current situation at EOIR, the continuing indifference to injustice, and its damage to human lives and the law is totally unacceptable!
Also, what about the legal and judicial resources consumed on this and similar cases? Wouldn’t it be great if both the USG and the private sector could “redeploy” them to making the immigration justice system work, rather than correcting sophomoric, yet life threatening, errors? (Admittedly, describing the errors made by DOJ attorneys at all three levels here as “sophomoric” could be viewed as a slight to sophomores everywhere.)
Not only is EOIR’s “any reason to deny” system patently unjust, it’s a colossal waste of public resources! “Bureaucracy 101” — “Get it right at the initial level of the system.”
Of course the battle here hasn’t concluded. The remand gives EOIR yet another opportunity to screw up. Given EOIR’s current indifference to quality and fairness, I wouldn’t count on them to “get it right this time around” — even with Judge Ruiz basically providing them with the correct answer!
PWS
02-20-23
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/01/trump-cannon-special-master-rejected/
. . . .
But special master appointments are rare, and judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit expressed concern at oral arguments that Cannon’s decision set a troubling precedent: allowing the target of a search warrant to go into court and request a special master that could interfere with an executive branch investigation before an indictment is ever issued.
The judges did not back down from that stance in their written opinion Thursday, saying they could not issue an order that would “allow any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant.”
“Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so,” the Thursday opinion read. “Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.
. . . .
*****************
I imagine every criminal defendant in America would be delighted to have the benefit of “Judge Loose’s” incredible ruling that the subject of a criminal investigation, basically caught “red handed” with contraband after a lawfully executed search warrant, could block an ongoing criminal investigation.
It’s notable that all three 11th Circuit panel judges were GOP appointees, two of them Trump appointees like Judge “Loose!” Unlike “Loose,” they actually take the Constitution and their oaths of office to uphold it seriously, at least in this case!
The saga of Trump’s frivolous abuse of our justice system isn’t yet over. He can request review from the Supremes. However, since he lost to Biden, the Supremes’ GOP majority has shown less willingness to bail out the insurrectionist ex-Prez in his dilatory personal battles to avoid accountability for his actions!
PWS
12-01-22
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Held: Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of dis- cretionary-relief proceedings under §1255 and the other provisions enumerated in §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Pp. 6–17.
The majority concludes that courts are powerless to cor- rect an agency decision holding an individual ineligible for relief from removal based on a factual error, no matter how egregious the error might be. The majority’s interpretation has the further consequence of denying any chance to cor- rect agency errors in processing green-card applications outside the removal context. Even the government cannot bring itself to endorse the majority’s arresting conclusions. For good reason. Those conclusions are at war with all the evidence before us. They read language out of the statute and collapse the law’s clear two-step framework. They dis- regard the lessons of neighboring provisions and even ig- nore the statute’s very title. They make no sense of the statute’s history. Altogether, the majority’s novel expan- sion of a narrow statutory exception winds up swallowing the law’s general rule guaranteeing individuals the chance to seek judicial review to correct obvious bureaucratic mis- steps. It is a conclusion that turns an agency once account- able to the rule of law into an authority unto itself. Perhaps some would welcome a world like that. But it is hardly the world Congress ordained.
***********************
Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion.
Interestingly, neither the Respondent nor the Solicitor General defended the 11th Circuit’s decision. So, the Court appointed Taylor A.R. Meehan as amicus to defend that decision. Her “no jurisdiction” statutory argument prevailed.
Looking at rulings like this, the makeup of the Supremes, and the bleak prospects for Article I in an ideologically divided Congress, the composition of the Immigration Courts and the BIA becomes even more significant.
As Justice Gorsuch points out, in many important cases, even the most obvious and egregious mistakes from EOIR Judges will go uncorrected by the Article IIIs. So, getting the results right in the first place and having higher quality appellate review at the BIA becomes even more “life determining.”
As judicial vacancies arise, it’s critical that NDPA members who are eligible to apply do so in large numbers! That also goes for the U.S. Magistrate Judges and the Article IIIs!
PWS
05-16-22
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
CONTENTS (jump to section)
- NEWS
- LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
- RESOURCES
- EVENTS
NEWS
Biden Administration Prepares Sweeping Change to Asylum Process
NYT: Under the new policy, which the administration released on Thursday as an interim final rule, some migrants seeking asylum will have their claims heard and evaluated by asylum officers instead of immigration judges. The goal, administration officials said, is for the entire process to take six months, compared with a current average of about five years.
USCIS Agrees to Restore Path to Permanent Residency for TPS Beneficiaries
CLINIC: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agreed to restore a path to permanent residency for many Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries blocked by then-acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli — an illegally appointed Trump official. Because of this agreement, TPS beneficiaries impacted by this policy will be able to reopen and dismiss their removal orders and apply to adjust their status to become permanent residents — eliminating the threat of deportation if their TPS protections are revoked in the future.
ICE ending Etowah County immigration detention after ‘long history of serious deficiencies’
AL: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, will discontinue use of the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, and will limit the use of the three other southern detention facilities: Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, FL., Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, LA., and Alamance County Detention Facility in Graham, N.C. See also Biden to Ask Congress for 9,000 Fewer Immigration Detention Beds.
ICE claims ‘unabated’ legal access in detention during pandemic
Roll Call: Congress in the fiscal 2021 law instructed the agency to include the number of legal visits “denied or not facilitated” as well as how many detention centers do not meet the agency’s standards of communications between immigrants and their lawyers… [T]he report claimed ICE inspections in fiscal 2020 “did not identify any legal representatives being denied access to their clients.”
Border Chronicle: Behind closed doors, agents, like technocrats in a Fortune 500 company, create color-coded graphics to demonstrate the most “efficient” and “effective” enforcement techniques. Even though the effectiveness of deterrence has been questioned and refuted, and even though the question of human rights has not entered the equation at all, the U.S. federal government seems to be plowing ahead with this without any questions.
Boston asylum office has second lowest grant rate for asylum seekers in the country
GBH: The Boston asylum office for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services granted only about 11% of applications last year, less than half the national average, according to a report released Wednesday.
Judge Orders Immig. Atty To Pay $240K For Asylum Scam
Law360: A Massachusetts judge ordered an immigration attorney to pay $240,000 in penalties and restitution for filing frivolous and false asylum applications for undocumented Brazilian immigrants without their knowledge, according to a Thursday announcement from Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey.
EOIR Announces 25 New Immigration Judges
More than half of the judges will be going to the Hyattsville Immigration Court (Maryland) and Sterling Immigration Court (Virginia, opening May 2022). The list includes Claudia Cubas (CAIR Coalition), Kristie Ann-Padron (Catholic Legal Services, Miami), Kyle A. Dandelet (Pro Bono Immigration Attorney at Cleary Gottlieb), Ayodele A. Gansallo (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society of Pennsylvania), Joyce L. Noche (Immigrant Defenders Law Center), Christine Lluis Reis (Human Rights Institute at St. Thomas University College of Law), Carmen Maria Rey Caldas (IRAP), and others.
Biden says the U.S. will take 100,000 Ukrainians. But how many will go?
WaPo: Refugee workers said it was typical for recent refugees to focus at first on the possibility that they would be able to return quickly to their lives. But should the war drag on, more Ukrainians would seize on the chance to seek a haven in the United States, they said.
Immigration, Environmental Law Links Deepen Under Biden
Law360: Immigration and environmental attorneys are increasingly banding together as advocacy groups on both the left and the right try to leverage environmental laws to influence immigration policy.
LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
DHS Partly Barred From Tailoring Immigration Enforcement
Law360: An Ohio federal judge on Tuesday blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from considering a Biden administration mandate that had narrowed immigration enforcement priorities while making custody decisions, finding the policy overstepped sections of federal immigration law.
CA2 “Weapons Bar” Remand: Kakar v. USCIS
Lexis: On review, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York affirmed the denial under the “weapons bar” of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V). The question on appeal is whether USCIS, in denying Kakar’s application, adequately explained the unlawfulness of Kakar’s acts under United States law, and whether in doing so it considered his claim of duress. Because we are unable to discern USCIS’s full reasoning for denying Kakar’s application or to conclude that the agency considered all factors relevant to its decision, we conclude that its decision was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
CA 11 Says Marijuana Conviction Can’t Bar Removal Relief
Law360: The Eleventh Circuit ruled Thursday that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred when finding that a man’s Florida conviction for marijuana possession rendered him ineligible for a form of deportation protection.
Feds Lose Bid To Move Texas Sheriffs’ Immigration Policy Suit
Law360: A Texas federal judge has denied the Biden administration’s bid to transfer a group of Texas sheriffs’ challenge to the administration’s immigration enforcement policies, rejecting the argument that none of the sheriffs in the judicial district has standing to sue.
DHS and DOJ Interim Final Rule on Asylum Processing
AILA: Advance copy of DHS and DOJ interim final rule (IFR) on asylum processing. The IFR will be published in the Federal Register on 3/29/22 and will be effective 60 days from the date of publication, with comments accepted for 60 days.
DOS Provides Guidance on Visas for Ukrainian Children
AILA: DOS issued guidance on visas for Ukrainian children undergoing intercountry adoption or who previously traveled for hosting programs in the United States. The Ukrainian government is not currently approving children to participate in host programs in the United States. More details are available.
EOIR Updates Appendix O of the Policy Manual with Adjournment Code 22
AILA: EOIR updated appendix O of the policy manual with adjournment code 22. The reason is “Respondent or representative rejected earliest possible hearing date,” and the definition is “Hearing adjourned due to respondent or representative rejecting earliest possible hearing date.”
HHS 60-Day Notice and Request for Comment on Forms for Sponsors for Unaccompanied Children
AILA: HHS 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to the Family Reunification Packet of forms for potential sponsors of unaccompanied children. Comments are due 60 days after publication of the notice. (87 FR 16194, 3/22/22)
RESOURCES
- AIC: Alternatives to Detention: An Overview
- AIC: Biden’s New Asylum Process: What You Need to Know
- CLINIC: All About Employment Authorization Documents: FAQs for Legal Practitioners
- CLINIC: All About Cuban Adjustment: FAQs for Legal Practitioners
- CLINIC: Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Updates
- CLINIC: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
- CRS: Expedited Removal of Aliens: An Introduction
- ILRC: 2022 Case Update: Domestic Violence Deportation Ground
- ILRC: Update on DHS Enforcement Priorities Litigation
- ILRC: Acquisition & Derivation Quick Reference Charts
- USCIS: Fact Sheet: DHS Efforts to Assist Ukrainian Nationals
EVENTS
NIJC EVENTS
- 4/12/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Of Domestic Violence (VAWA)
- 5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas
- 6/28/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 1
- 6/30/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 2
GENERAL EVENTS
- 3/29/22 What U Practitioners Should Know in 2022: Monitoring Developments in U Visa Practice
- 3/29/22 Instrumentalising citizenship in the fight against terrorism: How have deprivation powers evolved since 9/11?
- 3/30/22 EOIR: Case & Appeals System; Immigration Court Online Resource
- 3/30/22 Increasing Immigrant Integration and Inclusion Through Community Partnerships
- 3/31/22 Asylum Overhaul: Unpacking DHS’ New Rule on Asylum Procedures
- 3/31/22 EOIR ECAS Information Sessions
- 3/31/22 The Crisis in Ukraine: Legal Services Insights, Responses, and Opportunities to Assist Refugees
- 4/1/22 EOIR – Chicago Model Hearing Program
- 4/1/22 Abolition Across Criminal Justice, Immigration, and National Security
- 4/5/22 Intensive T Visa Declaration Workshop
- 4/6/22 Initial TPS Applications
- 4/7/22 Motions Before the Board of Immigration Appeals
- 4/8/22 The Road to Abolition: Intersectional Approaches to Immigrant Justice
- 4/8/22 Prosecutorial Discretion (PD) in the Immigration Context: Advantages, Tactics, and Logistics
- 4/12/22 Introduction to Bond Proceedings
- 4/12/22 Preparing Military Naturalization Applications: What You Need to Know
- 4/12/22-5/3/22 Webinar Series: Selected Issues in Inadmissibility
- 4/13/22 Understanding Helpfulness for U Visa Certification and the Ongoing Assistance Requirement
- 4/14/22 Workshop for Country Conditions Experts on Mitigating DHS Challenges
- 4/20/22 U Visa Webinar Series: U Visa Consular Processing
- 4/21/22 Monthly NIPNLG Removal Defense Webinar: Hot Topics in SIJS
- 4/21/22 The Asylum Processing Rule & Southern Border Legal Updates
- 4/25/22 Bias, Equity, and the Impact of Anti-Blackness on Immigrant Survivors
- 4/27/22 Special Immigrant Juvenile Policy Updates
- 4/27/22 U Visa RFEs
- 4/28/22 Motions to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 5/3/22 The Family Visa Petition
- 5/4/22 California Pardons and Post-Conviction Relief
- 5/6/22-5/13/22 NITA-NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” Training
- 5/10/22 Asylum Claims for Young People
- 5/13/22 FBA Immigration Law Conference
- 5/17/22 Advocating for Prosecutorial Discretion for Clients in Removal Proceedings
- 5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas
- 5/19/22 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Your Client’s I-360 Is Approved, Now What?
- 5/24/22 Obstacles to TPS Eligibility
- 6/7/22 Asylum and Employment Authorization
- 6/8/22 Naturalization for People with Disabilities
- 6/22/22 Introduction to Immigrant Visa Consular Processing
- 7/5/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)
- 9/26/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)
To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
******************
The idea that the DHS “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) doesn’t restrict attorney access is absurd! A primary reason for detention in obscure, out of the way, hard to reach places like Jena, LA, Lumpkin, GA, amd Dilley, TX is to inhibit representation and increase the pressure on detainees to abandon claims and take “final orders of removal.”
That goes hand in hand with staffing these prisons with DOJ’s wholly owned judges who are renowned for denying bond and summarily denying most asylum claims. That a disproportionate number of these facilities are located in Federal Judicial Circuits five and eleven, notorious for anti-due process, anti-human-rights, anti-immigrant “jurisprudence,” is no coincidence either.
With respect to the “categorical approach,” as my distinguished colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase has pointed out, EOIR has actually “institutionalized” resistance to and manipulation of this analysis to promote results unfavorable to immigrants and pleasing to DHS!
As several related Supreme Court decisions sealed the matter, the Board in 2016 was finally forced (at least on paper) to acknowledge the need to make CIMT determinations through a strict application of the categorical approach. However, as Prof. Koh demonstrates with examples from BIA precedent decisions, since 2016, the Board, while purporting to comply with the categorical approach, in fact has expanded through its precedent decisions the very meaning of what constitutes “moral turpitude,” enabling a greater number of offenses to be categorized as CIMTs.
Consistent with this approach was a training given by now-retired arch conservative Board member Roger Pauley at last summer’s IJ training conference. From the conference materials obtained by a private attorney through a FOIA request, Pauley appears to have trained the judges not to apply the categorical approach as required by the Supreme Court when doing so won’t lead to a “sensible” result. I believe the IJ corps would understand what this administration is likely to view as a “sensible” result. Remember that the IJs being trained cannot have more than 15 percent of their decisions remanded or reversed by the BIA under the agency’s completion quotas. So even if an IJ realizes that they are bound by case law to apply the categorical approach, the same IJ also realizes that they ignore the BIA’s advice to the contrary at their own risk.
As both of these incidents show, the Biden Administration under Mayorkas and Garland has failed to bring accountability or intellectual honesty to many parts of the broken immigration justice system they inherited from the Trump regime. The disgraceful “atmosphere of unaccountability” continues to predominate at DHS and DOJ.
PWS
03-29-22
CA11 CIMT Remand: Hernandez Zarate v. Garland
“The question presented in this appeal—one which has led to a circuit split—is whether a conviction for falsely representing a social security number, see 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B), is a CIMT. … The BIA explained that § 408(a)(7)(B) requires intent to deceive, and as a result Mr. Zarate’s conviction was for a CIMT. Noting that the circuits were divided on the issue, it quoted our decision in Walker v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 783 F.3d 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2015), for the proposition that, “[g]enerally, a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is considered to be one involving moral turpitude.” The BIA did not, however, address whether a violation of § 407(a)(7)(B) is inherently base, vile, or depraved. And that, as we will later explain, is a significant omission. … Our holding today does not foreclose the possibility that a conviction for a violation of § 408(a)(7)(B) may be a CIMT. But if the BIA is going to hold that it is, it will need to do what it has so far failed to do in Mr. Zarate’s case—it will have to apply its two-pronged moral turpitude standard in toto and decide whether the statute, under the categorical approach, involves conduct that is “reprehensible,” i.e., conduct that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” Silva-Trevino, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 833–34 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Simon-Kerr, Moral Turpitude, 2012 Utah L. Rev. at 1007–08 (criticizing courts for “ignor[ing] community moral sentiments when applying the [moral turpitude] standard”). We remand to the BIA for that purpose.”
[Hats way off to Arnedo Silvano Valera!]
**********************
My colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table 🛡⚔️ offers the following cogent “instant analysis:”
Besides from what this says about the BIA being too lazy and hellbent on affirming removal orders for even the 11th Circuit’s liking, this is really interesting in its addressing the issue of applying “community moral sentiments”.What community are we talking about, and at what period of time?
There’s also a concurring opinion that does a very deep dive into the process for determining whether a statute is divisible.Could you even imagine the BIA engaging in the necessary analysis?
“Deep analysis” isn’t exactly in the “BIA playbook” under Garland. No, Garland’s “good enough for government work culture” at the DOJ tolerates the “whatever it takes to get to ‘no’” standard that was instilled by Sessions and Barr and, remarkably, still permeates much of the BIA’s work that is being rejected by the Article IIIs.
I note that the “deep dive” concurring opinion referenced by “Sir Jeffrey” was written by Senior Circuit Judge Gerald B. Tjoflat, a 92-year-old Gerald Ford appointee whose intellectual engagement and analytical work product puts the Garland BIA to shame!
PWS
02-19-22
CA1 Puts a Dent in Matter of Y-L-: DeCarvalho v. Garland
“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.”
[Hats off to Trina Realmuto, Tiffany Lieu, and Jennifer Klein!]
***********CA11 on Future Persecution, CAT: Jathursan v. Atty. Gen.
“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.”
[Hats off to Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran!]
**************
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!
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!”🤮
PWS
11-18-21
1419000-1419434-20210907134938198_patel amicus brief
Our effort was featured in an article by Jennifer Doherty at Law360 for those with Law360 access.
“Due Process Forever!” Hmmm, where have I herd THAT before? Thanks, Dan, for all you do for the NDPA!
The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Alliance, and the Law Professors, all representing a number of other organizations, also filed in behalf of the “good guys, truth, justice, and the American way,” in this case. The respondents are expertly represented by my friend and legendary immigration advocate Ira J. Kurzban, Esquire, of Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt PA.
One could not imagine a group MORE in need of thorough, critical, independent Article III judicial review of its decisions than today’s dysfunctional EOIR! There, potentially fatal errors have been “institutionalized” and even “normalized” as just another “unavoidable” consequence of the anti-immigrant, “haste makes waste,” “culture” that constantly places churning out removal orders above due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!
Ironically, doubling the number of Immigration Judges, eliminating expertise as the main qualification in judicial selections, and forcing yet more “gimmicks” down their throats has actually nearly tripled the case backlog to an astounding 1.4 million cases, without producing any quantifiable benefit for anyone!
Obviously, it’s high time for Garland to “reinvent” EOIR with progressive experts, many with private sector Immigration Court experience, as judges and leaders at both the appellate and the trial level! Who knows what wonders might result from an emphasis on quality, humanity, and getting decisions correct in the first instance? Progressives are used to creatively solving difficult problems without stepping on anyone’s rights or diminishing anyone’s humanity! Those skills are in disturbingly short supply at today’s failed and failing EOIR! And, they aren’t exactly DOJ’s “long suit,” either.
PWS
09-08-21
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913715.pdf
Murugan v. U.S. Atty Gen., 08-24-21, published
PANEL: MARTIN (Obama), NEWSOM (Trump), and BRANCH (Trump), Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Branch
DISSENT: Judge Martin
KEY QUOTES FROM DISSENT:
The majority opinion gives no more consideration to Mr. Murugan’s claims
and individualized evidence than did the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judge. That is to say not much consideration at all.
Mr. Murugan produced evidence that in October 2018, the Sri Lankan government changed drastically when the former president, who had been accused of authorizing war crimes and other human rights abuses against Tamils “blindsided” political observers and “sudden[ly]” returned as prime minister. Because Mr. Murugan is a member of the Tamil ethnic group, his attorney brought up these facts at the hearing before the IJ. But the IJ took no notice of this evidence, finding that Mr. Murugan’s country conditions evidence was outdated because it included materials related to the former president’s rule from 2014 to 2016. Mr. Murugan argued to the BIA that the IJ improperly disregarded these new facts, because they were relevant to what treatment the Tamils could expect from the newly returned prime minister. Even so, the BIA mechanically adopted the IJ’s decision that Mr. Murugan’s evidence was outdated. Mr. Murugan has now tried a third time, pointing out the significance of this evidence in his brief before this Court.
The majority opinion, like the IJ and the BIA, fails to engage with this
evidence. But I see it as substantial and highly probative evidence of a pattern or 19
USCA11 Case: 19-13715 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 Page: 20 of 34
practice of government persecution of Tamils. Because I believe Mr. Murugan met his burden of showing he had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the Sri Lankan government’s practice of persecuting Tamils, I would grant him relief on this claim.
. . . .
When this Court is tasked with reviewing a decision of the BIA, we must
actually review it, albeit with deference. This majority opinion may condemn Mr. Murugan to extreme persecution in Sri Lanka because it failed to actually examine the evidence of recent political changes in that country. When a dictator with a well-documented history of persecuting an ethnic group returns to power, surely
33
USCA11 Case: 19-13715 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 Page: 34 of 34
our law does not require a member of that group wait to again experience persecution before he can claim asylum. Mr. Murugan has met his burden here. I respectfully dissent.
************
I encourage everyone to read Judge Martin’s complete dissent. By contrast, Judge Elizabeth Branch’s majority opinion is a vapid, disingenuous, piece of right-wing legal sophistry. As my colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase observed, Branch was “Associate General Counsel for Rules and Legislation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in 2004-2005,” during the Bush II Administration.
Judge Martin will retire from the bench on September 30, 2021, thus giving President Biden a chance to appoint her replacement. So, this might be her last immigration opinion.
Judge Martin calls out her intellectually dishonest Trumpy colleagues and accurately characterizes BIA review as no review at all. (Actually, it’s worse than no review, because the BIA sometimes reverses correct IJ asylum grants and rewrites decisions to make it easier for OIL to defend bad denials.)
No matter how poorly they perform their judicial duties (the majority decision in this case certainly stands out as one of many low points in recent American jurisprudence) Trump’s and McConnell’s far righty Article IIIs enjoy lifetime sinecures.
But, EOIR “judges,” particularly after the last two decades of political interference with any semblance of “judicial independence,” enjoy no such exalted lifetime protection. As DOJ keeps pointing out, they are “mere Government attorneys” who can be reassigned to a wide range of attorney positions at the discretion of the Attorney General.
Thus Garland could, and should, remove and reassign poorly qualified judges and replace them with real, well-qualified expert progressive judges who understand asylum law, will fairly apply it, will issue some positive asylum precedents, and will control the “Asylum Deniers Club” operating in Immigration Courts throughout America. The dysfunction, institutionalized unfairness, and “worst practices,” are particularly acute after four years of poor judicial selections, a BIA packed with anti-asylum zealots, and defective training by biased, anti-asylum AGs under fatally flawed and discriminatory selection procedures
Judge Martin “gets it.” How come nobody on Team Garland does?
As we can see, from the Supremes to the “retail level” at the Immigration Courts, the consequences of poor right-wing judging fall most heavily on migrants, women, children, and people of color. Progressives could change that around at EOIR. But, Judge Garland doesn’t seem up to the job, as the opportunity for long overdue, systemic, life saving changes at EOIR continues to slip through his fingers!
But, I repeat myself, obviously to no avail.
PWS
08-24-21
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201912019.pdf
PANEL: WILSON, JILL PRYOR and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge
KEY QUOTE:
Visavakumar Thamotar, a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of his application for asylum and grant of withholding of removal. Mr. Thamotar argues that because removal was withheld, federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e)1 required reconsideration of his asylum claim, which the Immigration Judge and BIA failed to give. We agree with Mr. Thamotar that the agency failed to conduct the proper reconsideration. When an asylum applicant is denied asylum but granted withholding of removal, 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(e) requires reconsideration anew of the discretionary denial of asylum, including addressing reasonable alternatives available to the petitioner for family reunification.2 And where the Immigration Judge has failed to do so, the BIA must remand for the Immigration Judge to conduct the required reconsideration.
Here, the Immigration Judge failed to reconsider Mr. Thamotar’s asylum claim under § 1208.16(e). The BIA’s failure to remand on this issue was therefore
1 Mr. Thamotar refers to both 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(e) and 1208.16(e) in his briefing. The two provisions are identical in substance, but § 1208.16(e) specifically applies to the BIA (and Immigration Judges) because of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtits. D, E, F, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov. 25, 2002) (as amended), and the promulgation of final rule 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, effective February 28, 2003. 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, 9824–25, 9834 (Feb. 28, 2003); see Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89, 90 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing this legislative history). For consistency, we will refer only to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e).
2 Because we vacate the BIA’s order on this ground, we do not address Mr. Thamotar’s additional challenges to the order, which included that the BIA erred by affirming the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination, which he contends was not supported by substantial evidence, and relying on his method of entry into the United States when affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision.
2
USCA11 Case: 19-12019 Date Filed: 06/17/2021 Page: 3 of 32
manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. It is clear that neither the Immigration Judge nor the BIA conducted the proper reconsideration because the record contained no information about Mr. Thamotar’s ability to reunite with his family, information that the agency must review under § 1208.16(e). Thus, the BIA should have remanded the case for further factfinding. We grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the Immigration Judge for reconsideration of the discretionary denial of asylum.
***************
Lots of work for a bogus asylum denial by EOIR! And the utter nonsense isn’t over! Just a “remand” to give EOIR yet another chance to deny for specious reasons (as they have already done twice). This idiocy will continue until Judge Garland replaces the BIA with real judges who will properly, fairly, and timely apply the law and regulations!
The poor analysis of the IJ, mindlessly affirmed by the BIA, failed to come anywhere close to the “most egregious adverse factors” requirement of the BIA’s own precedent in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357, 367 (BIA 1996):
A grant of asylum to an eligible applicant is discretionary. The final issue is whether the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. The danger of persecution will outweigh all but the most egregious adverse factors. Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467, 474 (BIA 1987).
I can’t imagine how this gang of so-called “judges, got through law school and admitted to the bar! Maybe “imposters” took their exams for them! THIS is the best American justice has to offer? If not, why are they making life or death decisions and imposing potential permanent family separation on refugees?
Notwithstanding the assembly line climate and lackadaisical approach to law in Garland’s Immigration “Courts,” these are NOT TRAFFIC COURTS! They are more like “death penalty courts” or “courts of last resort” and those humans appearing before them and their representatives deserve better.
Judge Garland and his team should hypothesize that this type of inferior justice were being meted out in life or death cases to THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND LOVED ONES — actual human beings, NOT “just migrants” who, according to Garland’s EOIR, appear to exist in a twilight zone beneath the rest of humanity. That’s what the ongoing “Dred Scottification of the other” still being permitted and promoted by Garland at DOJ is all about!
A fitting celebration of the first Federal Juneteenth Holiday would have been to remove the entire BIA so that they can no longer inflict “Dred Scottification” on migrants of color, their families, their friends, and their communities, among others! Symbolism is only effective if followed by action. And, so far, Garland’s actions on wiping out the “vestiges of Dred Scott at Justice” have fallen woefully short!
This raises serious, unaddressed questions of why such weakly qualified individuals are on the bench in the first place when there are many immigration experts out there who can and would do better. Much better! And it wouldn’t take them years and multiple hearings, appeals, and trips to the Circuit to grant asylum.
This isn’t a “deep” case except that it represents the “deep dodo” 💩 at EOIR, the stench of which is fouling our entire justice system and shaking the foundations of our democracy! This case is about following the Code of Federal Regulations, properly applying precedent, and fairly treating asylum seekers. It’s “Law 101” — things L-1s would have to know to get to L-2! I can’t begin to think what the paper would look like like if one of my students gave me this kind of garbage on a final exam. Fortunately, to date, nobody ever has!
Nor is this a Circuit renowned for critical analysis or holding the Government to a high standards in immigration cases. Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit itself bears some responsibility for this mess! They are well aware of the anti-asylum bias and poor decision-making emanating from the Atlanta Immigration Court, within their jurisdiction, and have chosen to ignore it. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/04/22/11th-circuit-judge-adelberto-jose-jordan-outs-the-atlanta-immigration-court-for-equal-protection-charade-in-a-dissenting-opinion-in-my-view-ms-diaz-r/
Those who want a more complete run down of the ongoing “Atlanta disgrace” — a cancer on our justice system — should just go to the “Atlanta Immigration Court” tab on immigrationcourtside.com. There is more than enough compiled to have triggered an investigation, removals from office, and corrective action in a functioning Government! And my collection is just “the tip of the iceberg” on what has been written about the disgraceful, systemic denial of fairness, impartiality, and justice in Atlanta!
And, why was OIL defending this ridiculous mess in the first place? It’s a “comedy” of errors, questionable ethics, and amateurish legal work that the DOJ should be ashamed of and which Garland should end — NOW! No wonder this ridiculous national embarrassment has created an unnecessary 1.3 million case backlog that continues to grow under Garland!
Don’t let Garland or anyone else in the Administration tell you that this self-created backlog justifies a truncation of due process or more “bogus attempts to expedite” asylum cases. NO! What it requires is for Garland to bring in real judges and experts from the private/NGO sector to fix the Immigration Courts so they comply with due process and fundamental fairness!
Judge Garland, “come on man!” These deadly robed clowns and their “defenders” represent YOU — “the top legal officer in our Executive Branch!” YOU have a responsibility to the American people (NOT just the failed DOJ or the President) to “get out the big hook” and “yank” these anti-due process, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, anti-racial-justice clowns 🤡 off YOUR bench and replace them with competence and fairness. A little (now missing) diversity wouldn’t hurt either! It’s called fulfilling the promises made by Biden and Harris during the election!
It’s not going to improve until Garland replaces the BIA with qualified judges, hires only Immigration Judges who know how to fairly adjudicate asylum cases, (with outstanding public reputations for fairness, scholarship, timeliness, teamwork, and respect), and AAG Vanita Gupta brings in better leadership at OIL to put an end to this tragic, totally unnecessary, disgracefully wasteful abuse of our Federal Judicial system and the resulting human carnage!
NDPA warriors, don’t be fooled or lured into complacency by this week’s long overdue positive developments in A-B- and L-E-A- — things that experts said should have been done by Judge Garland on “Day 1.” Keep showing your total dis-satisfaction and disgust with the glacial pace of reform at DOJ and the myriad of highly unqualified “judges” still being allowed to continue to inflict racial injustice and “worst imaginable practices” on vulnerable individuals (and their lawyers) who are entitled to due process and justice — not a continuing deadly ☠️ clown 🤡 show! Keep letting Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, Biden, Harris, Congress, the Article IIIs, and the American people know that “The EOIR Clown Show Has Got To Go!” NOW! There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all in America (wake up, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke) while Garland operates his “star chamber courts” at EOIR!
PWS
06-19-21
CA9 on Departure Bar, Sua Sponte Reopening: Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland
“This case presents the question whether the departure bar limits an IJ’s ability to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction to review questions of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we conclude that the departure bar does not apply in the context of sua sponte reopening. That is, an IJ’s discretion to reopen a case on his or her own motion is not limited by the fact that a noncitizen has previously been removed or has departed from the United States. Therefore, we grant the petition for review.”
[Hats off to Elsa Martinez!]
*****************************
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201915091.pdf
KELLY SANCHEZ-CASTRO,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _______________________
(June 1, 2021)
Petitioner,
Respondent.
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.
WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:
Kelly Sanchez-Castro, a native of El Salvador, petitions for our review after
she unsuccessfully sought relief from removal because a gang targeted her family based on the assumption that her father’s work in the United States made it
USCA11 Case: 19-15091 Date Filed: 06/01/2021 Page: 2 of 15
wealthy. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and substantial evidence supports its decision. Sanchez-Castro is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the gang that targeted her family did so only as a means to the end of obtaining funds, not because of any animus against her family. And she is ineligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture because she has not established that any harm she will suffer if returned to her home country will come with at least the acquiescence of a government official. We deny Sanchez-Castro’s petition for review.
. . . .
*************************
To reach its incorrect and life-threatening endorsement of the BIA’s misconstruction of the nexus requirements (throwing out the normal rules of causation to achieve an anti-asylum-seeker result) the 11th Circuit panel eschewed a much better and more intellectually honest approach by the 4th Circuit in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).
Notwithstanding Chief Judge Pryor’s cavalier attitude about sending Ms. Castro-Sanchez back to possible death or dismemberment at the hands of gangs who operate with relative impunity in El Salvador, these are not “academic exercises.” They are serious life or death matters involving bad law produced by a (non) “court” (the BIA) controlled by a law enforcement official (the Attorney General) that is not comprised of judges who are recognized experts in asylum and immigration laws and has over recent history construed the law against immigrants at almost every opportunity!
These two cases show the difference between this panel of the 9th Circuit that takes judicial review and what’s at stake seriously and the “indifferent to humanity” rubber-stamp approach applied by the 11th Circuit panel. We need better judges, progressives with expertise in due process, human rights, immigration, and racial justice at every level of our Federal Judiciary — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes! Circuits like the 5th and the 11th with long and disgraceful records of relative indifference to the rights and lives of migrants, mostly those of color, are long, long overdue for infusion of better qualified progressive “practical scholars” and advocates.
That makes the progressive outrage over Garland’s totally inappropriate “giveaway” of Immigration Judge positions he controls to Barr-selected, non progressive, candidates who applied under a flawed recruitment process designed to discourage diversity and exclude the best qualified expert candidates from the private sector, along with his failure to address skewed anti-asylum-seeker precedents like L-E-A- and A-B– all the more understandable! It also makes changes that will put more expert, progressive, due-process oriented judges who have experience representing individuals in court all the more urgent!
Cases like this wouldn’t get into the “Article III Life or Death Lottery” if Garland had dealt promptly and properly with L-E-A-, A-B-, and other Trump-era, anti-asylum, anti-migrant, anti-due-process, misogynist precedents!
PWS
06-04-21
Dan Kowalski reports in Lexis-Nexis Immigration Community:
CA11 on Cuba, Journalists, Well-Founded Fear: Cabrera Martinez v. Atty. Gen.
Cabrera Martinez v. Atty. Gen.
“Because the IJ and the BIA failed to provide reasoned consideration of Martinez’s evidence of his well-founded fear of future persecution based on a pattern or practice of persecution toward dissident journalists in Cuba, we grant in part his petition, vacate the BIA’s decision in part, and remand this case for further proceedings.”
[There was also a good dissent by Judge Martin. Hats off to Derek M. Stikeleather!]
***************
Congrats, Derek! Thanks, CLINIC!
And, here’s a little more insight from Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC on how the NDPA is making a difference in people’s lives, even as our public officials of both parties try to sweep the lawless and unprofessional behavior of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts under the carpet.
Greetings,
Thanks, Dan, for circulating this decision! This is actually a CLINIC BIA Pro Bono Project case represented by Derek Stikeleather of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP. In this published decision, the Eleventh Circuit held that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to a Cuban asylum seeker’s claims that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court noted that the IJ and BIA ignored evidence that the petitioner was persecuted for being a political journalist. Congratulations to Derek Stikeleather and thank you to our BIA Pro Bono Project Attorney Rachel Naggar for guiding and mentoring Derek on this case!
As Judge Martin, concurring and dissenting, cogently explains, the BIA actually got everything wrong in this case.
Mr. Martinez has made the case that he suffered two years of threats and abuse at the hands of the Cuban government because he is a journalist for a dissident magazine (Convivencia) that is critical of the government. Although the immigration officials who heard Mr. Martinez’s account found him to be credible, they gave him no relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) said Mr. Martinez must be returned to Cuba because the story he truthfully told did not sufficiently show either that he had been persecuted in the past, or that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Cuba in the future.
Now the majority opinion gives Mr. Martinez relief on one of the grounds rejected by the immigration authorities, but not the other. Maj. Op. at 2. The majority says the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to Mr. Martinez’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 16–20. I agree and join in that part of the opinion. However, I would give Mr. Martinez broader relief because I think Martinez’s experiences as he tried to live and work in Cuba show that he suffered past persecution as well. I therefore respectfully dissent.
The dissent highlights the real ongoing problem here: A system with unqualified judges, particularly the BIA’s Appellate Judges, searching for specious reasons to deny compelling, well-documented asylum claims!
EOIR is NOT dispensing expert adjudication that complies with the due process clause of our Constitution! Not by a long shot, as any real expert in immigration and human rights laws would tell you!
Yet, the farce and perversion of justice goes on, day after day, case after case @ EOIR. Only by “Dred Scottification” — viewing asylum applicants and migrants, mostly people of color, as something other than “persons” entitled to fair and respectful treatment under the law, can we explain failures such as this!
So far, Judge Garland has neither recognized the fundamental problems in his courts nor shown any serious interest in providing justice for asylum seekers and other migrants. Heck, the only “refugees” Garland is protecting are Stephen Miller’s “burrowed in cronies” @ EOIR, including the Sessions/Barr “Asylum Denial Society” hiding out in the ranks of “Appellate Judges” at the BIA! Disgusting, but true!
Garland’s failure to take an interest in due process for migrants has come to the attention of some of the folks @ EOIR who actually believe in due process, fundamental fairness, and human decency. There is a growing sense of outrage and betrayal as they watch neo-Nazis and incompetent, biased restrictionists continue to draw fat salaries and abuse migrants courtesy of “Team Garland,” while asylum seekers continue to suffer and their attorneys are treated like dirt by EOIR! The folks who should have been put in charge of aggressively reforming and rebuilding this disgrace to American justice are still on the outside looking in, while “Clowns 🤡and political hacks (incredibly, holdovers from the “Trump regime”) rule!”
Garland’s ancestors were fortunate. Today’s refugees and asylees, not so much. But, hey, no need to “pay It forward” once “you’ve got yours” and your life is no longer subject to the institutionalized bias, racism, and grotesque inconsistencies of America’s immigrant “justice” system.
There is hope here! Through the continuing outstanding efforts of folks like Derek, Michelle, CAIR, and the rest of the NDPA, we can eventually grind Garland’s Deadly Clown Courts 🤡to a halt! No matter how much you “turn up the dial” or expand these dysfunctional and fundamentally unfair courts to railroad folks out, every reversal, remand, and injunction that the NDPA gets will further clog the 1.3 million case pipeline while saving individual lives in the process and setting favorable precedents that can be used to combat the current assault on justice and mistreatment of people of color and women by DOJ and EOIR.
Additionally, if the pace keeps up, Circuit Courts, even the most conservative ones, like the 5th and 11th Circuits, might tire of serving as a substitute BIA. There won’t be much else on their dockets.
Maybe they will finally take a serious look at the clear unconstitutionality of the system. That will throw a monkey wrench unto Garland’s apparent plans to pretend like institutionalized racism, unprofessionalism, bias, and gross unfairness aren’t operating under his auspices. Ideally, at some point he will decide that it’s easier to fix the mess than to try to pretend that it’s not happening.
Also, if Garland chooses to go with the same gang of DOJ attorneys who got beaten up in court on a fairly regular basis by the NDPA, the NDPA is likely to continue to feast. That’s particularly true because Garland shows every sign of stubborn determination to keep “the best due process lawyers in America” off his team, and therefore dedicated to opposing his attempt to run the Immigrtion Courts as if “elections don’t matter.”
Sure doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me. But, hey, what do I know? I’ve only been practicing law for about the past 50 years.
At any rate, it’s important for the NDPA to adjust from the short-term mindset that things might be better under the Biden Administration and ramp the litigation, public critique/exposure, immigrant assistance, and “resistance to evil” machines into even higher gear.
Vulnerable human lives and the future of our democracy are at stake. The Biden Administration to date has demonstrated neither capacity nor interest in addressing the real, festering problems in American justice in a constructive manner.
That’s highly unfortunate. As little as they wish to recognize it, the Administration’s racial justice efforts will go nowhere as long as Garland continues to operate a “court system”where institutionalized racism, intentional perversion of the law, and degradation of humanity are the operating principles. Certainly enlightened, competent leadership on Immigration Court reform is conspicuously absent!
Sometimes, the only way to get attention from the tone-deaf folks in charge is to break their entire corrupt system by using the tools still available under the law strategically and effectively to end scofflaw behavior and force constructive, long, long, long overdue change.
PWS
04-12-21
How horrible is today’s BIA? Well, there are endless examples documented in Courtside and the Jeffrey S.Chase Blog from my friend and Round Table colleague. But, here’s a particularly striking recent travesty from our friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:
The case is Hylton v. Att’y Gen. Here, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, hardly a hotbed of judicial liberalism or anti-Government sentiment, reamed the “Star Chamber BIA” for 1) misreading the plain statutory language, and 2) ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to reach an anti-migrant result.
This is merely the latest in a long line of screw-ups resulting from a powerful appellate body that lacks independence, expertise, and the institutional courage to uphold individual rights against the constant overreach of DHS Enforcement (characterized as “partners” by Sessions & Barr — how would you like to be tried by a “court” where the prosecutors and the judges are “in partnership” to extinguish your legal rights and humanity?)
Two major legal errors by supposed “expert judges” in the same case? Oh, and get this! This case misreading the “plain language” of the statute and dissing binding precedent from the Supremes, just to produce an (illegal) order of removal, was deemed so “routine” at the “Falls Church denial factory,” that it was handled by a single appellate “judge” — didn’t even merit consideration by a three-member panel!
That’s what the DOJ’s politically-motivated “deny and deport culture” produces. And, it’s not like this is an aberration; the BIA cranks out this sloppy garbage on a daily basis. Most of it doesn’t get caught by the U.S. Courts of Appeals, who all too often are on their own type of “autopilot” when it comes to the legal rights of migrants — many of them people of color!
For Judge Garland to be credible on any racial justice issue, and for EOIR to provide due process, we need radical, not incremental, change!
PWS
04-07-21
