🗽⚖️ GREG CHEN AT THE BORDER: It Can Be Managed In A Humane & Legal Manner!

Greg writes @ Azcentral.com:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2023/11/03/pima-county-migrants-congress-resources-ports-border-courts/71411161007/

If Pima County can effectively handle a migrant surge, why is it so hard for Congress?

Opinion: If Congress weren’t so dysfunctional, it would see where and how many resources are needed to effectively manage immigrants and the border.

Gregory Chen opinion contributor

It’s hard to imagine any American having faith in government — or its ability to solve a complex problem like immigration — when Congress can barely pass a temporary spending bill without getting mired in controversial issues like border security and coming dangerously close to shutting down the government.

Fortunately, dysfunction is not the story in every part of the country.

While Congress is pointing fingers on immigration, small towns and cities throughout the country are doing the hard work of managing migrants arriving at the U.S. southern border.

I recently visited Arizona with a delegation of immigration attorneys and policy experts and saw the work by government officials, social workers and health care professionals up close.

Every day, federal Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents take recent arrivals to a church-affiliated shelter in Tucson, which does COVID-19 and other health screenings, provides a hot meal, and finds short-term local shelter, busing or other transportation in a matter of days or hours.

Remarkably, even with increased numbers of people coming into Pima County, the coalition of county administrators and nonprofits has found temporary housing and transport for everyone and avoided having people end up on the streets.

The local collaboration, supported by federal emergency funding, is a model for how migration at the border can be managed effectively.

. . . .

************************

Read Greg’s complete article at the link. It’s largely what I’ve been saying all along. Although far from perfect (what is perfect these days?), the current law could be made to work if there were the political will to do so.

The GOP’s unrelenting racism, xenophobia, dehumanization, and “doubling down” on failed deterrence and punishment “strategies” are guaranteed to make things worse. Dems need to stand tall for solving the humanitarian issues at Southern Border in a humane, legal, and practical manner, using the tools available under current law!

It can be done! We just need the political will (and political pressure) to make it happen. It’s not rocket science!🚀

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-06-23

🗽 AFTER DECADES OF INEXCUSABLE FAILURE & CRUEL GIMMICKS, AMERICA 🇺🇸 CAN & SHOULD DO MUCH BETTER FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS — AN ESSENTIAL GROUP OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS — New AILA Report Tells How! ⚖️

Clown Parade — AILA says this vision of the USG’s Asylum Program could be changed for the better. PHOTO: Public Domain

https://www.aila.org/highstakesasylum

Introduction

There should be a process, but there does need to be some space to be able to do this process. When you are in the thick of applying for asylum, you’re going to commit errors, you’re going to make mistakes, and it’s my understanding that these are the things that get you sent home. The work of an attorney is so important because you [as the applicant] have to turn over your soul, the best of you in this interview. The hardest part is the time, and the details required to demonstrate to the U.S. you are worthy of being allowed to remain herei

Lara Boston, MA Recently received her green card based on an asylum grant.

For people fleeing violence and persecution, nothing is more important than finding safety. For more than 40 years, U.S. asylum law has guaranteed asylum seekers the right to access legal protections enabling them to stay in the United States and avoid being returned to danger. But since the Refugee Act was signed into law in 1980, the laws on asylum eligibility have grown into a maze of convoluted requirements and pitfalls, like the children’s game “Chutes and Ladders,” with potentially deadly consequences.

Because of the complexity and requirements of asylum law, it takes time to prepare an asylum application. In my 25 years of practice, I have prepared and filed hundreds of asylum applications. Based on my experience, it takes time to get an accurate account of someone’s life when there’s violence and trauma involved. It takes time to find evidence of torture and persecution. When you read this report, I encourage you to try to imagine navigating the complex legal steps in the asylum process. Then, imagine doing it without an attorney, a nearly impossible task as extensive research and data has shown.1

This report comes at a critical moment when increased migration to the U.S. southern border and intense political pressure are pushing lawmakers to process asylum seekers faster. Faster can be accomplished, but it must also be fairer. If the system is fair, people meriting protection will receive it and those not eligible can and must depart. Toward that end, this report includes several recommendations that improve asylum processing so that it is both fair and more efficient. It is our hope that this report will contribute to policy reforms that are grounded in the realities of asylum law and the system that implements it.

Jeremy McKinney President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)

i Quotes by Lara throughout the report are from an interview conducted primarily in Spanish and then translated into English.

High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 3 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)

Return to TOC

Executive summary and recommendations

The heightened levels of migration worldwide are drawing intense political and media attention to the United States’ southern border, including radical calls for blocking access to asylum seekers that would undo longstanding American humanitarian principles. More balanced, smarter approaches are available. In fact, since taking office, the Biden Administration has implemented several such policies, including the scale-up of resources to screen asylum seekers at the border and the expansion of existing legal pathways for people to obtain protection.

Unfortunately, the President is also accelerating and truncating the asylum system in an attempt to speed up the process with policies like the 2022 asylum processing rule and the dedicated dockets program.ii AILA has forcefully opposed these recent policies because they are restricting or blocking asylum access and, as a result, deeply compromising the integrity and fairness of the U.S. system.iii

This report on the asylum process draws principally upon the expertise of AILA’s membership of more than 16,000 immigration attorneys and law professors nationwide who provided more than 300 detailed responses to a survey about the critical steps and time required to prepare an asylum case.iv The report’s principal conclusion is that the minimum time required for an attorney to properly prepare an asylum case is 50 to 75 hours. While this estimate accounts for some complications, an asylum case can take much longer. For example, the attorney may need to find evidence of torture in a country that is still wracked by political violence or devote extensive interview time to obtain sensitive information from the asylum applicant while they are still suffering from trauma. See Appendix I.

The government can greatly increase the efficiency of the asylum process by increasing agency resources and capacity and by eliminating existing delays within the system. Some of those steps are being taken, but further action is urgently needed . AILA recommends the Biden Administration use a systemwide, all-of-government approach to implement a range of solutions that will improve asylum processing and the management of migration at the U.S. southern border.

