SESSIONS “GOES DEEP” TO UNDERMINE DUE PROCESS! — Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018)!

Here is the AG decision:

E-F-H-L-AG

And here’s the original BIA precedent he vacated:

E-F-H-L-2014

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

Sessions, on his own initiative, reaches back four years to vacate the BIA’s precedent decision Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014). That case held that an asylum or withholding applicant is entitled to a full hearing on his or her application. That hearing includes a chance to testify and present evidence to the Immigration Judge. The respondent is not required to present a “prima facie case” for an asylum grant to get a full hearing.

The “original” case had since been closed for I-130 adjudication, after the respondent withdrew his I-589 with prejudice. Sessions ordered that the case be restored to the Immigration Court’s “active” docket and set for a hearing.

Session’s decision was cryptic — without any explanation of why he chose this case and what he hoped to accomplish. However, a number of “preliminary theories” have surfaced, none of them good news for asylum seekers:

1. Sessions wants to do away with full hearings for asylum seekers and establish some type of “summary dismissal without hearing” process for those who fail to establish a “prima facie case” for asylum or withholding;
2. Sessions is using this case to attack administrative closing as a prelude to eliminating or severely restricting the Immigration Judges’ authority to administratively close cases in Matter of Castro-Tum;
3. Sessions wants to send a message to Immigration Judges that every administrative closing will be subject to potential review and reversal from “on high,” with potential “career limiting” consequences for the Judges, thereby discouraging administrative closing;
4. Sessions wishes to illustrate and eliminate the potential for lawyers to use “weak” asylum claims that they subsequently withdraw to manipulate the system to gain time to apply for other relief;
5. Sessions wants to establish that an Immigration Judge’s authority upon BIA remand is limited to the “four corners” of the BIA’s remand order and does not allow the respondent to seek or raise other remedies.
6. All five of the preceding.

PWS

03-06-18