"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.
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.
From Justice Gorsuch’s dissent (joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, & Sotomayor):
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!
An Immigration Judge has the authority to inquire into the bona fides of a marriage when considering an application for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2018).
PANEL: MULLANE, COUCH, and OWEN, Appellate Immigration Judges
OPINION: Judge Hugh Mullane
***********************
If IJs are going to go behind an approved I-130, why not just allow respondents to choose to file the I-130 and the I-1485, Application for Adjustment of Status, simultaneously in Immigration Court (like at USCIS) and have the IJ adjudicate the visa petition along with the application?
In this case, the IJ and ACC did offer the respondent a chance to apply for adjustment before USCIS. Perhaps, he should have taken it.
Sloppy decision-making and institutional bias in favor of DHS Enforcement remain endemic problems at EOIR that Garland has failed to address. “Eyore” isn’t the only one suffering from this failure to bring progressive reforms to “America’s worst and deadliest courts!” “Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
“. [T]he government is right that we have no jurisdiction to re-weigh the evidence of hardship. But, a reweighing could only occur if there had been a weighing of that evidence in the first place. And, here, we conclude that there was no weighing of that evidence at all. We thus reject the government’s argument that the BIA, in overturning the immigration judge’s ruling granting Perez-Trujillo adjustment of status, did consider hardship as he contends that it was required to do under Matter of Arai.”
****************
Notice a theme here: No need to actually consider the evidence, just deny, particularly when that’s the result demanded by the “partners” over at DHS enforcement? What kind of “court” operates in this manner? Where is the “fair and impartial adjudication” required by Due Process and Matthews v. Eldridge?
Clearly, these are signs of “denial-oriented assembly line decision-making by the BIA.” And, how does Garland explain OIL’s “defense” of weighing and considering factors that NEVER OCCURRED — essentially fabricated? Sounds like intentionally misleading courts to me! THIS is our Department of “Justice” under Garland?
Bias, poor judging, a culture of denial, and political interference with docket management are endemic problems at Garland’s BIA! That’s a prime reason why under DOJ’s “maliciously incompetent” administration and weaponization EOIR has built a still out of control 1.3 million case plus backlog!
Easy cases become endless exercises, as EOIR and OIL waste the time of the Circuits trying to “paper over” shoddy and biased decision-making on the “deportation assembly line.”Cases that should have been favorably resolved years ago instead keep bouncing around the system on “Circuit remands.”
Some then become the victims of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by DOJ politicos and their EOIR toadies and never get resolved at all! All these problems are magnified by two-decades of grossly incompetent DOJ/EOIR “management” that has elevated political agendas and bureaucratic nonsense over implementing a functioning e-filing system like every other comparable “court” in America! Due Process and customer service continue to come last at Garland’s EOIR!
DON’T let Garland and Mayorkas claim that the “solution” is more improperly “expedited” special dockets and less due process. NO, NO, NO! The solution is better judges (now, not later), granting more deserving cases rather than “looking for reasons to deny,” better judicial training, positive precedents from a new expert BIA, and an end to bogus “quotas,” stupid and unethical “performance work plans,” and political interference with docket management by DOJ and EOIR HQ!
Without aggressive progressive interventions and a massive infusion of new progressive expert personnel into EOIR, the Immigration Courts will continue to flounder and fail under Garland. Then, in the finest DOJ tradition, looking for a way to cover himself, he and his team will attempt to shift the blame to their victims— hapless, abused respondents and their long-suffering lawyers! Don’t let them get away with it!
Garland’s failure to institute “no brainer” progressive reforms @ EOIR and to replace bad judges is life-threatening and an incredible drag on our entire legal system! Tell him you have had enough! Demand better! Let your voices be heard in protest every day until we get the long overdue, readily achievable, EOIR reforms progressives have worked for and were promised!
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared reluctant to let people who have been allowed to stay in the United States on humanitarian grounds apply to become permanent residents if they entered the country illegally.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a married couple from El Salvador who were granted so-called Temporary Protected Status of a lower court ruling that barred their applications for permanent residency, also known as a green card, because of their unlawful entry.
The case could affect thousands of immigrants, many of whom have lived in the United States for years. President Joe Biden’s administration opposes the immigrants in the case. The dispute puts Biden, who has sought to reverse many of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, at odds with immigration advocacy groups and some of his fellow Democrats. read more
A federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act generally requires that people seeking to become permanent residents have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States. At issue in the case is whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status, which gives the recipient “lawful status,” satisfies those requirements.
. . . .
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Justice Department lawyer Michael Huston, “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Garland helps Biden deliver “tough noogies, go pound sand, your lives don’t matter” message to immigrants like Jose and Sonia and their supporters who might have had the illusion that better times were on the horizon with Biden’s election! Progressives find that when push comes to shove, Biden & Garland can be just as cruel, dumb, and counterproductive as Trump & Miller!
Any hope that advocates might have had of help, sympathy, or understanding for their green-card-qualified clients with decades of residence and citizen family members goes down the tubes early in Dem Administration. Biden-Harris humane rhetoric and promises prove just another illusion for progressives in Administration’s first High Court test!
But for Justice Sotomayor, the thinness of the Justices’ understanding of both immigration law and the human issues involved was alarming, yet basically predictable. What do a bunch of highly privileged, above the fray, judges who have never personally dealt with the stupidity, arbitrariness, and trauma of our immigration system, and never represented clients in Immigration Court, care about shutting hard working American residents, people of color, like Jose and Sonia, out of our system and disenfranchising them for no particular reason. The worst, most racially discriminatory “interpretations” are “available” to those judges, so why not use them? For them, it’s a wooden academic exercise played out with human lives that don’t matter because they are “the other.” Except for Sotomayor, going for the best, most practical, humane interpretation evidently never crossed the minds of these Justices.
As Justice Sotomayor correctly said: “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”
It’s not rocket science. Just common sense, humanity, and a clear understanding of the effect of legal interpretations on human lives. At the Supreme Court level, most decisions represent a “choice” rather than a “mandate.” That’s where having Justices who neither care to understand nor have to live with the consequences of their decisions really hurts people of color, immigrants, asylum seekers, and others not in the “power structure!” Better judges for a better America!
Meanwhile, advocates and progressives should never underestimate the ability of Dem Administrations to screw up immigration policy.
Currently before the Supreme Court is a little-noticed immigration case with profound significance. Sanchez v. Mayorkas offers the Biden administration an opportunity to make major progress, without waiting for legislative action, on one of its central humanitarian goals – providing durable status to long-resident noncitizens.
A straightforward change in the government’s policy and its litigation stance could help remove a barrier blocking critical relief to several tens of thousands of noncitizens who have resided in the United States with official government permission under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Because of a longstanding but misguided agency reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), these noncitizens are stuck in limbo and practically unable to get the permanent resident status for which they are independently eligible based on family or employment relationships. Those most affected are TPS recipients married to U.S. citizens. The case turns on a highly technical question of statutory interpretation over which six courts of appeals have so far split evenly, but the human stakes are substantial, and a change of position by the administration would have significant impact.
The plaintiff TPS holders in Sanchez may well win the case based on the plain language of the relevant statutes, as ably argued in their brief and by supporting amici. But until now, the government has argued, to the contrary, that the language of the statute compels the agency’s current restrictive interpretation. This essay contends that the administration could provide crucial support for the TPS holders under a different legal framework that, for understandable reasons, neither side has given much emphasis.
The alternative approach is for the administration to acknowledge – in light of the statutory text, the deep and abiding circuit split, and a surprising November ruling by the Justice Department’s own Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) – that the statutory language is ambiguous. On that foundation, the government has the discretion to adopt a new (and better) interpretation that would permit eligible TPS recipients to make use of adjustment of status to obtain a green card.
In 2019, the Trump administration entrenched the restrictive interpretation through an obscure process rather clearly invoked to complicate a later policy change. The Biden administration should nonetheless undertake immediate reconsideration of the government’s position and seek to defer the pending Supreme Court briefing schedule to allow that agency process to proceed. A more refined position by the new administration would promote family unity and avoid compelling spouses of U.S. citizens to return to the very country from which they have escaped in order to seek the immigrant visa for which they already qualify.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of David’s article, explaining his suggestions, at the link.
This issue came up before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. After holding “oral argument,” I simply followed the statutory language and granted adjustment of status to the TPS holder.
In that case, following the literal statutory language produced the most reasonable policy result. As I pointed out to DHS counsel, the mis-interpretation they were pushing would not only violate the statutory language, but also result in a long-time TPS resident with work authorization who was paying taxes and supporting an American family being deprived of the legal immigration status to which he was entitled.
The result desired by DHS would have been highly nonsensical. Why make individuals who fit the legal immigration system established by Congress, and who actually have been contributing to our nation and our economy for many years, remain in limbo? In many cases, lack of a green card limits the both the earning and career potential of such individuals, plus adding unnecessary stress and uncertainty to the situation of their U.S. citizen family members.
The DHS reserved an appeal. I don’t believe it was ever pursued, however. And, of course, as a mere Immigration Judge (even before the position was “dumbed down” by the Trump DOJ) my decision only affected that particular case.It wasn’t a precedent.
But, it does illustrate my oft-made point that having “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights as Immigration Judges, BIA Judges, Article III Judges, and policy officials would be a huge positive change, making our immigration system fairer, more efficient, and more responsive to our national needs, even without major legislative changes. Also, these adjustments could be handled at USCIS, promoting uniformity while eliminating unnecessary litigation from the bloated Immigration Court docket.
Certainly, both the Solicitor General’s Office and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) urgently need new leadership with practical experience in immigration and human rights policies and litigation. It’s definitely out here in the private/NGO/academic sectors. The only question is whether Judge Garland and his team will go out and get the right talent in the key jobs.
Talk about taking a potential win-win-win-win and converting it to a lose-lose-lose-lose! But, the latter was a “specialty” of the Trump regime and their DOJ.
As David astutely points out, cases such as Sanchez v Mayorkas might appear “hyper-technical” to some; but, to those who truly understand our current broken immigraton system, they have huge implications. We need the expertise of the “practical scholars” of the NDPA throughout our governing structure — starting, but not ending, with a complete “housecleaning” at the disgracefully dysfunctional EOIR.
The only question is whether Judge Garland, Secretary Mayorkas, and the others in charge of the Government’s immigraton bureaucracy will (finally, at long last) bring in the right talent to solve their problems!
Dean Kevin Johnson reports @ ImmigrationProf Blog:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sanchez v. Wolf, which presents the question under the Immigration and Nationality Act whether a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient may adjust his or her status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The Third Circuit held that TPS recipients were not entitled to adjust their status because TPS status was not an “admission,” under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The Third Circuit decision in Sanchez conflicts with the rulings of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
********************
Here’s the government’s position in a nutshell: Notwithstanding the “plain language” of section 244(f)(4) which makes holders of TPS status eligible to adjust status in the U.S. if they meet all of the requirements for legal immigration (usually an an approved visa petition based on family ties or job skills), we have employed legal gobbledygook to refuse to adjust them. Thereby, we mindlessly keep them in “suspended animation” in the U.S. although they are long-time productive members of our society who have resided here with permission and work authorization and now meet our criteria for permanent immigration.
Sound pretty stupid?That’s because it is! I actually had this issue argued before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. Not surprisingly, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel was unable to come up with any rational reason for circumventing the statutory language to achieve a nonsensical result that actually unnecessarily inflated the case backlog and served no legitimate government purpose. Needless to say, I ruled in the respondent’s favor.
This isn’t “rocket science.” The new SG should join the petitioner’s counsel, JAIME W. APARISI (who regularly appeared before me in Arlington) and LISA S. BLATT (Williams & Connolly LLP) in agreeing that this issue was correctly resolved in the respondents’ favor by the Sixth & Ninth Circuits.
Then, ICE should ask the “new BIA” (real judges with immigration and human rights backgrounds appointed by AG Garland) to adopt this view nationwide.
Presto!
No more bogus, contrived “circuit split;”
TPSers with adjustment eligibility can be taken out of EOIR’s ridiculous 1.1 – 1.5 million case backlog and returned to USCIS for routine adjustment of status;
Productive, long-time members of our society can become green card holders, get on the path to citizenship, and reach their full productive potential for both their benefit and the benefit of our society;
A win, win, win, instead of wasting time attempting to achieve an illegal, undesirable, yet fundamentally stupid, irrational, and counterproductive result;
And, unlike the stupidity going on now, it actually doesn’t require expenditure of funds (actually will save and perhaps even generate money from adjustment filing fees), major regulatory changes, new legislation, or protracted litigation. It’s “low hanging fruit” that the Trump immigration kakistocracy has let rot on the tree! Rational administration of the immigration laws can actually be quite efficient.
Is it any wonder that the EOIR bogus “court,” whose “guiding principle” is “always construe the law against the individual and in favor of DHS” is building uncontrollable backlog hand over fist, even with double the number of “judges?” This is “fraud, waste, and abuse” in action! 💸🤮 Not something I’d want to “own” if I were Judge Garland (which, of course, I’m not, and never will be)!
That’s how “practical scholarship” @ EOIR, DOJ, and ICE; smarter, better, more ethical progressive leadership at the DOJ; and the private/NGO/academic bar can work together to solve legal problems and stop wasting the time of the Federal Courts and the Supremes. Perhaps, with the time saved, the Williams Connolly LLP team can even take some more pro bono asylum cases, make the system work better at the “retail level,” and save some deserving lives of vulnerable individuals who have been mistreated by Miller and his neo-Nazi gang of thugs and the malicious incompetents now “running” EOIR (into the ground) in the process.
Not rocket science! But, it will require Judge Garland to bring in some members of the NDPA who actually understand the interrelated issues of immigration, human rights, due process, civil rights, equal justice, and practical problem solving to replace the current “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ at EOIR and the DOJ. (Not to mention, a comprehensive “de-clownification” 🦹🏿♂️🤡 of DHS by Secretary-designate Mayorkas and his team). All of those skills have been conspicuously absent from the Executive branch during the last four years of kakistocracy.
⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Let the De-Clownifying 🤡🦹🏿♂️ Of Government Begin!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”All In A Day’s Work — BIA Members Unwind After Ignoring Statute, Dissing Three Circuits, Screwing TPS Holders, Beating Up Unrepresented Respondent, & Aiding Their “Partners” At ICE In Demeaning Justice https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Matter of PADILLA RODRIGUEZ, 28 I&N Dec. 164 (BIA 2020)
BIA HEADNOTE:
(1) Where the temporary protected status (“TPS”) of an alien who was previously present in the United States without being admitted or paroled is terminated, the alien remains inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (2018), and removal proceedings should not be terminated.
(2) An alien whose TPS continues to be valid is considered to be “admitted” for purposes of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status only within the jurisdictions of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.
For today’s BIA, it apparently doesn’t get any better than beating up on an unrepresented respondent who actually won before the Immigration Judge! Where was the “BIA Pro Bono Program” on this one?
It’s not rocket science: INA section 244(f)(4) says: “for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248, the alien shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant.”
So, clearly, an individual in TPS status who is eligible for permanent immigration can adjust statutus under INA section 245, right? Of course, unless you’re the BIA and stretching to find a way to deny. And, elevating the meanderings of the AAO over the considered opinions of three Circuit Courts of Appeals shows the level of intellectual honesty and scholarship on today’s BIA!
Now, lets look at the policy results produced by the BIA’s intentional misconstruction of the plain meaning of the statute.
First, it means that except in the 6th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, individuals in TPS status, basically long term residents who are going to be remaining, working, paying taxes, and raising families in the U.S., and who also are qualified to permanently immigrate (e.g., spouses of U.S. citizens) will be mindlessly barred from doing so.
But, wait, it gets even better! That’s only the case if they have themisfortune to live in a Circuit other than the 6th, 8th, or 9th. Of course, if they are able, they could move to one of those circuits to adjust.
Make sense? Only if you’re part of the “Clown Show of Denial.” Then, you ignore the statute, diss the Circuit Courts, and go out of your way to promote a non-uniform interpretation of the law that will screw contributing members of our society residing here legally and arbitrarily block them from achieving the permanent status to which they are entitled.
Now you can see what a difference replacing the “Clown Show” with real judges from the NDPA could make — both for the human lives and futures at stake and for sane, lawful, and fiscally efficient administration of our immigration laws!
REPEAT AFTER ME: Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Tell The Biden Team That The EOIR Clown 🤡 Show Has Got To Go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Brittany Bakken, Kelsey Friberg, and I are thrilled to share with you that Matter of HGG has been reversed. Of course, the government will appeal. Nevertheless, a great way to end a Monday.
Hats off to these fierce “Warriors of The New Due Process Army” 🏆⭐️🥇
David Wilson, Esquire Managing Attorney Wilson Law Group, Source: wilsonlg.com
Brittany Bakken, Esquire Senior Attorney Wilson Law Group Source: wilsonlg.comKelsey Friberg, Esquire Associate Attorney Wilson Law Group Source: wilsonlg.com
*****************************
The case is Hernandez v. Barr, USDC D MN
Not only was the USCIS position a violation of the plain meaning of the statute, as found by Chief Judge Tunheim, it is totally stupid from a policy standpoint! With hundreds of thousands of law-abiding TPS recipients in the U.S., integrated into our society, and contributing to our economy, a rational, non-racist, non-xenophobic Administration would welcome and utilize ways of integrating them into our legal immigration system. Instead, the Trump kakistocracy, wastes time, squanders resources, and violates the law looking for bogus ways to “get to no.” How dumb and counterproductive can it get!
I am pleased to announce a big win today before the Second Circuit. The Opinion is attached.
The Court held that the government is equitably estopped from denying an application for adjustment of status where: (1) it commits “affirmative misconduct” by failing to comply with an affirmatively required procedure – in this case, the failure to issue a Receipt or Rejection Notice in response to an attempted filing; (2) the applicant reasonably relies on the agency’s misconduct/inaction; and (3) the applicant is prejudiced thereby.
The interesting twist in this case is that the Court declined to reach the underlying statutory issue – concerning the CSPA – on which the District Court ruled in our favor. My take, having litigated and argued the case in both courts, is that the panel was genuinely flabbergasted that the government was pursuing the appeal and took the opportunity to stick it to DHS and issue a ruling on estoppel. The District Court did not even address estoppel, which was my alternative argument and occupied less than 5% of my briefing. My understanding is that the District Court decision – affirmed on other grounds – can still be cited for the substantive/legal conclusions it made regarding the CSPA. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
__________________________________
Jeffrey A. Feinbloom
FEINBLOOM BERTISCH LLP
***********************
Thanks, Jeffrey. The term “Affirmative Misconduct” could be used to describe the overall conduct of DHS and the entire immigraton kakistocracy under the Trump regime.
Historical Footnote: I worked on Corniel-Rodriguez v. INS, 532 F.2d 301, 306-07 (2d Cir. 1976) (holding that government official’s “noncompliance with an affirmatively required procedure” constituted “severe” misconduct, and reversing Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order of deportation without remanding to agency for fact-finding or further proceedings) when I was a young attorney in the “Legacy INS” Office of General Counsel, then headed by the legendary immigration guru Sam Bernsen, in 1976.
The Corniel-Rodriguez case led directly to the eventual creation of the section 212(k) waiver for innocent misrepresentations on visa applications as part of a larger “INS Efficiency Bill” proposed by our Office and eventually enacted by Congress. Just shows that there was a time when those running the U.S. immigration system actually “did the right thing,” at least on some occasions. Perhaps not surprisingly, “doing the right thing” often also proved to be the “efficient thing” by promoting justice and avoiding unnecessary, and often losing, litigation.
Those days, of course, are long gone. The Government immigration system is now run by hacks lacking both expertise and values and who, with the assistance of the DOJ, intentionally clog the Federal Courts with litigation that likely would have been deemed frivolous, unethical, or at least not in the best interests of the public in earlier times.
It also highlights a severe deterioration in the performance of the Solicitor General’s Office in the DOJ. That office used to encourage all Federal agencies to develop administrative solutions in cases where, after review of the Article III Courts’ “adverse decisions,” the agency position below appeared to be indefensible in future litigation.
Now, the Solicitor General is actually a “cheerleader” for some racially motivated appeals against lower court decisions correctly favoring immigrants and asylum seekers. These appeals are often “supported” by very obvious pretexts for invidious actions by the regime. Given the lack of integrity, courage, and commitment to racial justice on the current Supremes’ majority, the “bad guys” sometimes improperly prevail.
But, it’s actually no more mystery to outgoing Solicitor General Noel Francisco what motivates Stephen Miller & co. than it is to the rest of us. It’s just that Francisco has consciously chosen to be “part of the problem,” something that should be remembered when the history of his disgraceful tenure in office is written.
It also shows that whenever we finally get a return to “Good Government,” a “cleanout” of EOIR and creation of an Article I Immigration Court needs to be the first thing on the list; but, a thorough re-examination of the role of every part of a corrupt DOJ that has failed to act independently and has furthered a program of overt racism, inequality, and injustice, and often argued disingenuously for “worst practices and worst interpretations,” is also an absolute necessity.
To state the obvious, the fairness and efficiency of our immigration system as well as our entire U.S. Justice system is actually in full throttle reverse under the Trump kakistocracy.
I focus specifically on how TPS recipients can potentially adjust their status within the United States through either a family-based I-130 petition or an I-140 employment-based petition for permanent residency. A September 2017 practice advisory from the American Immigration Council points to two decisions from the Ninth and Sixth Circuit, Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017) and Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013), holding that TPS constitutes an admission for purpose of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under INA 245(a).”
****************************************
Go on over to Dan Kowalski’s fabulous LexisNexis Immigration Community at the above link to get the rest.
Given the sad saga of the “Dreamers” — whose legalization should have been a “no brainer” for any group other than Trump and the GOP restrictionists — we can’t count on Congress coming to the Haitian and El Salvadoran TPSers “rescue” before their “final extension” expires. So, it’s critical for lawyers to help as many as possible of these great, hard-working folks achieve legal status under existing law before the window closes!
Sadly, one of the key cases cited by Cyrus in his full article, the BIA’s very helpful precedent decision in Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012) is rumored to be on AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s restrictionist “chopping block.” So, there’s no time to lose!
“And the government’s interpretation is inconsistent with the TPS statute’s purpose because its interpretation completely ignores that TPS recipients are allowed to stay in the United States pursuant to that status and instead subjects them to a Rube Goldberg-like procedure under a different statute in order to become “admitted.” According to the government, an alien in Ramirez’s position who wishes to adjust his status would first need to apply for and obtain a waiver of his unlawful presence, which he could pursue from within the United States. See Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives, 78 Fed. Reg. 536-01, 536 (Jan. 3, 2013). Assuming that Ramirez demonstrates “extreme hardship” to his U.S. citizen wife and the waiver is granted, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), he would then need to exit the United States to seek an immigrant visa through processing at a U.S. embassy or consulate in another country. Such processing usually takes place in the alien’s home country—in this case, the country that the Attorney General has deemed unsafe— though it can occur in another country with approval from the Department of State and the third country. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.61(a). If he obtains the visa, Ramirez could then return to the United States to request admission as a lawful
permanent resident. To be sure, other nonimmigrants must leave the country to adjust their status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), but the invocation of these procedures in other circumstances does not undercut the clear language of the TPS statute on the “admitted” issue, and the convoluted nature of the government’s proposal underscores its unnatural fit with the overall statutory structure.
In short, § 1254a(f)(4) provides that a TPS recipient is considered “inspected and admitted” under §1255(a). Accordingly, under §§ 1254a(f)(4) and 1255, Ramirez, who has been granted TPS, is eligible for adjustment of status because he also meets the other requirements set forth in § 1255(a). USCIS’s decision to deny Ramirez’s application on the ground that he was not “admitted” was legally flawed, and the district court properly granted summary judgment to Ramirez and remanded the case to USCIS for further proceedings.”
***********************************
Although the 9th Circuit’s decision makes sense to me, and is consistent with a previous ruling by the 6th Circuit, the court notes that the 11th Circuit agreed with the DHS position. Consequently, there is a “circuit split,” and this issue probably will have to be resolved by the Supremes at some future point.
I had this argument come up before me in the Arlington Immigration Court. After conducting a full oral argument, I ruled, as the 9th Circuit did, in favor of the respondent’s eligibility to adjust. While the DHS “reserved” appeal, I do not believe that appeal was ever filed.
One of the things I loved about being a trial judge was the ability to hear “oral argument” from the attorneys in every merits case where there was an actual dispute.
