Judicial Selections – immigrationcourtside.com

🇺🇸👩🏾‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️⚖️🗽 BETTER JUDGES FOR A BETTER AMERICA! — STARTING AT THE “RETAIL LEVEL” OF U.S. JUSTICE — Apply To Be An Assistant Chief Immigration Judge — Short Deadline, April 4, 2024

The Executive Office for Immigration Review has announced an open vacancy for a Supervisory Immigration Judge (Assistant Chief Immigration Judge). This advertisement will close on April 4, 2024. If you are interested and want to learn more, click the following link to read about the position and apply: USAJOBS – Job Announcement.

Supervisory Immigration Judge (Assistant Chief Immigration Judge) usajobs.gov • 4 min read

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnVzYWpvYnMuZ292L2pvYi83ODI5NDcwMDAiLCJidWxsZXRpbl9pZCI6IjIwMjQwMzIyLjkyMjQzMTYxIn0.8wZ7UxWibhfmlw8QeABU3jkL0Br7XkzBE7-d_GBxfcg/s/3108288176/br/239336695329-l

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

Many thanks to my friend Kelly White, Associate Director- Learning & Development, Legal Access and Representation, Acacia Center for Justice for passing this along!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-23-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👩🏽‍⚖️ COURTS/ROLE MODELS: A New U.S. District Judge Who Understands Due Process, Equal Protection, Human Rights, & Relationship to Immigrants’ Rights — Meet U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, Profiled By Jack Karp @ Law360 — “A thoughtful, compassionate jurist who understands firsthand how the law impacts real people.”

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín — Hon. Araceli Martínez-Olguín
U.S. District Judge
N.D. CA
PHOTO: Wikipedia

https://www.law360.com/pulse/courts/articles/1598878

Jack Karp @ Law360:

The second Latina to be confirmed to the Northern District of California bench and one of the few immigrant rights attorneys to become a federal judge will be a thoughtful, compassionate jurist who understands firsthand how the law impacts real people, lawyers who know her say.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 48-48 vote in February, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in her favor. Her confirmation makes Judge Martínez-Olguín just the second Latina to serve in the Northern District of California, according to the White House’s July announcement of her nomination.

It also makes Judge Martínez-Olguín the rare federal judge who has spent most of her career helping protect immigrants’ rights.

“It’s a slightly different path than we’re used to seeing in folks appointed to the bench, which I think is great,” said attorney Nora Preciado, who worked with Judge Martínez-Olguín at the National Immigration Law Center.

That background gives Judge Martínez-Olguín a unique understanding of the law, particularly when it comes to constitutional issues, which she often dealt with in her immigrant rights work, Preciado added.

But it will also make her more compassionate as a judge, according to those who know her.

“Immigration is a complex field that requires a lot of legal knowledge, but also requires compassion and empathy,” said Brian Amaya, current president of the East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association.

“The ability for a person to stay in this country with their family in order to avoid persecution, famine, war or political instability can be the most important legal decision or conclusion our legal system can make,” Amaya told Law360 Pulse. “It is important that members of our bench are individuals that can apply the law to real-life situations involving real-life people, in ways that are both lawful but full of compassion.”

While at NILC, Judge Martínez-Olguín spearheaded the organization’s work involving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, including representing a class of DACA recipients who challenged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security‘s efforts to curtail that program, according to a questionnaire she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

She contributed to merits and post-argument briefing when that case was consolidated with parallel challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court, she told the Senate.

Judge Martínez-Olguín also served as lead counsel in a Tennessee civil rights class action brought by Latino workers who alleged that their arrests during a worksite immigration raid lacked probable cause and were discriminatory.

Those cases and others showed the judge to be a very calm, steady and methodical litigator, according to Preciado, who worked with her on the Tennessee case.

“Areceli has always been somebody who’s very thoughtful, thorough, methodical in her legal thinking,” Preciado said. “She’s somebody who always wants to really dig deep into issues. She has a very steady approach and temperament to practicing law.”

“As an attorney, Judge Martínez-Olguín was known as a quick learner and could handle any type of legal issue,” echoed Ray Manzo, president of the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association.

She also loved to discuss those issues with her teammates, Preciado added.

Amaya added, “Just from talking to her, you could tell she was a brilliant legal mind. It was often my pleasure to just talk law with her. I believe that this was her most impressive quality — her vast understanding of the law and her ability to critically think about it and discuss it in a straightforward manner.”

Prior to her work at NILC, Judge Martínez-Olguín established and ran the Immigrants’ Rights Project at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, California, where she conducted policy advocacy, took on impact litigation and counseled local community groups, according to her Senate questionnaire.

“She certainly jumped into a lot of issues,” the organization’s executive director Katrina Logan said. The judge was “always looking for opportunities to use the law to promote and support our clients and the issues that impact them,” Logan said.

She also developed the organization’s emergency plan to deal with potential U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention of the group’s clients or possible ICE appearances at the organization’s offices, according to Logan.

“She was super-resourceful,” Logan added. “It was really great working with her, and I think she added a lot to our organization.”

Judge Martínez-Olguín also spent time in the ACLU‘s Women’s Rights Project and Immigrants’ Rights Project, litigating human trafficking claims involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and educating female farmworkers about how to protect their rights when faced with sex discrimination on the job, she told the Judiciary Committee.

She worked on the team that challenged the constitutionality of Arizona’s policy of denying driver’s licenses to DACA recipients under the supremacy and equal protection clauses, according to her Senate questionnaire. And she was part of a group of advocates who provided expertise about crafting the 2008 reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to better protect foreign workers.

Judge Martínez-Olguín has also worked at Legal Aid at Work as a staff attorney in its National Origin, Immigration and Language Rights Program, and in the U.S. Department of Education‘s Office for Civil Rights, where she investigated complaints against school districts and universities, according to her Senate questionnaire.

That background dealing with immigrants’ rights issues means the new jurist is steeped in constitutional issues such as due process, equal protection and freedom of speech, Preciado pointed out.

“It’s a great addition to the court because she’s somebody who has had to grapple very deeply with constitutional issues throughout her career, and I think few lawyers have that kind of experience under their belt,” Preciado said.

But more than her legal knowledge and acumen, what stands out to most of the attorneys who know her is how compassionate and caring she is, especially when it comes to her clients, they said.

“She was somebody who approached the law and the power of the law from a very human perspective, from a very personal connection with folks who are going through the system,” Preciado said.

This skill was especially apparent when the judge was dealing with the clients she and Preciado represented in the Tennessee case, where it was important for her to connect with those clients after they’d been through a traumatic immigration raid, Preciado said.

“She wasn’t showing up as just a brilliant lawyer, but also a human being and somebody who understood what people had gone through and wanted to be there to support in any way possible,” Preciado said. “That’s something that I really admire in her.”

Judge Martínez-Olguín also cares deeply about mentoring young Latina attorneys and working to improve their representation in the legal industry, according to these lawyers.

She has served as president and on the board of the East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association and on the board of the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association, according to her Senate questionnaire. Both organizations focus on expanding legal access in the Latinx community and supporting Latinx attorneys.

She “worked tirelessly” to keep the East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association funding scholarships and promoting mentorships for Latinx law school students, according to Amaya. And she made sure the organization’s Judicial Endorsement Committee met with and endorsed candidates for the bench, especially those who would promote the organization’s mission.

“She did a lot to continue our mission statement of growing the Latinx community’s presence in the California bar and bench,” said Amaya.

Judge Martínez-Olguín has even taught Spanish for Lawyers at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, where she earned her law degree.

That wasn’t her first time in the classroom. Before attending law school, the judge was a bilingual kindergarten teacher in Oakland, California, she told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After graduating from law school, she clerked for U.S. District Judge David Briones in the Western District of Texas.

All those elements of her background mean Judge Martínez-Olguín will bring a unique and much-needed perspective to the federal bench, according to attorneys.

Her confirmation is “very significant, because it will bring a different viewpoint that is missing on the bench,” Manzo said. “Judges bring their career and personal experiences when making decisions, and having her there with a civil rights/immigration attorney and Latina viewpoint will create a richer discussion and interpretation of the law.”

“She will truly be able to apply sound legal principles to real-life situations that deal with real-life people and have real-life outcomes,” echoed Amaya.

“She will be a wonderful judge,” he added.

–Editing by Nicole Bleier.

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

We need MORE NDPA “practical scholars” like Judge Martínez-Olguín — MANY MORE — on the Federal Bench — at ALL levels! The place where the NDPA can make the most immediate positive impact is at EOIR! That’s why I’m urging NDPA members to get those applications in for current Immigration Judge vacancies and all that come up in the future.

We’ve seen in the past few weeks, graphically, how horrible judging from unqualified right wing zealots appointed by Trump can destroy precious individual rights and freedoms in America. NOW is the time to “model” the positive impact that practical scholars committed to due process, immigrants’ rights, and excellence in decision-making can have on American justice — starting at the all-important “retail level!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-22-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👨🏾‍⚖️🧑🏻‍⚖️👩‍⚖️👩🏾‍⚖️👨🏼‍⚖️ WANTED! — GREAT JUDGES WITH IMMIGRATION, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND DUE PROCESS EXPERTISE TO UPGRADE AMERICA’S STRUGGLING “LIFE OR DEATH” COURTS! — Apply To Become A U.S. Immigration Judge NOW & Show How NDPA “Practical Scholars” Can Inspire The U.S. Justice System To Finally Achieve “Equal Justice For All!” 😎

I want you — Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it!
Public Domain

https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/immigration-judge-25

SHARE

Legal Careers Home

Why Justice

Law Students

Entry-Level Attorneys

Experienced Attorneys

Valuing Diversity

IMMIGRATION JUDGE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR)

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE

ATTORNEY

5107 LEESBURG PIKE

FALLS CHURCH, VA 22554

UNITED STATES

IJ-11901554-23-VG

About the Office:

This position is in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Office of the Chief Immigration Judge.

EOIR plays a pivotal role in the administration of the Nation’s immigration system. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases fairly, equitably, and efficiently at the trial and appellate level, governed by due process and the rule of law. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and other administrative hearings, applying the immigration laws while ensuring that adjudicators are impartial, that laws are applied humanely and equitably, that all parties are treated with respect and dignity, and that cases are resolved expeditiously and in accordance with the Administration’s priorities and all applicable laws and regulations.

EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the numerous immigration courts located throughout the United States where immigration judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of the immigration judges’ decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases. EOIR’s Headquarters is located in Falls Church, Virginia, about 10 miles from downtown Washington, DC.
As the federal agency whose mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, the Department of Justice is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. To build and retain a workforce that reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the American people, we welcome applicants from the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, religions, and cultures of the United States who share our commitment to public service.

Job Description:

Immigration Judges preside in formal, quasi-judicial hearings. Proceedings before Immigration Judges include but are not limited to removal, and bond adjudications, and involve issues of removability as well as applications for relief such as asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status.

Immigration Judges make decisions that are final, subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In connection with these proceedings, Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law, and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions. Immigration Judges may be required to conduct hearings in penal institutions and other remote locations.

Qualifications:

In order to qualify for the Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the following minimum qualifications:

Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., J.D., or LL.M. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)

AND

Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)

AND

Experience: Applicants must have seven (7) years of post-bar admission experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing court or administrative agency proceedings at the federal, state or local level. Relevant experience may include that gained in civil, criminal, or military cases, as well as in any case in which a formal procedure was initiated by a government administrative body.

NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated only after bar admission.

Successful applicants will have a strong combination of experience demonstrating that they will perform at the level of competence, impartiality, and professionalism expected of an Immigration Judge. For more information about relevant experience and knowledge, please see the “How You Will Be Evaluated” section.

Additional information

This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.

Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.

Alternative work schedule options are available. Immigration Judges’ tour of duty may include Saturdays and Sundays.

One or more court location(s) in this announcement is under construction and may not be open for some time. If selected for a court that is not physically open, you will be temporarily assigned to a court currently open, as needed. If selected, once your court has opened, your duty station will be adjusted to reflect your new court location.

There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to Immigration Judge appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in Immigration Judge hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must claim their status when completing their application in the online application process and attach supporting documentation (see the “Required Documents” section).

Salary:

$149,644 – $195,000 per year

Travel:

50% or less – You may be expected to travel for this position

Application Process:

To apply for this position, please click the below link to access and apply to the vacancy announcement via USA Job: USAJOBS – Job Announcement . Please read the announcement thoroughly. You must submit a complete application package by 11:59PM (EST) on 4/25/2023, the closing date of the annoucement.

Applicants should familiarize themselves and comply with the relevant rules of professional conduct regarding any possible conflicts of interest in connection with their applications. In particular, please notify this Office if you currently represent clients or adjudicate matters in which this Office is involved and/or you have a family member who is representing clients or adjudicating matters in which this Office is involved so that we can evaluate any potential conflict of interest or disqualification issue that may need to be addressed under those circumstances.

Application Deadline:

Tuesday, April 25, 2023

Relocation Expenses:

Not Authorized

Number of Positions:

Multiple vacancies in multiple locations

Updated April 14, 2023

*         *         *

Department Policies

Equal Employment Opportunity: The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex – including gender identity, sexual orientation, or pregnancy status – or because of age (over 40), physical or mental disability, protected genetic information, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, or any other non-merit based factor. The Department of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from persons with physical and mental disabilities. The Department is firmly committed to satisfying its affirmative obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that persons with disabilities have every opportunity to be hired and advanced on the basis of merit within the Department of Justice. For more information, please review our full EEO Statement.

Reasonable Accommodations: This agency provides reasonable accommodation to applicants with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application and hiring process, please notify the agency. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Outreach and Recruitment for Qualified Applicants with Disabilities: The Department encourages qualified applicants with disabilities, including individuals with targeted/severe disabilities to apply in response to posted vacancy announcements. Qualified applicants with targeted/severe disabilities may be eligible for direct hire, non-competitive appointment under Schedule A (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)) hiring authority. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to contact one of the Department’s Disability Points of Contact (DPOC) to express an interest in being considered for a position. See list of DPOCs.

Suitability and Citizenship: It is the policy of the Department to achieve a drug-free workplace and persons selected for employment will be required to pass a drug test which screens for illegal drug use prior to final appointment. Employment is also contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation. Congress generally prohibits agencies from employing non-citizens within the United States, except for a few narrow exceptions as set forth in the annual Appropriations Act (see, https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/non-citizens/). Pursuant to DOJ component policies, only U.S. citizens are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Trustee’s Offices, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unless otherwise indicated in a particular job advertisement, qualifying non-U.S. citizens meeting immigration and appropriations law criteria may apply for employment with other DOJ organizations. However, please be advised that the appointment of non-U.S. citizens is extremely rare; such appointments would be possible only if necessary to accomplish the Department’s mission and would be subject to strict security requirements. Applicants who hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ employees are subject to a residency requirement. Candidates must have lived in the United States for at least three of the past five years. The three-year period is cumulative, not necessarily consecutive. Federal or military employees, or dependents of federal or military employees serving overseas, are excepted from this requirement. This is a Department security requirement which is waived only for extreme circumstances and handled on a case-by-case basis.

Veterans:  There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to attorney appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in attorney hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must include that information in their cover letter or resume and attach supporting documentation (e.g., the DD 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and other supporting documentation) to their submissions. Although the “point” system is not used, per se, applicants eligible to claim 10-point preference must submit Standard Form (SF) 15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference, and submit the supporting documentation required for the specific type of preference claimed (visit the OPM website, www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF15.pdf for a copy of SF 15, which lists the types of 10-point preferences and the required supporting document(s). Applicants should note that SF 15 requires supporting documentation associated with service- connected disabilities or receipt of nonservice-connected disability pensions to be dated 1991 or later except in the case of service members submitting official statements or retirement orders from a branch of the Armed Forces showing that their retirement was due to a permanent service-connected disability or that they were transferred to the permanent disability retired list (the statement or retirement orders must indicate that the disability is 10% or more).

USAO Residency Requirement: Assistant United States Attorneys must reside in the district to which appointed or within 25 miles thereof. See 28 U.S.C. 545 for district specific information.

*         *         *

This and other vacancy announcements can be found under Attorney Vacancies and Volunteer Legal Internships. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of information contained in this vacancy announcement. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information.

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

Storm the gates! Show the world what REAL due process and adherence to the generous remedial purposes behind the Refugee Act of 1980 looks like! Make “Equal Justice For All” a reality, not just a “throwaway line!”

The “rule of law” is about fundamental fairness — it’s NOT about turning our justice system into a “deterrent” or fulfilling the enforcement agenda of DHS! The latter is a PARTY, just like the individuals seeking justice before these courts. Put to work your comprehensive knowledge, experience, courage, persistence, and skills in forcing a fundamentally biased and unfair system to do justice for individuals — in spite of itself.

EOIR doesn’t have to be a disaster! “Institutionalize” due process, decisional excellence, and fundamental fairness!

Apply, apply, apply! Change the world for the better! Save lives at the most important level of our justice system — the “retail level!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-15-231

📚 🦸🏽‍♀️🦸🏼‍♀️🦸🏻‍♂️NDPA “ACADEMIC HONOR ROLL!” — “Practical Scholars” Make Their Mark, & More! — The Contributions Of This Group Are Astounding! — Assembled & Originally Published By ImmProf Superstar 🌟 Professor Kit Johnson (Oklahoma Law)!

Professor Kit Johnson (the “Amazing KitJ @ ImmProf”)
Thomas P. Hester Presidential Professor, U of OK Law
Contributor, ImmigrationProf Blog

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2023/01/celebrating-immprof-achievements-in-2022-updated-.html

Wednesday, January 4, 2023

Celebrating Immprof Achievements in 2022 * UPDATED *

By Immigration Prof

Share

Rahuljakhmola, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

I had a few highlights roll in after this was first posted, so here is an updated thread regarding the wonderful things that immigration law professors around the country had to celebrate in 2022.

New Jobs:

Jennifer Chacón joined the faculty at Stanford Law School.

Ming Hsu Chen joined the faculty at UC Hastings.

Eugenio Mollo, Jr. joined Toledo as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Law to launch and direct the school’s Immigrant Justice Clinic.

Aadhithi Padmanabhan (Maryland) started her first full-time job in academia as an Assistant Professor of Law directing the new Federal Appellate Immigration Clinic.

Carrie Rosenbaum joined Chapman as a Visiting Assistant Professor in Fall 2022.

Tania N. Valdez started her first tenure-track job as an Associate Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School.

Promotions and Awards:

Lauren R. Aronson (Illinois) was promoted to Full Clinical Professor in August and granted Clinical Tenure.

Jason Cade (Georgia) was promoted to full professor. He also received the University of Georgia’s Engaged Scholar Award.

Jennifer Chacón (Stanford) received the Bruce Tyson Mitchell professorship.

Ming Hsu Chen (Hastings) was named the Harry & Lillian Hastings Research Chair and Founding Director of the Center for Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality (RICE).

Shane Ellison (Duke) was promoted to Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching).

Kate Evans (Duke) was awarded clinical tenure in 2022.

Laila Hlass (Tulane) was promoted to Clinical Professor of Law. She was also awarded the 2022 NIPNLG Elisabeth S. “Lisa” Brodyaga Award.

Kevin Johnson (Davis) was named the first recipient of the Michael A. Olivas Award for Outstanding Leadership in Diversity and Mentoring in the Legal Academy. We look forward to the formal celebration in 2023.

Kit Johnson (Oklahoma) received the Thomas P. Hester Presidential Professorship.

Gabriela Kahrl (Maryland) was promoted from Associate Director to Co-Director of the Chacón Center for Immigrant Justice.

Jennifer Lee (Temple) was approved for tenure by a vote of the law school faculty — their first tenured clinician! We look forward to celebrating the formal approval from central campus in 2023.

Mauricio E. Noroña (Cardozo) became a VAP this year after a stint as a teaching fellow in the Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic.

Shalini Bhargava Ray (Alabama) was approved for tenure by a vote of the law school faculty. We look forward to celebrating the formal approval from central campus in 2023.

Rachel Rosenbloom (Northeastern) is a fellow with Northeastern’s Center for Law, Equity and Race (CLEAR) while she is on sabbatical this year.

Scott Titshaw (Mercer) was promoted in 2022 from Associate Professor to Professor.

Administrative Gigs:

Hemanth Gundavaram (Northeastern) became Associate Dean of Experiential Education and Director of Clinical Programs; he continues to also serve as Director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic.

Anita Maddali (Northern Illinois) became the Associate Dean for Student Affairs in August 2022, stepping down from the Director of Clinics role she’d been in since 2011.

Rachel Rosenbloom (Northeastern) finished her term as Associate Dean for Experiential Education.

Other Exciting News:

Kate Evans (Duke) secured an additional $2.5 million grant to support Duke’s Immigrant Rights Clinic and the activities of the Duke Immigrant & Refugee Project.

Jill Family (Widener) became Chair of the ABA Administrative Law section.

Dina Haynes (New England) started a non-profit–Refugeeprojects.org–through which she has assisted many refugees, asylum seekers, pro bono attorneys and governments. She coordinates 800 attorneys assisting Afghans with evacuation, transit and Immigration status.

Laila Hlass (Tulane), Sarah Sherman-Stokes (Boston U), and Mary Yanik (Tulane) received a 2022 Research & Policy Grant from Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research.

Geoffrey Hoffman (formerly Houston) became an immigration judge!

NEW BABIES (Squee!)

Joe Landau (Fordham) welcomed Max Fitzgerald Landau on 1/1/22 at 4:49am. 6 lbs, 2 oz of greatness.

Lauren R. Aronson (Illinois) welcomed Max Reuben Aronson-Orr on 12/15/2022 at 8:00pm. 8 lbs., 12 oz. of joy.

Congratulations to all!

-KitJ

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

“Super-kudos” to all! 🎖🏆😎 Thanks to Kit (the “Amazing KitJ @ ImmProf”) for putting this together and many congrats on her receipt of the Thomas P. Hester Presidential Professorship @ Oklahoma Law. Couldn’t have gone to a more deserving and consequential role model for the NDPA!

As one of my NDPA colleagues recently observed about the work of these NDPA “practical scholars:”

[T]he law schools today have incredible clinical programs that encourage and develop critical thinking and creative problem-solving; they send so many great new members of the NDPA out into the world.

Those familiar with what’s really happening in American justice these days also had this cogent observation:

EOIR does exactly the opposite; it kills critical or original thought, and rewards the bland “go along to get along” types. And the training is horrible, and actually refuses to include anyone from outside – even former IJs and Board Members. So the good people either quit, linger in the shadows, or are broken over time.

It’s very clear that a better Dem Attorney General would have “tapped in” to the practical problem solving skills, guts, integrity, and intellectual firepower of those on Kit’s honor roll and many others like them. I note with great pleasure and immense gratitude that Honor Roll member, Judge Geoffrey Hoffman, formerly of Houston Law, did “make the leap” to the Immigration Bench this year. But we need more, many more, like Judge Hoffman at all levels of EOIR to “rescue the sinking ship.”

The talent to change EOIR from a “CINO” to a “model court system” is out here! What’s sorely missing is dynamic leadership and consistent direction from the Biden Administration and Dems in Congress.

Immigrants have legal rights. Immigration isn’t going away in the future no matter how much Dems try to “wish it below the radar screen” and the GOP tries to “demonize it to death!”

The disgraceful failure of both parties to enforce legal rights of immigrants, stand up for human rights, and take realistic approaches to human migration is damaging our democracy and diminishing our national strength.

I advocate NDPA members “taking over” the Immigration Judiciary and fixing things from “the bottom up.” It won’t happen overnight; but waiting for real leadership from Dems or change from the “top” is like “waiting for Godot” — Not going to happen! See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8hm.

And, you’d be surprised at the useful insights and knowledge that can be gained from getting “inside EOIR” — an intentionally opaque, “closed” organization if there ever was one. That’s why courts often pay attention to what we “Former Immigration Judges and Board Members in the Round Table” say in our amicus briefs. We’re they only ones speaking truth about what really happens in Immigration Court “behind the bench.” All the “official versions” are “highly sanitized,” “manipulated,” or sometime just “unadulterated BS!”

Don’t leave “judging in America” to the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and inept Dem politicos who are too tone-deaf, insecure, and/or scared to do the right thing for YOUR future and the future of our nation.

Storm the tower! 🗼Take back justice at the retail level of our system! Better judges for a better America!

”Storm the Tower!” — EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”)
By Pieter Bruegel The Elder
Public Domain

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-14-23

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏽‍⚖️🗽🗽🇺🇸 GARLAND’S LATEST IMMIGRATION JUDGE APPOINTMENTS SHOW QUALITY, DIVERSITY! — Noted “Practical Scholars” Hoffman, Racine, Haer Join The Bench As “Balance” Between Gov. & Private Sector Appointments Improves Significantly!

Here’s the list of the 19 newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judges: https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMjA4MDUuNjE4NDgwNTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xNTI0MzM2L2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.9Wv3WdIlGNb8WuNMytym1WmPC51-32QHaSCK76FgdYo/s/842922301/br/142150174324-l

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR

Aug. 5, 2022

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of 19 immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

EOIR continues to work to expand its immigration judge corps and welcomes qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join the agency. In addition to making a difference through service to our Nation, immigration judges join a diverse and inclusive workforce. Individuals interested in these critical positions are invited to sign up for job alerts that are sent when new opportunities become available.

After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Tanisha L. Bowens-McCatty, Michael P. Davis, James T. Dehn, Julia E. Egy, Ashley Gadson-Andrews, Amy F. Haer, Robert J. Herrington, Geoffrey A. Hoffman, Maria L. Jaimes-Salgado, Christina M. Jimenez, Christopher M. Kozoll, Nicole A. Lane, Francis M. Mwangi, Alex D. Perez, Xavier F. Racine, Raphael G. Rojas, Marc B. Stahl, Michelle M. Venci, and Mary C. Vergona to their new positions.

Biographical information follows:

Tanisha L. Bowens-McCatty, Immigration Judge, Hyattsville Immigration Court

Tanisha L. Bowens-McCatty was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Bowens-McCatty earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of North Florida and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from the Florida State University College of Law. From 2013 to 2021, she worked for the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration in Washington, D.C., serving as the Associate Director (2013-2020) and the Director of Legal Initiatives and Member Engagement (2020-2021). From 2006 to 2011, she worked for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., in Washington, D.C., in the following roles: Senior Project Coordinator for the National Pro Bono Project for Children (2010-2011); Project Coordinator for the Raids Preparedness & Response Project (2008-2010); and Legalization Attorney (2006-2008). From 2004 to 2006, she was a supervising attorney for Catholic Charities Legal Services of the Archdiocese of Miami in Miami and in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Broward County Satellite Office, and from 2003 to 2004 she worked as a staff attorney. From 2001 to

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 2

2003, she was a staff attorney with Americans for Immigrant Justice (formerly the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center) in Miami. Judge Bowens-McCatty is a member of the Florida Bar.

Michael P. Davis, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Michael P. Davis was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Davis earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from John Carroll University and a Juris Doctor in 2000 from the University of Illinois College of Law. From 2016 to 2022, he served as the Executive Deputy Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security. From 2012 to 2016, he served as ICE Deputy Principal Legal Advisor for Enforcement and Litigation. From 2005 to 2012, held the following roles at ICE: Appellate Counsel (2005-2007); Deputy Chief (2007-2009); and Chief of the ICE Immigration Law and Practice Division (2009-2012). From 2003 to 2005, he served as Associate Counsel, Refugee and Asylum Law Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. From 2000 to 2003, he served as an assistant district counsel with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in Los Angeles, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Davis is a member of the State Bar of California.

James T. Dehn, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

James T. Dehn was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Dehn earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from George Mason University, a Master of Arts in 1998 from the Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and a Juris Doctor in 1998 from the Syracuse College of Law. From 2020 to 2022, he served as the Chief Appellate Counsel at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Washington, D.C. From 2019 to 2020, he served as an attorney advisor at the Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in Washington, D.C. From 2005 to 2019, he served as an attorney advisor at the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, in Washington, D.C. Also, from 2007 to 2011, he served as a government appellate counsel, and from 2002 to 2006, as a trial defense counsel, in the U.S. Army Reserve, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, National Capital Region. From 2000 to 2005, he served as an attorney advisor at the Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, in Washington, D.C. From 1998 to 1999, he was an associate attorney at Whelan, DeMaio & Kiszkiel PA, in Miami. Judge Dehn is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Julia E. Egy, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Julia E. Egy was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Egy earned a Bachelor of Journalism in 1997 from the University of Missouri-Columbia and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from American University Washington College of Law. From 2014 to 2022, she served as a senior panel attorney with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Executive Office for Immigration Review. From 2012 to 2014, she served as a supervisory attorney, and from 2004 to 2012, as an attorney advisor, with the BIA. From 2003 to 2004, she was in private practice. From 2002 to 2003, she served as a judicial law clerk for the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and York immigration courts. Judge Egy is a member of the Missouri Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 3

Ashley Gadson-Andrews, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles – Olive Street Immigration Court

Ashley Gadson-Andrews was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Gadson-Andrews earned a Bachelor of Science in 2008 from the University of Arizona – Eller College of Management and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. From 2013 to 2022, she served as a deputy district attorney at the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. From 2012 to 2013, she was a trial attorney with the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers at Edelman Children’s Court in Monterey Park, California. Judge Gadson-Andrews is a member of the State Bar of California.

Amy F. Haer, Immigration Judge, Atlanta – W. Peachtree Street Immigration Court

Amy F. Haer was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Haer earned a Bachelor of Science in 2003 from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the George Washington University Law School. From 2017 to 2022, she was the Director of Immigration Legal Services at Catholic Charities Atlanta. From 2015 to 2017, she was the Associate Director for Immigration and Refugee Services at Catholic Community Services – Tucson (CCS-T). From 2012 to 2015, she was the Program Director for the Immigrant Survivors Legal Assistance Program at CCS-T. From 2008 to 2012, she was a staff attorney with Catholic Charities Atlanta. Judge Haer is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.

Robert J. Herrington, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles – Olive Street Immigration Court

Robert J. Herrington was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Herrington earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1975 from the University of Southwestern Louisiana and a Juris Doctor in 1985 from the LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center. From 2005 to 2022, he was a criminal defense lawyer in Plano, Texas. From 1998 to 2005, he served as an assistant federal public defender at the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Dallas. From 1996 to 1997, he was a general practitioner in Dallas. From 1991 to 1995, he served as a staff attorney at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and then at the Resolution Trust Corporation. From 1988 to 1991, he served as a law clerk to the U.S Bankruptcy Court. From 1985 to 1988, he was an immigration lawyer in private practice. Judge Herrington is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Geoffrey A. Hoffman, Immigration Judge, Houston – S. Gessner Road Immigration Court

Geoffrey A. Hoffman was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Hoffman earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from Columbia College, Columbia University, a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Tulane Law School, and a Master of Laws in 2004 from Harvard Law School. From 2009 to 2022, he served as Director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Houston Law Center. From 2004 to 2009, he practiced immigration law at Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, and Tetzeli PA in Miami. From 1998 to 2000, Judge Hoffman served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Paul V. Gadola U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Hoffman is a member of the Florida Bar and the State Bar of Michigan.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 4

Maria L. Jaimes-Salgado, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Maria L. Jaimes-Salgado was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Jaimes-Salgado earned a Bachelor of Science in 2006 from the University of Houston-Downtown and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Texas South University Thurgood Marshall School of Law. From 2021 to 2022, she was an associate attorney with the Law Office of Velia E. Rosas PLLC in Houston. From 2019 to 2022, she was in private practice in Houston. From 2012 to 2019, she was managing attorney, and from 2009 to 2012, she was an associate attorney, at the Law Office of Isaias Torres PC in Houston. Judge Jaimes-Salgado is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Christina M. Jimenez, Immigration Judge, Arlington Immigration Court

Christina M. Jimenez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Jimenez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of Washington and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Boston University. From 2002 to 2022, she served as an attorney and a trial judge with the U.S. Air Force in the following locations: Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom; Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea; Kadena Air Base, Japan; Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.; Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea; Lajes Field, Azores, Portugal; Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; and Travis Air Force Base, California. In 2022, she retired as a colonel from the U.S. Air Force, having last served as the Chief Circuit Military Judge for the Western Circuit. Judge Jimenez is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.

Chris M. Kozoll, Immigration Judge, Memphis Immigration Court

Chris M. Kozoll was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Kozoll earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1993 from the University of Notre Dame, a Master of Arts in 2000 from Gonzaga University, and a Juris Doctor in 2004 from the University of Colorado School of Law. From 2010 to 2022, he was a partner at Kozoll & Associates Immigration Law PLLC. From 2007 to 2010, he served as an associate attorney with the Law Office of Dennis M. Clare PSC. In 2007, he was a contract attorney at Lichter Associates PC. From 2004 to 2007, he worked as an associate attorney with the Joseph Law Firm PC. Judge Kozoll is a member of the Kentucky Bar.

Nicole A. Lane, Immigration Judge, Newark Immigration Court

Nicole A. Lane was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Lane earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from the State University of New York at Albany and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from the George Washington University Law School. From 2018 to 2022, she served as an assistant director at the New York State Adjudication Services Office. From 2012 to 2018, she served as a senior Administrative Law Judge, and from 2008 to 2012, she served as an Administrative Law Judge at the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. From 2005 to 2008, she was a director of public affairs at New York City Health and Hospitals in Harlem, New York, and worked as a public policy analyst prior to that. Judge Lane is a member of the New Jersey State Bar and New York State Bar, and is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 5

Francis M. Mwangi, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center

Francis M. Mwangi was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Mwangi earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from Kenyatta University in Nairobi, Kenya, a Juris Doctor in 1997 from the West Virginia University College of Law, and a Master of Laws in 2011 from the University of Houston Law Center. From 2019 to 2022, he was an attorney supervisor, and from 2016 to 2019, a staff attorney, in the Legal Services Section at State Counsel for Offenders, Texas Board of Criminal Justice. From 2003 to 2016, he was in private immigration practice in Maryland and Texas. From 1997 to 2003, he was an associate with the immigration law firm of Blaine L. Gilbert & Associates in Baltimore. Judge Mwangi is a member of the Maryland State Bar, State Bar of Texas, and West Virginia State Bar.

Alex D. Perez, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Alex D. Perez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Perez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2006 from Northwestern University and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from the University of Houston Law Center. From 2019 to 2022, he served as a deputy chief counsel, and from 2010 to 2019, as an assistant chief counsel, with the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security in Houston. From 2009 to 2010, he worked in private practice in Houston. Judge Perez is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Xavier F. Racine, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Xavier F. Racine was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Racine earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1998 from Boston College and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Suffolk University Law School. From 2014 to 2021, he was a partner at Priale & Racine PLC. From 2008 to 2014, he was a partner at Marks Calderon Derwin & Racine PLC. From 2002 to 2008, he was a senior associate at Montagut & Sobral PC. From 2001 to 2002, he was an associate with Jaime Aparisi & Associates LLC. Judge Racine is a member of the Massachusetts Bar, as well as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Raphael G. Rojas, Immigration Judge, Orlando Immigration Court

Raphael G. Rojas was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Rojas earned a Bachelor of Science in 1990 from Long Island University at C.W. Post Campus, a Juris Doctor in 1994 from the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico School of Law, and a Master of Laws in Health Law in 1996 from Loyola University Chicago School of Law. From 2008 to 2022, he served as Superior Judge at the Judicial Branch of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. From 2006 to 2008, he was in private practice in Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2006, he served as Municipal Judge at the Judicial Branch of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. From 1995 to 2000, he was in private practice in Puerto Rico. Judge Rojas is a member of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 6

Marc B. Stahl, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Marc B. Stahl was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Stahl earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1988 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctor in 1991 from the University of Chicago Law School. From 1991 to 2021, he served as an assistant public defender in the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender in Chicago, and from 2016 to 2021, he was the Chief of the Felony Trial Division. From January to July 2022, he was in private practice. Judge Stahl is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Michelle M. Venci, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Michelle M. Venci was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Venci earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of Notre Dame and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Chicago-Kent College of Law. From 2010 to 2022, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From 2007 to 2010, she served as an assistant chief counsel, OPLA, ICE in Orlando, Florida. From 2002 to 2007, she served as an Assistant State’s Attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office in Chicago. Judge Venci is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Mary Catherine Vergona, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Mary Catherine Vergona was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Vergona earned a Bachelor of Science in 1987 from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, a Juris Doctor in 1997 from The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, and a Master of Laws in Military Law in 2005 from The Judge Advocate’s General Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. From 1998 to 2022, Judge Vergona served as a Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Army, culminating with her serving as a Circuit Judge from 2019 to 2022 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Judge Vergona is a member of the Virginia State Bar.

— EOIR —

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

Congrats to all! Looks like a well-qualified group with a big job ahead of them. For me, personally, three names particularly stand out.

Professor Geoffrey Hoffman — Judge Geoffrey Hoffman, Houston Immigraton Court

Judge Geoffrey Hoffman of the Houston (S. Gessner Rd.) Immigration Court was most recently the Director of the Immigration Clinic at Houston Law and a noted immigraton litigator and universally respected scholar whose work I have cited and published on Courtside.

Judge Xavier Racine of the Sterling (VA) Immigration Court is an outstanding practitioner who appeared many times before me at Arlington. I also particularly remember that he generously shared his time and expertise with our JLCs and summer interns as a frequent participant in our Brown Bag Lunch Series on “Careers in Immigration.”

Judge Amy F. Haer of the Atlanta (W. Peachtree) Immigration Court was most recently Director of Immigration Services for Catholic Legal Services of Atlanta. A graduate of GW Law, she is an alum of the GW Immigration Clinic headed by my good friend and neighbor in Alexandria, Professor Alberto Benitez. Professor Benitez wrote to me earlier on Friday about his pride in Judge Haer’s achievements and how honored he was to be able to attend her investiture by Zoom. Professor Benitez informs me that Judge Haer is the third of his clinic students to be elevated to the Immigration Bench! Way to go in training the “next generation” of the NDPA!

EOIR needs change! Big time! Lives depend upon it, as does the future of our legal system, now staggering under the load of far too many “ivory tower right wing ideologue jurists” at all levels who have lost sight of the serious scholarship, humanity, and practicality with which the law must be interpreted and applied. Justice without mercy isn’t justice at all, something that the Supremes’ GOP majority needs to be “schooled” on! To the extent that change starts at the “retail level” of EOIR, the latest selections represent progress.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-06-22

⚡️🔌 SHORT CIRCUIT! — TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED TRUMP HOLDOVER & ANTI-IMMIGRANT ZEALOT TRACY SHORT FINALLY FORCED OUT @ EOIR — Notorious Member Of Sessions-Hamilton-Barr “Atlanta Xenophobic Mafia” 🏴‍☠️ Resigns 😎⚖️🗽👍🏼

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Special to Courtside

July 21, 2022

Multiple sources report that now-former Chief Immigration Judge Tracy Short resigned today. This long overdue action ends one of the most grotesque ongoing farces in the American legal system.

This total travesty saw the Trump holdover member of the Sessions-Hamilton “Atlanta Xenophobic Mafia” — appointed by former AG Barr without any judicial experience or qualifications — continue to drag down the Immigration Courts with increased due-process-denying backlogs and anti-immigrant shenanigans during the first 18 months of the Biden Administration. As a “Senior Executive,” Short could and should have been reassigned long ago by AG Merrick Garland to a position where he no longer could undermine American justice.

Short’s appointment by Barr two years ago stunned and outraged experts and practitioners. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-5HB. ICE Atlanta and the Atlanta Immigration Court were generally held in low professional regard by practitioners and observers not part of the nativist cabal with which both have long been associated.

Short’s appointment was particularly galling to those committed to due process and fundamental fairness because he replaced then Acting Chief Immigration Judge Christopher Santoro, a far more qualified candidate who had been an outspoken force for fairness and impartiality. That’s actually what the Immigration Courts are supposed to be about, but clearly were not during the Trump era at DOJ.

Short’s resignation comes as the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) seeks “re-recognition” from the Biden Administration. Short helped spearhead Barr’s inexplicably successful effort to “de-certify” the NAIJ as thinly disguised “punishment” for speaking out for judicial independence and exposing the many ongoing abuses of due process at EOIR.

Predictably, nativist/restrictionist groups and their “GOP cheerleaders” like Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and insurrectionist apologist Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) raised absurdist claims of a “political vendetta.” That’s ironic considering that the Trump group improperly “weaponized” EOIR to serve not as a legitimate quasi-judicial arbiter, but rather as an overtly biased and unqualified “enforcer” of their racially-charged “gonzo” enforcement policies.

The latter combined illegality, incompetence, and gratuitous cruelty in a toxic brew directed at migrants. It particularly targeted those of color, women, and children.

This apoplectic response by the radical right in and of itself should assure Garland that he is finally on the right track with getting unqualified judges and administrators out of EOIR and replacing them with competent judges with reputations as fair-minded experts in due process, human rights, and immigration. Perhaps the curtain is finally beginning to come down on the long-running “clown show” at EOIR!

During the Trump Administration, appointment of former prosecutors as Immigration Judges outnumbered appointments from the ranks of private and academic sector practitioners by approximately nine to one. At first, Garland curiously did little to change that — actually elevating some of his predecessors’ questionably-qualified candidates. Now, this very modest long overdue effort to rid the system of “deadwood” and bring in at least some experts from outside the world of government prosecutors is sending “shockwaves” through “restrictionist world.” Restrictionists ran roughshod over the Immigration Court system during the days of White Nationalist Stephen Miller and his cronies! They obviously hate the idea that the Biden Administration belatedly is acting like the 2020 election actually had consequences!

No immediate replacement for Short was named by EOIR. Garland must not pass up this opportunity to bring true expertise and dynamic due-process-focused leadership into his broken EOIR court system! It’s up to everyone committed to fairness and due process for all at EOIR to make sure that Garland “gets it right” this time around!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-21-22

🗽🧑🏻‍⚖️ BIA APPELLATE JUDGES LIEBOWITZ, BROWN, MANUEL WITH STRONG REVERSAL OF HIGH-DENYING IJ IN FIFTH — Nexis, PSG — Roberto Blum Reports! — “This makes the need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament even more urgent,” Says Says Brooklyn Law Associate Dean Stacey Caplow!

Roberto writes:

Hello Judge,

Here’s another remand you might like to read. This time it was Nexus and PSG with IJ Monique Harris (previously in Houston). According to TRAC she has a 96.5 asylum denial rate. The prior remand I shared was IJ Khan who is at 97% denial rate. Clearly these IJs are getting a lot of “matter of life and death” decisions wrong. As you say, haste makes waste. This case (like the previous one) should have been easy grants with all of the supporting documents that were included. I appeared at the individual hearing and my colleague Bryan Russell Terhune (from the same office) worked on the BIA Brief.

P.S. you can see this news article: https://sv.usembassy.gov/court-inaugurated-memory-pnc-agent/ , from our own U.S. Embassy in El Salvador where they inaugurated an athletic court in the Usulutan Police Delegation, named after the PNC officer Nelson Panameño, who was killed. Panameño was one of the instructors from the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program (GREAT) which my client closely worked with for many years helping him and the PNC gain trust with the community and local youth. This was part of the record, plus a lot more evidence showing this specific connection and the specific and imminent warnings that Panameno gave to my client before his own murder. This was just one of the many great things this client did in El Salvador to try and make his country a better place. We are lucky to have him and his family in this country now.

Best,

DPF!

RB

Here’s the panel decision:

BIA APPEAL REMAND (Redacted)

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

Thanks, Roberto.

As Roberto says:

This was just one of the many great things this client did in El Salvador to try and make his country a better place. We are lucky to have him and his family in this country now.

That this respondent is here to contribute to our country is due to Roberto and his colleagues in the Law Office of Juan Reyes, Houston, and to this particular panel of BIA Appellate Judges. But it is “no thanks” to the IJ who got this case egregiously wrong below!

Nor, is it thanks to an Attorney General who has allowed injustice, bad judgment, and poor quality decision-making to flourish at the “retail level” of his wholly-owned “court” system. What about the many folks who don’t have Roberto or someone like him for a lawyer or who get members of the “BIA asylum deniers club” appointed under Trump to “pack the BIA for an anti-asylum agenda” instead of this panel of conscientious appellate judges?

I note that Judge Elise Manuel and Judge Denise Brown are currently denominated “Temporary” Appellate Judges. At least in this case, along with Judge Ellen Liebowitz, they “got it” at a level at odds with the work of too many of their so-called “permanent” colleagues. Why has Garland allowed this obviously problematic situation to continue to fester with human lives at stake?

Judge Ellen Liebowitz’s compact, cogent, powerful opinion is a terrific “mini-primer” on how PSG and “one central reason” nexus cases properly should be decided! As Judge Liebowitz demonstrates, you don’t have to write a lot to say a lot. You just have to know what you’re doing!

The gross, fundamental errors in the application of basic statutory terms by the IJ below in this case are, unfortunately, repeated on a regular basis by many of her colleagues across America who are improperly “programmed to deny” clearly grantable asylum cases.

It belies the bogus claim that EOIR is an “expert subject matter tribunal!” That expertise is, at least in part, what the questionable doctrines of “Chevron deference” and “Brand X abdication” by the Supremes rest upon. Shouldn’t it make a difference that in EOIR’s case, it’s a lie?

Why is Garland allowing this to happen when it could be remedied? Make this case a precedent and start removing, retraining, or reassigning so-called “judges” who don’t follow it and who continue to disregard the law and the rights of asylum seekers!

Why isn’t this case a precedent? Why is an IJ who is so clearly unqualified to decide asylum cases still on the Immigration Bench under Garland? Why aren’t cases like this being used to end the “asylum free zone” improperly established by some Houston IJs?

These are the “tough questions” that Garland should have addressed. Why hasn’t he? Why is “refugee roulette” still plaguing EOIR and American justice — 15 years after the problem was first “outed” by my Georgetown Law colleagues Professors Schrag, Schoenholtz, and Ramji-Nogales? How is this “good government,” or even “minimally competent government?”

When compelling, well-documented cases like this are turned down at the trial level, something clearly is rotten in the system! Make no mistake about it, lack of expertise, bad judicial attitudes, widespread anti-asylum bias, counterproductive “haste makes waste gimmicks,” and way, way too many denials are significant “drivers” of the backlog that continues to mushroom under Garland.

The arbitrary and often grotesquely unfair, unprofessional, and results-driven state of “justice” in Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts was recently highlighted by Brooklyn Law Associate Dean Stacey Caplow in her lament about the Supremes’ abdication of responsibility in Patel v Garland.

Stacy Caplow
Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law
Brooklyn Law
PHOTO: Brooklyn Law website

As Dean Caplow cogently points out:

Patel shuts the door firmly and unequivocally, preventing independent review of fact-finding by Immigration Judges, however irrational and indefensible once the Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed. This makes the need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament even more urgent. Perhaps this case will provide new impetus for reform such as Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 voted by the House Judiciary Committee in May just days before the Supreme Court’s decision.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/the-pathos-of-patel-v-garland

While an independent, subject matter expert Article I Immigration Court is the obvious answer, unfortunately, it’s not immediately on the horizon. Meanwhile, the innocent and vulnerable continue to suffer daily injustices, sometimes gratuitous humiliation or dehumanization, in Garland’s broken system. It DOESN’T have to be this way!

As Dean Caplow says, we “need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament.” It’s not “rocket science” 🚀— just intellectual excellence, courage, and a fair-minded approach to justice!

There are literally hundreds of extraordinarily well-qualified individuals out there in the private sector who could outperform the IJ in this case in every critical aspect of the job! Why hasn’t Garland actively recruited them for his courts? Why isn’t his system functioning correctly “on the retail level?”

Garland has the authority to take the bold action necessary to redirect, refocus, and re-populate his current parody of a court system to laser-focus on due process, fundamental fairness, judicial expertise in immigration and human rights, and efficiency (without sacrificing due process or decisional excellence). All of us who care about the future of American justice should be asking why he isn’t doing his job!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-31-22

🇺🇸🗽⚖️😎🌟🏆NDPA SUPERSTAR LAUREN WYATT WINS AWARD!

Lauren Wyatt Award — NY City Bar
Legal Services Award
Lauren Wyatt

Lauren Wyatt

Lauren Wyatt is an attorney with Catholic Charities Community Services, Archdiocese of New York, where she provides direct representation to immigrants before the Immigration Court, Board of Immigration Appeals, USCIS, and New York family courts. As the Lead Project Attorney for the Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH), she coordinates pro se application workshops, Know-Your-Rights presentations, legal screenings, and pro bono case placements for unrepresented immigrants in removal proceedings. She also prepares and supervises the implementation of specialized ICH programming in response to emergencies (such as family separation) and changes in law and policy (such as in domestic violence- and family-based asylum claims) She recruits and trains volunteers to provide free legal information and assistance to low-income immigrants. She also supervises and mentors pro bono volunteer attorneys in representing clients before the Immigration Court.

Prior to joining Catholic Charities, Lauren was a Program Associate at the Vera Institute of Justice administering the Legal Orientation Program for detained immigrants. Before moving to New York City, Lauren was an Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps Fellow at Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Washington. At Catholic Charities DC, she represented unaccompanied children in immigration and state court proceedings, as well as in affirmative applications before USCIS. She also trained and mentored pro bono attorneys to represent clients in immigration and family court cases.

Lauren is licensed to practice in New York and Maryland, as well as before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She earned her J.D. from Howard University School of Law in 2014, and her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2010. She has studied in Seville, Spain, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Havana, Cuba. She is fluent in Spanish and conversational in Italian.

Refugee Women

SOURCE: I-ARC

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

Congrats, Lauren!😎👍🏼

As we can see, eight years out of law school, Lauren has basically “done it all!” When are we going to see Lauren on the Federal Bench?

Like Vice President Kamala Harris, Lauren is a distinguished grad of Howard Law! So, why hasn’t Harris actively recruited her for a judicial or senior management position at EOIR, where due process, racial justice, practical problem solving, and a positive attitude toward human rights are in total tatters and need “big time” change and redirection?

Why are Dems blowing the opportunity to recognize, promote, and empower “the best and the brightest” that the “upcoming generation” of American lawyers has to offer?

Why is EOIR still a “due process wasteland” rather than a model, due process focused, best practices oriented, “progressive judiciary of the future?”

Somebody with some “pipelines” into the Biden Administration should be asking these questions and insisting on positive progressive actions!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-22

⚖️ IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY👩🏽‍⚖️ 👨🏻‍⚖️: THREE OF FIVE LATEST GARLAND IJ APPOINTEES HAVE PRIOR IMMIGRATION PRIVATE PRACTICE EXPERIENCE!

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1507646/download

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR

May 23, 2022

EOIR Announces Five New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of five immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, and Massachusetts.

EOIR continues to work to expand its immigration corps and welcomes qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join the agency. In addition to making a difference through service to our Nation, immigration judges join a diverse and inclusive workforce. Individuals interested in these critical positions are invited to sign up for job alerts that are sent when new opportunities become available.

After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Romy L. Lerner, William Mabry III, Cynthia M. Nunez, Curtis F. Pierce, and Michael P. Sady to their new positions.

Biographical information follows:

Romy L. Lerner, Immigration Judge, Miami (Krome) Immigration Court

Romy L. Lerner was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Lerner earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Columbia University and a Juris Doctorate in 2002 from Columbia University School of Law. From 2015 to 2022, she was the Associate Director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, and from 2013 to 2015, she was a supervising attorney with the clinic. From 2010 to 2013, she was a supervising attorney at Americans for Immigrant Justice (formerly Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center (FIAC)). From 2007 to 2010, and previously from 2005 to 2006, she was a staff attorney at FIAC. From 2006 to 2007, she was a Fulbright Fellow in Buenos Aires, Argentina. From 2002 to 2005, she was a litigation associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Judge Lerner is a member of the Florida Bar and New York State Bar.

William Mabry III, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

William Mabry III was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Mabry earned a Bachelor of Science in 1988 from Arizona State University, and a Master

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces Five New Immigration Judges Page 2

of Public Administration in 1991 from Arizona State University while concurrently earning a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the University of New Mexico School of Law. From 2019 to 2022, he served as an associate judge for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, in Peridot, Arizona. From 2018 to 2019, he was an associate attorney with Davis and Miles, in Tempe, Arizona. From 1996 to 2018, he served as a senior field attorney with the National Labor Relations Board in Phoenix. From 1994 to 1995, he served as a staff attorney with the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Judge Mabry is a member of the State Bar of Arizona and State Bar of New Mexico.

Cynthia M. Nunez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Cynthia M. Nunez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Nunez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1986 from the University of Michigan and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from Wayne State University Law School. After a previous stint from 1994 to 1997, Judge Nunez returned to practicing immigration law at Walker & Associates of Michigan PC, in Detroit, during which time she also served as Lawyer-Guardian ad Litem. From 1997 to 2006, she served as a Michigan Assistant Attorney General. Judge Nunez is a member of the State Bar of Michigan.

Curtis F. Pierce, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Curtis Pierce was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Pierce earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1980 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 1984 from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. From 1995 to 2022, he practiced immigration law with the Law Offices of Curtis Pierce in Los Angeles. Judge Pierce is a member of the State Bar of California.

Michael P. Sady, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Michael P. Sady was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Sady earned a Bachelor of Science in 1984 from Northeastern University and a Juris Doctor in 1988 from Boston University School of Law. From 2002 to 2022, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Massachusetts, Boston. From 1997 to 2002, he served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the Massachusetts Port Authority in Boston. From 1991 to 1997, he served as an Associate Litigation Attorney at Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott in Boston. From 1990 to 1991, he served as an Associate Litigation Attorney at Hutchins & Wheeler in Boston. From 1988 to 1990, he served as an Associate Litigation Attorney at Peabody & Arnold in Boston. Judge Sady is a member of the Massachusetts Bar, as well as the First and Second Circuit Courts of Appeal.

— EOIR —

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

Incremental progress.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-23-22

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️JUDICIARY: DYNAMIC PRACTICAL SCHOLARS JUDGE CLAUDIA R. CUBAS, JUDGE AYODELE A. GANSALLO, & JUDGE KYLE E. DANDELET AMONG GARLAND’S PROMISING NEW APPOINTEES — Can “Change From Below” Eventually Bring “Equal Justice For All” & Decisional Excellence To The Broken, Battered, Backlogged, “Anti-Immigrant” Retail Level Of Our Justice System?

Claudia Cubas
Hon. Claudia R. Cubas
U.S. Immigration Judge
Hyattsville (MD) Immigration Court
Photo: berkleycenter.georgetown.edu

Claudia R. Cubas, Immigration Judge, Hyattsville Immigration Court

Claudia R. Cubas was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in March 2022. Judge Cubas earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005 from the University of St. Thomas, in Houston, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. From 2018 to 2022, she was the Litigation Director at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition in the District of Columbia. She held the following roles at the CAIR Coalition: from 2016 to 2018, Senior Program Director; from 2014 to 2016, Program Director; from 2013 to 2014, Supervising Attorney for the Legal Orientation Program; and from 2011 to 2012, Staff Attorney. From 2009 to 2011, she was an Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps Legal Fellow at the Central American Resource Center, in the District of Columbia. From 2008 to 2009, she was an Attorney in private practice. Judge Cubas is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Judge Ayodele Gansallo — Hon. Ayodele Gansallo
U.S. Immigration Judge
Hyattsville (MD) Immigration Court
PHOTO: Penn Law

Ayodele A. Gansallo, Immigration Judge, Hyattsville Immigration Court

Ayodele A. Gansallo was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in March 2022. Judge Gansallo earned a Bachelor of Laws in 1985 from Leicester University, England. From 1985 to 1986, she attended the Guildford College of Law, and completed the program for Solicitors. She earned a Master of Laws from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 1998. From 2021 to 2022, she was the Co-Director of Legal Services with the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society of Pennsylvania (HIAS PA), in Philadelphia. From 1998 to 2020, she was the Senior Staff Attorney with HIAS PA. From 1994 to 1997, she was the Legal Director and Policy Coordinator with The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants in London. From 1992 to 1994, she was the Solicitor with the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit in Manchester, England. From 1988 to 1989, she was a Solicitor with Michael Freeman and Co, in London. From 1987 to 1988, she was a trainee Solicitor with the London Borough of Islington, in London. Judge Gansallo is a member of the New York State Bar.

Hon. Kyle A. Dandelet — Hon Kyle A. Dandelet
U.S. Immigration Judge
NY (Federal Plaza) Immigration Court
PHOTO: immigrantarc.org

Kyle A. Dandelet, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

Kyle A. Dandelet was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in March 2022. Judge Dandelet earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctor in 2010 from Harvard Law School. From 2017 to 2022, he was the Pro Bono Immigration Attorney at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (Cleary Gottlieb) in New York. From 2015 to 2017, he was a Senior Staff Attorney in Sanctuary for Families’ Immigration Intervention Project at the New York City Family Justice Center in the Bronx, New York. From 2010 to 2012, and from 2013 to 2015, he was a Litigation Associate with Cleary Gottlieb. From 2012 to 2013, he clerked for the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Dandelet is a member of the New York State Bar.

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

Here are the bios of the full list of 25 new appointees! https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1487036/download

Notably, and in marked contrast to earlier selections, particularly under Trump, all the new judges appear to have prior immigration and/or judicial experience. Significantly, 20 appear to have prior experience representing individuals in Immigration Court and a number have immigration experience with both the private sector and DHS. Some have notable pro bono, human rights, or civil rights credentials. Fittingly for “Women’s History Month” and for the composition of the upcoming generation of new attorneys (55% of law students are now women), 17 of the new judges are women.

Obviously, with more than 600 Immigration Judges nationwide, 25 new judges, no matter how well-qualified, can’t solve all the problems of a failing, unfair, and badly “out of whack” system in the near future. But, every improvement in the delivery of justice on the trial level saves lives, inspires others, reduces unnecessary appeals and remands, and puts pressure on the BIA to pay attention to detail and stop just “regurgitating the discredited Sessions/Barr/DHS party line.” Although one perhaps wouldn’t know it from reading BIA decisions, the “legal times” are changing, even if the BIA often appears tied to the least happy aspects of the past.

I have known and admired the work of Judge Claudia Cubas for years. She appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court, helped keep our pro bono program humming along, and was a charismatic and inspirational role model for JLCs, interns, law students, and a new generation of due-process-oriented lawyers in the DMV metro area and beyond.

Judge Ayo Gansallo is another amazing legal scholar-advocate. We worked together with Professor Michele Pistone of Villanova on the VIISTA Villanova program for training more non-attorney representatives to assist asylum seekers. It was there that I was introduced to Understanding Immigration Law & Practice, the amazing textbook that she co-authored with Judith Bernstein-Baker. It jumped out at me as just the “practically oriented” book I was looking for! It has now become a staple of my Immigration Law & Policy class at Georgetown Law. The students love the “practical approach” with lots of real life examples and problems that we can work on in groups during class.

While I don’t personally know Judge Dandelet, he is a “personal hero” of my friend, Round Table colleague, and fellow blogger Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase! That really tells me all I need to know about why he will be an intellectual leader and a “game changer” on the bench.

There appear to be many other fine, well-qualified judges on this list that I haven’t personally encountered on my trip through the world of immigration. But, I do look forward to becoming familiar with their work through the extensive feedback I get from members of the NDPA throughout America.

Congrats to all the new judges! Thanks for taking on the challenge. Insist on equal justice for all, respect for everyone (including attorneys) coming before the court, and timely scholarly excellence that focuses on correct results — tune out all the other BS that all too often infects EOIR and interferes with great judging. And, of course, most important: “Due Process Forever!” It’s the “name of the game” — the ONLY game in town!

PWS

03-26-22

🏴‍☠️(NO) SURPRISE! — Boston Asylum Office Screws 🔩 Maine Refugees ☠️— Part Of A Serious National Anti-Asylum Bias Largely Unaddressed By Biden Administration! — New “Interim Asylum Regs” Designed To Fail! — Instant Critical Commentary From “Courtside!”

“Screwed”
By Pearson Scott Foresman
Public Domain

https://www.pressherald.com/2022/03/23/report-on-boston-asylum-office-finds-disproportionately-low-acceptance-rates-bias-against-applicants/

Emily Allen reports for the Portland (ME) Press Herald:

LOCAL & STATE Posted 4:00 AM

INCREASE FONT SIZE

Report on Boston Asylum Office finds disproportionately low acceptance rates, bias against applicants

The office serving asylum seekers in and around Maine has the second lowest approval rate in the nation, according to a report by Maine immigrant advocacy groups.

BY EMILY ALLEN STAFF WRITER

Share

11 COMMENTS

Listen to this article now

10

10

1.0✕

Powered byTrinity Audio

00:00

06:56

The Boston Asylum Office has the second lowest acceptance rate of any office in the nation, and granted asylum to only 11 percent of its applicants in 2021, according to a report by Maine legal aid organizations handling immigration cases and advocates for reform.

The report says the office that serves asylum seekers in and around Maine is plagued by bias and burnout, and that its low grant rate is “driven by a culture of suspicion” toward asylum seekers.

The process of seeking asylum in the United States begins with an application to U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. Applicants must prove they are fleeing a country in which they previously suffered persecution or were at risk of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

Applications go through asylum offices first, which can either grant asylum from the outset or refer an application to an immigration court for a judge to consider.

Jennifer Bailey, an attorney for the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project and one of the report’s authors, said almost all asylum seekers she works with eventually obtain asylum status through immigration court, after failing to be granted asylum at the Boston Asylum Office. But the court process can take years, and, while they’re waiting, applicants aren’t able to access federal student aid, social services or educational opportunities. Even worse, they spend that time away from their families, who can still be at risk.

“It’s not uncommon for people’s (families) left at home to die while they’re waiting, or to be lost within the violence,” Bailey said.

Collaborating with the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project on the report were the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic at the University of Maine School of Law, the ACLU of Maine and a visiting lecturer at Amherst College in Massachusetts who spent eight years waiting on a decision from the Boston Asylum Office and was ultimately denied in May 2021. Today, he and his family live in Canada.

During its first five years, the Boston office – which opened in 2015 and processes about 5,600 applications a year – granted roughly 15 percent of its asylum applications on average, the report states. Meanwhile, offices in San Francisco and New Orleans were accepting asylum requests at rates that were more than three times higher. Nationally, the acceptance rate from 2015 to 2020 was 28 percent, the report says.

The report acknowledged that asylum officers who approve or refer cases to court face a “complex and essential” list of responsibilities. Being overworked and having less time to consider cases often results in asylum officers sending more referrals to immigration court, said some former officers cited in the report.

Meanwhile, supervising officers play an “outsized” role in the asylum-granting process, according to the report. If an asylum officer recommends granting asylum and the supervisor disagrees, the officer could face retaliation in the form of more work or a negative performance evaluation, the report states.

PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD

The report’s authors contend that their research “strongly suggests” that Boston’s asylum office doesn’t consider applications from a neutral stance, “but rather presumes they must be fraudulent or pose a security threat.” Of 21 trainings for asylum officers mentioned in the report, 14 were focused on fraud detection. Former officers told the report’s authors that constantly hearing concerns about fraud and credibility made them think such problems were more prevalent than they were.

“They’re telling their story, which, no matter what, can involve this unimaginable trauma of torture and violence or sexual violence or death,” Bailey said of asylum seekers. “Put yourself in that position and imagine how hard it is to talk about the worst thing that’s ever happened to you in your life, and having this officer – who has the power to help you and your family – say ‘No, I don’t believe you.’”

According to the report, bias and skepticism in the office extend to certain countries. The Boston Asylum Office granted only 4 percent of asylum applications from the Democratic Republic of Congo from 2015 to 2020, even though the U.S. has acknowledged significant human rights violations in that country, including unlawful killings and torture, the report says. The office granted only 2 percent of its applications from Angola, another country where there is known abuse.

The Newark Asylum Office in New Jersey, which also serves some of New England, granted asylum to 17 percent of its applicants from Angola and 33 percent of its applicants from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

English-speaking applicants are nearly twice as likely to be granted asylum as non-English speakers, who are referred to immigration court 80 percent of the time, the report says. Asylum-seekers who can speak English are referred to immigration court just under 60 percent of the time.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Emily’s fine article at the link.

I did lots of DRC cases over 13 years on the trial bench! Most had lawyers and were extremely well-documented. Often ICE didn’t oppose grants (prior to Trump).

In Arlington, with agreement from the parties, they were candidates for the “short docket.” Nearly all the DRC cases “referred” from the Arlington Asylum Office were granted upon “de novo” review in Immigration Court.

This is a prime example of how our asylum system seriously regressed under Trump and has not been fixed by Garland and Mayorkas! No wonder our Immigration Courts are hopelessly and unnecessarily backlogged with an astounding 1.6 million pending cases. Bad judging, systemic anti-asylum bias, lack of competence, and gross mismanagement by DOJ and DHS are taking a toll on democracy and humanity!

Pathetically and disingenuously, USCIS tries to blame their malfeasance and lack of competence on “the pandemic.” That drew one of the more perceptive public comments I’ve seen recently:

Pandemic restrictions didn’t create bias in other asylum offices – that’s a totally inadequate excuse.

For sure! Just like it’s a pretext for the elimination of our legal asylum system at the border that Garland disgracefully defends! Think that the “anti-asylum culture” problem ends with USCIS? Guess again?

Former Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions was never bashful about sharing his White Nationalist, nativist, xenophobic falsehoods and myths about asylum seekers with his “captive” Immigration Judges. That’s right, for those not “in the know,” amazingly the “courts” that are supposed to provide expert legal precedents on asylum law and give a “fresh look” to those cases not granted by the Asylum Office aren’t “courts” at all as most Americans know them. They are run by the chief law enforcement official of the United States, the Attorney General, even though they are called “Immigration Courts.”

Sessions actually made the following statement, unsupported by any hard evidence, to a group of his wholly owned “judges” on October 12, 2017:

“We also have dirty immigration lawyers who are encouraging their otherwise unlawfully present clients to make false claims of asylum providing them with the magic words needed to trigger the credible fear process.”

At the same time, he announced that he was, on his own motion and over the objection of the DHS and the applicant, “undoing” the leading BIA precedent recognizing gender-based harm as a ground for asylum. For a good measure, he also warned his supposedly, but not really, “fair and impartial judges” that he expected them to strictly apply precedent — HIS precedents, that is. In other words, start cranking out those asylum denials or your career might be in peril!

Some judges chose to resign or retire. Some kept on doing their jobs conscientiously, legitimately “working around” Sessions’s poorly reasoned and factually inaccurate anti-asylum precedents. Many, however, chose to “go along to get along” with the anti-asylum program — some happily (there were reportedly some cheers and applause when Sessions announced his cowardly assault on vulnerable refugee women of color), some not.

So clearly wrong and totally off-base was Sessions’s assault on asylum-seeking women, primarily those of color, that even the otherwise timid and reticent AG Merrick Garland had to reverse it during his first year in office and restore the prior BIA precedent. However, there has been no further guidance from the BIA on properly and generously applying this potentially favorable, life-saving precedent.

President Biden charged Garland and Mayorkas with developing regulations on gender-based claims by October 2021. Obviously, that date has come and gone with the regulations still MIA!

Think that promoting a culture of xenophobia, racism, and overt bias has no effect? During the Trump Administration, although conditions for refugees, and particularly for refugee women, worsened over that time, the Immigration Court asylum grant rate fell precipitously — from more than 50% during the mid-years of the Obama Administration to only 23% during FY 2020, the last full year of the Trump regime.

The Immigration Courts and especially the BIA were “packed” by Sessions and his successor “Billy the Bigot” Barr with questionably qualified “judges” perceived to be willing to do their nativist bidding. Inexplicably, Garland has been unwilling to “unpack” them, despite these being DOJ attorney positions in the “excepted service,” NOT life-tenured Federal Judges.

Consequently, life or death asylum decisions today depend less on the legal merits of an applicant’s case than they do on the particular Immigration Judge assigned, the composition of the BIA “panel” on appeal, the Federal Circuit in which the case arises, and even the composition of the panel of U.S. Circuit Judges who might review the case.

They also depend on whether the applicant is fortunate enough to have a lawyer (not provided by the USG). Any unrepresented, often non-English-speaking asylum seeker has little or no chance of negotiating the intentionally arcane, opaque, unnecessarily hyper technical, and “user unfriendly” asylum system in Immigration “Court” without expert help.

Almost every week, the Circuit Courts of Appeals publish major decisions pointing out elementary legal and factual errors by the BIA’s “deportation railroad.” But, that’s just the tip of the iceberg! The vast majority of life-threatening errors by the Immigration Courts go uncorrected as the applicants are unable to pursue their cases to the Courts of Appeals or are “duressed” by DHS detention in substandard conditions into giving up viable claims.

Check out some of these denial rates by ten of Barr’s BIA appointees who previously served as Immigration Judges. Those judges are listed with their asylum denial rates, according to Syracuse University’s 2021 TRAC Reports:

Michael P. Baird (91.4%),

William A. Cassidy (99%),

V. Stuart Couch (93.3%),

Deborah K. Goodwin (91%),

Stephanie E. Gorman (92%),

Keith Hunsucker (85%),

Sunita Mahtabfar (98.7%),

Philip J. Montante, Jr. (96.3%),

Kevin W. Riley (90.4%),

Earle B. Wilson (98.2%)

Gee, these guys make even the artificially high nationwide asylum denial rates (76%) resulting from Trump’s all-out assault on due process and the rule of law look low by comparison! Gosh, only one of these Dudes was even within 10% (just barely) of that already outrageously high, artificially “reverse engineered” national denial rate.

Yet, inexplicably, these virulently anti-asylum judges continue to serve and negatively shape asylum law under Garland! Even “pre-Trump,” most of them avoided granting any asylum, in the face of precedents supposedly requiring generous application of the law in accordance with U.N. guidance and recognizing gender-based persecution as real.

So, it’s little surprise that no meaningful positive guidance or helpful interpretation has come from Garland’s BIA that might lead to expedited and consistent asylum grants to the many meritorious asylum cases now buried in his burgeoning 1.6 million case Immigration Court backlog! No wonder civil rights, human rights, equal justice, and Constitutional law experts consider Garland to be a failure as AG!

To date, Garland has appointed only one BIA Appellate Judge out of 21! That was to fill an existing vacancy. Judge Andrea Saenz is a superbly qualified asylum expert with scholarly credentials, “real life” experience representing asylum seekers in Immigration Court, clerking experience in those courts, and proven intellectual and practical leadership capabilities.

But, we need a “BIA of Judge Saenzes” — like yesterday! The talent is out there! But, Garland and his lieutenants have been too dilatory, tone deaf, and shockingly indifferent to these glaring due process, expertise, and racial justice issues to bring in the qualified judges and judicial administrators to fix his unjust, unfair, and grotesquely inefficient “courts.” Thus, the dysfunction grows, festers, and eventually destroys, maims, and kills! Is this really an appropriate “legacy” for a Dem Administration?

Today, in a WashPost OpEd, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, President & CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, points out:

In Houston, where some 6,000 Afghans have resettled — the most of any city in the United States — immigration judges deny no less than 89 percent of claims.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/23/afghan-evacuees-are-stuck-legal-limbo-heres-how-help-them/u

Why are members of this outrageous “protection deniers’ club” still on Garland’s broken and biased Immigration Court bench? You don’t have to be a human rights scholar or Constitutional law expert to see that there is something seriously wrong here that Garland is sweeping under the rug!

Yes, the best answer is an independent Article I Immigration Court, free from the mismanagement and political shenanigans of the DOJ, with a merit-based selection system for judges. But, that doesn’t absolve Garland from the responsibility to fix the existing system NOW before more lives are lost, futures ruined, and American justice irretrievably degraded!

The current racially discriminatory, scofflaw, patently unjust parody of a “court” system being run by Garland is as unacceptable as it is immoral!

Four Horsemen — Garland and Mayorkas have allowed this approach to asylum seekers to flourish on their watch. That raises serious questions about their suitability for their current positions!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

“Interim Regulations” Aren’t The Answer!

Today, the Biden Administration released new “Interim Asylum Regulations” that appear designed to fail. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-06148.pdf. That’s because they don’t address the real competency, leadership, and legal problems plaguing the current system!

I won’t claim to have waded through every word of this entire 512-page mishmash of largely impenetrable bureaucratic gobbledygook. But, I can see it’s more tone-deaf micromanagement of the Immigration Court, along with the usual, arbitrary and capricious, unrealistic “off the wall” “time limits” that are guaranteed to make things worse, not better. It’s basically more of Garland’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and his “Treadmill for Immigration Attorneys” that have already helped fuel unprecedented backlogs amidst wildly inconsistent results and a steady stream of life-threatening errors from his dysfunctional “courts.”

As if the answer to a poorly functioning, hopelessly self-backlogged, incompetent, biased, and unfair system is to “speed it up!” Come on, man! That suggests, quite incorrectly, that the primary problems in our asylum system are something other than lack of competence, integrity, expertise, and leadership at DHS and DOJ!

In reality, Garland’s defective “assembly line justice” at EOIR is already cutting so many corners and being so careless and “denial focused” that a steady stream of elementary legal errors show up in the Courts of Appeals every week. How is speeding up an already unfair and error plagued system going to make it better?

The real answer is to move the many grantable asylum cases that pass credible fear through the system correctly, fairly, on a reasonable, timely, predictable basis, with representation. That requires more and better trained Asylum Officers; different, better Immigration Judges who know how to recognize and grant asylum and keep the parties moving through the system; a new BIA of practical scholars who are due-process-oriented human rights experts to set favorable, practical asylum and procedural precedents and to keep IJs, AOs, and counsel for both sides in line; and close cooperation and advance coordination with the private bar and NGOs to insure representation of all asylum seekers.

This “interim regulation” avoids and obfuscates the necessary personnel replacement, attitude adjustment, and changes to the “culture of denial and deterrence” required in the Executive Branch for our asylum system to work! I predict colossal failure!

Get ready to litigate, NDPA! This is an “in your face,” largely unilateral, insulting approach. Rather than respecting your expertise, dedication, abilities, and counsel in fundamentally changing this system, Mayorkas and Garland intend arrogantly to “shove it down your throats and the throats of asylum seekers” with their inferior personnel, a toxic culture of denial, bad attitudes, and poor lawyering! Accept the challenge to resist!`

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-24-22

⚖️🧑‍⚖️☠️ SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI) HIGHLIGHTS RIGHT’S SUPREME TAKEOVER! — My Thoughts On “Agency Capture” By Nativists @ EOIR Under Garland!

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Official Senate Photo

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/feb/22/the-scheme-senators-highlight-rightwing-influence-supreme-court?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

David Smith reports for The Guardian:

. . . .

The thread running through Whitehouse’s spoken essays is that the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court is no accident but the product of special interests and dark money – hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous hidden spending.

The special interests are able to groom young judges, promote them in advertising campaigns and then try to influence them in legal briefs, all lacking in transparency. The outcome is a dire threat to the climate, reproductive rights and myriad issues that touch people’s everyday lives.

Whitehouse chose his title carefully. “It implies that this is not random,” he says. “This is not just, ‘Oh, we’re conservatives, and so we’re going to appoint conservative thinking judges,’ which is the veneer. They would like to maintain this is just conservatives being conservatives.”

Whitehouse suggests that the model of “agency capture”, when an administrative agency is co-opted to serve the interests of a minor constituency, was applied to the supreme court. “Once you’re over that threshold of indecency, it actually turned out to be a pretty easy target. The other construct to bear in mind is covert operations, because essentially what’s happened is that a bunch of fossil fuel billionaires have run a massive covert operation in and against their own country. And that’s a scheme.”

. . . .

Democrats have been criticised for being complacent as Republicans unspooled their 50-year campaign to capture the courts. Whitehouse agrees. “It’s way late. It’s really embarrassing how we let this dark money crowd steal a march on us.”

He observes: “From a political perspective it never mattered as much to the Democratic base as it did to the Republican base because we did not have the history of Roe versus Wade, Brown versus Board of Education [desegregating public schools] decisions that provoked massive cultural objections on the far right.

“So they got highly motivated and we did not but then once we saw this machinery begin to go in operation to capture the court, we never bothered to call it out either. It’s not just that our base didn’t care as much. It’s that we were sleeping sentries.”

Whitehouse is planning at least three or four more speeches about The Scheme. Like his climate series, he hopes that the message will get through: it is time to wake up.

“I hope there’ll be a more general understanding that what’s going on at the court has a lot less to do with conservatism than it has to do with capture and, with any luck, it might cause a bit of an epiphany with some of the judges that they don’t want to be associated with what they’re actually associated with. And the American public will see it for what it is and give us in politics more opportunities to administer a repair.”

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

Read the complete report at the link.

Sen. Whitehouse’s reference to “agency capture” is a perfect descriptor of what has happened at EOIR and in our Immigration Courts. Remade, co-opted, and weaponized by Miller, Sessions, Barr, and Gene Hamilton during the Trump regime, the Immigration Courts now represent a nativist/restrictionist culture, philosophy, and approach to justice, including racial justice, that is far, far out of the legal mainstream.

It’s so far out of the mainstream that even the most conservative circuits and Trump judicial appointees occasionally hand Garland’s poorly performing BIA “its head” on sloppy, poorly reasoned, substandard performance. It’s also light years away from the restoration of the rule of law and humane values promised by Biden and Harris during their 2020 campaign!

“Agency capture” appears to be a “GOP specialty,” that Democrats lack. How many key immigration officials, political or “career,” at DHS and DOJ were “Obama holdovers?” How long did the few who weren’t replaced at the outset last? How much influence did they retain or exercise? Yet, Garland continues to operate the Immigration Courts with largely the same toxic culture and badly flawed personnel he inherited from Sessions and Barr. Nonsensical? Disgraceful? Dumb? You bet!

The situation is aggravated many times over because these aren’t “normal agency decisions.” No, they are essentially life or death decisions in a “traffic court setting” that affect humanity, our future as a nation, and often “dribble over” into discriminatory and biased approaches to minority populations and rights outside the field of immigration!

Another serious aggravating factor is the astoundingly dysfunctional and incompetent “Byzantine Empire Style” agency bureaucracy at EOIR which bears no resemblance to competent, professional court management and administration.

Not surprisingly, the latter are outside the DOJ’s skill set. Shockingly, however, A.G. Garland failed to “recognize the obvious” and to bring in the needed outside professional experts to straighten it out.

Even worse, although he essentially “wholly owns” the broken, anti-due-process immigration “judiciary,” Garland has ignored experts’ calls for replacement of the current precedent-setting BIA with judges who are recognized leaders and role models in due process and human rights in the immigration context.

Nor has he actively recruited and appointed enough experts with NGO, clinical, and other private sector backgrounds to Immigration Judge positions. Further, he has failed to develop and implement a transparent, merit-based judicial selection and retention program to “re-compete” the many “new” IJ positions that were created and maliciously used by Sessions and Barr to “pack” EOIR with anti-asylum bias, often involving judges without expertise or with disturbingly thin due-process/fundamental fairness credentials.

Developing a fair, transparent, merit-based system, with outside input, to weed-out underperforming judges in a competitive process and, where warranted, to replace them with some of the brilliant and high-achieving immigration/human rights potential judicial talent now “out there in the market place” but largely ignored by the Biden Administration should have been high on Garland’s list. The process and criteria by which these life or death judicial positions are filled remains largely a mystery shrouded in opaque bureaucracy and with no input from those who actually have to practice before EOIR or who have been researching and documenting the abject, deadly failures of the current system!

With due respect, I think Senator Whitehorse needs to focus some of his attention and ire on the disgraceful performance of the U.S. Immigration Courts under Garland. Unlike the Article IIIs, this Federal Court system could and should have been majorly reformed, restructured, and vastly improved with a more enlightened, courageous, due-process oriented approach by DOJ.

Why doesn’t Senator Whitehouse call up his former Senate colleague VP Harris, who has done a “disappearing act” on immigration and human rights following her tone-deaf excursion to the Northern Triangle? Is he teaming with Chair Lofgren to introduce the Senate version of her Article I Immigration Court Bill? Some of the foregoing could be even more effective in “raising consciousness” and promoting constructive reform than giving speeches to an empty Senate Chamber!

The result of a reformed U.S. Immigration Court should be a “Model Federal Judiciary” — one laser-focused on fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Indeed, that’s what all Federal Courts should be, but are not right now. Not by a long shot!

The Immigration Courts could and should be a training and development ground for a diverse, high-functioning, practical, due-process-oriented Federal Judiciary all the way up to the Supremes — where failure by right-wing ivory-tower jurists who live “above the fray” to understand the reality of our broken Immigration Courts and to courageously vindicate the legal, constitutional, and human rights of abused and vulnerable migrants is literally destroying our republic.

That Garland and the Biden Administration generally are squandering this opportunity is as inexplicable as it is inexcusable! Perhaps Sen. Whitehouse can “light a fire!” 🔥

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-22-22

🤯🤑PROFILE IN FAILURE: GARLAND’S JUDGES: “AMATEUR NIGHT AT THE BIJOU” WITH AN OVERWHELMING TRUMPIAN INFLUENCE — As Experienced Immigration Judges Leave The Bench To Join The “Round Table,” ⚔️🛡 Garland Fails To Consistently Recruit & Hire Immigration/Human Rights/Due Process/Equal Justice “A-Listers” To Replace Them!

From TRAC:

More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

The latest judge-by-judge data from the Immigration Courts indicate that more judges are resigning and retiring. Turnover is the highest since records began in FY 1997 over two decades ago. These results are based on detailed records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which administers the Courts.
During FY 2019 a record number of 35 judges left the bench. This is up from the previous record set in FY 2017 when 20 judges left the bench, and 27 judges left in FY 2018. See Figure 1.

. . . .

There has also been an increase in hiring (see Table 1). The combination of elevated hiring plus a record number of judges leaving the bench means more cases are being heard by judges with quite limited experience as immigration judges.
Currently one of every three (32%) judges have only held their position since FY 2019. Half (48%) of the judges serving today were appointed in the last two and a half years. And nearly two-thirds (64%) were appointed since FY 2017[1]. See Figure 2.

. . . .

Thus, record judge turnover means the Court is losing its most experienced judges, judges whose services would be of particular value in helping mentor the large number of new immigration judges now joining the Court’s ranks. Even with mentoring, new judges appointed without any background in the intricacies of immigration law face a very steep learning curve. And without adequate mentoring, there is a heightened risk that some immigrants’ cases could be decided incorrectly.

. . . .

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

Read the complete report, with charts and graphs, at the above link.

It certainly didn’t help that Garland inexcusably wasted dozens of his “first picks” on Barr’s pipeline appointments — a group that contained few, if any, recognizable “practical scholars” in immigration/human rights/due process/equal justice.

This also shows why adding more judges under Garland’s indolent and ineffective “leadership to the bottom” is likely to aggravate, rather than alleviate, the myriad of problems and the uncontrolled mushrooming backlogs in his dysfunctional courts.

Garland’s mind-boggling failure to act on principles and make obvious, long overdue personnel and structural reforms at EOIR threatens to shred the Dem party and endanger the future of American democracy! It also underlines the hollowness of Biden’s pledge to fight for equal justice and voting rights reforms.

Faced with a wholly owned system badly in need of progressive reforms, the Biden Administration has carried on many of the scurrilous traditions of its Trump predecessors (“MillerLite policies”) while shunning and disrespecting the advice, values, and participation of progressives committed to due process and fair treatment of all persons, regardless of race, color, creed, or status.

Better options and plans have been out there since “before the git go.” See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/02/04/its-not-rocket-science-🚀-greg-chen-professor-peter-markowitz-can-cut-the-immigration-court-backlog-in-half-immediately-with-no-additional-resources-and/

And, of course, it goes without saying that Garland has failed to address the glaring integrity and access problems infecting EOIR data, as outlined in the TRAC report above. With “disappearing records,” “stonewalling party lines,” and institutionalized “lack of transparency,” who really knows what the real size of Garland’s backlog is or what other problems are hidden in his EOIR morass?

It just underlines the need for an independent team of professionals to take over Garland’s broken system, “kick some tail,”and get to the bottom of its many, many, largely self-created and often hidden from the public problems and enduring failures!

Overall, a disappointing and disgraceful first-year performance by an experienced Judge and DOJ vet from whom much, much better was expected and required.

Too bad we didn’t get an Attorney General with the guts to lead and engage on progressive reforms at EOIR! One bright spot, though: Some of the “best ever” judges just leave the bench and call “Sir Jeffrey” Chase to enlist in the Round Table’s battle to advance due process and fundamental fairness! 🛡⚔️ And, they are welcomed with appreciation, respect, friendship, and love — things that few, if any, sitting judges in Garland’s dysfunctional and discombobulated system get!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Amateur Night @ The Bijou” Never!

PWS
01-20-21

⚖️🤯🤮GARLAND’S OHIO JUDICIAL MELTDOWN — “High-Asylum-Denying” Immigration Judges Appointed By Barr & Sessions Remain On Garland’s Bench In Cleveland Despite Referring To Migrants As “Illegals” & “Pretty Virgins!” — EOIR Disciplinary System Remains As Opaque As Ever Under Garland!🏴‍☠️ Yulin Cheng Reports @ Columbus Dispatch!

Yilun Cheng
Immigration Reporter, Columbus Dispatch
PHOTO: Twitter

Woman Tortured — Attorneys who complain about misbehaving judges in Merrick Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” might well find themselves in uncomfortable positions!
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/01/15/discipline-system-immigration-judges-lacks-transparency/9157927002/

In the fall of 2020, “Juan” had trouble falling asleep whenever he thought about his upcoming court appearance in Cleveland, where the only immigration court in Ohio is located.

The 43-year-old father of three from Mexico, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, had already gone through three hours-long hearings for his application to obtain permanent residency. He said he was nervous and exhausted when he stepped into the court on Oct. 16, 2020, for his fourth hearing.

Juan expected from experience that he would once again face a series of aggressive questions from Judge Teresa Riley, whose intimidating style almost made him give up on his case altogether, he said.

But it still astounded him when Riley called Mexican immigrants “illegals” while cross-examining his wife about the subcontractors that Juan employed at his construction business.

Juan is not alone in his grievances. In May 2021, the Ohio chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association submitted a group complaint against Riley to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an agency within the Department of Justice that oversees immigration courts.

Citing the experience of six anonymous immigrants, including Juan, the complaint accuses Riley of biases against Latino immigrants, bullying and hostile questioning, a lack of professional competence and other alleged misconducts.

But complainants like complainants like Juan and their attorneys said they have been disappointed that their efforts did not lead to any lasting changes or that there was little transparency in the investigation process.

Riley stopped hearing cases for a few weeks in July and August, but returned shortly after, according to hearing schedules shared with the Dispatch. It is unclear why the judge was absent.

. . . .

Because these complaints rarely generate substantial disciplinary actions and there is a fear of retaliation from the judges, immigration attorneys and their clients often hesitate to report misconducts, said Austin Kocher, a research associate professor at the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research institute at Syracuse University.

“Immigration attorneys don’t file these complaints often enough because they still have to practice in front of these judges,” said Kocher, whose research focuses on immigration policies. “You can’t file a complaint one day against a judge and the next day come in with your client and expect the judge to treat them well. There’s just a real lack of systematic accountability.”

. . . .

Emmanuel Olawale, a Westerville-based immigration attorney, said he has faced this dilemma firsthand. In October 2020, when he received a notice from the Cleveland Immigration Court that the asylum case of one of his clients was denied, he was disturbed by the language that Judge Jonathan Owens used in the decision.

In the asylum application, Olawale’s client, a 22-year-old asylum seeker from Cameroon, said armed officers from that country sexually assaulted her when she was a minor while they were searching for English-speaking dissidents like her family.

In an attempt to establish that the abuse did not happen due to the client’s identity, Owen stated that it is likely that officers raped the teenage girl not because she was a member of the English-speaking minority but because “they wanted to do so and thought that the respondent was a pretty virgin,” according to court documents shared with The Dispatch.

“If someone’s a ‘pretty virgin,’ is that a good reason for them to rape her in any context?” Olawale said. “That statement is misogynistic and very shocking to me.”

Instead of submitting a complaint against Owen, however, the immigration attorney opted to voice his concerns in an appeal, which is currently pending.

“Filing a complaint against the judge is something on the table,” Olawale said. “But it won’t really change anything in my client’s case. There’s also an imbalance of power in the courtroom and the fear of retaliation. I’ll have to weigh my options and consider how bad it is before I stick my neck out there.”

. . . .

Judges are not always made aware of the existence of a complaint in a timely fashion, and there is no transparency or consistency when it comes to sanctions imposed in a particular case, according to Dana Marks, president emerita at the National Association of Immigration Judges who spent 35 years on the bench in San Francisco, California, before retiring in December.

“It’s not consistent because a complaint usually starts out with the person’s immediate supervisor being told,” Marks said. “Some of the supervisors discuss the complaint with the judge immediately and others don’t. There’s a wide spectrum of when judges are notified, how much information they are provided, and whether they are allowed to give their side of the story before decisions are made.”

There is a fine line between judges’ taking a harsh stance on immigration and their exhibiting unprofessional behaviors, said Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge based in Arlington, Virginia, who retired in 2016. While judges should not be punished for making a good-faith legal decision, using terms like “illegals” seems to be a clear violation of professionalism, he said.

“There are complaints that were made because someone is not happy that they lost a case, and those claims need to be taken with a grain of salt,” Schmidt said. “But at the point where judges are using racially charged terms or demeaning people, then that seems to me that it goes beyond what they should be allowed to do.”

. . . .

The Cleveland Immigration Court, much like the rest of the country, saw dramatic personnel changes during Donald Trump’s presidency.

The court used to have only three judges, all of whom have since left their posts. The Trump administration filled the openings and expanded the size of the bench, appointing 10 judges who currently make up the court. Most of them are former government attorneys, and five used to prosecute immigration cases on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security.

The lack of a transparent complaint process is especially concerning given an influx of new judges, who tend to come from enforcement backgrounds and lack experience on the bench, [Attorney Julie] Nemecek said.

“I think about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country who have been wronged by the misconducts of Trump-appointed judges,” she said. “There are still good judges out there. But we have to address these bad judges.”

. . . .

Yilun Cheng is a Report for America corps member and covers immigration issues for the Dispatch. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation at https://bit.ly/3fNsGaZ.

ycheng@dispatch.com

@ChengYilun

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

Read Yulin’s full article at the link.

First, congrats to Yulin Cheng! Last time I published her work, she was an aspiring student journalist.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/01/18/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽🇺🇸slavin-benitez-kowalski-schmidt-speak-out-on-broken-courts-yilun-cheng-reports-for-borderless-magazine/

Now, she’s a Report for America member carrying out her dream and commitment to report truth and hold immigration officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for their mockery of the rule of law and shunning of best practices!

So, why might a private practitioner hesitate to file a complaint against an Immigration Judge in Garland’s system still “packed” with a majority of judges hand-selected by White Nationalist nativists Sessions and Barr?

The complaint would go not to an independent, objective panel containing public representation. No, it would be treated as a “supervisory matter” in an agency (not a real “court”) where the ranks of supervisors are still stacked with Barr & Sessions appointees that Garland hasn’t replaced.

Stunningly, the “top judge” in this bizarre, abusive, and dysfunctional system is Chief Immigration Judge Tracy Short — a hard line DHS prosecutor with no prior judicial experience elevated by Barr because of his commitment to the Stephen Miller White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-attorney agenda! Remarkably, Garland hasn’t replaced Short with a competent, expert, due-process-oriented “real judge,” notwithstanding unanimous urging from immigration experts that he do so!

Pursue as an alternative a legal appeal to Garland’s BIA? Well, amazingly, that body also remains “packed” with 23 of 24 appellate judges who are holdovers from the Trump Administration. Several of these judges were themselves members of the “90% asylum deniers club” and some were renowned for their disrespect for immigrants (particularly asylum seekers) and their lawyers while on the trial bench.

Look for some binding BIA precedents on improper IJ conduct? Won’t find those either, save for a mild, pre-Trump rebuke of an Atlanta IJ (without identifying the judge) for abusing a juvenile in court.

Then, there’s Garland himself. For heaven’s sake, even Bush crony former AG Alberto Gonzales (“Gonzo I”) finally got so embarrassed by the misbehavior of his IJs that he had to publicly “call off the dogs.” But, from Garland, not a peep or decisive action demanding that his “wholly-owned judges” put due process and fundamental fairness first and treat the individuals coming before them and their lawyers with professionalism, dignity, and respect!

Judge Riley, appointed by Barr in May 2019, without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 87.7%.

Judge Owens, appointed by Sessions in August 2018, also without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 94.5%. That’s 58th highest out of 558 Immigration Judges!

The TRAC “national average” for asylum denials by IJs during this period was 67.6%.

So, even in the virulent, officially-sanctioned “anti-asylum era” @ EOIR during the late Obama Administration and the entire Trump Administration, these two judges are “outliers.”

As someone familiar with the Ohio Immigration Bar, there are dozens of much better qualified judicial candidates out there in the private sector. Some of them even applied in the past and were rejected in favor of these judges who, whatever else you might think, no expert would find to be among “best and brightest minds in immigration and human rights,” deserving of elevation to the bench.

All Immigration Judges are “DOJ attorneys,” serving “at the pleasure of the Attorney General” and therefore subject to replacement and/or reassignment at his discretion. Judge Riley was “in probation” until May 20121, so Garland could have terminated her, essentially for any reason, or at least “re-competed” her position under a fair process that would have been open, welcoming to immigration experts in the private sector, and involved private sector input.

Owens and the other Trump-era appointees should also have been required to re-compete for their positions under revised procedures. It’s unlikely either Owens or Riley would have been selected in such a merit-based process.

Of course, Garland has not actively recruited from among better-qualified diverse expert immigration practitioners, established transparent merit-based procedures, or re-competed the disgracefully inadequate selections of his White Nationalist, anti-immigrant predecessors!

Additionally, Garland has failed to address, in any manner whatsoever, the quality control, bad attitude, lack of professionalism, and anti-immigrant bias problems in his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Poor precedents continue to be issued by his BIA, and sloppy work by his judges at all levels continues to be “outed” by the Article IIIs notwithstanding the substantial (undue) deference given to EOIR decisions by the Article IIIs. Backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “mindless gimmicks” continue to proliferate under Garland’s disconnected leadership.

The disciplinary system remains opaque and highly ineffective. Illegal retaliation by IJs against those filing complaints remains a realistic possibility that actually deters and improperly discourages reporting of misconduct. An ineffective, “rubber-stamp” appellate review process of removal orders by the BIA almost never holds IJs accountable, even for the most egregious legal errors and the grossest misconduct on the bench.

While Circuit Courts point out the deficient performance of EOIR judges on a remarkably frequent basis, one will search in vain for any recent BIA precedent “calling out” inappropriate and biased treatment of respondents and their lawyers in Immigration Court. Likewise, while Jeff Sessions was outspoken in encouraging anti-asylum and anti-lawyer bias among “his judges,” I’m not aware that Garland, in word or deed, has ever insisted that Immigration Judges at all levels give primacy to due process, fundamental fairness, and treat all coming before them with dignity and respect. In other words, Garland has failed to use his “bully pulpit” to demand an end to bullying of the most vulnerable among us in his Immigration Courts.

He also has failed to repudiate the “DHS Enforcement is our partner” statements by Sessions. (Perhaps not surprisingly, since, as noted earlier, Garland employs a DHS prosecutor, Tracy Short, as his “top judge” notwithstanding Short’s glaring unsuitability for the position. And, Garland continues to defend many “Miller Lite” policies in Federal Court.)

Pro-DHS biases, mistreatment of migrants and their attorneys, lack of basic scholarship, and failure of impartial judging continue to run rampant in Garland’s broken system!

Indeed, a full year the SF Chron’s Tal Kopan exposed the misconduct by Immigration Judges throughout the nation, the DOJ has taken no known actions despite Deputy AG Lisa Monaco’s “promise to investigate.”

From top to bottom, this broken, unfair, and out of control system needs reform, redirection, integrity, a focus on due process, and decisional excellence. It certainly isn’t coming from Garland and his senior political team at DOJ. So where IS it going to come from?

Chair Lofgren and her Subcommittee need to find out why Garland has failed to address the ongoing disaster in his courts, and what needs to be done to bring due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, and respect for humanity to the forefront at EOIR, the DOJ, and the rest of our legal system! And, if anyone in the Administration stubbornly claims that the “primary answer” is to randomly throw more judges into this toxic mess, Lofgren should laugh in their face(s)! We need to replace bad judges and reform the existing system into something fair and functional before seeking to expand it, even assuming that expansion is warranted somewhere “down the line.”

As being run by Garland right now, EOIR is an affront to American democracy! That needs to stop!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-15-22

UPDATE:

The news isn’t all bad from Cleveland. Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis reports that Cleveland Judge Jennifer Riedthaler-Williams (also a “high asylum denier — 94%) terminated without prejudice a removal case based on a defective Notice to Appear. https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/cleveland-ij-terminates-proceedings-defective-nta

Sadly, a couple of correct decisions, no matter how welcome, aren’t going to solve the systemic due process deficiencies in Ohio or elsewhere in Garland’s dysfunctional nationwide “Clown Courts.” 🤡

There are some pressing problems in America that Dems and the Biden Administration can’t solve on their own. Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts are NOT one of those!

The Immigration Courts are the biggest most consequential national problem that is totally within the Administration’s power to fix. That Garland has failed to do so should be of existential concern and a cause for unrelenting outrage from all who believe in the future of American democracy!

🤮🤯☠️👎🏽 COMPLETE DISCONNECT @ “JUSTICE” — WHO WON THE 2020 ELECTION, ANYWAY? — Even As He Disses Progressive Human Rights Advocates & Bashes Migrants In Court, Garland Continues To Employ Highly Unqualified “Stephen Miller Acolyte” As Top Judge In His Biased & Broken “Courts!” — Tracy Short “Cheered” Trump’s Most Heavy-Handed Enforcement Actions — Now He’s Garland’s “Top Judge” In a Wholly-Owned System That Abuses Migrants & Consistently Turns Out Sloppy, Unprofessional Work!

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1454701/docs-show-ice-atty-cheered-judge-s-arrest-first-of-many-

Docs Show ICE Atty Cheered Judge’s Arrest: ‘First Of Many?’

By Brian Dowling

Law360 (January 12, 2022, 2:09 PM EST) — A top U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney appeared elated when a sitting Massachusetts judge was indicted in 2018 for helping an immigrant in the country illegally evade custody, asking in an email if it would be “the first of many” such arrests, according to records made public in court Tuesday.

The email by then-ICE Principal Legal Adviser Tracy Short was part of a series of documents filed by a civil liberties group and government watchdog suing the agency to obtain even more records relating to the obstruction of justice charges against Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph.

Short posed the rhetorical question as a Fox News article circulated in emails among agency staff on the day Judge Joseph was indicted. In a later email to agency executives, Short said, “This is a great day.”

“Indeed,” responded Matthew Albence, ICE director of enforcement removal operations, according to the court filings. ICE chief of staff Thomas Blank allegedly chimed in, “Blessed.”

Short is now chief immigration judge for the U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, while Albence and Blank have since moved into the private sector.

Judge Joseph is accused of helping the immigrant evade federal custody by allowing him to leave out the back door of her courtroom while agents from ICE were waiting out front to arrest him.

The case has been criticized by retired judges, academics and Massachusetts defense lawyers as an overreach by the federal government. Judge Joseph has argued that she acted within the scope of her judicial authority and therefore cannot be criminally charged. The issue is on appeal at the First Circuit.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and American Oversight, a government watchdog, attached the emails ICE produced to a motion for a pretrial win in the lawsuit they filed against the agency for records relating to the charges against Judge Joseph and her court officer Wesley MacGregor.

The civil liberties groups told U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley that the 83 pages of communications handed over by ICE in response to its records request “calls into serious question the adequacy of its search” for documents.

Among the groups’ concerns are that no records were produced for the 11 months that followed the incident, no text messages were searched, the search terms used were too narrow, and the agency never searched its Homeland Security Investigations Division even though the unit wrote a memo about the incident.

The groups asked the court to grant them summary judgment, order ICE to conduct a reasonable search — including emails and text messages — and release pages ICE is withholding under claimed exemptions from the public records law.

In December, ICE asked for a win in the case, saying it handed over what it needed to and withheld other sought-after documents that would harm pending criminal proceedings if released.

Judge Joseph and MacGregor have appealed a federal judge’s decision to not toss the charges on judicial immunity grounds. The First Circuit, in early December, heard the appeal and wrestled with how to define the judge’s immunity claim.

The ACLU’s records request was spurred by a November 2019 New York Times article that reported then-acting ICE Director Thomas Homan had been communicating with the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office in seeking legal recourse against Judge Joseph.

The ACLU requested records from March 15, 2018, through April 25, 2019, including emailed messages and letters between the U.S. attorney’s office and ICE about Judge Joseph, as well as records concerning an ICE investigation into the judge.

ICE told the ACLU in 2019 that it couldn’t do the search because the ACLU was a third party in the criminal case against Judge Joseph and needed her approval to access the records.

The ACLU protested and asked the agency to reconsider, saying that its request didn’t need Judge Joseph’s approval. In February 2020, the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor ruled that a records search could be made, but ICE has failed to respond to the ACLU’s request since then, the complaint says.

Daniel McFadden, an ACLU staff attorney on the case, said in a statement to Law360 that ICE’s decision to charge Judge Joseph was “unprecedented.”

“The public has a right to know how this prosecution arose, and whether it was part of a pressure campaign to force Massachusetts court officials to assist in federal immigration enforcement,” McFadden said.

ICE and the Department of Justice declined to comment on the filing when reached Wednesday.

The ACLU of Massachusetts is represented in-house by Krista Oehlke, Daniel L. McFadden and Matthew R. Segal.

American Oversight is represented in-house by Katherine M. Anthony.

ICE is represented by Michael Sady of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.

The case is ACLU of Massachusetts et al. v. ICE, case number 1:21-cv-10761, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

–Editing by Orlando Lorenzo.

Update: This article has been updated to include comments from the ACLU.

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

Look, whether Short can be fired or not, he has no business being the Chief Immigration Judge at EOIR. Short never held a judicial position before his inappropriate appointment under Trump.

His career as a hard line, widely disrespected ICE Prosecutor took him through probably the worst Federal Court in America — the Atlanta immigration Court, a self-styled “Asylum Free Zone” where “due process and fundamental fairness go to die and be buried.”

No Senior Executive like Short has “life tenure” in a particular senior position. For example, former Chief Immigration Judge, current BIA Appellate Judge Michael J, Creppy, woke up one morning in 2006 to find himself “out at OCIJ” and on his way to OCAHO, widely considered the “Siberia of EOIR.” His “offense:” “losing the confidence” of the then powers that were at DOJ and EOIR during the Bush II Administration!

I had a similar experience when I was “pushed out” as BIA Chair and then Appellate Judge because Ashcroft and his team of hard liners (including the notorious neo-fascist nativist Kris Kobach) didn’t like my decisions standing up for the legal rights of migrants!

Once in power, the GOP makes good on its threats against asylum seekers and other migrants, without necessarily passing any legislation. By contrast, with weak-kneed, tone-deaf “leaders” like Mayorkas and Garland, Dems fail to keep their campaign promises and won’t even move the worst of the GOP holdovers out of key positions where they undermine justice and ruin human lives.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-134-22

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Jack Karp @ Law360:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

⚡️🔌 SHORT CIRCUIT! — TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED TRUMP HOLDOVER & ANTI-IMMIGRANT ZEALOT TRACY SHORT FINALLY FORCED OUT @ EOIR — Notorious Member Of Sessions-Hamilton-Barr “Atlanta Xenophobic Mafia” 🏴‍☠️ Resigns 😎⚖️🗽👍🏼

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Special to Courtside

July 21, 2022

Related posts:

Roberto writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Lauren Wyatt

Congrats, Lauren!😎👍🏼

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Claudia R. Cubas, Immigration Judge, Hyattsville Immigration Court

Ayodele A. Gansallo, Immigration Judge, Hyattsville Immigration Court

Kyle A. Dandelet, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

Related posts:

Emily Allen reports for the Portland (ME) Press Herald:

“Interim Regulations” Aren’t The Answer!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

David Smith reports for The Guardian:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From TRAC:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Amateur Night @ The Bijou” Never!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: