😩TIRED OF PANDERING POLITICOS BASHING HUMAN RIGHTS & DEHUMANIZING BORDER COVERAGE BY THE MEDIA? — Here’s Some Straight Talk On The Border From Migration Expert Harvard Law Professor Gerald L. Neuman! ⚖️🗽 — “There is danger that any new legislation would decrease protection, which would mean that we would be taking no steps forward, and several steps backward, and that nonetheless, issues about migration would remain just as divisive as they are now.”🤯

Professor Gerald L. Neuman
J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law
Harvard Law
PHOTO: Harvard Law

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/02/immigration-roars-back-in-headlines-time-finally-come-for-reforms/

Liz Mineo, Staff Writer, interviews Professor Neuman in The Harvard Gazette:

. . . .

What should be done about border security, enforcement, and the immigration court backlog?

In terms of enforcement, there is no easy solution. A border fence is merely a symbol and no solution. Clearly, the adjudication system needs more resources, and adjustments to improve both efficiency and fairness. For both sides, justice delayed is justice denied, and that should be an important part of the focus.

Another priority, contrary to some claims, is to reduce reliance on detention. The U.S. is engaged in arbitrary detention of migrants who really don’t need to be detained; they could be subject to surveillance.

The country should also respect its international obligations not to send people back to countries where they will be persecuted, tortured, or killed. It cannot suspend its international obligations on that front, and it should not openly violate them, as it did under COVID.

What measures should be taken to reduce the flow of migrants into the U.S?

In terms of enforcement, the important point to stress is that this is not an issue that the U.S. can solve unilaterally. There must be a regional solution. It’s obvious to anyone who looks at the logistics of the problem that the solutions depend on cooperation with Mexico. Congress can’t just impose a solution and assume that Mexico will go along with it. More broadly, there are other countries that need to be involved in protecting refugees and in solving some of the problems that lead to migration.

Some experts say the asylum system is a parallel immigration system and that it should be revamped. What’s your take on this?

I’d like to use the term asylum broadly, not legalistically, to cover forms of protection from persecution, killing, and torture. The U.S. asylum system is too opaque and too inconsistent: Valid claims may be rejected, and claims that are made in perfectly good faith may turn out to be invalid.

On the other hand, some people seek desperately to come to the U.S. for reasons that are not covered by asylum, such as poverty, loss of livelihood, or to join family members. The system needs to winnow those claims out while remaining open to valid claims for protection. It would also benefit from greater clarity on which claims are valid, and from more consistent adjudication, but now, the system is not meeting its obligations to persecuted people.

Finally, what are your realistic hopes for changes in immigration policies?

For now, my hopes would be that any new legislation would increase funding and would help give the public the sense that the border situation is being addressed.

And meanwhile that the executive would use the authority that it already has to manage the situation better, including by negotiating with other countries. The executive should resist efforts that obstruct its compliance with its obligations.

There is danger that any new legislation would decrease protection, which would mean that we would be taking no steps forward, and several steps backward, and that nonetheless, issues about migration would remain just as divisive as they are now.

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

Read the full (edited) interview at the link.

“Decrease protection” seems to be a toxic bipartisan goal of Congress and the Administration. What’s preventing it? They can’t agree on the amount of cruelty, suffering, and dehumanization to inflict on vulnerable forced migrants who overwhelmingly seek only to have the USG process their legal claims for protection in a fair and timely manner! That reality has clearly been lost in the rancid, one-sided, often secret “negotiations” in Congress; the insipid statements of the Biden Administration promising more border closures, cruel, inhuman, degrading, expensive, and wasteful detention; and treacherous “bipartisan” abrogation of well-established “life or death” legal rights to fair consideration of claims!

Professor Neuman says “this is not an issue that the U.S. can solve unilaterally.” There is general consensus among migration experts on this fundamental truth! Yet, Congress and the Administration keep pretending otherwise, with little critical, informed “pushback” from the media.

Why isn’t Kristen Welker interviewing Professor Neuman and other migration experts, rather than making “Meet the Press” a “Foxlike Forum” for those promoting White Nationalist lies about the border and national security? Welker hasn’t bothered to inform herself about the human lives and human rights involved with forced migration at the border. Therefore, her feeble attempts to stop GOP nativist politicos from rambling on with their border myths are somewhere between ineffective to pathetic, but certainly must be maddening to anyone involved with assisting the actual humans seeking protection under our dysfunctional legal system!

Remarkably, but not surprisingly, many of Professor Neuman’s points relate directly or indirectly to the failure of AG Merrick Garland (amazingly, a former Article III Circuit Judge) and his lieutenants to reform EOIR and get it working in “real time.” The ideas for fixing EOIR and the enlightened expert leadership to do it are available in the private sector. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/19/⚖%EF%B8%8F🤯👩🏽⚖%EF%B8%8F👨🏻⚖%EF%B8%8F-as-garlands-backlog-hits-3-million-way-past-time-to-clean/.

Garland’s inexcusable failure to fix EOIR and get it working fairly, professionally, expertly, and in real time is a drag on the Biden Administration immigration policies and an existential threat to our democracy!

Inexcusable indeed! 🤯

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-08-24

⚖️🧑‍⚖️ THERE’S STILL TIME (BUT NOT MUCH) TO REGISTER FOR CMS’S “DEEP DIVE” INTO EOIR’S DYSFUNCTION, WITH TRUE EXPERTS

View this email in your browser

TOMORROW, June 6 at 12:30pm ET, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) will host a webinar and discussion on its latest paper entitled, The US Immigration Courts, Dumping Ground for the Nation’s Systemic Immigration Failures: The Causes, Composition, and Politically Difficult Solutions to the Court Backlog, by Donald Kerwin and Evin Millet.

Experts on the immigration court system will highlight the systemic problems in the US immigration system that have caused and sustained the backlog, and offer recommendations for reversing the backlog.

Speakers include:

Donald Kerwin, former executive director of CMS and Editor of the Journal of Migration and Human Security
Mimi Tsankov, President, National Association of Immigration Judges and member, Expert Advisory Group
Richard A. Boswell, Professor of Law, UC College of Law, San Francisco, and member, Expert Advisory Group

As well as additional members of the Expert Advisory Group:

Gregory Chen, Senior Director of Government Relations, American Immigration Lawyers Association
Anna Gallagher, Executive Director, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
Karen T. Grisez, Pro Bono Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Jacobsen, LLP
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks (retired), President Emerita, National Association of Immigration Judges (in her personal capacity)
Michele Pistone, Professor of Law, Villanova University
Andrew Schoenholtz, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University Law Center
Denise Noonan Slavin, retired judge, Adjunct Professor, St. Thomas University School of Law
Charles Wheeler, Senior Attorney/Director Emeritus, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

Click the button below to register for FREE!

The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) is a New York-based educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. For more information, please visit www.cmsny.org.

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

This email was sent to Jennings12@aol.com
why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences
Center for Migration Studies, New York · 307 East 60th Street · New York, NY 10022 · USA

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

To be bluntly honest, this panel of experts appears to be the group that an Administration seriously committed to restoring due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices to the “retail level” of U.S. justice would have hired in January 2021, to clean house 🧹 and institute lasting institutional reforms at America’s worst courts!

They have been “hiding in plain sight” for the past 2.5 years while Garland has been flailing and failing to bring order and long-overdue reforms to his tragically broken system!

Clown Car — Isn’t it time to finally get the “EOIR Clown Show” off the road before it causes more fatalities? Many experts think so!
PHOTO CREDIT: Ellin Beltz, 07-04-16, Creative Commons License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Creator not responsible for above caption.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-05-23

😎 👍🏼”RADICALLY OPTIMISTIC” PROGRESSIVE LEADER PATRICK GASPARD, SON OF IMMIGRANTS, THINKS AMERICA CAN MOVE BY TRUMP AND GOP NEO-FASCISM! — “There is a fear that I hear among immigrants that are in our community: they worry that the face of America has changed. When they see things like ‘the great replacement’ conspiracy that’s driving all kinds of not just rhetoric but actual policy on the ground for conservatives, they worry about what kind of violence it can visit on their children.” — Why Isn’t He Protesting Garland’s Mis-Management Of America’s Anti-Immigrant Star Chambers (A/K/A EOIR)?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/26/patrick-gaspard-center-for-american-progress-interview?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

David Smith reports for The Guardian:

. . . .

The CAP [Center for American Progress] can also be a critical friend. “During the spike in Haitian asylum seekers at the Texas border, when the world saw those reprehensible images of how those asylum seekers were being treated, I didn’t hesitate as the president of CAP to speak out against the policies and to personally go to the border to bear witness to what was occurring and to call for and demand different practises in how we adjudicate those matters.”

There has been “tremendous progress” at the border since then, he says. But Biden’s approval rating remains stubbornly low and there is a sense of gloom in the air. As the president nears his first anniversary in office, what is Gaspard’s verdict so far? “My god, can we step back for a second and have some perspective?

“If someone had told me or anyone on January 5th that 11 months later Joe Biden would have managed to pass a bipartisan infrastructure bill, successfully advanced a historic stimulus bill that’s led to the fastest 11 month job growth in America that we’ve ever had … and was also on the precipice of passing a piece of legislation that will expand access to Medicare benefits, lift up low wage workers who are the frontlines of the care economy, make the most progress on investments in climate change in two generations, I would have taken all of that if you’d offered it to me.”

In his inaugural address, Biden vowed to address the interlocking crises of climate, coronavirus, economy and racial justice. On the last of these, police reform and voting rights have stalled in Congress, raising fears that last year’s Black Lives Matter protests after the police murder of George Floyd could prove a moment, not a movement, after all.

Gaspard, however, believes the momentum is sustainable. “Of course there was the white knuckle moment of George Floyd and the explosion of pent-up advocacy and rage but now there’s a lot of good, thoughtful work. You’re going to have your setbacks but there’s also been extraordinary progress in a number of states – Missouri, Ohio, California – where you can quantify what’s changed. That will continue. Civil rights just does not move in a linear way.”

Less than a year after the 6 January insurrection at the US Capitol, however, the existential threats to democracy itself persist in a deeply divided nation. Gaspard describes himself as “radically optimistic” but not “Pollyannish” about the gathering storm.

“This is a thing I hesitate to say out loud but I really do believe that we should have the understanding that in 2024, when we are conducting elections across the country, there is the potential for us to experience January 6 on steroids, for us to see it in state after state in state capitols.”

“There’s the potential for that kind of civil disruption if we are not on our side intentional about pushing back now and about making as persuasive an argument for democracy as we can and an argument that’s manifest in actual legislation and executive orders.”

Reagan famously referred to America as a “shining city on a hill”; Biden has said the country can be defined in one word: “possibilities”. It was such promises that enticed Gaspard’s parents here half a century ago. But the turmoil of recent years has tarnished its image. Does he think his mother and father would have made the same choice today?

“We have seen that America, as an aspirational brand, has taken a hit the last several years. There’s a direct relationship between that and the previous president of the United States and how he postured on the world stage and projected us as a closed, hyper sovereign space that did not cooperate in a multilateral way and that led with military might and ‘America first’ as opposed to partnership and cooperation.

“There is a fear that I hear among immigrants that are in our community: they worry that the face of America has changed. When they see things like ‘the great replacement’ conspiracy that’s driving all kinds of not just rhetoric but actual policy on the ground for conservatives, they worry about what kind of violence it can visit on their children. All that anxiety is real.”

But again he sees the glass as half full. “I can tell you I’m pretty confident that if my parents were faced with that choice today that America is still the place they would see as this shining beacon of hope and opportunity, irrespective of its challenges which are real and more nakedly exposed than they have been in some time.

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

Read the full interview at the link.

Gaspard needs to pick up the phone, call his fellow “child of immigrants” in the White House, and remind her that “die in place” and “rot in Mexico” aren’t “progressive human rights and racial policies!”

He also might challenge her to rethink the Administration’s regressive decision to allow AG Merrick “What Me Worry” Garland to run the nation’s largest, and probably second most important, nationwide Federal “court” system with a non-diverse group of many questionably qualified non-life-tenured “holdover” judges and a “de facto Supreme Court of human rights and racial justice” with horribly performing appellate judges appointed or retained by Sessions and Barr because of their “Miller-think” anti-immigrant philosophies and mis-interpretations of the law.

Alfred E. Neumann — Is “What Me Worry?” REALLY the “progressive vision” for America’s now beyond dysfunctional Immigration “Courts?” If not, then why aren’t Gaspard and other influential progressive leaders raising hell about Garland’s indolent and ineffective administration of EOIR? Why are the many potentially available dynamic progressive leaders and experts on immigration, human rights, and racial justice — folks with practical ideals that could actually fix this mess and solve problems in “real time”– now “on the outside looking in” while Trump holdovers, enablers, and bureaucratic retreads run roughshod over immigrants’ rights and bumble along with pathetic administration at EOIR? Why are some of the best progressive legal minds in America writing blogs, op-eds, and articles rather than fairly and efficiently administering justice as judges on the “immigration bench?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Patrick commendably went to the border to “bear witness” to the miserable Administration policies directed at Haitians and other asylum seekers of color. Now, I think he should show up in Immigration “Court” and “bear witness” to the systemic denial of due process, fundamental fairness, racial justice, and human dignity (not to mention mediocre judging) being inflicted on immigrants and their lawyers (if they are fortunate enough to even have one) on a daily basis! 🏴‍☠️ Then, call up President Biden and urge him to live up to his campaign promises!

There are many areas of damage to the American system, particularly the Article III Federal Courts, that are beyond the power of the President to immediately change. But, the Immigration Courts, under the total control of the Executive, are one where immediate progressive change is not only possible, it’s long overdue. If you can’t “put your own house in order” what’s the chance of achieving other portions of the vision for a better, fairer, and more just America?

Under Trump and McConnell, The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation “owned” the Article III appointment process, while far-right nativist groups FAIR and Center for Immigration Studies (“CIS”) did likewise for the immigration bureaucracy and the Immigration Courts.

So, why is it that CAP and other progressive groups haven’t been able to achieve progressive reforms and better-quality judicial appointments in the Immigration Courts and the BIA? Progressives appear to have once again been outflanked, out-maneuvered, out-visioned, and out-strategized by far-right xenophobic restrictionist and nativist interest groups!

Curiously and infuriatingly to “working level progressives,” leading “Great Replacement Theory” conspirator and shameless advocate for race-based restrictionism “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller, out of power for nearly a year, still has more influence at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR and Mayorkas’s DHS than Gaspard and other progressive leaders who helped elect Biden. The real question is “why?” Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

To be perfectly honest, the current Administration policies on refugees, asylees, and human rights in Immigration Court and at the border (the two are intertwined) more closely resemble those of “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller than they do of Patrick Gaspard and other supposedly influential progressives and humanitarians! I predict that future historians will find Garland’s mis-handling of EOIR to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, “blown opportunities” in American progressivism!

At some point, being progressive and standing up for a racially just America that welcomes immigrants means more than just “talking progressive” or “remaining optimistic” in the face of lies and evil. It means taking action to combat the forces and enablers of anti-democratic, biased, authoritarianism and hate in America!

🇺🇸DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

12-27-21

🆘NOT ROCKET 🚀 SCIENCE — EXCEPT WHEN DEMS RUN THE DOJ! — Group Of America’s Leading Legal Experts — “Practical Scholars” — Ask Judge Garland To Immediately Slash Backlogs To Align His Now Dysfunctional, Unjust Immigration Courts With Administration’s Stated Priorities — This Should Have Been “Day 1 Stuff” For Judge G, Who Inexplicably Has Stephen Miller “Plants” and Holdovers In Key Positions In Huge, Broken, “Life Or Death” Federal Court System That Controls The Future Of American Democracy!

Here’s the letter to Judge Garland:

April 30, 2021
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

RE: U.S. Department of Justice Authority to Remove Non-Priority Cases from the Active Docket of the Nation’s Immigration Courts

To Attorney General Garland:

As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our opinion on the scope of executive branch legal authority for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to utilize well-established administrative tools to address the historic backlog of cases pending in immigration courts. Each case in the backlog involves an immigrant, many waiting for years to have a “day in court” to defend against charges of removability or to have an application for relief adjudicated. The Attorney General, through EOIR, has the authority to address the immigration court backlog by rapidly and systemically removing nonpriority cases from the active docket.1

For years, the immigration court docket remained relatively steady, hovering between 100,000 and 200,000 cases.2 During the Obama administration, however, the system began to accumulate a substantial backlog, eventually rising to over 500,000 cases.3 These numbers continued to spike during the Trump administration. Currently, the immigration court backlog sits at 1.3 million cases,4 which Lisa Monaco, President Biden’s nominee for Deputy Attorney General, has acknowledged is a “direct impediment to a fair and effective system.”5 Addressing the immigration court backlog is critical to restoring the integrity of the immigration court system.

As a consequence of the immigration court backlog, the average wait time for respondents’ next immigration court hearing, measured from the time a case entered the immigration court docket, is now over 1,600 days.6 Less than 50% of all cases now pending in the immigration backlog are even set for an individual merits hearing, which means many cases will require subsequent hearings, resulting in additional delay.7 This backlog impedes the proper functioning of the immigration court system and its ability to dispense justice. It also undermines core administrative law values that include but are not limited to consistency, efficiency, public acceptability, and transparency.

The immigration backlog also impacts immigration judges, who face crushing caseloads, now approaching 3,000 cases per judge.8 Such caseloads undermine the ability of immigration judges to reliably and competently complete the complex legal analysis and careful credibility and discretionary determinations that removal cases demand.9 The backlog also harms immigrants, who face years of legal limbo while their cases are pending. This legal limbo can be destabilizing to families and communities and delay immigrants’ access to the legal status many are ultimately granted.
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

The Attorney General has the legal authority to create a more functional and fair immigration court system, using existing tools of discretion and deferred adjudication. Specifically, the EOIR has the authority under regulations to identify and defer the adjudication of nonpriority cases. The EOIR Director has clear authority to defer adjudication of cases pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii). Specifically, the Director has the “power, in his discretion, to set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases [and] to direct that the adjudication of certain cases be deferred…”10 Further, the Director has the authority to “issue operational instructions on policy” pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1). The Attorney General also has broad discretionary authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g) to “issue such instructions, . . . delegate such authority, and perform such other acts as the Attorney General determines to be necessary” for the administration of the nation’s immigration courts.11

The use of deferral authority is not merely theoretical. Systemwide deferrals have recently been implemented by EOIR leadership through policy memorandum.12 Deferral acts as a pause in adjudication, akin to the historic use of the status docket, as opposed to a final resolution.13 Indeed, the deferral mechanism can be used as an alternative to the status docket, grounded more firmly in the regulatory scheme, or in tandem, such that deferred cases are placed on the status docket to free up capacity for priority cases. At a future point in time, deferred cases could be recalendared when a determination is made as to the appropriate path to final resolution.14 Based on current agency authority, termination, generally requires a legal deficiency;15 dismissal, generally requires a motion from DHS;16 and administrative closure, is severely constrained.17 However, deferral power remains available as a mechanism that EOIR leadership can independently and immediately deploy at its discretion. Removing nonpriority cases from the immigration courts’ active docket will substantially improve the functioning of the courts and shrink the proverbial haystack, thereby allowing immigration judges to fairly and expeditiously adjudicate priority cases.

Less than one percent of the cases in the EOIR backlog satisfy the Biden administration’s current enforcement priorities.18 Accordingly, consistent with the administration’s own priorities, EOIR could exercise its discretion to defer nonpriority immigration cases. As a first step, EOIR could establish categories of nonpriority cases that can be identified and deferred at a headquarters level without the need for a case-by-case file review.19 This is the path recently recommended by a group of United States Senators and over 150 leading immigration, civil rights, and human rights organizations.20 These Senators and organizations have proposed specific categories of such nonpriority cases that could be systematically identified through existing EOIR data, including: cases that have been pending for more than five years and cases that involve respondents who have potential affirmative pathways to status, such as applications for adjustment of status or new asylum claims, that could be adjudicated by the USCIS.21 These are non-exhaustive examples of the types of nonpriority cases that could be systematically identified and deferred. EOIR should explore these and other similarly identifiable nonpriority categories.

This letter outlines the legal foundation and method by which the Attorney General can restore the fairness and integrity of the nation’s immigration courts. The legal authority, under the existing statutory and regulatory framework, to remove nonpriority cases from the active docket of the immigration courts is clear. Thank you for your attention. For any follow up inquiries, please contact Professor Peter L. Markowitz at peter.marowitz@yu.edu or at 646-592-6537. _____________________________________________________________________________
2
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

1 While this letter focuses on EOIR’s authority to manage the court docket, we do not mean to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not play an important corresponding role in establishing enforcement policies and priorities for the initiation and resolution of proceedings. In fact, DHS has exclusive authority to decide whether to institute proceedings, see Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 17, 19 (BIA 2017) and, as noted infra note 21, DHS’s discretion to dismiss removal proceedings could also play a critical role in permanently removing nonpriority cases from the immigration court docket.
2 TRAC Immigration, Backlog of Pending Cases in Immigration Courts (data through Feb. 2021), https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog.php.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 The Nomination of the Honorable Lisa Oudens Monaco to be Deputy Attorney General Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Hon. Lisa Oudens Monaco).
6 TRAC Immigration, The State of the Immigration Courts: Trump Leaves Biden 1.3 Million Case Backlog in Immigration Courts (data through Feb. 2021) [hereinafter “TRAC, The State of the Immigration Courts”], https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/637/#f1.9.
7 Id.
8 According to EOIR, there are approximately 466 immigration judges nationwide sharing the 1.3 million cases. EOIR, Adjudication Statistics, Immigration Judge (IJ) Hiring (Jan. 2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1104846/download. However, an unknown number of these judges serve in an administrative capacity and thus do not carry a docket of their own. TRAC Immigration, Crushing Immigration Judge Caseloads and Lengthening Hearing Wait Times (data through Oct. 25, 2019), https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/579/. The crushing caseloads are driving many experienced immigration judges to leave EOIR, further exacerbating the backlog. Amulya Shankar, Why US Immigration Judges Are Leaving the Bench In Record Numbers, THE WORLD (July 20, 2020), https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-07-20/why-us- immigration-judges-are-leaving-bench-record-numbers (interview with former Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor, then president of the National Association of Immigration Judges).
9 See Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. of United States, 945 F.3d 772, 794 (3d Cir. 2019) (McKee, J. concurring) (acknowledging the “incredible caseload foisted upon [immigration courts]” and how immigration judges being “horrendously overworked” contributes to the denial of fair and impartial hearings); Chavarria-Reyes v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 275, 280 (7th Cir. 2016) (J., Posner dissenting) (noting how “crushing workloads” cause immigration judges to routinely “botch” cases); United States Government Accountability Office, Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges 30-1 (June 2017), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-438.pdf (reporting that increased caseloads have prevented immigration judges from “conduct[ing] administrative tasks, such as case-related legal research or staying updated on changes to immigration law”); see also Julia Preston, Deluged Immigration Courts, Where Cases Stall for Years, Begin to Buckle, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 1, 2016), www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/deluged-immigration-courts-where-cases- stall-for-years-begin-to-buckle.html?_r=0.
10 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii). This management authority can also be exercised by the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Chief Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(a)(2)(i)(C), 1003.9(b)(3) (identifying the similar subordinate authority of the Chairman of the BIA and the Chief Immigration Judge).
11 See also, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (reserving to the Attorney General certain powers related to the “administration and enforcement of . . . laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens”); 6 U.S.C. § 521(“[T]he Executive Office for Immigration Review . . . shall be subject to the direction and regulation of the Attorney General”).
12 See e.g., EOIR, Policy Memorandum: Immigration Court Practices During The Declared National Emergency Concerning the COVID-19 Outbreak, PM 20-10, fn.2 (Mar. 18, 2020), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1259226/download (deferring all non-detained cases at the outset of the pandemic for a limited period of time); EOIR, Notice: Executive Office for Immigration Review Operation During Lapse in Government Funding (Oct. 1, 2013), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/legacy/2013/10/24/Shutdown09302013.pdf (deferring all non-detained cases during government shutdown).
13 See Memorandum from EOIR Director James R. McHenry III, EOIR Policy for Use of Status Dockets in Immigration Court Proceedings (Aug. 16, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1196336/download (explaining how “[v]arious types of status dockets under different labels have existed at individual immigration
3
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

courts for many years”). While the McHenry Memorandum established historically narrow criteria for use of the status docket, the parameters for such use have been subject to change as a matter of administration policy. Id.
14 Such eventual pathways may include later individualized determinations to administratively close or dismiss cases or to return them to the active docket, once capacity exists, for full adjudication. Notably, while individuals await final resolution, a deferral order, like administrative closure, would neither confer nor disturb respondents’ entitlement to work authorization.
15 Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462, 465-67 (A.G. 2018). But see, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1)(i) (providing for termination pursuant to joint motion for adjudication of a U visa); 8 C.F.R. § 1245.13(l) (providing for termination upon the of adjustment of status to certain Cubans and Nicaraguans); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f) (providing for termination to pursue naturalization in certain circumstances).
16 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(c); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c); see also Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. at 466.
17 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b); see also Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018). Ultimately, EOIR should individually evaluate all pending cases to determine whether they meet the administration’s priorities. To achieve this, the Attorney General should also ensure that immigration judges have the ability to prioritize their cases and “exercise their independent judgment and discretion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b). Indeed, you were clear in your confirmation hearing that the solution to the immigration court backlog must include “some ability to give to the judges to prioritize their cases.” The Nomination of the Honorable Merrick Brian Garland to be Attorney General of the United States: Day 1 Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Hon. Merrick B. Garland). The primary tool used by immigration judges to remove cases from the active docket has historically been “administrative closure.” However, this authority was recently and imprudently curtailed, such that § 1003.10(b) now divests judges of administrative closure authority. See also Matter of Castro-Tum, supra. You can reaffirm and restore the authority for all immigration judges to administratively close nonpriority cases on a case-by-case basis. We express no opinion herein on the merits of current agency precedent regarding termination or dismissal but note that such precedent is subject to your review and could potentially be expanded in the future.
18 There are currently three enforcement priorities: (1) people suspected of engaging in terrorism or who pose a national security threat; (2) people apprehended at the border after November 1, 2020; and (3) people deemed to be a public safety threat, which includes primarily certain individuals with aggravated felony convictions. Memorandum from ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, Interim Guidance: Civil Enforcement and Removal Guidance (Feb. 18, 2021), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2021/021821_civil-immigration-enforcement_interim- guidance.pdf. Out of the 1.3 million people with cases pending in immigration court right now: less than 100 have any type of terrorism or national security charge, virtually all had cases initiated before November 1, 2020, and less than 0.01% involve aggravated felony charges. TRAC, The State of the Immigration Courts, supra note 6. There is no publicly available data on the number of cases that would fall within the new narrowed gang-based public safety priority group, but it is doubtful this category would substantially increase the percentage of priority cases since less than 0.01% of all cases involve any type of criminal removal ground.
19 While it is critical that such cases can be systematically identified this does not mean that consideration of individualized circumstances is foreclosed. Notices of intent to defer could permit respondents to lodge objections if they would be prejudiced by deferral and DHS attorneys to object if it believes a respondent’s case is not appropriate for deferral. Indeed, deferral could act to facilitate individualized prosecutorial discretion determinations, if DHS coordinates to consider whether deferred cases are appropriate for dismissal, and if affirmative applications in deferred cases are ultimately processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
20 Letter from Eight U.S. Senators to Attorney General Garland (Mar. 23, 2021), https://www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile/88403; Letter from 165 Organizations to President Biden (Feb. 1, 2021), https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-correspondence/2021/aila-and-partners-send-letter-to-president-biden. 21 For the affirmative pathway to ultimately be realized, in most instances, the removal proceedings will eventually need to be dismissed or terminated. In this regard, DOJ should coordinate its docket review effort with DHS. DHS has the authority to move to dismiss such cases, and immigration judges have the authority to dismiss such cases, because the notice to appear was “improvidently issued” or continuation is “no longer in the best interest of the government.” 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(c) (permitting DHS to move to dismiss any case where the notice to appear was “improvidently issued” or where “continuation is no longer in the best interest of the government” (incorporating grounds enumerated in 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(a))); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (same); see also Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 464 (reaffirming DHS authority to move to dismiss on such bases). Indeed, DHS has previously made clear that when relief is “appropriate for adjudication by [US]CIS” DHS attorneys “should consider moving to dismiss proceedings.” Memorandum from William J. Howard, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Principle Legal Advisor, Prosecutorial Discretion, (Oct. 24, 2005), AILA Doc. No. 06050511.
4
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Cori Alonso-Yoder
Visiting Professor of Law & Director of the Federal Legislation Clinic Georgetown University Law Center
Jojo Annobil Adjunct Professor NYU School of law
Lauren Aronson
Associate Clinical Professor, Director Immigration Law Clinic University of Illinois, Champaign/Urbana
David Baluarte
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Washington and Lee University School of Law
Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law
David Bedingfield
Visiting Professor Florida State University College of Law Florida State University
Lenni Benson
Distinguish Professor of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School
Kaci Bishop
Clinical Professor of Law
The University of North Carolina School of Law
Linda Bosniak Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
Stella Burch Elias
Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law
Jason Cade
Associate Dean for Clinical Programs and Experiential Learning J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law
Director, Community Health Law Partnership Clinic
University of Georgia School of Law
5
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Kristina Campbell
Professor of Law
UDC David A Clarke School of Law
Stacy Caplow Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School
Violeta Chapin
Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado Law School
Michael Churgin
Raybournee Thompson Centennial Professor in Law University of Texas at Austin
Julie Dahlstrom
Clinical Associate Professor Boston University School of Law
Alina Das
Professor of Clinical Law
New York University School of Law
Ingrid Eagly Professor of Law UCLA School of Law
Bram Elias
Clinical Professor
University of Iowa College of Law
Kate Evans
Clinical Professor of Law
Duke University School of Law
Jill Family
Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Paula Galowitz
Clinical Professor of Law Emerita New York University School of Law
6
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Denise Gilman
Director, Immigration Clinic University of Texas School of Law
Lindsay Harris
Associate Professor,
Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
Laura Hernandez Professor of Law Baylor Law School
Barbara Hines
Retired Clinical Professor of Law University of Texas School of Law
Geoffrey Hoffman
Director, Immigration Clinic University of Houston Law Center
Alan Hyde Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
Anil Kalhan
Professor of Law
Drexel University Kline School of Law
Kathleen Kim
Associate Dean and Professor of Law LMU Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Jennifer Koh
Visiting Lecturer
University of Washington School of Law
Yoana Kuzmova
Staff Attorney Northeast Justice Center
Eunice Lee
Associate Professor of Law
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
7
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Lynn Marcus
Clinical Law Professor
Director, Community Immigration Law Placement Clinic University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Peter L. Markowitz
Professor of Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Fatma Marouf
Professor of Law
Texas A&M School of Law
Amelia McGowan
Adjunct Professor, Immigration Clinic Mississippi College School of Law
M Isabel
Medina Ferris Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Jennifer Moore
Professor of Law and Pamela Minzner Chair in Professionalism University of New Mexico School of Law
Elora Mukherjee
Jerome L. Greene Clinical Professor of Law Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Columbia Law School
Raquel Muñiz Assistant Professor Boston College
Natalie Nanasi
Assistant Professor
SMU Dedman School of Law
Lindsay Nash
Clinical Assistant Professor of Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Lori Nessel
Professor of Law
Seton Hall University School of Law
8
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Mauricio Noroña
Clinical Teaching Fellow
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Michael A. Olivas
Wm B. Bates Distinguished Chair (Emeritus) University of Houston Law Center
Maria Pabon
Professor of Law Loyola College of Law
John Palmer
Professor Agregat Interí Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Reena Parikh
Assistant Clinical Professor Boston College Law School
Helen Parsonage
Adjunct Professor of Immigration Law Wake Forest University School of Law
Sarah Plastino
Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Denver, Sturm College of Law
Anam Rahman
Adjunct Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center
Jaya Ramji-Nogales Professor of Law Temple Law School
Shruti Rana
Assistant Dean & Professor
Hamilton Lugar School of Global & International Studies Indiana University Bloomington
Victor Romero
Professor of Law
Penn State Law, University Park
9
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Rachel Rosenbloom
Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law
Kevin Ruser
Richard and Margaret Larson Professor of Law M.S. Hevelone Professor of Law
Director of Clinical Programs
University of Nebraska College of Law
Mario Russell
Adjunct Professor of Law
St John’s University, School of Law
Faiza Sayed
Visiting Professor of Clinical Law Brooklyn Law School
Andrew Schoenholtz
Professor from Practice Georgetown University Law Center
Erica Schommer
Clinical Professor of Law
St. Mary’s University School of Law
Kim Thuy Seelinger
Visiting Professor
Washington University School of Law
Rebecca Sharpless
Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
Anna Shavers
Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion University of Nebraska College of Law
Gemma Solimene
Clinical Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law
10
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Jayashri Srikantiah
Associate Dean for Clinical Education Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Stanford Law School
Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law
Mark Steiner
Professor of Law
South Texas College of Law Houston
Maureen Sweeney
Law School Professor
University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Margaret Taylor
Professor of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law
Claire Thomas Director, Asylum Clinic New York Law School
David Thronson
Alan S. Zekelman Professor of International Human Rights Law Michigan State University College of Law
Emily Torstveit Ngara
Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Georgia State University College of Law
Enid Trucios-Haynes
Professor of Law
Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville
Diane Uchimiya
Director of Clinical Programs Creighton University School of Law
Leti Volpp
Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law in Access to Justice UC Berkeley School of Law
11
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law Penn State Law, University Park
Jonathan Weinberg
Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research Wayne State University
Anna Welch
Clinical Professor
University of Maine School of Law
Michael Wishnie
William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School
Lauris Wren
Clinical Professor of Law
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Elliott Young Professor of History Lewis & Clark College
cc: Susan Rice, White House
Esther Olavarria, White House
Tyler Moran, White House
Matt Clapper, DOJ
Margy O’Herron, DOJ
Jean King, EOIR
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, DHS Angie Kelley, DHS
Kamal Essaheb, DHS
David Shahoulian, DHS
Tom Jawetz, DHS
12
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

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

All the familiar problems that have plagued the DOJ under past Dem Administrations and helped create the due process and human rights disaster in today’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts,” that aren’t “courts” at all as operated by Judge Garland, are on display here!

First, I know that I’m not the only person who made this or a similar recommendation to the Biden Transition Team. So, 100 days in, why are we still writing letters while those supposedly “in charge” dawdle over common sense “day one stuff” that would dramatically improve the delivery of justice in America?

Second, the “sign on” list here looks like a “who’s who” of the practical experts who should be running EOIR, comprising the entire BIA, and filling vacant Immigration Judge positions! That they are writing letters from the “outside” rather than running the system from “the inside” shows dramatically why Judge Garland is on a course for failure at DOJ — a failure that American democracy can’t afford!

To date, to my knowledge, Judge Garland has made only one Immigraton Judge appointment — a white, male former prosecutor with no prior immigration, human rights, or judicial experience! In other words, same old, same old ignorant devaluing of Immigration Judge positions and the power they hold over human lives and the future of our nation. When will they ever learn?

The irony or ironies — in all of history, there has been only one Attorney General to recognize the true power and potential of the Immigration Judiciary — for good or evil — and act accordingly. Unfortunately, that happened to be White Nationalist, misogynist, xenophobic, racist Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions! Why is he effectively “still in charge” under Judge Garland and an Administration that ran on a platform of fair and just treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants?

Letters are nice — but they are no substitute for action to solve festering problems!

Who REALLY ‘runs” our disgraceful and dysfunctional Immigration “Courts”

This guy?

Or, this guy?

Judge Merrick Garland — Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

How can you tell?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-04-21

AN “OPEN LETTER PROPOSAL” FROM TWO UW LAW ‘73 RETIRED JUDGES — We’ve Spent 90+ Collective Years Working To Improve The Quality & Delivery Of Justice In America On Both The State & Federal Levels, In The Private & Public Sectors — What We’re Seeing Now Is Shocking, Heartbreaking, Inexcusable, & Unnecessary — It’s Time For Legislators & Policy Makers To Start Listening To Those Of Us With New Ideas Based On “Real Life” Experiences & Observation!

Hon. Thomas Lister
Retired Jackson County (WI) Circuit Judge

A CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL FOR AN AUXILIARY IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY

By

Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired U.S. Immigraton Judge and Former Chair, U.S. Board Of Immigration Appeals

&

Thomas Lister, Retired Wisconsin Circuit Judge

Drawing on our judicial expertise gained over decades of working in both Federal and State judicial system, we respectfully set forth a concept for those working in the legislative, political, legal, and judicial systems to use and further develop to promote better, fairer, and more efficient judicial decision-making and to make better use of existing and future judicial resources both in and outside the U.S. Immigration Court system.

To save time, and since neither of us purports to be a legislative draftsperson, instead of submitting a “draft bill,” or the “outline” of such a bill, we advance an idea and the conceptual and practical justifications for it for your consideration and future use in drafting actual legislation.

No knowledgeable individual thinks the current dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Court system can continue without imploding. Just feeding more new, permanent Immigration Judges into an unfair and broken system actually is making things worse as well as outrageously wasting our taxpayer money at a time when deficits are skyrocketing.

All too many newly hired Immigration Judges appear to be neither the best qualified to be judges nor, even if qualified on paper, properly trained in how to deliver “full due process with efficiency” under the immigration laws and in strict compliance with the Due Process Clause of our Constitution.

On the other hand, many retired judges from other Federal and State systems have proven expertise and track records that would allow a competent judicial administrator (there are, to our knowledge, NONE of these currently in DOJ or EOIR) to determine if they are suitable for emergency service and how they could best be trained to effectively and efficiently use their skills as “Auxiliary Immigration Judges” to augment the current and future Immigration Judiciary.

Moreover, since most retired Federal and State judges already have adequate pensions or other means of support, asking them to volunteer to serve on the basis of limited compensation, or even just reimbursement for out of pocket expenses, would not be unreasonable.

We are offering this idea as a way in which those of us with lifetime legal and judicial expertise can use it to improve the delivery of justice in America; it is not intended as a means of enriching or offering alternative full-time employment to current retired judges, from any system.

To name just a few areas of “low hanging fruit,” we believe that:

• Most bonds;

• Initial “Master Calendars” (arraignments);

• Master Calendar scheduling for Individual Hearings;

• Motions Calendars;

• “Status” Calendars;

• Stipulated Final Order and Withdrawal Calendars;

• Individual Hearings on Cancellation of Removal for long-time lawful and unlawful residents;

• Uncontested Adjustments of Status and other types of equitable waivers; and

• Voluntary Departure as the sole application cases

have elements in common with most other types of judicial work.

Using Auxiliary Judges for such cases would allow those judges, from any Federal or State system, with sound work records, that is, those with impeccable reputations for fairness, professionalism, judicial efficiency, and impartiality, to handle these types of immigration adjudications with a modest amount of additional training and in close consultation and cooperation with the sitting Immigration Judges in a particular location.

In this respect, our emphasis would always be on aiding existing, sitting U.S. Immigration Judges, in cooperation with them and at their request, in the ways those sitting judges deem most helpful, fair, and effective.

It would never be on fulfilling inappropriate and unethical “production quotas,” numerical goals, or pandering to interests who want to use the judicial system to fulfill political or law enforcement objectives inconsistent with Due Process, fundamental fairness, or sound judicial administration.

We do not propose that “Auxiliary Judges” ever work directly for or under the supervision of non-judicial political officials as is now, disturbingly, the case in our Immigration Court System. Indeed, the current unwarranted attack on the independence and professionalism of Immigration Judges by unqualified political officials seeking to “decertify” the Immigration Judges’ professional association, the National Association of Immigration Judges, is a prime example of the type of counterproductive activity in which “Auxiliary Judges” should never be allowed to participate, in any way.

By contrast with the types of more straightforward judicial work described above as potential “low hanging fruit,” Asylum Cases, Withholding of Removal Cases, and applications for protection under the Convention Against Torture involve complex legal and factual issues. These are matters that should NOT be delegated to retired judges from other fields.

Indeed, one huge advantage of our proposal is that it would allow existing and future Immigration Judges to spend adequate time (a contested fair hearing on any of these aforementioned protection matters would take a well-trained judge 3-4 hours, minimum) on these types of cases and to receive more and better training on how to fairly and timely adjudicate, consistent with Constitutional Due Process, claims for protection under these laws and International Conventions.

Of course, there would be some administrative costs involved with training and maintaining a list of those willing to serve as “Auxiliary Immigration Judges.” But, they pale in relation to the costs of continuing to throw new permanent positions into a badly broken and dysfunctional system.

Indeed, some, such as the ABA Commission on Immigration, have observed that additional Immigration Judge hiring under current conditions has demonstrably been a waste of taxpayer money that has actually made the system worse and further impaired the delivery of Due Process to those vulnerable individuals whose lives depend on fair, professional, and efficient administration of Due Process and fundamental fairness in our Immigration Courts.

Sadly, we surmise that significant amounts of the “assembly line (in)justice” currently being encouraged and delivered to represented individuals in today’s Immigration Courts will eventually have to be re-adjudicated by orders of the Article III reviewing courts because of legal and/or factual errors. The only reason we don’t include unrepresented individuals in our equation is that these, unfortunately, are often “railroaded” out of our country without realistic access to the Article III Courts.

As lawyers with a combined 90 years of experience working in State and Federal justice systems, as prosecutors, judges, private litigators, educators, and government officials, at both the national and local level, we cannot in good conscience watch the continued deterioration of justice in the Immigration Courts while constructive ideas for improvements and efficiency and fairness are ignored or left unaddressed.

The concept of using retired State and Federal Judges outside the Immigration System to do certain types of cases to augment justice and relieve the incredible stress on full time Immigration Judges, in times of emergency or workload surges, without all the problems inherent in the current hiring of permanent judges by the DOJ, easily could be incorporated into one of the “Independent Article I Immigration Court” bills being advocated and advanced by groups such as the ABA, FBA, AILA, and the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”).

The current system is dying before our eyes. We need to “pull out all the stops,” consider “every potential concept,” and utilize “positive professional creativity” (the antithesis of the negative energy devoted to cruel and counterproductive “gimmicks” and outright illegal actions) designed to enhance, rather than denigrate, Due Process, fundamental fairness, and judicial efficiency without sacrificing quality.

It is in that spirit that we respectfully request those involved in legislative reform of our Immigration Court system to consider incorporating our concept of an “Auxiliary Immigration Judiciary” into overall legislative proposals for positive reform of the Immigration Courts now being advanced by all of the leading voices in the field.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas Lister, Middleton, WI

Paul Wickham Schmidt, Alexandria, VA

August 19, 2019

PUBLIC INVITED TO ABA COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION PANEL ON US IMMIGRATION COURT REFORM: FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2018 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM

final_may_4_program_flyer.authcheckdam

Featured Panelists:

(Ret.) Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law

Center Heidi Altman, Policy Director, National Immigration Justice Center James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

Karen Grisez, Special Advisor to the ABA Commission on Immigration; Public Service Counsel, Fried Frank LLP

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

This event is FREE & OPEN TO ALL. I believe there will be a “public comment” opportunity. So, this is your chance to weigh in on the US Immigration Court “Train Wreck” and the Attorney General’s recent actions!🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂

Seating might be limited, and I would expect interest to be high. So, I strongly recommend arriving early!

PWS

04-25-18

U.S. IMMIGRATON JUDGES: QUOTAS WILL SPELL THE END OF DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION COURT!

HERE ARE TWO POSITION PAPERS PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES (“NAIJ”) THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS ALL U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES (FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a Retired Member of the NAIJ)

NAIJ HAS GRAVE CONCERNS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF QUOTAS ON IMMIGRATION JUDGE PERFORMANCE REVIEWS, October 18, 2017

“The imposition of quotas or deadlines on judges can impede justice and due process. For example, a respondent must be given a “reasonable opportunity” to examine and present evidence. Section 240(b) (4) (B) of the Act. Given that most respondents do not speak English as their primary language and much evidence has to be obtained from other countries, imposing a time frame for completion of cases interferes with a judge’s ability to assure that a respondent’s rights are respected.

Not only will individuals who appear in removal proceedings potentially suffer adverse consequences, but also the public’s interest in a fair, impartial and transparent tribunal will be jeopardized by implementation of such standards.

THE SOLUTION

While it cannot be denied that additional resources are desperately needed immediately, resources alone cannot solve the persistent problems facing our Immigration Courts. The problems highlighted by the response to the recent “surge” underscores the need to remove the Immigration Court from the political sphere of a law enforcement agency and assure its judicial independence. Structural reform can no longer be put on the back burner. Since the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration, the idea of creating an Article I court, similar to the U.S. Tax Court, has been advanced.xvi In the intervening years, a strong consensus has formed supporting this structural change.xvii For years experts debated the wisdom of far-reaching restructuring of the Immigration Court system. Now “[m]ost immigration judges and attorneys agree the long term solution to the problem is to restructure the immigration court

system….” xviii

The time has come to undertake structural reform of the Immigration Courts. It is apparent that until far-reaching changes are made, the problems which have plagued our tribunals for decades will persist. For years NAIJ has advocated establishment of an Article I court. We cannot expect a different outcome unless we change our approach to the persistent problems facing our court system. Acting now will be cost effective and will improve the speed, efficiency and fairness of the process we afford to the public we serve. Our tribunals are often the only face of the United States justice system that these foreign born individuals experience, and it must properly reflect the principles upon which our country was founded. Action is needed now on this urgent priority for the Immigration Courts. It is time to stop the cycle of overlooking this important component of the immigration enforcement system – it will be a positive step for enforcement, due process and humanitarian treatment of all respondents in our proceedings.

6

NAIJ CONCERNS RE QUOTAS

AILA Doc. No 17102062.  (Posted 10/20/17)

We realize that immediate action is needed, and that a structural overhaul and creation of an Article I Court, while the best and only durable solution, may not be feasible right now. However, Congress can act easily and swiftly resolve this problem through a simple amendment to the civil service statute on performance reviews. . Recognizing that performance evaluations are antithetical to judicial independence, Congress exempted Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) from performance appraisals and ratings by including them in the list of occupations exempt from performance reviews in 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D). This provision lists ALJs as one of eight categories (A through H) of employees who are excluded from the requirement of performance appraisals and ratings.xix To provide that same exemption to Immigration Judges, all that would be needed is an amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2) which would add a new paragraph (I) listing Immigration Judges in that list of exempt employees.

We urge you to take this important step to protect judicial independence at the Immigration Courts by enacting legislation as described above.

Thank you.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT

THE HONORABLE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR, PRESIDENT NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES C/o Immigration Court
606 S. Olive Street, 15th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90014 (310)709-3580 ashleytabaddor@gmail.com www.naij-usa.org

Read the complete memo at this link:

NAIJ2

Threat to Due Process and Judicial Independence Caused by Performance Quotas on Immigration Judges

“15) If EOIR is successful in tying case completion quotas to judge performance evaluations, it could be the death knell for judicial independence in the Immigration Courts. Judges can face potential termination for good faith legal decisions of which their supervisors do not approve.

16) In addition, Circuit Courts will be severely adversely impacted and we will simply be repeating history which has proven to be disastrous. One need only remember the lasting impact of Attorney General Ashcroft’s “streamlining” initiative at the Board of Immigration Appeals.

17) The United States Government Accountability Office issued its report entitled “IMMIGRATION COURTS-Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges Report to Congressional Requesters” in June 2017, GAO-17-438, (GAO Report). This GAO Report contains a section entitled, “Comprehensive Performance Assessment Could Help EOIR Identify Effective Management Approaches to Address the Case Backlog;” however, nowhere is the suggestion made that numerical or time based criteria be added to performance evaluations for immigration judges. AILA Doc. No 17102061. (Posted 10/20/17)

18) There is no reason for the agency to have production and quantity based measures tied to judge performance reviews. The current court backlog cannot be attributed to a lack of Immigration Judge productivity. In fact, the GAO report shows that Immigration Judge related continuances have decreased (down 2 percent) in the last ten years. GAO Report at 124. The same report shows that continuances due to “operational factors” and details of Immigration Judges were up 149% and 112%, respectively. GAO Report at 131, 133. These continuances, where Judges were forced to reset cases that were near completion in order to address cases that were priorities of various administrations, have a much greater impact on case completion rates. 19) The imposition of quotas or deadlines on judges can impede justice and due process. For example, a respondent must be given a “reasonable opportunity” to examine and present evidence. Section 240(b) (4) (B) of the Act. Given that most respondents do not speak English as their primary language and much evidence has to be obtained from other countries, imposing a time frame for completion of cases interferes with a judge’s ability to assure that a respondent’s rights are respected.”

Read this entire memorandum at the following link:

NAIJ1

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

Folks, Due Process is “on the run” at the U.S. Immigration Courts. If Congress doesn’t take at least some corrective action to protect quasi-judicial independence, our U.S. Immigration Courts will no longer be able to provide fair and impartial adjudication in accordance with Constitutional requirements. Today, the statutory and Constitutional rights of immigrants are under attack. Tomorrow it could be YOUR Constitutional rights. Who is going to speak up for YOUR RIGHTS if YOU are indifferent to the rights of others?

PWS

10-21-17

MUST SEE TV FROM PBS: Judge Dana Leigh Marks Explains The Dire Backlogs In U.S. Immigration Courts & Why They Are Becoming Worse Every Day!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/dire-immigration-court-backlog-affects-lives/

Click the above link to see John Yang of PBS interview United States Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the U.S. Immigration Court in San Francisco, speaking in her capacity as President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”).

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a “retiree member” of the NAIJ.

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

As this interview shows, this problem has been building steadily under the past three Administrations. However, the “gonzo enforcement” policies of the Trump Administration, combined with “ADR” (“Aimless Docket Reschuffling”) caused by poorly planned, and in many cases unneeded, details of Immigration Judges from backlogged “home dockets” to obscure detention centers along the Southern Border in response to Trump’s Executive Orders on enforcement, made worse by constant threats to mindlessly throw DACA individuals and TPS holders into the already overwhelmed system have greatly and unnecessarily aggravated an already bad situation.

Judge Marks points out that nearly 40% of the current U.S. Immigration Judiciary, including all of the most experienced judges, are eligible or nearly eligible to retire. That would mean a whopping 140 new Immigration Judge hires in a short period of time in addition to filling the current approximately 50 vacancies and any other positions that might become available. That adds up to approximately 200 new judicial vacancies, not counting any additional positions that Congress might provide.

No Administration has been able to competently hire that many new judges using a proper merit selection process. Indeed, the last Administration, using a system that could hardly be viewed as ”merit based,” took an astounding average of nearly two years to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Immigration Court! That’s amazing considering that these are administrative judges who do not require Senate confirmation.

The total unsuitability of the U.S. Justice Department to be administering the U.S. Immigration Courts has been demonstrated not only in terns of misuse of the courts for politicized law enforcement objectives, but also in terms of poor planning and stunningly incompetent judicial administration.

We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, and we need it now!

PWS

09-20-17

US IMMIGRATION COURT CHAOS — NEW TRAC STATS PROVE MY CASE: 79 More IJs + ADR** + No Plan + Arbitrary DHS Enforcement = More Backlog — Administration On Track To Top 600,000 Pending Cases By Fall — Due Process Disaster — Some Hearings Being Set For 2022 (That’s Halfway Through The NEXT Administration) !

** ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/468/

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greetings. During the past 18 months, a total of 79 new judges have been appointed to the Immigration Court. Despite this spurt in hiring, it has not made a dent in the court’s mountainous backlog. Instead, the backlog along with wait times have steadily increased.

As of the end of April 2017, the number of cases waiting for a decision had reached an all-time high of 585,930. Nine courts that account for a quarter of this backlog currently require some individuals to wait for more than four additional years before a hearing is scheduled. The Immigration Court in San Francisco with nearly 42,000 backlogged cases has some cases waiting for more than five additional years – as much as 1,908 days longer – for their July 21, 2022 hearing date.

These extraordinary wait times imply that some individuals are not scheduled to have their day in court until after President Trump’s current four-year term in office has ended. And we are only a little more than 100 days into his four-year term.

How quickly a case can be heard varies by court location, and the priority assigned to the case. Individuals detained by ICE are generally given priority and their cases are heard more quickly. Thus, there is tremendous variation in scheduled wait times from an average of 22 days for the Immigration Court hearing cases in the Cibola County Correctional Center in Minnesota, to 1,820 average days for individuals heard by the Immigration Court sitting in Chicago, Illinois.

These findings are based upon the very latest case-by-case court records – current through the end of April – that were obtained under the Freedom of information Act and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University.

To see the full report, including the backlog and wait until hearings are scheduled for individual Immigration Court hearing locations, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/468/

In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track new DHS filings, court dispositions, the handling of juvenile cases and much more – have now been updated through April 2017. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

http://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563

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

Wow! The Trump Administration has proved to be incompetent at just about everything except offending allies, paving the way for dirtier air and water, undermining civil rights, busting more vulnerable individuals, most of whom are doing the US no particular harm (actually most are “plusses” for America), and keeping judges, lawyers, and reporters busy.

Can this Congress, even this GOP-controlled version, just stand by and let an incompetent Executive Branch run an important judicial system into the ground? Stay tuned.

Thanks to Nolan Rappaport for alerting me to this report.

PWS

06-11-17

Trump Budget Calls For 75 New U.S. Immigration Judge Teams

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-budget-calls-for-border-wall-border-prosecutions/2017/03/16/eba18240-0a80-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html?utm_term=.76f73186b931

The Washington Post writes:

“Trump’s spending blueprint released Thursday is light on specifics, but makes clear that his campaign pledge to confront illegal immigration is a top priority. Even as he plans to cut the Justice Department’s budget by more than $1 billion, Trump is asking for hundreds of millions of dollars to hire 60 federal prosecutors and 40 deputy U.S. Marshals to focus on border cases.

He also wants to boost immigration courts by $80 million to pay for 75 additional teams of judges. That would speed up removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally and address a backlog of more than 540,000 pending cases. The plan foreshadows a greater emphasis on prosecuting people who cross the border illegally, those who come back after being deported, and anyone tied to human and drug smuggling.

Trump’s proposal also calls for adding $1.5 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s budget to find, detain and deport immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, along with more than $300 million to hire 500 new Border Patrol agents and 1,000 immigration agents.

The president’s budget is the first step in a lengthy process of funding government agencies, and it’s not clear which of Trump’s priorities will be approved by Congress.”

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

My take:

Undoubtedly, the Immigration Court needs more Immigration Judges. On the positive side:

The Administration recognizes the need;

By referring to “teams” it appears that the Administration recognizes that judges can’t function without support, space, computers, etc.

On the negative side:

Given EOIR’s recent past performance, it could take the rest of the Administration to fill these new positions and expand Immigration Court facilities to accommodate the new judges. There currently are approximately 70 vacant IJ positions, most from the last Congressional increase;

There are likely to be a fair number of judicial retirements, compounding the hiring problems;

What kind of Immigration Judges would Sessions hire? He has never shown much respect for due process, fairness, or the rights of migrants. So, if he hires “Immigration Judges in his own image,” as he is legally entitled to do, that’s going to be a “due process disaster” for individuals seeking justice in Immigration Court;

Even with 449 fully trained judges on the bench, it would take nearly 1.6 years just to adjudicate currently pending cases. Piling more “priority” cases on top without any reasonable plan for deciding the currently pending cases is likely just to add to the backlogs and waiting times and further compromise due process and justice. It will undoubtedly result in more “aimless docket reshuffling” (“ADR”) which expends effort without producing any final dispositions.

There is no mention of needed reforms in Immigration Court structure, administration, and technology. Without those needed reforms, more judicial positions are unlikely to solve the Immigration Court’s deep existing problems in delivering due process and justice in a timely fashion.

Meanwhile, some sources have reported that existing Immigration Judges have been asked to be available for possible details outside of their “home” courts for up to 10 months of the year. As I have pointed out before, each time a sitting Immigration Judge is detailed, he or she leaves behind a full docket of cases which must be rescheduled.

Ordinarily, this results in cases scheduled for the near future being “reset” to dates at the end of overcrowded dockets, usually several years in the future. Plus, every act of mass rescheduling creates staff burdens that result in defective notices or other important work (such as answering phones, logging in new cases, or filing briefs and motions for upcoming cases) being put on hold.

PWS

03/16/17

Read The Winter 2017 Edition Of “The Green Card” From The FBA — Includes My Article “Immigration Courts — Reclaiming the Vision” (P. 15) & “The Asylumist” Jason Dzubow’s Reprise Of The “Schmidt Interviews” (See “Immigration Rant,” P. 2)!

Green Card Winter 2017 Final

Here are some excerpts:

“Our Immigration Courts are going through an existential crisis that threatens the very foundations of our American Justice System. I have often spoken about my dismay that the noble due process vision of our Immigration Courts has been derailed. What can be done to get it back on track?

First, and foremost, the Immigration Courts must return to the focus on due process as the one and only mission. The improper use of our due process court system by political officials to advance enforcement priorities and/or send “don’t come” messages to asylum seekers, which are highly ineffective in any event, must end. That’s unlikely to happen under the DOJ—as proved by over three decades of history, particularly recent history. It will take some type of independent court. I think that an Article I Immigration Court, which has been supported by groups such as the ABA and the FBA, would be best.

Clearly, the due process focus has been lost when officials outside EOIR have forced ill-advised “prioritization” and attempts to “expedite” the cases of frightened women and children from the Northern Triangle who require lawyers to gain the protection that most of them need and deserve. Putting these cases in front of other pending cases is not only unfair to all, but has created what I call “aimless docket reshuffling” that has thrown our system into chaos.

Evidently, the idea of the prioritization was to remove most of those recently crossing the border to seek protection, thereby sending a “don’t come, we don’t want you” message to asylum seekers. But, as a deterrent, this program has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Not surprisingly to me, individuals fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle have continued to seek refuge in the United States in large numbers. Immigration Court backlogs have continued to grow across the board, notwithstanding an actual reduction in overall case receipts and an increase in the number of authorized Immigration Judges.”

Another one:

Former BIA Chairman Paul W. Schmidt on His Career, the Board, and the Purge

“Paul Wickham Schmidt served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) from 1995 to 2001. He was a Board Member of the BIA from 2001 to 2003, and served as an Immigration Judge in Arlington, Virginia from 2003 until his retirement earlier this year. He also worked in private practice and held other senior positions in government, including Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel at INS. The Asylumist caught up with Judge Schmidt in Maine, where he has been enjoying his retirement, and talked to him about his career, the BIA, and the “purge” of 2003.”

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

Read the complete articles plus lots of other “great stuff” both practical and more philosophical at the above link.

And, for all of you “aspiring writers” out there, Green Card Editor and my good friend and former colleague from the U.S. Immigration Court In Arlington, VA, Hon. Lawrence Owen “Larry” Burman, and the Publications Director, Dr. Alicia Triche, are always looking for “new talent” and interesting articles. Instructions on how to submit manuscripts are on page one.

PWS

02/01/17

Tag: Immigration Court Reform

Liz Mineo, Staff Writer, interviews Professor Neuman in The Harvard Gazette:

What should be done about border security, enforcement, and the immigration court backlog?

What measures should be taken to reduce the flow of migrants into the U.S?

Some experts say the asylum system is a parallel immigration system and that it should be revamped. What’s your take on this?

Finally, what are your realistic hopes for changes in immigration policies?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

⚖️🧑‍⚖️ THERE’S STILL TIME (BUT NOT MUCH) TO REGISTER FOR CMS’S “DEEP DIVE” INTO EOIR’S DYSFUNCTION, WITH TRUE EXPERTS