"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
One day in 2003, I got a call from an acquaintance — the mother of one of my daughter’s middle school classmates — who happened to be the Vice Dean of Cardozo Law School, part of Yeshiva University in New York City. She knew that I was a practicing immigration lawyer with a major immigration law firm, so she was wondering: would I be interested in teaching a course in Immigration Law at Cardozo?
It turned out that Leon Wildes, founder of the esteemed immigration law firm Wildes & Weinberg, PC, and most famous for his representation of John Lennon, had been teaching Immigration Law at Cardozo for many years. But at the age of 70, he was ready to slow down a bit, and teach only one semester per year instead of two semesters. I was asked if I would be willing to teach the class during the spring semester. Leon would continue to teach the fall semester course, as well as oversee an externship program through which he placed students for a semester with nonprofit legal services organizations representing immigrant clients.
I eagerly said yes, and was given the freedom to design my own syllabus and curriculum. I taught the basic doctrinal course in Immigration Law at Cardozo from 2004 through 2011. Then Leon decided to step down from teaching completely. His son, Michael Wildes, an esteemed immigration attorney in his own right, took over the class, and I segued into running the externship program, which I turned into a full-fledged field clinic with a weekly seminar where we did case rounds and focused on different substantive topics each week — both legal topics such as deportation or different visa types, and practice-oriented issues such as how to interview clients who have suffered severe trauma. I continued to run the Immigration Law Field Clinic at Cardozo Law School until 2015.
Now Leon Wildes has passed on, at the age of 90. He leaves behind an incredible legacy as one of the grand old men of the immigration bar. And that story about John Lennon? It’s worth reading.
Photo from the Wildes & Weinberg, PC website.
Because of Lennon’s affiliation with the Left and his ability to rally young people (during the first presidential election when 18- to 20-year-olds could vote), Richard Nixon considered Lennon to be a threat to his reelection in 1972 and wanted him deported. In defending Lennon against deportation, Leon Wildes — who was so conventional that he purportedly didn’t even know who John Lennon was before he took him on as a client — managed to uncover the then-secret practice (then called the “non-priority program”) within the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of exercising prosecutorial discretion not to deport certain otherwise deportable individuals.
Wildes’ advocacy led John Lennon and Yoko Ono to succeed in their fight against deportation and enabled them to obtain permanent residence. Moreover, Wildes’ unmasking of the INS’s ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion paved the way for the Obama Administration to later create a policy allowing young people brought to the United States as children — the so-called “Dreamers” — to remain in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
Read the story of Leon Wildes’ representation of John Lennon in his first-person account, “Not Just Any Immigration Case,” reprinted on the Wildes & Weinberg website from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Alumni Review.
RIP Leon Wildes. May his memory be a blessing
Careen Shannon Senior Counsel (formerly Partner) Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP Executive Producer “Las Abogadas: Attorneys on the Front Lines of the Migrant Crisis.” Photo: Think Immigration
**************************
Thanks, Careen! Lot’s of “good historical stuff” on the Lennon case on the Wildes & Weinberg PC website: https://www.wildeslaw.com/
I drafted the BIA decision in Lennon that was reversed by the late Chief Judge Irving Kaufman and the 2d Circuit. Leon argued the case before the BIA.
Another legend, the late Vinnie Schiano (who, according to my Round Table colleague and immigration historian Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, claimed to have been a co-inventor of the “Master Calendar”) argued for the “Legacy” INS.At that time, the BIA counted immigration “gurus” Chairman Maury Roberts and Louisa Wilson among its five members.
I ran into Leon at a number of AILA functions over the years. I think he was friendly with Maury Roberts and the late Sam Bernsen, two of my “mentors.”
Leon was a gentleman, scholar, and educator, widely respected by those in Government and private practice.
Sam Bernsen 1919 – 2020 Immigration Official, Law Partner, Educator, Mentor
A LEGAL GIANT PASSES: SAM BERNSEN (1919 – 2020) — Public Servant, Law Partner, Teacher, Scholar, Mentor, Humanitarian, Advocate For Due Process — He Helped Change The Face Of America For The Better!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
July 30, 2020.I’d seen his name on briefs and old court cases (See, e.g., Vaccaro v. Bernsen, 267 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1959)). But, the first time I met Sam Bernsen was in January 1976, when I reported for work at the “Legacy” Immigration & Naturalization (“INS”) Office of General Counsel at the Chester Arthur Building in a rather run-down neighborhood within walking distance of the U.S. Capitol.
That building was perhaps a suitably shabby tribute to the “stepchild” status of INS within the hierarchy of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The carpet was shopworn, elevators slow, and the corridors dim as a result of the Ford Administration’s “Whip Inflation Now” (“WIN”) austerity program that had removed every other fluorescent lightbulb from the fixtures.
The office was a far cry from today’s Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) massive legal operations: Just Sam, then the General Counsel, his Deputy, Ralph Farb, and two other “General Attorneys,” Stuart Shelby and Janice Podolny. Stu, Janice, and I actually shared an office with three desks (but only two telephones).
And it was always “Sam” not “Samuel.” Sam was his legal name, and he was very proud of it. Perhaps he connected it with “Uncle Sam.”
In any event, one of his “pet peeves” was when unknowing folks addressed him as “Samuel” in memos or on legal documents. I remember him vigorously “blacking out” the offending “uel” with his pen. His other pet peeve was when the server put parmesan cheese on his daily lunchtime bowl of minestrone soup at theGAO cafeteria!
Remarkably, I had gotten the job without personal interview by Sam. I attributed this to recommendations by Sam’s good friend and my first mentor Maury Roberts, then Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and another friend of Sam’s, Leon Ullman, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel.
Working for Sam was like having a personal daily seminar in American immigration law from a really great professor. Sam had done it all. And, he took the time to explain everything to those working with him.
During his teens, Sam started at the very bottom of the Civil Service system as an “assistant messenger” with the U.S. Attorney in New York and then the INS on Ellis Island. According to Sam, he never he never made “full messenger.” But, he did rise to the top of the ranks of Civil Servants as General Counsel.
In between, Sam was an immigration inspector, chair of a board of special inquiry (the predecessor to today’s Immigration Courts), chief adjudicator, Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, and District Director in New Orleans as well as serving in the Army during World War II and later as a Major in the Air Force Reserve. He knew the policies and the stories behind every regulation and operating instruction, as well as the history of all the immigration statutes from the 1924 Act on.
America’s immigrant heritage that Sam observed at Ellis Island and in his childhood neighborhood in Brooklyn greatly influenced his life. The 1975 movie “Hester Street,” about Jewish immigrants in New York in the early 20th century, was one Sam’s and his wife Betty’s favorites.
Sam loved providing clear, concise, practical, understandable legal advice to the INS Commissioner (then General Leonard Chapman, Jr., former Commandant of the Marine Corps) andvarious “operating divisions” of the INS in what was then known as the Central Office (“CO”). It likely came from his experience as a field officer who had to make decisions based on what came out of the CO. Gen. Chapman had Sam on “constant call” for legal advice.
Although Sam’s background was “old school up through the ranks,” he had a “new school” attitude and vision about the future of immigration law. Like his friend Maury Roberts at the BIA, Sam pioneered the use of the “Attorney General’s Honors Program” (of which I was a product) to bring a “new generation” of younger attorneys into the INS. That was later expanded by his immediate successors as General Counsel, David Crosland (Carter Administration) and Maurice C. “Mike” Inman, Jr. (Reagan Administration).
Sam had progressive views on using court decisions and common sense to make the immigration laws function better and easier to administer for everyone, at least in some small ways. One of the things we worked on was the “INS Efficiency Act,” originally introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 1979 and eventually incorporated into the “Immigration & Nationality Act Amendments of 1981,” enacted into law by P.L. 97-116 (Dec. 29, 1981).
This made a number of “common sense” fixes that Sam had noted over the years both by studying appellate court decisions and from answering recurring questions from INS operating divisions and DOJ litigation divisions handling our cases. It harkens back to a bygone time when public service in immigration was about “doing the right thing” and “promoting the common good” rather than advancing restrictionist ideological agendas.
My all-time favorite project with Sam was the July 1976 legal opinion approving and recommending the use of “prosecutorial discretion” by INS enforcement officials. This provided a sound legal basis for the INS’s “deferred action” program. Later, it formed part of the basis for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program that has so greatly benefitted both America and deserving young people while, at least for a short time, helping to bring some badly needed rationality, humanity, uniformity, and proper prioritization of resources to an all too often scattershot and out of control DHS enforcement program.
Although written by me, that opinion reflects the “essence of Sam” — enforcement with rationality, humanity, prudence, fairness, attention to the views of courts, and standards to prevent arbitrariness. A full copy of that 1976 memorandum is linked below. My initials are at the bottom of the last page.
In light of all the nonsense making the rounds today, our conclusion is worth keeping in mind:
The power of various officers of the Executive Branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion is inherent and does not depend on express statutory authorization. . . . [T]he Service’s attempts to set forth some standards for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion are particularly appropriate.
My time in the General Counsel’s Office with Sam was all too short. He retired in 1977. At the time, he had 38 years of Federal service, but was only 57-years-old, with several more distinguished careers in front of him.
Sam went on to become one of the “founding partners” and managing partner of the Washington, D.C. Office of the powerhouse national immigration firm Fragomen, Del Rey, & Bernsen, now the international law firm known as “Fragomen.” He also became a noted educator in the field, lecturing and writing for the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) and serving as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Catholic University and American University. I hired some of his former students in various capacities in some of my “future incarnations.”
Along the way, Sam tried to “recruit” me for his firm. But, I wasn’t quite ready to make the jump. Later, however, we did “reunite” for a short “transition period” when I succeeded him as the managing partner of Fragomen DC in 1993.
What I remember most about Sam from our stint in private practice was how loyal his clients were and how much they trusted him with their fate and future. One of his greatest joys was working with students, young professionals, and student advisors on issues relating to F-1, J-1, and H-1 non-immigrant visas. We also did some projects relating to the interpretation of statutes and regulations that we had a role in drafting and enacting back in the General Counsel days. His clients and the Government officials he dealt with regarded Sam with reverence, as both the “ultimate authority” and the “total straight shooter,” a somewhat unusual combination for a lawyer in private practice.
Sam and I kept in touch for many years at AILA Conferences and other educational events, even after I rejoined Government in 1995 as Chair of the BIA. Sam was an avid tennis player, and from time to time I would run into folks who had met him in courts of both the tennis and legal variety. Indeed, Sam kindly served as the “featured speaker,” at my investiture as an Immigration Judge at the Arlington Immigration Court in June 2003.
Along with folks like Maury Roberts, Ralph Farb, Charlie Gordon, Irv Applemen, and Louisa Wilson, Sam was one of my mentors and one of the all-time greats of American law. He represented a constructive, scholarly, and humane view of public service that has all but disappeared from the scene. Yet, he also saw into the future and was able to “reinvent himself” in new and dynamic ways after leaving public service. I had to do some of the sameand always looked to Sam as a role model.
Sam’s decisions, opinions, scholarship, and humanity helped shape generations of American immigration law. His work both in and out of Government changed the lives of thousands of immigrants for the better and helped build our nation into the diverse country it is today. His many students and those he mentored over the years, like me, continued his legacy and formed the forerunner of the “New Due Process Army.”
America and the world are richer and better because of Sam’s life and contributions. Sam knew the law, perhaps better than any other, and he used it to further humane goals whenever possible. Would that we had more role models like Sam in positions of responsibility and authority today! Sam, thanks for everything, and may you rest in peace after a “life very well lived!”
Here is a link to our 1976 legal opinion on prosecutorial discretion:
I am pleased to announce a big win today before the Second Circuit. The Opinion is attached.
The Court held that the government is equitably estopped from denying an application for adjustment of status where: (1) it commits “affirmative misconduct” by failing to comply with an affirmatively required procedure – in this case, the failure to issue a Receipt or Rejection Notice in response to an attempted filing; (2) the applicant reasonably relies on the agency’s misconduct/inaction; and (3) the applicant is prejudiced thereby.
The interesting twist in this case is that the Court declined to reach the underlying statutory issue – concerning the CSPA – on which the District Court ruled in our favor. My take, having litigated and argued the case in both courts, is that the panel was genuinely flabbergasted that the government was pursuing the appeal and took the opportunity to stick it to DHS and issue a ruling on estoppel. The District Court did not even address estoppel, which was my alternative argument and occupied less than 5% of my briefing. My understanding is that the District Court decision – affirmed on other grounds – can still be cited for the substantive/legal conclusions it made regarding the CSPA. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
__________________________________
Jeffrey A. Feinbloom
FEINBLOOM BERTISCH LLP
***********************
Thanks, Jeffrey. The term “Affirmative Misconduct” could be used to describe the overall conduct of DHS and the entire immigraton kakistocracy under the Trump regime.
Historical Footnote: I worked on Corniel-Rodriguez v. INS, 532 F.2d 301, 306-07 (2d Cir. 1976) (holding that government official’s “noncompliance with an affirmatively required procedure” constituted “severe” misconduct, and reversing Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order of deportation without remanding to agency for fact-finding or further proceedings) when I was a young attorney in the “Legacy INS” Office of General Counsel, then headed by the legendary immigration guru Sam Bernsen, in 1976.
The Corniel-Rodriguez case led directly to the eventual creation of the section 212(k) waiver for innocent misrepresentations on visa applications as part of a larger “INS Efficiency Bill” proposed by our Office and eventually enacted by Congress. Just shows that there was a time when those running the U.S. immigration system actually “did the right thing,” at least on some occasions. Perhaps not surprisingly, “doing the right thing” often also proved to be the “efficient thing” by promoting justice and avoiding unnecessary, and often losing, litigation.
Those days, of course, are long gone. The Government immigration system is now run by hacks lacking both expertise and values and who, with the assistance of the DOJ, intentionally clog the Federal Courts with litigation that likely would have been deemed frivolous, unethical, or at least not in the best interests of the public in earlier times.
It also highlights a severe deterioration in the performance of the Solicitor General’s Office in the DOJ. That office used to encourage all Federal agencies to develop administrative solutions in cases where, after review of the Article III Courts’ “adverse decisions,” the agency position below appeared to be indefensible in future litigation.
Now, the Solicitor General is actually a “cheerleader” for some racially motivated appeals against lower court decisions correctly favoring immigrants and asylum seekers. These appeals are often “supported” by very obvious pretexts for invidious actions by the regime. Given the lack of integrity, courage, and commitment to racial justice on the current Supremes’ majority, the “bad guys” sometimes improperly prevail.
But, it’s actually no more mystery to outgoing Solicitor General Noel Francisco what motivates Stephen Miller & co. than it is to the rest of us. It’s just that Francisco has consciously chosen to be “part of the problem,” something that should be remembered when the history of his disgraceful tenure in office is written.
It also shows that whenever we finally get a return to “Good Government,” a “cleanout” of EOIR and creation of an Article I Immigration Court needs to be the first thing on the list; but, a thorough re-examination of the role of every part of a corrupt DOJ that has failed to act independently and has furthered a program of overt racism, inequality, and injustice, and often argued disingenuously for “worst practices and worst interpretations,” is also an absolute necessity.
To state the obvious, the fairness and efficiency of our immigration system as well as our entire U.S. Justice system is actually in full throttle reverse under the Trump kakistocracy.
“The earliest, highest-profile critic of granting an executive reprieve to Dreamers was none other than Justice Antonin Scalia. The plight of young immigrants brought to the United States as children was not something the Supreme Court was concerned with in 2012, but the late justice somehow felt the need to protest, in open court, President Obama’s then weeks-old decision to not deport them for humanitarian reasons. “The president has said that the new program is, quote, the right thing to do, close quote, in light of Congress’ failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws,” he said as he read from a summary of his partial dissent in Arizona v. United States. That case and decision had nothing to do with Dreamers.
Maybe Scalia’s real qualm was with the sitting president and not the recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, better known as DACA. But his broader point, which a Supreme Court majority rejected, was that states should have leeway in enforcing federal immigration laws, since they — and not undocumented immigrants — face the “human realities” of a broken immigration system. The citizens of border states like Arizona “feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy,” Scalia complained. Somewhere, a future President Trump may have been taking notes.
More than five years since that screed, the Supreme Court could soon get a chance to judge the propriety, if not the legality, of Trump’s decision last September to pull the plug on DACA. A federal judge in California in January ordered the reinstatement of the program, reasoning that its rescission rested on a “flawed legal premise” — namely, Jeff Sessions’s paper-thin conclusion that DACA was illegal the moment it was conceived. The judge also rejected as “spin” and “post-hoc rationalization” the Trump administration’s contention that DACA was vulnerable to a legal challenge by Texas and other states, which had threatened Sessions with a lawsuit if he didn’t kill the initiative outright. “The agency action was not in accordance with law because it was based on the flawed legal premise that the agency lacked authority to implement DACA,” wrote the judge, William Alsup, in a ruling that effectively brought DACA back from the dead. Days later, the administration began accepting renewal applications as if the rollback had never happened.
Legal scholars weren’t impressed with the ruling. And Sessions, not one to give up on Trump’s anti-immigrant crusade, then took the “rare step” of appealing Alsup’s decision directly to the Supreme Court — and why not? The Ninth Circuit, Trump’s least favorite appeals court, is unruly, liberal, and anti-Trump, anyway; leapfrogging it seemed the smart thing to do. What’s more, Sessions wanted the justices to act expeditiously — his solicitor general filed an additional request to decide the case before the end of June. Not doing so, he suggested, would be the same as blessing “indefinitely an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by nearly 700,000 aliens.” So much for Trump’s wish to treat Dreamers “with heart.” There was only one problem: The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, lets anyone skip over the regular appeals process. And if Sessions is in such a hurry, why didn’t the administration seek to block Alsup’s ruling rather than comply with it? Last Friday, a coalition that includes the University of California, several states, a local chapter of the SEIU, and a number of Dreamers told the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s request to hear the case. The DACA mess, this alliance broadly contended, is Trump’s and Congress’s to own, and the justices shouldn’t be the ones fixing it, at least not with the urgency Sessions is demanding.
. . . .
The principle of prosecutorial discretion, which is what holds DACA together, was never once discussed by Sessions when he announced the wind-down of DACA. He didn’t even try. Prosecutorial discretion wasn’t some novelty that Napolitano came up with at the time, let alone a quirk of immigration law. In a path-breaking memorandum written some 40 years ago, Sam Bernsen, the general counsel of the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service, advised the agency’s commissioner that the “ultimate source for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion” lies with the inherent powers of the presidency. “Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive power is vested in the President,” Bernsen wrote in what is believed to be the first in a long string of government memos justifying prosecutorial discretion in the immigration realm. “Article II, Section 3, states that the President ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’” Ironically, conservatives would later seize on this “take care” language to argue breathlessly that Obama’s immigration actions were an affront to the constitutional text, but no judge took that argument seriously.
Far and wide, executive officers enjoy similar discretion to enforce the law. From the president down to a lowly street cop, every law enforcer, state or federal, exercises some form of prosecutorial discretion over the laws they’re entrusted to oversee. It’s the reason you don’t always get ticketed for jaywalking or pulled over for doing 65 on a 55, even in instances where you happen to do those things in full view of the police: The government has ample discretion to not go after you if it feels you’re a low-priority lawbreaker. Maybe the 75-miles-per-hour driver is the bigger fish. Whichever the case, the decision is, by and large, unchallengeable. “Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the same immigration ruling that Scalia assailed in 2012. “Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns,” he added.
Kirstjen Nielsen, the new DHS secretary, and Trump himself have all but conceded the point in recent weeks. In an interview with CBS’s John Dickerson, Nielsen said that it’s “not the policy of DHS” to go after Dreamers who are DACA recipients, even if the current legislative talks fail and the program isn’t renewed. “It’s not going to be a priority of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to prioritize their removal,” Nielsen clarified, directly contradicting the Department of Justice’s position on DACA before the Supreme Court. (Dreamers and immigration advocates know better than to trust Nielsen’s assurances.) Asked last month if he might extend the arbitrary March 5 end date of the DACA rollback process — which is no longer the end date as a result of Judge Alsup’s ruling — Trump spoke as if he never truly believed, like Sessions did, that deferred action was unlawful: “I certainly have the right to do that if I want.”
In this climate, and with Trump still fielding immigration offers as Congress faces yet another deadline to fund the government, the Supreme Court would be crazy to jump into the DACA controversy. “I think for the Supreme Court to reach down to a district court decision and not allow the normal appellate process to proceed would necessarily, under the circumstances, involve or indicate that the Supreme Court is signaling its involvement in a deeply political matter,” Napolitano told me. Scalia may have felt comfortable criticizing policy choices from the bench, but that doesn’t mean Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues have to take the bait. For their own peace of mind and that of Dreamers, the Court is better off staying as far away as possible, and letting Trump take care of the laws that give him broad authority to spare young undocumented immigrants if he really wants to.”
Read the rest of Cristian’s analysis, including his detailed interview with former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, now President of the University of California System and a plaintiff in the District Court case, over at New York at the above link.
SPECIAL BONUS:
From the “archives” here’s a copy of the famous “Bernsen Memo” of July 15, 1976:
