Tag: BIA Precedent

AS ANOTHER BIASED BIA PRECEDENT BITES THE DUST, THE QUESTIONS ARE: 1) WILL THE BIA DELIVER ITS CUSTOMARY “MIDDLE FINGER” TO THE CIRCUITS; 2) WILL THE CIRCUITS FINALLY HOLD THE BIA ACCOUNTABLE FOR CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT; & 3) WILL THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REPLACE THE DEADLY BIA “CLOWN SHOW” 🤡☠️ WITH REAL JUDGES?

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

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/asylum-and-refugee-law/practice-alert-ninth-circuit-vacates-matter-e-r-l

Here’s the CLINIC “practice advisory” on the vacating of Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020)

Practice Alert

On December 10, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020). Albizures-Lopez v. Barr, No. 20-70640, 2020 WL 7406164, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38725 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2020). In E- R-A-L-, the asylum applicant was targeted by a drug cartel because his family owned a farm in Guatemala. The Board’s now-vacated published decision rejected his family and landowner-based particular social groups, as well as making errors relating to the nexus analysis for asylum and withholding of removal.

Practitioners should note that the Ninth Circuit specifically vacated E-R-A-L- itself, meaning that the Board’s decision has no effect anywhere in the United States. See Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F.2d 484, 495 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (“When a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.”) Practitioners should argue to Immigration Judges that E-R-A-L- is no longer binding precedent, making it easier to prove the cognizability of landowner-based particular social groups. If an Immigration Judge already denied a landowner case, and the appeal is pending before the Board, practitioners should argue that the case should be remanded in light of E-R-A-L-ʼs vacatur.

Practitioners confronting issues with an adjudicator’s implementation of the Ninth Circuit’s decision are encouraged to contact counsel for E-R-A-L-, Bradley Jenkins (bjenkins@cliniclegal.org) and Shane Ellison (ellison@law.duke.edu).

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. | cliniclegal.org | Updated December 2020

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

Congrats to Brad, Shane, and the rest of the CLINIC team.

This is certainly the right approach. But, in the past, the BIA has routinely “blown off” claims that reversal and vacation by a “mere Circuit Court” affects the “precedential  value” of the decision outside that Circuit. https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Sheffy.pdf#:~:text=A%20vacated%20BIA%20precedential%20decision%20is%20thus%20only,to%20contra-%20dict%20long-held%20notions%20of%20fairness%2C%20consistency%2C

That “in your face Article IIIs” position by the BIA is remarkable. But even more remarkable has been the feckless Article IIIs’ failure to challenge this disrespect for their functions.

You don’t even have to be a lawyer to understand that a vacated and/or reversed decision is no decision at all. Since it no longer represents the correct resolution of an actual dispute, it pertains to no live “case.” It’s simply part of the historical record of that case, having no force and effect. Continuing to treat it as “precedent” is essentially issuing an illegal advisory opinion, untethered to any actual case or controversy.

Sure, I understand the concept of “Circuit splits,” better than most, having dealt with the legal and practical aspects of them for nearly half a century. But, no reversed precedent should be effective anywhere unless and until the BIA revisits the issue in another Circuit with a precedent fully considering the reasons why the “naysaying Circuit” found their original precedent wrong, whether that Circuit’s interpretation should be adopted nationwide, and, if not, cogently explaining why they have chosen to disregard the Circuit’s views. And, it should be the BIA’s actual, independent evaluation, not a result that they are explicitly or implicitly “told” to issue by OIL, the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Director, or any other DOJ official.

So, whether E-R-A-L- continues to have precedential effect outside the 9th Circuit probably ultimately depends on if and when the Biden Administration replaces this BIA with better judges and whether we finally get a better qualified Attorney General, committed to due process, human rights, and human decency, willing to let the “new BIA” function independently. 

On the merits, E-R-A-L- was a ham-handed attempt by the BIA to abrogate its seminal Acosta precedent which correctly recognized “land ownership” as a proper “fundamental characteristic” and therefore a recognizable ”particular social group.” As I often have observed, the BIA’s subsequent absurdist, ahistorical approach in E-R-A-L- would come as a surprise to millions of dead kulaks liquidated by Stalin’s purges and countless others subjected to persecution throughout history based on property ownership, one of the most clearly recognized “particular,” “socially visible,” and “fundamental” characteristics in human existence. 

One wouldn’t exactly have to be a “Rhodes Scholar” to recognize the ridiculous, overtly politicized, intentional misinterpretation of asylum law that springs from the pages of the BIA’s atrociously erroneous decision in E-R-A-L-.

But, it’s hardly surprising, given the disrespect for immigration and human rights expertise in judicial selection at all levels of EOIR and the resulting failure to produce anything close to a fair, representative judiciary that is capable of understanding asylum law in context and appreciating the impact of their decisions on the human lives and communities they most affect. There is also a conspicuous absence of deliberation or dissent among today’s politically accommodating, “go along to get along” BIA “judges.”

What’s the purpose of a supposed “deliberative body” that neither transparently deliberates nor gets the correct answers on basic legal questions; a body incapable of protecting the constitutional and statutory rights, not to mention the lives, of individuals seeking justice?

To some, the BIA might (wrongly) be considered “obscure.” But, there is nothing “obscure” about the real human beings whose existence is threatened or eradicated by the BIA’s malfeasance and dereliction of duty!

The EOIR Clown Show 🤡 must go!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-22-20

 

Related posts:

  1. WHY EOIR 🤡 MUST GO ** CH. CI — Latest CLINIC Court Victory Over Regime Exposes Unholy (Not To Mention Unconstitutional & Unethical) Alliance Between EOIR & ICE Enforcement To Screw Kids! — The Bottom Is Unfathomably Deep @ The Deadly EOIR Clown Show🤡! —  “ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.”
  2. FROM THE HEIGHTS OF KASINGA TO THE DEPTHS OF AMERICA’S DEADLY STAR CHAMBERS: Will The Biden Administration Tap The New Due Process Army To Fix EOIR & Save Our Nation? 
  3. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  4. 🇺🇸⚖️🗽HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: UNETHICAL, 🏴‍☠️WHITE NATIONALIST,⚰️ MISOGYNIST 🤮“WAR CRIMINAL” ☠️JEFFREY ROSEN TAKES COWARDLY🐓 PARTING SHOT AT REFUGEE🦸🏻 WOMEN! — DOJ Clean-Out, 🧹🪠🧻Fumigation, & Restaffing With Ethical Attorneys Can’t Begin Soon Enough!

THE ASYLUMIST: Jason Dzubow Wins Key “Firm Resettlement” Case — Wonders Why BIA Won’t Publish When Failing System Cries Out For More Consistency!

http://www.asylumist.com/2017/06/22/the-bia-on-firm-resettlement-2/

“Ultimately, the BIA accepted one of several arguments we presented. The Board held:

The intent of the firm resettlement bar is to disqualify asylum applicants who have previously found another country of refuge, not another country in which he or she faces a danger of persecution…. Given respondent’s situation with regard to [the third country], we conclude that, even assuming she otherwise would be viewed as having firmly resettled in that country, she is not barred from asylum.

Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, the Board went beyond the analysis of Matter of A-G-G- and looked to the intent of the firm resettlement bar. The intent, the BIA says, was only to bar “aliens who had already found shelter and begun new lives in other countries.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo, 402 U.S. 49, 56 (1971)).

It seems to me that the Board’s emphasis on the intent of the bar is significant. If you only read the firm resettlement bar (INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(2)(vi)) and Matter of A-G-G-, you could reasonably conclude–like the DHS attorney and the IJ in my case–that once a person is firmly resettled, she is forever barred from asylum. But that is not the conclusion the Board has now reached.

I am glad for the result and for my clients, but I am disappointed that the BIA chose not to publish this decision. The issue that my clients faced–where the country of resettlement is unsafe–is not uncommon. A number of my clients have faced similar situations, and I suspect that they are not unique. A published decision would have helped clarify matters and provided better guidance to our country’s Immigration Judges.

Maybe I am asking for too much. Maybe I should just be happy with what we got. Maybe I am being a big jerk for looking this gift horse in the mouth. But I can’t help but think that if the BIA would publish more decisions–especially in cases where there is no existing precedent–our Immigration Court system would be more consistent and more efficient. And so while I am thankful that we received a good decision from the Board in this particular case, I am also thinking about how much more good the Board could do if it made a concerted effort to fulfill its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws,” and if it would publish more cases.”

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

I agree, Jason. As you know from our Asylumist interviews last summer, there was a time when the BIA published more cases. It was during the era of the “Schmidt Board.”

Many of the precedents involved controversial issues of first impression under IIRIRA. There was open dialogue with some separate opinions. Sometimes, the dissent better predicted the future development of the law than the majority opinion. Most were en banc, so every Board Appellate Judge had to take a public vote. And, some of them actually granted relief to the respondent.

But those days are long gone. Today’s Board exists 1) to push cases through the system to final orders of removal on more or less of an assembly line, 2) not to rock the boat, 3) to provide OIL with ways to defend the Government’s “party line” under Chevron, and 4) to preserve the institution and the jobs of the Appellate Judges.

You’ll notice that I didn’t mention anything about due process, fairness, best practices, consistency, law development, informative dialogue, justice, or even practicality.  And, Jason, let’s face it. Who would want to publish a decision favorable to a respondent with Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions — a guy who basically never has a kind, humane, or generous word to say about any migrant, legal or not — as your boss?

In a functioning system, an appellate court that stood for fairness, due process, and best practices could be part of the solution. But, our current U.S. Immigration Court system is dysfunctional. And, mostly, the Board is just another part of the problem. Basically, if you don’t stand up for anything or anybody, you stand for nothing.

PWS

06-28-17

Related posts:

  1. THE ASYLUMIST WEIGHS IN ON EOIR’S “FACT SHEET:” “Sometimes, myths and facts get mixed up, especially in the Trump Administration, which has redacted human rights reports to show that countries are safe, buried other reports that don’t say what they like, and claimed that asylum lawyers are making up cases to get their clients across the border. It’s all in the grand tradition of the merchants of doubt, men and women who know better, but who obfuscate the truth–about tobacco, global warming, vaccines, whatever–to achieve a political goal (or make a buck). Why shouldn’t EOIR join in the fun?”
  2. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  3. Here’s My Keynote Address From Today’s FBA Immigration Law Conference In Denver, CO!
  4. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”