Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle
Tal Kopan reports for the SF Chronicle:
AG Barr moves forward with immigration court changes
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr has moved forward with a regulation changing the way immigration courts handle appeals, expanding the ability of that court to issue decisions that bind the way all immigration judges must decide cases.
The final version of the proposal, which will be published Tuesday, backs away from other changes after the public raised concerns the appellate body would have too much discretion over precedent.
Barr’s first major regulatory change to the immigration courts continues efforts started by his predecessor, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to tighten the ways immigrants can pursue a right to stay in the country. As first reported by The Chronicle, the regulation originally proposed during the George W. Bush administration was revived under President Trump and sent for review in April.
The version set for publication drops some of the more controversial provisions of the original proposal but expands the ability of the appellate body, the Board of Immigration Appeals, to issue binding decisions about immigration law.
A senior Department of Justice official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity called the regulation a “cleanup rule more than anything else.” But, the official said, the administration believes it’s important to make the courts “as efficient or as effective through the process as possible.”
The immigration courts are separate from the federal judiciary and exist entirely under the control of the Department of Justice and attorney general. The lower courts hear arguments as to why immigrants should be legally allowed to stay in the U.S. and decide whether they should be deported.
Appeals of those decisions are reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Under current law, those decisions remain unpublished, and thus not binding on the entire system unless a majority of all members of the board vote to publish it. According to the Department of Justice, the board averages less than 30 such decisions each year.
The new regulation creates another way for decisions to become binding — at the direction of the attorney general. Such a change could allow the attorney general to shape all immigration judges’ decisions by selecting which appellate decisions should become precedent.
The final regulation also expands the circumstances under which the Board of Immigration Appeals can hear cases for potential binding precedent, including “the need to resolve a complex, novel, unusual, or recurring issue of law or fact” in the immigration courts, which would allow the board to take up cases that pose what the department views as a repeat issue in the lower courts. It also would allow the board to weigh parts of the case that lawyers did not bring up at appeal.
One aspect of the proposal that the administration chose not to pursue was expanding judges’ ability to issue cursory opinions that had no written explanation. The Bush-era version would have allowed judges to consider their time and resources in doing so, which the Trump administration opted against. The final version also bowed to concerns and dropped a proposal that would have allowed two out of three judges behind a decision to make their own ruling precedent.
Under Trump, the administration has taken a keen interest in the immigration courts as it seeks to tackle the nearly million-case backlog that allows many migrants seeking asylum and other rights to stay in the country as they wait years for their case to work through the system.
Sessions began using the attorney general’s power to refer cases to himself for review. Under immigration law, the attorney general has the final say over the immigration courts system, similar to the Supreme Court in the federal judiciary. Sessions issued several binding decisions that limited the right to claim asylum for domestic violence and gang violence victims, and he sped up the court process by reducing judge’s discretion to close or postpone cases.
That authority would still exist under this new rule, but the attorney general now could also opt to have a decision with which he agrees issued as binding and skip reviewing the decision himself.
*********************************************************
No wonder they don’t want to use the regulatory process, preferring to “rule by fiat” instead. As this example shows, promulgating a regulation in the face of widespread and well-reasoned public opposition can turn out to be problematic in later court challenges.
The proposed relgulation was a recycled “relic” from the Bush II Admnistration. But, it’s not like the Obama Administration did much for improving Due Process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court. Honestly, I think that they kind of liked the idea of a subservient, captive, “go along to get along” system that functioned as a bureaucracy yet looked like a court, originally pioneered under Bush II.
Obviously, part of the game here is to misuse the ostensible Immigration “Court” precedent process to shore up the DOJ’s ability to defend DHS’s most extreme positions in the Article III courts. In other words, the Immigration Courts now serve both the interests of DHS Enforcement and the litigating attorneys at OIL who defend DHS’s orders of removal in the Courts of Appeals.
The rights of the individuals, who are supposed to be the focus of this system, have become nominalized, at best. But, some Article III Courts either haven’t bothered to figure this out or else know and just don’t care because, hey, dead, tortured, raped, and otherwise brutalized deportees don’t usually make headlines in the local papers. Out of sight, out of mind.
While DOJ does still “go through the motions” of soliciting briefs on new precedents, such solicitations reach a much smaller audience than do proposed regulatory changes. Also, since the DOJ routinely ignores all the cogent arguments in the briefs and plows ahead with its obviously “predetermined” precedent resolution, some groups have undoubtedly given up on the EOIR “fake” amicus briefing process, preferring instead to marshal their resources for an Article III court challenges. There, real judges still appear to actually read and respond to many, if not all, legal arguments and sometimes are persuaded by them.
For example, our “Roundtable” amicus briefs have had considerable influence in the Article III courts after the same or similar arguments were largely ignored by EOIR and the AG.
But, as I keep suggesting, what if everyone could work together to actually improve Due Process and fix the broken Immigration Court system, rather than having to devote limited high-level pro bono time and resources to fending off further outrageous assaults on the system by the DOJ and DHS? It would also free up time for the Article III Courts which in the near future are likely to have their civil dockets dominated and likely overwhelmed by petitions for review showcasing the sloppy and defective work emanating from the broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and their “pedal faster, cut more corners, quality and fairness be damned” philosophy.
Nice work, Tal. Great to have you “back in the immigration headlines again.”
PWS
07-01-19