America needs an asylum system that is in line with the nation’s commitments to protect asylum seekers and ensure a fair legal process while also meeting the urgent demand for greater efficiency and capacity. The country’s immigration system must be able to quickly identify who has a legitimate claim for humanitarian protection and who does not. Those not eligible should be required to depart. But imposing strict, arbitrary timelines for asylum that do not allow for adequate preparation will result in eligible asylum seekers being denied protection and sent back to face persecution or death.

ii The asylum processing rule is formally known as “Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers.” New enrollment is currently paused as the Biden administration focuses on the transition away from Title 42. For recent updates, see Featured Issue: Asylum and Credible Fear Interim Final Rule, AILA, https://www.aila.org/advo-media/issues/featured-issue-asylum-and-credible-fear#:~:text=The%20 interim%20final%20rule%20%E2%80%9CProcedures,for%20individuals%20in%20expedited%20removal. See infra at Biden administration fast-tracked programs limit the opportunity to access counsel for more information on the asylum processing rule and the dedicated docket program.

iii E.g., AILA and the Council Submit Comments on Credible Fear Screening and Asylum Processing IFR, May 26, 2022, https:// www.aila.org/infonet/comments-on-credible-fear-screening; AILA Joins Legal Service & Mental Health Providers in Letter to Administration Expressing Grave Concerns over the “Dedicated Docket”, Oct. 5, 2022, https://www.aila.org/advo-media/ aila-correspondence/2022/letter-to-administration-expressing-grave-concerns; AILA and the Council Submit Comments on Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Proposed Rule, Mar. 26, 2023, https://www.aila.org/infonet/comments-on-circumvention- of-lawful-pathways.

iv See Appendix II.

High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 4 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)

Return to TOC

Ultimately, systemwide changes can only be accomplished through congressional action to appropriate the funding required to meet these systemic demands. After three decades of inaction, Congress must pass immigration laws that ensure America’s immigration system is ready for the future.

Key findings

The basic steps of preparing an asylum application takes an estimated minimum of 50 to 75 hours. This work cannot be done in one continuous period; instead, it is carried out over the course of several months. Cases with significant complexity can take far more time than this estimate.

Most asylum cases are not straightforward. Complicating factors that add time to an asylum case may include detention, past trauma experienced by the applicant, language barriers, and procuring evidence from foreign countries or expert witnesses such as medical testimony.

It is extremely difficult for an asylum seeker represented by counsel to sufficiently develop their asylum application within the mandatory deadlines established in the May 2022 asylum processing rule or the expedited family court “dedicated dockets.”
AILA recommendations
Ensure asylum timelines do not undermine fairness

When setting asylum processing deadlines, allow adequate time for an asylum seeker to obtain counsel and for the attorney to prepare for the case. Timelines should not rush trauma survivors who may need more time to recount their experience. Reasonable continuances should be allowed to obtain an attorney or for attorney preparation.

Waive or exempt asylum seekers from deadlines if the reason the deadline was not met is outside of their control.

Do not hold asylum seekers to the same evidentiary standards when they are subject to expedited adjudication timelines, such as the shortened deadlines of the 2022 asylum processing rule.
Reduce government delays and inefficiency

Establish uniform policies, centralized systems, and appropriate information sharing between immigration agencies. Agencies should centralize and digitize address changes across all agencies and simplify access to a noncitizen’s immigration record. These steps will enhance communication and data sharing, which will in turn reduce backlogs, avoid delays, and increase efficiency and fairness.

Reduce the immigration court backlog. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) should continue expanding initiatives to remove cases from the docket or facilitate the resolution of cases through pretrial conferencing. Immigration judges should administratively close or terminate appropriate cases, such as those eligible for a benefit with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).2

Do not expend finite prosecutorial resources on cases that can be resolved more expeditiously. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) attorneys should engage in pretrial negotiations and exercise prosecutorial discretion to avoid unnecessary litigation.
High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 5 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)

Return to TOC

Legal access and representation improve fairness and government efficiency

Ensure asylum seekers and other migrants being processed rapidly at the U.S. southern border have access to legal information, advice, and full counsel during credible fear interviews (CFIs), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspections, and immigration court proceedings.

Congress should Fund the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide legal representation for all immigrants. Everyone needs access to an attorney to provide legal advice and information prior to any hearings, including the CFI. Congress should appropriate DOJ funding to provide full legal representation to those in removal proceedings who cannot afford it.

Ensure access to counsel in all detention facilities. Detention facilities must be held accountable to policies that ensure attorneys have reliable confidential contact visits with clients, as well as access to free and confidential phone calls and video conferences. The government must monitor access to counsel at ICE facilities and impose penalties for violations of standards.
Reduce immigration detention

• Reduce immigration detention. Detention delays asylum cases because it creates barriers to obtaining counsel and makes case preparation far more difficult. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should reduce its use of immigration detention.

Improve the asylum process

The Biden administration should publish the long-awaited regulation on particular social group (PSG) asylum cases. On February 20, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to promulgate this regulation by November 17, 2021,3 but it has not been published. A regulation would aid in consistency of application of asylum law and would reduce USCIS referrals to immigration court.

Increase transparency in adjudications by making DHS’s asylum officer training materials publicly available.

Establish an interagency task force to develop a trauma-informed adjudication system. Experts in development, mental health, welfare, and trauma science should all be involved in this process. A trauma-informed adjudication process will help ensure accurate adjudications in the first instance, which in turn will decrease appeals.

Fund additional asylum officers. Congress should appropriate funds to increase the capacity of USCIS to adjudicate asylum applications.

High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 6 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)

Return to TOC

********************************

Download and read the complete report and view accompanying video at the above link!

Here’s one of my favorite comments on Linkedin from an all-star member of the NDPA, Amy R. Grenier:

A year ago, I wanted to cite something in a regulatory comment, but the cite I needed didn’t exist yet.

Today, the American Immigration Lawyers Association released a report on asylum timelines, High-Stakes Asylum: How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better. The report is based on a survey of over 300 asylum attorneys about how much time it takes to prepare an asylum application, and what complications add significant time. High-Stakes Asylum also includes recommendations on how to inject efficiency into the existing asylum process and ensure the integrity of a system that has life-and-death consequences.

I hope that you find it helpful to cite someday #immigration #lawyers #HighStakesAsylum!

Three decades ago, when I was practicing business immigration at Jones Day, we also did a robust pro bono Immigration Court BIA practice in which I played an advisory role. Even then, we allocated a minimum of 100 hours of attorney/paralegal prep time for an asylum case in Immigration Court and 40 hours for a BIA appeal.

And, at that time, the system probably wasn’t as “intentionally user unfriendly” as it is now. On some occasions, we were responding to requests for pro bono representation from Immigration Judges who believed that without representation certain previously unrepresented detained cases would “be lost and linger in the system forever.” That was long before 2 million case backlogs!

Representation is essential for due process at EOIR! This fundamental truth is neither new nor is it “rocket science!” That politicians of both parties and Article III Judges have swept this truth under the carpet doesn’t make it less true! If lives of persons who didn’t have the bad fortune to be immigrants were at issue, this intentionally due-process-denying system would have been held unconstitutional by the Supremes decades ago!

Unfortunately, A.G. Garland has fashioned a “highly, unnecessarily, and intentionally user unfriendly system” that actually discourages and impedes pro bono and low bono representation.

Alfred E. Neumann — Immigration experts and long-suffering advocates have become weary of AG Garland’s “above the fray” attitude and substandard performance on human rights and equal justice in America!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Even worse, he and his subordinates have failed miserably to “fully leverage” the amazing VIISTA Villanova program for training more highly-qualified non-attorney “accredited representatives” to rapidly close the representation gap throughout the nation. The asylum litigation “training modules” put together by VIISTA founder Professor Michele Pistone, with help from the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (“NITA”) puts EOIR/DOJ/DHS asylum training to shame!

Professor Michele Pistone
Villanova Law — The founder of VIISTA Villanova, brilliant lawyer, inspirational leader, teacher, scholar, social justice mavan, why isn’t she running and reforming EOIR? Why is Garland afraid of a proven “creative disrupter” driven 100% by a commitment to equal justice for all?

Incredibly, the Biden Administration “blew off” recommendations by experts that Professor Pistone or one of her colleagues be recruited to “shake up” EOIR and radically reform and improve training in asylum and other forms of protection.

Lack of fundamental expertise and private sector expedience representing asylum seekers is a key reason why EOIR under Garland continues to “wander in the wilderness” of legal dysfunction with no way out! So unnecessary! So damaging to democracy!

Many thanks to Jeremy McKinney, Greg Chen, and others who worked on the AILA report. Cite it! Use it! Demand that Congress heed it! Use it to force justice into Garland’s failed, dysfunctional, and unfair “Clown Courts!”🤡

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-16-23

IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! 🚀 — GREG CHEN & PROFESSOR PETER MARKOWITZ CAN CUT THE IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG IN HALF IMMEDIATELY WITH NO ADDITIONAL RESOURCES! — And, That’s Just The Beginning! — “Team Garland” Needs To Get The “A-Team” In Place @ EOIR & End The Nonsense, Injustice, & Waste Of “America’s Star Chambers!”

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/536794-unclogging-the-nations-immigration-court-system

From Immigration Impact:

. . . .

That is why the Justice Department must also identify categories of non priority immigration court cases that can be dismissed now. One obvious category is the estimated 460,000 cases — an astounding 37 percent of the current backlog — that involve individuals who could qualify, under current law, for legal status. It makes little sense to waste limited enforcement resources by having immigration prosecutors and judges spend years trying these cases in court, when trained adjudicators at another agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, can handle them more efficiently through paper applications.

Supreme Court cancels border wall, asylum policy hearings after Biden…

Another category of cases that should be removed from judges’ dockets are the 200,000 cases that have been pending for more than five years. By definition, these old cases are ones that prosecutors and judges have deemed low priorities.

Biden has noted that the Obama administration “took too long” to begin fixing the nation’s immigration system. His initial steps are a promising indication that he intends to move swiftly to build the fair, humane and functional immigration enforcement system he has promised. To guarantee results, the new president must use his first 100 days to identify and remove the non priority cases bottlenecked in America’s immigration courts.

Greg Chen is senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Peter L. Markowitz is a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law where he directs the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic.

*****************

Read the full article at the link.

Presto: 1.3 million million docket becomes 640,000. And that’s just the beginning!

Here are some more low-budget, immediate action “No-Brainers:”

Vacate all of the anti-asylum, backlog expanding “precedents” issued by Sessions, Whitaker, Barr, and the BIA over the past four years (immediately returning needed flexibility and some degree of fairness to the system);
Reassign the current BIA and replace with expert judges committed to due process who know how to grant asylum and establish precedents on how “clear grants” can be easily identified, properly documented, and consistently adjudicated (eliminate “refugee roulette” — largely a product of an “any reason to deny culture” combined with defective judicial selection, poor training, and lousy leadership);
Return all asylum cases denied over the past four years to the USCIS Asylum Office for adjudication without all the anti-asylum precedents and dehumanizing policies of the Trump regime;
Work with the private bar and NGOs to increase representation with universal representation as the goal;
Eliminate inane and demeaning “production quotas” for EOIR judges (thus placing the emphasis back on careful decision making, thoughtful analysis, and getting the correct result the first time — also restoring IJs’ ability to schedule and manage dockets).

Realistically, 500 Immigration Judges can complete approximately 250,000 to 300,000 cases annually. A combination of 1) the “Chen-Markowitz plan;” 2) the “Schmidt Addendum;” and 3) the more sensible and realistic enforcement priorities initiative already underway at DHS will have EOIR “operating in real time” (and, significantly, in the national interest) in no time at all — without legislation or busting anyone’s budget!

Of course, these initial steps are just the “tip of the iceberg” of the reforms necessary at EOIR, leading to the fulfillment of the vision of “through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Congress must at the earliest opportunity create an independent Article I Immigration Court to institutionalize and preserve these reforms and “best practices.”

But, in the meantime, lives and our national interests are imperiled by the current deadly (and wasteful) dysfunction @ EOIR. There is every reason to fix the system now! And, it’s not “rocket science” — just expertise and common sense.

Which leads me to another obvious point — Members of the NDPA like Chen, Markowitz, Dean Kevin Johnson, Michelle Mendez, Associate Dean Professor Jaya-Ramji Nogales, Professor Phil Schrag, Professor Michele Pistone, up and coming all-star Lauren Wyatt, Judge Dana Marks and other leaders of the NAIJ, experienced due process oriented Immigration Judges like my former BIA colleague Judge Noel Brennan, and many others like them should be in charge of this effort to reform EOIR and create a model court system.

The Biden Administration must apply the same principles to EOIR Reform that they have elsewhere: Get rid of the “middlemen” and “bring in the experts” to run the show! Articles, papers, speeches, TV interviews, encounter groups, studies, and blogs are great — but putting the right folks in the right places to take action to solve problems is much better and more efficient! Put the folks with the answers in charge!

That would not only create a “laboratory of best judicial practices” that could be applied to the floundering Article III Judiciary, but also would provide the Biden Administration with source of well-trained progressive candidates for the Article III Judiciary. Leadership, including “leading by example” is critical in any well-functioning judicial system; it has been sorely lacking at EOIR (and in the Article III Judiciary) over the past four years. As the Biden Administration has already recognized, the only real leadership among the Federal Judiciary has come from “resistors” like Judge Ashley Tabaddor, now at USCIS.

Incidentally, in her current position at USCIS, Judge Tabaddor is perfectly placed to work with EOIR in carrying out the “Chen-Markowitz plan” to get cases of those potentially eligible for residence out of the EOIR backlog and into USCIS where they can be handled more efficiently.

Suggestion for EOIR Acting Director Jean King: Perhaps you weren’t aware that EOIR just posted the following recruitment notice for Attorney Advisor (Counsel to the Deputy Director) (not a joke, sadly): https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMTAyMDMuMzQ1MzcxMTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9sZWdhbC1jYXJlZXJzL2pvYi9hdHRvcm5leS1hZHZpc29yLWNvdW5zZWwtZGVwdXR5LWRpcmVjdG9yIn0.HqH7tPMLAQqeCW9Xc0ooJNBRk_97S44aMG-xy02Pesc/s/842922301/br/97008185548-l

To state the obvious, EOIR needs more “headquarters personnel” like a hole in the head! What you need is a streamlined staff of better-qualified individuals across the board: real judges and professional judicial administrators who will restore due process and get this system functioning again — sooner rather than later.

Additionally, the current Deputy Director Carl C. Risch is a notorious “Trump political burrower” who should be gone by the end of the month. 🧹🪠 https://immigrationcourtside.com/category/department-of-justice/executive-office-for-immigration-review-eoir/office-of-chief-administrative-hearing-officer-ocaho/judge-james-mchenry/carl-c-risch/

Consequently, there is no apparent need for additional “counsel” in his office right now. To say the least, this ill-timed “example of the “Continuing Clown Show at EOIR”🤡 has already become a “internet mini-sensation!” At the very least, you should wait until Risch’s replacement arrives and let her or him make the selection.

Undoubtedly, a reformed IJ tenure program (considering not only discipline but also retention of current judges and improved professional training) that is transparent, fair, and effective is a badly needed and long overdue improvement. But, hiring another bureaucrat (on short notice, which is likely to produce a less than “best qualified” candidate) isn’t the answer.

That being said, I’ve already heard from a number of private practitioners who would love to be in charge of “professional responsibility for Immigration Judges.” They have lots of great ideas for improvements and a number of places where they would start the process immediately, if not sooner!

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-04-21

PASSING OF AN IMMIGRATION GIANT: A TRUE GENTLEMAN & SCHOLAR: Robert A. Mautino, 1937-2020

Dan Kowalski with the sad news from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

29 Jun 2020

mautino

citizenship

Robert A. Mautino, 1937-2020

Another giant in our professional forest has fallen. Among other things, Bob will be remembered for his mastery of the laws of citizenship by acquisition.

Here is a link to a 2010 interview with Bob, and here is a link to a biography by his family. A photo of Bob is here.

The encomiums are flooding my inbox. Angelo A. Paparelli said, “Bob was a warm-hearted giant, an encyclopedia of immigration law, a gentle and genial humanitarian. Every encounter I had with him helped me be a better immigration lawyer and person.”

*************************

I remember from my private practice days that Bob was always ready for a free consult on a “citizenship stumper.”

R.I.P., my friend and colleague! Fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork, you did it all and inspired younger generations to do likewise!

PWS

06-29-20

THE NEED FOR AN INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT: A New “Video Short” From AILA Productions!

THE NEED FOR AN INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT: A New “Video Short” From AILA Productions!

Starring (in order of appearance):

Hon. A. Ashlley Tabaddor — Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National
Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

Watch it here:

https://youtu.be/8fkt-g4XG_A

*******************************

Never has the need been greater!

Due Process Forever; Captive Courts Never!

PWS

02-01-20

COURTS OF INJUSTICE: Lawyers’ Groups Rip Bias, “Asylum Free Zone” At El Paso Immigration Court!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/us/el-paso-immigration-court-complaint/index.html

Catherine Soichet reports for CNN:

Lawyers slam ‘Wild West’ atmosphere in Texas immigration court

(CNN)Judges at an immigration court in El Paso, Texas, are undermining due process, making inappropriate comments and fostering a “culture of hostility” toward immigrants, according to a new complaint.

The administrative complaint, sent to the Justice Department on Wednesday and obtained by CNN, slams a number of allegedly recurring practices at the El Paso Service Processing Center court, which hears cases of immigrants detained at several locations near the border.

“El Paso feels like the Wild West in terms of the immigration system,” said Kathryn Shepherd, national advocacy counsel for the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Justice Campaign and one of the complaint’s authors. “There’s so little oversight. No one is talking about how bad it is.”

The complaint comes at a time of mounting criticism of the Justice Department-run courts that decide whether individual immigrants should be deported. And it comes as officials warn the number of cases those courts are tasked with handling is rapidly increasing with an influx of more undocumented immigrants crossing the border.

Among the allegations:

• Judges at the El Paso Service Processing Center court have “notably high rates of denial,” the complaint says, noting that the court granted less than 4% of asylum applications heard there between fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2017. Nationally, 35% of asylum cases in court are granted, according to the latest data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

• The complaint accuses judges in the court of making inappropriate comments that “undermine confidence in their impartiality” and are part of “a culture of hostility and contempt towards immigrants who appear” at the court. While hearing one case, a judge, according to the complaint, described the court as “the bye-bye place,” telling a lawyer, “You know your client is going bye-bye, right?” Another judge allegedly told court observers that “there’s really nothing going on right now in Latin America” that would provide grounds for asylum.

• Rules limiting evidence that can be presented at this court strip away due process, the complaint says. One judge’s standing order, for example, limits the length of exhibits that can be submitted to 100 pages. “This order is particularly harmful for individuals seeking protection whose cases are more complex or where country conditions are at issue,” the complaint says.

The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees US immigration courts, declined to comment on the allegations. Spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly confirmed that the office received the complaint letter on Wednesday.

An overwhelmed system

The allegations come amid mounting criticism of US immigration courts.

There are more than 60 immigration courts in the United States, and about 400 judges presiding over them. Immigration judges are hired directly by the attorney general and are employees of the Justice Department. They’re required to be US citizens, to have law degrees, to be active and licensed members of the bar and to have at least seven years of post-bar experience with trials or hearings, among other qualifications.

Prosecutors in immigration courts are employees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but the overall administration of the courts is the Justice Department’s responsibility.

Both immigrant rights advocates and immigration hard-liners agree the court system is struggling under a crush of cases — but they diverge widely in their proposals for fixing it.

More than 850,000 cases are pending in US immigration courts, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. And in a report released last month, the American Bar Association said the courts are “irredeemably dysfunctional and on the brink of collapse.”

The American Bar Association says US immigration courts are ‘on the brink of collapse’

The Trump administration has moved to hire more judges and to pressure them to finish cases more quickly, accusing immigrants and the lawyers who represent them of gaming the system and overloading it with frivolous cases.

President Donald Trump has also repeatedly questioned the need for an immigration court system to begin with. “We have to get rid of judges,” Trump said Tuesday in the Oval Office, later explaining that he no longer wants to catch people trying to cross the southern border illegally and “bring them to a court.”

Advocates say the existing system denies due process and harms vulnerable people who have legitimate claims to remain in the United States but face an overwhelming number of obstacles to make their case. They’ve argued a major overhaul is necessary, proposing the creation of an independent court system that’s not part of the Justice Department.

In recent congressional testimony, Executive Office for Immigration Review Director James McHenry said his department had increased its number of case completions for the third consecutive year. And he said that every day, the office decides immigration cases “by fairly, expeditiously and uniformly interpreting and administering the nation’s immigration laws.”

‘The worst court in the country’

Lawyers argue the El Paso Service Processing Center facility is both a window into wider problems of the immigration system and a particularly egregious example.

“Immigration courts across the nation are suffering from many of the issues identified here,” the complaint alleges, “including the use of problematic standing orders, reports of inappropriate conduct from (immigration judges), and highly disparate grant rates which suggest that outcomes may turn on which court or judge is deciding the case rather than established principles and rules of law.”

But one reason advocates focused this complaint on this El Paso court, the American Immigration Council’s Shepherd said, was that it had the lowest asylum grant rate in the nation, based on statistics compiled from Justice Department reports over a five-year period.

Trump keeps pushing for his border wall. But the nation’s immigration problems extend well beyond that.

Those figures, from annual fiscal year reports from 2013-2017, show the percentage of cases granted in the El Paso court has fluctuated in recent years, decreasing slightly from 2014-2016 and increasing slightly from 2016-2017. But for years, the figure has hovered at or under 5% — significantly below the national rate.

“If you look at the numbers, it’s the worst court in the country. But we wanted to understand really why that was the case,” she said. “What about El Paso, and what about how the judges conduct business in the court, makes it so hard to prevail?”

After researching that question and outlining their findings in the complaint, with the help of court observers and lawyers who regularly practice in the court, now Shepherd says they’re calling for the Justice Department to conduct its own investigation into the El Paso Service Processing Center court and other courts with similar problems.

Suggestions for improvement

An administrative complaint is a step in a formal grievance process used to bring issues to officials’ attention, Shepherd said, but does not trigger legal proceedings.

The complaint recommends a series of corrective measures, including providing more training on appropriate conduct for judges and requiring the Executive Office for Immigration Review to post publicly online any standing orders individual judges have issued.

New wave of ‘fake dates’ cause chaos in immigration courts

No matter how officials respond, Shepherd said she hopes the complaint will be a jumping-off point for further research into how the court’s practices have affected people who were ordered deported there.

“It’s pretty overwhelming, actually,” she said, “if you think about the thousands of people who have passed through this immigration court and haven’t really had a chance to fight their case in a meaningful way.”

CNN’s Maegan Vazquez and Abby Phillip contributed to this report.

**********************************************

This isn’t Due Process! This isn’t justice! This is a farce, a fraud, and a parody of justice going on with the active encouragement and incompetent management of a Department of Justice that has abandoned due process and the rule of law in favor of restrictionist “deny ‘em all, deport ‘em all” policies actively promoted by Trump, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and adopted by current Attorney General Bill Barr.

This national disgrace and existential threat to our entire justice system and constitutional order will not end until the Immigration Courts are removed from the Department of Justice and reconstituted as an independent, fair, impartial court system dedicated to insuring fairness and due process for all, including the most vulnerable among us.

PWS

04-04-19

AMERICA’S SHAME: 🤡 “CLOWN COURTS” PLUNGE TO NEW DEPTHS UNDER TRUMP & DOJ: Unpaid Judges, Court Clerks Who Can’t Afford The Rent, Illegal Rulings & Idiotic Policies By Biased & Ignorant DOJ Politicos, Unachievable Expectations, Unnecessary Postponements Caused By Trump & DOJ, & On Top Of It All A Few Unqualified Judges Who Discriminate, Cut Corners, & Intentionally Deny Due Process, All Combine To “Tank” Already Low Morale To Incomprehensible Lows!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-shutdown-claims-immigration-judge-paychecks-as-court-morale-hits-a-historic-low/

Kate Smith reports for CBS News:

The nation’s roughly 400 immigration judges are getting hit hard by the government shutdown:

They’re about to miss their second paycheck.

About three-quarters have been furloughed and unable to work, which means their case backlog is growing.

The result: Morale is at a “historic low,” said Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and a Los Angeles-based immigration herself, in an interview with CBS News.

The immigration court docket is split into two categories: Hearings for immigrants who have been detained represent about 5 to 10 percent of the docket. These cases have been uninterrupted during the shutdown and have been overseen by approximately 100 judges who aren’t getting paid.

But the vast majority of the immigration court docket is made up of immigrants who have been released but being monitored, or “non-detained” cases. Those cases case been postponed during the showdown. Judges who oversee these cases are completely barred from working, even on their own time to get ahead on administrative issues.

“I’ve been using the words ‘unprecedented’ and ‘surreal,’ and yet it keeps becoming more unprecedented and more surreal,” said Tabaddor. “It’s so unfortunate that we’ve reached this level of dysfunction.”

Adding to the low morale is a the massive backlog of cases, which has risen by nearly 50 percent since President Trump took office. As of November 30 the backlog stood at just over 800,000 cases, but if the shutdown continues through February it could break one million.

Worse still for the judges is a new quota system announced in October by the Department of Justice. It said that all judges would be required to complete 700 immigration cases in the following year; if they fall behind, their job security could be on the line.

“It’s so disconnected from reality,” said Tabaddor. “Those cases just can’t be completed in the timeframe that the administration is demanding. Frankly, it’s laughable.”

Given that many judges haven’t been able to work for more than a month, will the quota be waived? DOJ hasn’t given any guidance, said Tabaddor.

“It’s not like if you miss a day of work, they work just goes away,” Tabaddor said. “Everyone knows that they minute the shutdown is over, what awaits them is 10 times worse than what they left behind.”

“Judges jobs are on the line if they don’t meet these arbitrary number,” Tabaddor said. “People are very concerned.”

A call and email to the Department of Justice were not returned, but the agency’s website said that press inquiries may not be returned because of the government shutdown.

Currently, most non-detained judges have four to five thousand hearings scheduled through 2021 and in some cases 2022, Tabaddor said, noting that “every single day on their calendar is booked.” Immigrants who had hearings originally scheduled during the shutdown will most likely be forced to wait years before they’re able to get in front of a judge.

Forcing judges to rush through their quotas could have a devastating impact on immigration hearings, said Kate Voigt, the associate director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. When forced to choose between their own job security and a through understanding of an individual’s case, many judges have gone with the former, pushing through cases without giving immigrants their due process, Voigt said.

The Department of Justice has “increased pressures on judges to churn out cases at lightning speeds, at the expense of due process and case-by-case determinations,” Voigt said in an email to CBS News.

In Charlotte, North Carolina some judges have refused to hear testimony from female asylum seekers from Central America, citing an now-overturned policy statement from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions that removed domestic and gang violence from admissible asylum criteria, said Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney who serves clients in North Carolina and South Carolina, in an interview with CBS News. In one asylum hearing McKinney had last year prior to the government shutdown, Judge Barry Pettino refused to let his client testify, instead denying her asylum case outright because it dealt with gender-based violence, according to McKinney.

“My client didn’t think she was going to win her case, but she certainly didn’t think we were going to be in and out in 45 minutes,” McKinney said. “If the asylum seeker never gets to take the stand under oath, never gets to tell their story, that’s a fundamental due process problem right there.”

****************************

In the words of the distinguished Judge Tabaddor, “surreal!” Why is it “OK” to have a court operating in the “Twilight Zone” making life or death decisions? How would you like YOUR life or YOUR loved one’s life to be determined by this dysfunctional mess?

Simply shameful! Also completely unnecessary. Trump and the DOJ are totally unqualified to run any court, let alone one with life or death authority. Congress is paralyzed. If the Article IIIs don’t step in, take this over, and require the restoration of at least rudimentary Due Process, there might not be any removals in the future!

How will they “reopen” this mess even when the “Trump shutdown” ends? Why won’t most of the overworked, underpaid, under appreciated, stressed out Court Clerks who keep this (unautomated, paper heavy) “Rube Goldberg Contraption” afloat, and who live paycheck to paycheck, have found new jobs where they are fairly paid and appreciated? Why won’t all the retirement-eligible judges head for the exits where life is better, the paychecks keep coming, and you can actively fight the Trump idiocy?

PWS

01-23-19

PWS

01-23-19

RETIRED U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES SPEAK OUT AGAINST SESSIONS’S TRASHING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING IN MATTER OF CASTRO-TUM!

The following statement has been posted on the AILA website:

Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Express Disappointment in Attorney General’s Decision in Matter of Castro-Tum

May 18, 20181

1 This statement was updated on May 21, 2018 with additional signatures.

As retired Immigration Judges and Board Members, we are very disappointed in the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Castro-Tum, which failed to address the excellent arguments made in the numerous briefs (including ours) that were submitted. Based on our combined decades of experience on the bench and the Board exercising administrative closure, we can jointly refute with authority the AG’s mischaracterization of this necessary tool as a permanent status. Sessions failed to distinguish between the different circumstances under which the status has been exercised. We look forward to reiterating our belief that administrative closure is part of the inherent authority granted to immigration judges by Congress on appeal of this issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Sincerely,

Honorable Steven R. Abrams

Honorable Sarah M. Burr

Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase

Honorable George T. Chew

Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn

Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza

Honorable Noel Ferris

Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.

Honorable William P. Joyce

Honorable Edward Kandler

Honorable Carol King

Honorable Susan Roy

Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg

Honorable Paul W. Schmidt

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18) 2

Honorable Polly A. Webber

Honorable Robert D. Weisel

List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.

The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.

The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Honorable George T. Chew

The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003-2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014 and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.

The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18) 3

Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.

Honorable Edward Kandler

The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues.

The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18) 4

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.

The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.

Honorable Robert D. Weisel

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18

castro-tum-update-aila18051806-2

*********************************

We have by no means heard the last about Sessions’s absurdist decision. As the Immigration Court System crumbles under largely preventable, self-created backlogs resulting from the actions of politicos in this and the past two Administrations, it is critical that Sessions be held fully accountable and not allowed to shift the blame to the respondents, their attorneys, or the Immigration Judges as he is wont to do.

PWS

05-19-18

DAN KOWALSKI @ LEXISNEXIS: EXPERTS “CALL OUT” TRUMP & GOP RESTRICTIONISTS’ BOGUS CLAIMS ABOUT THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF FAMILY MIGRATION (Pejoratively Called “Chain Migration” By The Trumpsters)

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/immigration-law-blog/archive/2018/02/08/experts-debunk-trump-39-s-false-39-chain-migration-39-claims.aspx?Redirected=true

Here’s what Dan posted on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

“Experts Debunk Trump’s False ‘Chain Migration’ Claims

Miriam Valverde, Politifact, Jan. 31, 2018 – “President Donald Trump in his State of the Union address called for tighter control of legal immigration and for an end to “chain migration.” “Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives,” Trump said Jan. 30. “Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.” … But there is a long queue for certain relatives seeking to come through family sponsorship. For brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, the waiting period for a visa is over 13 years. … But there are limits on the number of visas issued per year per family category. More than 3.9 million people were in line for a visa as of Nov. 1, 2017, according to the U.S. State Department. Brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens fall under a “fourth-preference” category, which had 2.3 million people waiting for a visa — the wait period is over 13 years for immigrants from most nations, but even longer for some countries with heavy demand, such as Mexico and the Philippines. Siblings in the Philippines would have to wait at least 23 years for a visa, and Mexican siblings at least 20 years. “As a practical matter, because of these long backlogs there is not as much chain migration as President Trump claims,” said Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School. Trump said “a single immigrant can bring in unlimited numbers of distant relatives.” … Trump’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.”

Philip Bump, Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2018 – “As is so often the case with his discussion of immigrants, President Trump’s State of the Union description of “chain migration” — the process by which people in the United States can sponsor family members to join them — was long on fearmongering and short on accuracy. “The fourth and final pillar protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration,” Trump said of his multipart immigration restructuring proposal. “Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives. Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children. This vital reform is necessary, not just for our economy, but for our security and our future.” The idea that curtailing a process to bring in members of an immigrant’s nuclear family protects the nuclear family is one thing. But there is simply no way to defend the claim that “a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives.” … Immigrants can’t come to the United States and sponsor 20 cousins who arrive four months later, the sort of ease-of-entry that Trump and the White House seem to imply. At best, an immigrant could bring in a spouse or child — after likely waiting an extended period for that application to be approved. “You’re looking at years and years of waiting in this legal line,” [past president and past general counsel of the Washington, D.C.-based American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), David W.] Leopold said. “For anyone to say that the continuation of sponsorship based on family relationship is going to lead to an influx of people is either lying or doesn’t understand how the system works.” “

*************************************

Go on over to LexisNexis at the above link to get further links to the full articles. Many thinks to Dan for getting “the truth” assembled into one convenient blog.

PWS

02-09-18

AILA URGES CONGRESS TO CREATE INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT TO REPLACE CURRENT DUE PROCESS TRAVESTY! – “In fact, instead of working to improve the system, DOJ recently announced initiatives that severely jeopardize an immigration judge’s ability to remain independent and impartial. These new policies are designed only to accelerate deportations, further eroding the integrity of the court system.”

RESOLUTION ON IMMIGRATION COURT REFORM AILA Board of Governors Winter 2018

PROPONENT: AILA Executive Committee and AILA EOIR Liaison Committee

Introduction:

Our immigration court system does not meet the standards which justice demands. Chronic and systemic problems have resulted in a severe lack of public confidence in the system’s capacity to deliver just and fair decisions in a timely manner. As a component of the Department of Justice (DOJ), EOIR has been particularly vulnerable to political pressure. Immigration judges, who are currently appointed by the Attorney General and are DOJ employees, have struggled to maintain independence in their decision making. In certain jurisdictions, the immigration court practices and adjudications have fallen far below constitutional norms. Years of disproportionately low court funding levels – as compared to other components of the immigration system such as ICE and CBP – have contributed to an ever-growing backlog of cases that is now well over 600,000.

Despite the well-documented history of structural flaws within the current immigration court system, DOJ and EOIR have failed to propose any viable plan to address these concerns. In fact, instead of working to improve the system, DOJ recently announced initiatives that severely jeopardize an immigration judge’s ability to remain independent and impartial. These new policies are designed only to accelerate deportations, further eroding the integrity of the court system.

RESOLUTION: The Board hereby reaffirms and clarifies its position on immigration court reform as follows:

In its current state, the immigration court system requires a complete structural overhaul to address several fundamental problems. AILA recommends that Congress create an independent immigration court system in the form of an Article I court, modeled after the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Such an entity would protect and advance America’s core values of fairness and equality by safeguarding the independence and impartiality of the immigration court system.

Below is an outline of the basic features that should be included in the Article I court.

Independent System: Congress should establish an immigration court system under Article I of the Constitution, with both trial and appellate divisions, to adjudicate immigration cases.

This structural overhaul advances the immigration court’s status as a neutral arbiter, ensuring the independent functioning of the immigration judiciary.

Appellate Review:

AILA recommends that the new Article I court system provide trial level immigration courts and appellate level review, with further review to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. To prevent overburdening Article III courts, it is necessary to include an appellate court within the Article I court system.

Judicial Appointment Process:

AILA recommends the appointment of trial-level and appellate-level judges for a fixed term of no less than 10 years, with the possibility of reappointment. These judges would be appointed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the federal circuit in which the immigration court resides. The traditional Article I judicial appointment process, which relies on Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation, would be unworkable for the immigration court system and could easily create a backlog in judicial vacancies. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court system, which uses a different appointment process than other Article I courts, is a better model for the immigration court system, due to the comparable size and the volume of cases. Like the U.S. Bankruptcy Court System, which has 352 judges, the immigration court currently has over 300 judges. Traditional Article I courts have far fewer judges than that of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court System. Therefore, AILA recommends a judicial appointment system that closely resembles that of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Hiring Criteria for Judges:

Trial and appellate judges that are selected should be highly qualified, and well-trained, and should represent diverse backgrounds. In addition to ensuring racial ethnic, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, religious, and geographic diversity, AILA advocates for a recruitment and selection process that is designed to ensure that the overall corps of immigration judges is balanced between individuals with a nongovernment, private sector background, and individuals from the public sector. We believe this balance best promotes the development of the law in the nation’s interest.

****************************************

Read the complete report here:

AILA Resolution Passed 2.3.2018

The proposal that U.S. Immigration Judges be appointed by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for renewable 10 year terms is particularly salutary. The current process needs to be professionalized and de-politicized. The U.S. Courts of Appeals are the “primary professional consumers” of the work product of the U.S. Immigration Judges. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court Appointment System recommended by AILA has earned high praise for producing a fair, impartial, merit-based, apolitical judiciary.

The current ridiculous selection and appointment process within the DOJ has two stunning deficiencies.

First, it has become an “insider-only” judiciary. Over the past three Administrations nearly 90% of the newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judges have been from government backgrounds, primarily DHS/ICE prosecutors. Outside expertise, including that gained from representing individuals in Immigration Court, clinical teaching, and working for NGOs and pro bono groups has been systematically excluded from the Immigration Court judiciary, giving it a built-in “one-sided” appearance.

Remarkably, the situation at the appellate level, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has been even worse! No Appellate Immigration Judge/Board Member has been appointed from “outside Government” since 2000, and both of those have long since been removed or otherwise moved on.

Indeed, even sitting (as opposed to “administrative”) U.S. Immigration Judges are seldom appointed or even interviewed for BIA vacancies. There is only one current Appellate Immigration Judge who was appointed directly from the trial court, and that individual had only a modest (approximately three years) amount of trial experience. Thus, a number of sources of what would logically be the most expert and experienced appellate judicial candidates have been systematically excluded from the appointment process at the DOJ.

Second, while the results produced are highly problematic, the DOJ hiring process for U.S. Immigration Judges has been amazingly glacial! According to the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) the Immigration Judge appointment process during the last Administration took an average of two years! That’s longer than the Senate confirmation process for Article III Judges!

Much of the delay has reportedly been attributed to the slowness of the “background check process.” Come on man! Background checks are significant, but are essentially ministerial functions that can be speeded up at the will of the Attorney General.

It’s not like Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, or Jeff Sessions were willing to wait two years for background clearance for their other high-level appointees in the DOJ. No, it’s simply a matter of screwed up priorities and incompetence at the highest levels of the DOJ. And, let’s not forget that most of the appointees are already working for the DHS or the DOJ. So they currently have high-level background clearances that merely have to be “updated.”

It should be “child’s play” — a “no-brainer.” When Anthony C. “Tony” Moscato was the Director and Janet Reno was the Attorney General, background checks often were completed for Immigration Judges and BIA Members in less than 60 days. And, if Tony really needed someone on board immediately, he picked up the phone, called “downtown,” and it happened. Immediately! Competence and priorities!

Our oldest son Wick has been private bar member of the U.S. Magistrate Judge Recommendation Committee for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Their process was much more open, timely, and merit-focused than the current DOJ hiring process (whatever that might actually be) and fairly considered candidates from both inside and outside government.

Also, the slowness of the background check process unfairly prejudices “outside applicants.” Sure, it’s annoying for a “Government insider” to have to wait for clearance. But, his or her job and paycheck continue without problem during the process.

On the other hand, “outside applicants” have to make “business decisions,” — whether to take on additional employees or accept new clients; whether to commit to another year of teaching; whether to accept promotions, etc — that can be “deal breakers” as the process creeps along without much useful feedback from EOIR.

Attorney General Sessions has claimed that he has a “secret process” for expediting appointments. But, so far, except for a “brief flurry” of appointments that were reportedly “already in the pipeline” under Lynch, there hasn’t been much noticeable change in the timelines. Additionally, the process is often delayed because DOJ and EOIR have not planned adequately, and therefore have not acquired adequate space and equipment for new judges to actually start hearing cases.

Government bureaucrats love acronyms (so do I, in case you hadn’t noticed)! There is only one acronym that can adequately capture the current sorry state of administration of the U.S Immigration Courts under DOJ and EOIR administration: “FUBAR!”

And that’s without even getting to the all-out assault on Due Process for vulnerable respondents in the U.S. Immigration Courts being carried out by Jeff Sessions and his minions. According to my information, DOJ/EOIR “management” is pushing Immigration Judges to render twenty-minute “oral decisions;” complete “quotas” of 4-5 cases a day to get “satisfactory” ratings; and not include bond cases, administrative closure, Change of Venue, Credible Fear Reviews, or Motion to Reopen rulings in completions.

Since it takes an experienced Immigration Judge 3-4 hours to do a good job on a “fully contested” asylum decision with oral decision, that’s a “designed to fail” proposal that will undoubtedly lead to cutting of corners, numerous denials of Due Process, and remands from the U.s. courts of Appeals. But despite some disingenuous “rote references” to Due Process, it’s not even an afterthought in Sessions’s plan to turn Immigration Court into “Just Another Whistle Stop on The Deportation Railroad.”

As I say, “Bad ideas never die; they have a life of their own within the bureaucracy.” That’s why we need to get Immigration Courts out of the bureaucracy!

This Congress, which “can barely even tie its own shoes,” so to speak, isn’t likely to get around to creating an Article I Immigration Court. But, every day that the current mal-administered and unfair system remains within the DOJ is a Due Process and fairness disaster. That’s something that even Congress should be concerned about!

Thanks to Attorney (and former Immigraton Judge) Sue Roy of New Jersey for sending me the AILA Resolution.

PWS

02-07-18

Greg writes @ Azcentral.com:

If Pima County can effectively handle a migrant surge, why is it so hard for Congress?

Opinion: If Congress weren’t so dysfunctional, it would see where and how many resources are needed to effectively manage immigrants and the border.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Presto: 1.3 million million docket becomes 640,000. And that’s just the beginning!

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski with the sad news from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Immigration Law

Robert A. Mautino, 1937-2020

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; Captive Courts Never!

Related posts:

Lawyers slam ‘Wild West’ atmosphere in Texas immigration court

(CNN)Judges at an immigration court in El Paso, Texas, are undermining due process, making inappropriate comments and fostering a “culture of hostility” toward immigrants, according to a new complaint.

An overwhelmed system

‘The worst court in the country’

Suggestions for improvement

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

“Experts Debunk Trump’s False ‘Chain Migration’ Claims

Related posts:

Related posts: