June 2020 – Page 3 – immigrationcourtside.com

🇺🇸🗽😎👍🏼⚖️BREAKING: SOCIAL JUSTICE EEKS OUT A SUPREME VICTORY: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS FINALLY RISES TO OCCASION, BACKS HUMANITY, SAVES LIVES, HEADS OFF FURTHER SOCIAL UNREST FOR NOW — Four GOP Justices Remain Shills For White Nationalist Regime, Its Invidiously Motivated Racially-Driven Immigration Agenda, & Promoting Social Injustice Under Law! — DHS v. Regents of U. of Cal. — This Might Be Roberts’s Finest Hour As Chief Justice!

DHS V. Regents of U. of Cal., U.S. Supreme Court, 06-18-20

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

Supreme Court Syllabus:

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 18–587. Argued November 12, 2019—Decided June 18, 2020*

In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo- randum announcing an immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows certain unauthor- ized aliens who arrived in the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief become eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. Some 700,000 aliens have availed themselves of this opportunity.

Two years later, DHS expanded DACA eligibility and created a re- lated program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). If implemented, that program would have made 4.3 million parents of U. S. citizens or lawful perma- nent residents eligible for the same forbearance from removal, work eligibility, and other benefits as DACA recipients. Texas, joined by 25 other States, secured a nationwide preliminary injunction barring im- plementation of both the DACA expansion and DAPA. The Fifth Cir- cuit upheld the injunction, concluding that the program violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which carefully defines eligi- bility for benefits. This Court affirmed by an equally divided vote, and

——————

*Together with No. 18–588, Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and No. 18–589, Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Batalla Vidal et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

2

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL.

Syllabus

the litigation then continued in the District Court.

In June 2017, following a change in Presidential administrations,

DHS rescinded the DAPA Memorandum, citing, among other reasons, the ongoing suit by Texas and new policy priorities. That September, the Attorney General advised Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke that DACA shared DAPA’s legal flaws and should also be rescinded. The next day, Duke acted on that advice. Taking into consideration the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court rulings and the At- torney General’s letter, Duke decided to terminate the program. She explained that DHS would no longer accept new applications, but that existing DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within six months could apply for a two-year renewal. For all other DACA recip- ients, previously issued grants of relief would expire on their own terms, with no prospect for renewal.

Several groups of plaintiffs challenged Duke’s decision to rescind DACA, claiming that it was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and infringed the equal protec- tion guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. District Courts in California (Regents, No. 18–587), New York (Batalla Vidal, No. 18–589), and the District of Columbia (NAACP, No. 18–588) all ruled for the plaintiffs. Each court rejected the Government’s argu- ments that the claims were unreviewable under the APA and that the INA deprived the courts of jurisdiction. In Regents and Batalla Vidal, the District Courts further held that the equal protection claims were adequately alleged, and they entered coextensive nationwide prelimi- nary injunctions based on the conclusion that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claims. The District Court in NAACP took a different approach. It deferred ruling on the equal protection chal- lenge but granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their APA claim, finding that the rescission was inadequately explained. The court then stayed its order for 90 days to permit DHS to reissue a memorandum rescinding DACA, this time with a fuller explanation of the conclusion that DACA was unlawful. Two months later, Duke’s successor, Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen, responded to the court’s or- der. She declined to disturb or replace Duke’s rescission decision and instead explained why she thought her predecessor’s decision was sound. In addition to reiterating the illegality conclusion, she offered several new justifications for the rescission. The Government moved for the District Court to reconsider in light of this additional explana- tion, but the court concluded that the new reasoning failed to elaborate meaningfully on the illegality rationale.

The Government appealed the various District Court decisions to the Second, Ninth, and D. C. Circuits, respectively. While those ap- peals were pending, the Government filed three petitions for certiorari

Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus

before judgment. Following the Ninth Circuit affirmance in Regents, this Court granted certiorari.

Held: The judgment in No. 18–587 is vacated in part and reversed in part; the judgment in No. 18–588 is affirmed; the February 13, 2018 order in No. 18–589 is vacated, the November 9, 2017 order is affirmed in part, and the March 29, 2018 order is reversed in part; and all of the cases are remanded.

No. 18–587, 908 F. 3d 476, vacated in part and reversed in part; No. 18– 588, affirmed; and No. 18–589, February 13, 2018 order vacated, No- vember 9, 2017 order affirmed in part, and March 29, 2018 order re- versed in part; all cases remanded.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV, concluding:

1. DHS’s rescission decision is reviewable under the APA and is within this Court’s jurisdiction. Pp. 9–13.

(a) The APA’s “basic presumption of judicial review” of agency ac- tion, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140, can be rebut- ted by showing that the “agency action is committed to agency discre- tion by law,” 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2). In Heckler v. Chaney, the Court held that this narrow exception includes an agency’s decision not to insti- tute an enforcement action. 470 U. S. 821, 831–832. The Government contends that DACA is a general non-enforcement policy equivalent to the individual non-enforcement decision in Chaney. But the DACA Memorandum did not merely decline to institute enforcement proceed- ings; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration re- lief. Therefore, unlike the non-enforcement decision in Chaney, DACA’s creation—and its rescission—is an “action [that] provides a focus for judicial review.” Id., at 832. In addition, by virtue of receiving deferred action, 700,000 DACA recipients may request work authori- zation and are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Access to such benefits is an interest “courts often are called upon to protect.” Ibid. DACA’s rescission is thus subject to review under the APA. Pp. 9–12.

(b) The two jurisdictional provisions of the INA invoked by the Government do not apply. Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(9), which bars re- view of claims arising from “action[s]” or “proceeding[s] brought to re- move an alien,” is inapplicable where, as here, the parties do not chal- lenge any removal proceedings. And the rescission is not a decision “to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders” within the meaning of §1252(g). Pp. 12–13.

2. DHS’s decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious un- der the APA. Pp. 13–26.

(a) In assessing the rescission, the Government urges the Court to consider not just the contemporaneous explanation offered by Acting Secretary Duke but also the additional reasons supplied by Secretary

4

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL.

Syllabus

Nielsen nine months later. Judicial review of agency action, however, is limited to “the grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action.” Michigan v. EPA, 576 U. S. 743, 758. If those grounds are inadequate, a court may remand for the agency to offer “a fuller expla- nation of the agency’s reasoning at the time of the agency action,” Pen- sion Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 654 (emphasis added), or to “deal with the problem afresh” by taking new agency action, SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 201. Because Sec- retary Nielsen chose not to take new action, she was limited to elabo- rating on the agency’s original reasons. But her reasoning bears little relationship to that of her predecessor and consists primarily of imper- missible “post hoc rationalization.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 420. The rule requiring a new decision before considering new reasons is not merely a formality. It serves important administrative law values by promoting agency accounta- bility to the public, instilling confidence that the reasons given are not simply convenient litigating positions, and facilitating orderly review. Each of these values would be markedly undermined if this Court al- lowed DHS to rely on reasons offered nine months after the rescission and after three different courts had identified flaws in the original ex- planation. Pp. 13–17.

(b) ActingSecretaryDuke’srescissionmemorandumfailedtocon- sider important aspects of the problem before the agency. Although Duke was bound by the Attorney General’s determination that DACA is illegal, see 8 U. S. C. §1103(a)(1), deciding how best to address that determination involved important policy choices reserved for DHS. Acting Secretary Duke plainly exercised such discretionary authority in winding down the program, but she did not appreciate the full scope of her discretion. The Attorney General concluded that the legal de- fects in DACA mirrored those that the courts had recognized in DAPA. The Fifth Circuit, the highest court to offer a reasoned opinion on DAPA’s legality, found that DAPA violated the INA because it ex- tended eligibility for benefits to a class of unauthorized aliens. But the defining feature of DAPA (and DACA) is DHS’s decision to defer re- moval, and the Fifth Circuit carefully distinguished that forbearance component from the associated benefits eligibility. Eliminating bene- fits eligibility while continuing forbearance thus remained squarely within Duke’s discretion. Yet, rather than addressing forbearance in her decision, Duke treated the Attorney General’s conclusion regard- ing the illegality of benefits as sufficient to rescind both benefits and forbearance, without explanation. That reasoning repeated the error in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm— treating a rationale that applied to only part of a policy as sufficient to rescind the entire policy. 463 U. S. 29, 51. While DHS

Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 5 Syllabus

was not required to “consider all policy alternatives,” ibid., deferred action was “within the ambit of the existing” policy, ibid.; indeed, it was the centerpiece of the policy. In failing to consider the option to retain deferred action, Duke “failed to supply the requisite ‘reasoned analysis.’ ” Id., at 57.

That omission alone renders Duke’s decision arbitrary and capri- cious, but it was not the only defect. Duke also failed to address whether there was “legitimate reliance” on the DACA Memorandum. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 742. Certain features of the DACA policy may affect the strength of any reliance interests, but those features are for the agency to consider in the first instance. DHS has flexibility in addressing any reliance interests and could have considered various accommodations. While the agency was not required to pursue these accommodations, it was required to assess the existence and strength of any reliance interests, and weigh them against competing policy concerns. Its failure to do so was arbitrary and capricious. Pp. 17–26.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that respondents’ claims fail to establish a plausible inference that the rescission was motivated by animus in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 27–29.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and SO- TOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part IV. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

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

Whew! Disaster avoided, at least for now! That was close for America and 800,000 of our most promising young people. A good day for justice, humanity, and common sense. The Supremes finally slow down the White Nationalist immigration juggernaught.

Thanks Chief Justice Roberts! Thanks for having the legal acumen, moral courage, independence, and human decency to get to the correct result. This could be your finest moment, where you have saved America from further social upheaval and outrage at a time of national instability and lack of credible leadership. That’s actually what your job is all about. You have missed some opportunities in the past, but better late than never in one of our darkest and most difficult hours as a nation! Justice without mercy and humanity is not justice at all. Thanks for recognizing that in this particular case.

In Plain English: Cutting Through The Legalese:

Roberts’s Majority: It would be insane, inane, and inhumane to do this to our kids at this point in time.

Sotomayor’s Concurring/Dissenting: Come on guys, you don’t have to be rocket scientists to connect the dots between the Administration’s racist approach to immigration and possible violations of constitutional Equal Protection.

Thomas’s Dissenting/Concurring: Stupidity, inhumanity, and injustice need no justification so long as they are directed against vulnerable migrants. Never let your sense of justice, practicality, or human decency interfere with right-wing ideology.

As an Immigration Judge I saw the justice, beauty, practicality, and real life positive results for America and for humanity from DACA. Lives saved! Cases that never should have been brought in the first place, taken off overcrowded dockets! Human potential unleashed! Fair, professional, uniform nationwide administration by USCIS! A “big win” for America, humanity, and everyone involved! Probably the best thing the Obama Administration achieved in its otherwise largely inept, lackadaisical, and tone-deaf approach to justice for immigrants.

The reprieve is narrow and temporary. It will become a pyrrhic victory for social justice if we don’t remove Trump and the GOP from power in November.

This November, vote like your life and the lives of many others depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

06-28-20

AMY HOWE @ SCOTUSBLOG — Supremes Take Up 4th Cir. Case Granting Bond Hearings in “Withholding Only” Cases –Albence v. Guzman Chavez

AMY WRITES IN SCOTUSBLOG:

And in Albence v. Guzman Chavez, the justices will decide which provision of immigration law – 8 U.S.C. § 1231 or 8 U.S.C. § 1226 – applies to the detention of a noncitizen who is seeking withholding of removal after a prior removal order has been reinstated. As John Elwood explained last week, the issue is arcane but the distinction between the two provisions matters, because under Section 1226 noncitizens generally have the right to a bond hearing, while the government argues that they do not have that right under Section 1231.

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

This was another of Solicitor General Francisco’s petitions, after the DHS and DOJ quite deservedly lost on the bond issue in the Fourth Circuit.

While presented as an issue of statutory interpretation, the DOJ/DHS restrictive bond procedures are riddled with 5th Amendment unconstitutionality, including denial of opportunity to seek a bond before an fair and impartial decision-maker, putting the burden of proof on the prisoner, and failing to consider ability to pay, to name a few.

These abuses came to light recently in a comprehensive ruling invalidating unconstitutional bond practices in the Baltimore Immigration Court, Miranda v. Barr, U.S.D.C. D. MD., U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, 05-29-20.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/05/30/due-process-victory-us-district-judge-requires-baltimore-immigration-court-to-comply-with-due-process-in-bond-hearings-round-table-warrior-judge-denise-noonan-slavin-provides-key-evidence/

It’s not a difficult constitutional issue. It would take a Court that saw immigrants as fellow human beings and were willing to apply its own due process precedents about six sentences to unanimously throw DOJ and DHS out on their tails for such unconstitutional behavior, statute or no.

But, this version of the Supremes is all over the place on immigration. While immigrants have scored a few well-deserved victories, mostly on issues involving misinterpretation of statutes by the immigration bureaucracy, the Supremes have “tanked” on the larger issues involving constitutional and human rights.

They actually have furthered and in some cases bought into the false narratives and dehumanization of migrants, particularly asylum seekers, by Trump & co. That’s why folks who probably should be granted asylum or long since admitted as refugees were the government required to follow the law and the Court’s 1987 ruling in INS v. Cardoza Fonseca are instead illegally condemned to rot in Mexico, suffer in refugee camps, arbitrarily and capriciously returned to danger zones to face torture and possible death, separated from their families, or put in cages and “iceboxes.”

Depending on how you characterize it, the Supremes’ majority have been part of judicially-enabled child abuse or “Dred Scottification” of immigrants. Either way, it’s legally wrong and morally indefensible. Equal justice and social justice for all in America will continue to be both elusive and divisive until we get a majority of Supreme Court Justices who believe in it, put it first, and require it even in the face of a recalcitrant Executive whose political agenda is built on the exact opposite.

I’m certainly not the first or last critic of the “Supreme failure” of our highest judges to show the necessary legal and moral leadership at this key point in our history. Professor Steven I. Vladeck from U. of Texas Law essentially says the same thing in a more circumspect manner in an op-ed today’s NY Times. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/05/30/due-process-victory-us-district-judge-requires-baltimore-immigration-court-to-comply-with-due-process-in-bond-hearings-round-table-warrior-judge-denise-noonan-slavin-provides-key-evidence/

I find no reason for circumspection about the failure of privileged judges at the top of our legal system who are unwilling to treat vulnerable individuals as human beings and to give them the legal and constitutional protections to which they are entitled. Enabling the cruel, illegal, and racially-driven Trump immigration agenda is disgraceful conduct that deserves to be called out. Three-plus years into a regime dedicated to running roughshod over our Constitution and eradicating human rights we “are where we are” to a large extent because those empowered and entrusted to prevent such abuses have failed — miserably!

And, with an emboldened scofflaw Administration promoting an unconscionable and illegal trashing of the little still left of our imperfect, yet previously functional and occasionally aspirational, asylum system by Executive fiat, the worst is yet to come if we don’t get better performance from the Supremes! We have a “Frankenstein proposal” out now because we have a Supremes’ majority who think “Frankenstein is OK” as long as the monster only devours migrants and their families (folks apparently below their “humanity index”). Wait till it turns on them and their families!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

06-17-20

STAR CHAMBER: Barr Moves To Interfere With Judicial Independence Again – Appears Anxious & Ready To Change Result of Rare BIA “Victory” For Foreign National! — Amicus Solicitation in Matter of A-M-, 28 I&N Dec. 7 (A.G. 2020)

Bigoted Bully Billy Barr Brutalizes Justice as Federal Courts Fail

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 7 (A.G. 2020) Interim Decision #3986

Matter of A-M-R-C-, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General June 17, 2020

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. To assist me in my review, I invite the parties to this proceeding and interested amici to submit briefs on points relevant to the disposition of this case, including:

Would the delay in my referral of this case cause the respondent to suffer any “prejudice from any inability to prove his defenses,” Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 283 (1961), or otherwise prevent me from reviewing the Board’s decision in this matter?

Did the Board err in determining as a matter of its discretion that there was not probable cause that the respondent had committed a “serious nonpolitical crime”? 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii). In making such a determination, did the Board correctly conclude that the crime of which the respondent had been convicted in absentia was not “disproportionate to the objective” or “of an atrocious or barbarous character”? Deportation Proceedings for Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty, 13 Op. O.L.C. 1, 23 (1989) (internal citation omitted).

Did the Board err in determining that the persecutor bar at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(c)(2)(i)(E) did not apply to the respondent’s asylum claim?

Did the Board apply the correct legal standard in concluding that the respondent’s in absentia trial suffered from due process problems even though the Department of State had found that the trial had satisfied due process?

The parties’ briefs shall not exceed 15,000 words and shall be filed on or before July 17, 2020. Interested amici may submit briefs not exceeding 9,000 words on or before July 31, 2020. The parties may submit reply briefs not exceeding 6,000 words on or before July 31, 2020. All filings shall be accompanied by proof of service and shall be submitted electronically to AGCertification@usdoj.gov, and in triplicate to:

7

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 7 (A.G. 2020) Interim Decision #3986

United States Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Room 5114 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

All briefs must be both submitted electronically and postmarked on or before the pertinent deadlines. Requests for extensions are disfavored.

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

Billy Barr, Chief Prosecutor, gets to select the judges, make the rules, evaluate the judges’ “performance,” and set the anti-immigrant “tone” in this farcical imitation of a “court system.”

But, sometimes even those advantages aren’t enough to prevent justice from prevailing. Then, as here, Barr merely reaches into the system, even long “after the fact,” rewrites the analysis, and changes the law so the immigrant loses, which (surprise) is going to be the predetermined result here. Yet, this clear denial of constitutional due process and fundamental fairness is allowed to continue.

What if those who run this thoroughly illegal and corrupt system were judged by the same methods and standards that they use to “judge” others?

PWS

06-17-20

EYORE’S KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: EOIR Director Shoots Messenger, But Fails To Address Serious Systemic Inaccuracies in Statistics & Record Keeping!

EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency’s Data Troubles

Despite TRAC’s appeals to the EOIR, Immigration Court records continue to disappear each month. This is unfortunately still the case with EOIR’s latest data release. Yesterday, June 15, we finally received a letter from EOIR Director James McHenry in response. But instead of addressing the obvious serious data management problems at EOIR, Director McHenry denied there were any problems and attacked TRAC’s motives for spreading what he claims are falsehoods about the agency.

Background

TRAC initially reported 1,507 missing applications for relief in our October 2019 report, which grew to 3,799 missing applications the following month. We wrote EOIR Director James McHenry providing a copy of the 1,507 missing applications asking for answers on why these records were missing from their files. We wrote again when the number of missing applications more than doubled the following month. Not only did we provide substantive evidence of the issues, we also repeatedly reassured the administration that we stood ready to work with them to fully resolve the underlying issues. These letters were met with silence. Not only have these particular cases disappeared entirely, they have not been restored in any subsequent data releases including the latest data TRAC received last week.

Alarmingly, the data from EOIR for April 2020 on asylum and other applications for relief to the Immigration Courts was missing an even larger

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/614/ Page 1 of 4

EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency Data Troubles 6/16/20, 4:29 PM

number of records—so large, in fact, that TRAC ceased publishing this information on our website and recommended the public be cautious in relying on EOIR asylum statistics until these problems were corrected. TRAC published those findings on June 3, 2020.

The Good and The Bad: EOIR’s Latest Data Release

Late on Friday, June 5, after normal business hours, EOIR sent a brief email acknowledging that data the agency had provided TRAC was, as TRAC had reported two days earlier, not usable. The problem was attributed to a “scripting error”—that is, problems made in the computer code that the EOIR’s Office of Information Technology had developed. A “corrected” version of the data was posted, shortly followed by EOIR’s regular monthly release with updated data through May 2020.

The good news is that TRAC has confirmed that the large number of asylum and other applications that had disappeared from the April shipment were now included in the May release. The bad news is that EOIR did not fix the underlying problem. Yet again, thousands of records that had been present in the April shipment were now missing. And the disappearing records from prior months, including the 1,507 missing asylum and other application for relief that TRAC first wrote about back last fall, continued to be missing from this latest release.

Even setting aside the issue of missing records, the persisting problem of computer processing malfunctions remains very troubling. Fixing one computer processing glitch after another does not address this larger systemic problem. Why do basic programming errors that lead to countless additional data errors keep reoccurring month after month in data and reports the agency publishes? Why aren’t these caught earlier and corrected before any data and statistics are released? The agency has yet

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/614/ Page 2 of 4

EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency Data Troubles 6/16/20, 4:29 PM

to address these questions.

EOIR Director McHenry Responds

At the same time we published our June 3 report, we wrote a third letter to EOIR Director McHenry expressing our concern and seeking a commitment from him to take the steps needed to address these problems. We assured Director McHenry again that we would be more than happy to work cooperatively with the agency to help them better ensure that going forward the public is provided with more accurate and reliable data about the Immigration Court’s operations.

This Monday we received a response from Director McHenry. His response is available here. Rather than addressing the real issues concerning the agency’s continuing data management problems, Director McHenry attacked our motives for alleging that the agency had any problems and further claimed that TRAC knew our statements to be untrue but had made them anyway.

Director McHenry also falsely alleged that TRAC wanted “to obtain all sensitive, identifying information” in EOIR data about particular immigrants in court proceedings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our requests have been limited to anonymized data. Indeed, EOIR publicly posts the monthly data TRAC receives on its own website.

In fact, due to the agency’s computer management problems, in March 2020 the agency posted data online which the agency itself intended to withhold. It was TRAC—not the EOIR—who uncovered this mistake and alerted agency officials.

Why did the EOIR post data online that it intended to withhold? Again it was the same underlying problem: deficiencies in EOIR data management

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/614/ Page 3 of 4

EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency Data Troubles 6/16/20, 4:29 PM

processes mistakenly allowed the public posting of information on tens of thousands of immigrants the agency had sought to redact. Once again basic checks were not in place to verify that their programs had functioned properly so no one at the agency had caught these mistakes before the data was distributed.

What Comes Next?

TRAC has been asked to refer any future issues to EOIR Chief Management Officer Kate Sheehey. TRAC’s co-director had an initial phone conversation with her last Friday, June 12. TRAC asked Director Sheehey to find out why month after month more records keep permanently disappearing from EOIR’s data. She has promised to look into this and provide answers. TRAC will continue to keep the public informed on any future developments.

*********

Director

Susan B. Long

Co-Director, TRAC and

Associate Professor

Martin J. Whitman School of Management Syracuse University

721 University Avenue

Syracuse, New York 13244

David Burnham

Co-Director, TRAC and

Associate Research Professor

S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications Syracuse University

215 University Place

Syracuse, New York 13244

Dear Professors Long and Burnham:

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Director

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

June 12, 2020

This letter responds to your letter dated June 3, 2020, and to your previous letters dated November 4, 2019, and December 18, 2019, respectively.

As you are aware, EOIR has committed to an unprecedented data transparency initiative over the past two years, including the monthly posting of data from its Case Access System for EOIR (CASE) database pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As you are also aware, EOIR does not delete data from CASE in the sense that you have repeatedly alleged. As EOIR has explained to you previously, data that you allege has been “deleted” actually reflects either real-time updates to information in CASE, technological errors in the extraction and posting of the data which have been corrected, or data that was appropriately withheld from disclosure pursuant to FOIA.

Because you know that EOIR does not delete data, I can only speculate as to your motives for continuing to publicly accuse EOIR’s hardworking and conscientious career personnel in the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ), the Office of Information Technology (OIT), and the FOIA Unit of malfeasance. Moreover, your apparent desire to obtain all sensitive, identifying information in CASE related to specific cases of aliens in immigration proceedings—including aliens with particular types of

Letter to Professors Susan B. Long and David Burnham Page 2

claims subject to protection from disclosure under FOIA—is perplexing. Nevertheless, regardless of your motivation, your inflammatory and inaccurate accusations do nothing to advance our mutual goals of improving the availability of reliable data to inform decision-making in the immigration sphere.

In light of your continued disparagement of the employees within OCIJ, OIT, and the FOIA Unit, I have asked Chief Management Officer Kate Sheehey to address any future issues that you raise with the monthly data release under FOIA. Please direct any future comments or inquiries to her.

cc: Kate Sheehey, Chief Management Officer

Sincerely,

JAMES MCHENRY

Digitally signed by JAMES MCHENRY

Date: 2020.06.12 16:43:24 -04’00’

James R. McHenry III Director

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

While nobody is infallible, TRAC is a well-respected independent source of statistics and nonpartisan analysis.

EOIR, on the other hand, is a highly partisan mismanaged charade of a court system dedicated to carrying out the DOJ’s anti-asylum, anti-immigrant agenda.

Recently, the DOJ’s own independent watchdog exposed the incompetent handling of the funding for court interpreters that directly diminished due process for those appearing before EOIR. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/06/10/%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%a4%a1%f0%9f%a5%b5kakistocracy-korner-w-eyore-tal-kopan-sf-chron-tanvi-misra-roll-call-report-on-our-anti-heros-latest-adventures-in-fraud-waste-abuse-a/

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/06/10/naij-speaks-out-on-fraud-waste-abuse-eoir-the-mismanagement-uncovered-by-oig-in-yesterdays-report-is-only-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-of-persistent-systemic-and-structural-failures/

Additionally, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has written to McHenry expressing grave concerns about EOIR’s data management practices (or lack thereof). https://chc.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressional-hispanic-caucus-demands-trump-administration-explain

Who ya gonna believe? No contest!

This also provides insights into why, after two decades of failed efforts and squandered taxpayer funds, EOIR failed to deliver on a functional nationwide e-filing system. It also helps explain how the already overwhelming docket backlog has more than doubled even with nearly twice as many judges under the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump DOJ.

But, this “gang that can’t shoot straight” had time to develop ridiculously unneeded and counterproductive “Immigration Judge Dashboards” that nobody except politicos wanted, to keep the pressure on judges to deny due process and deny asylum. They also had time to set up a totally unneeded “Office of Policy” under the Director and to disembowel the Office of Legal Assistance Programs, one of the few functional parts of EOIR “management” whose projects once long ago actually helped to reduce backlogs while promoting due process. The Office of Policy duplicates functions that formerly were adequately performed by the Office of General Counsel.

EOIR has always had a problem of too many positions and too much funding devoted to Headquarters in Falls Church rather than to the courts in the field. But, under the Trump kakistocracy the problem has become an epidemic. EOIR management has been used to exert improper political control over the quasi-judicial process and to interfere in independent decision making and due process. But, it’s been totally “MIA” in providing the basic apolitical professional administrative services needed by the judges and the public they are supposed to be serving (but aren’t right now under an Administration that has open contempt for due process, service to the public, and the immigrant community).

An independent Article I Court is the only solution! Competent administrative services dedicated to promoting full due process with efficiency and top notch public service is a prerequisite for any type of meaningful backlog reduction. As long as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and mismanagement rule, the backlog will continue to grow by leaps and bounds. But, because of chronically unreliable EOIR statistics and record keeping, we might never know the true extent of the court backlog. You can bet, however, that’s it’s now considerably more than the previously reported 1.4 million “on docket plus waiting to be recalendared” mess.

Maybe, rather than “shooting the messengers,” EOIR should enlist the assistance of true experts and statisticians to help fix the current broken system!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-17-20

SUZANNE MONYK @ LAW360: Experts Say New Asylum Rule Unconstitutional Because It Guts Due Process🏴‍☠️, Effectively Repeals Asylum Statute, Will Result in Near 100% Denial Rate — While Denials & Illegal “Deportations to Death☠️” Will Soar, Asylum Seekers Not Likely to be Deterred From Coming, Meaning That Court Backlogs & Avoidable Litigation Will Continue to Mushroom!

Suzanne Monyak
Senior Reporter, Immigration
Law360

https://www.law360.com/articles/1282494/planned-asylum-overhaul-threatens-migrants-due-process

Analysis

Planned Asylum Overhaul Threatens Migrants’ Due Process

By Suzanne Monyak | June 12, 2020, 9:34 PM EDT

The Trump administration’s proposed overhaul of the U.S. asylum process, calling for more power for immigration judges and asylum officers, could hinder migrants’ access to counsel in an already fast-tracked immigration system.

The proposal, posted in a 161-page rule Wednesday night, aims to speed up procedures and raise the standards for migrants seeking protection in the U.S. at every step, while minimizing the amount of time a migrant has to consult with an attorney before facing key decisions in their case.

“It certainly sets a tone by the government that fairness, just basic day-in-court due process, is no longer valued,” said Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, director for the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law, University Park, Pennsylvania.

The proposed rule, which will publish in the Federal Register on Monday, suggests a slew of changes to the U.S. asylum system that immigrant advocates say would constitute the most sweeping changes to the system yet and cut off access for the majority of applicants.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School, said that it was as if administration officials took every precedential immigration appellate decision, executive order and policy that narrowed asylum eligibility under this administration and “wrapped them all in one huge Frankenstein rule that would effectively gut our asylum system.”

Among a litany of changes, the rule, if finalized, would revise the standards to qualify for asylum and other fear-based relief, including by narrowing what types of social groups individuals can claim membership in, as well as the very definitions of “persecution” and “torture.”

In doing so, the proposal effectively bars all forms of gender-based claims, for example, as well as claims from individuals fleeing domestic violence.

These tighter definitions and higher standards would make it difficult even for asylum-seekers who are represented to win their cases, attorneys said.

“I worry about how a rule like this can cause a chilling effect on private law firms, or even BigLaw, from even engaging with this work on a pro bono level because it’s just so challenging and this rule only puts up those barriers even more,” said Wadhia.

But for migrants without lawyers, the barrier to entry is particularly profound. For instance, the rule permits immigration judges to pretermit asylum applications, or deny an application that the judge determines doesn’t pass muster before the migrant can ever appear before the court.

This could pose real challenges for migrants who may not be familiar with U.S. asylum law or even fluent in English, but who are not guaranteed attorneys in immigration court.

“If you’re unrepresented, give me a break,” said Lenni B. Benson, a professor at New York Law School who founded the Safe Passage Project. “I don’t think my law students understand ‘nexus’ even if they’ve studied it,” she added, referring to the requirement that an individual’s persecution have a “nexus” to, or be motivated by, their participation in a certain social group.

Dree Collopy of Benach Collopy LLP, who chairs the American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s asylum committee, told Law360 that she thought the pretermission authority was the most striking attack on due process in the proposal, noting that some immigration judges have asylum denial rates of 90% or higher.

“Giving all judges the authority to end an asylum application with no hearing at all is pretty jaw-dropping,” she said. “Those 90%-denial-rate judges are doing that with the respondent in front of them who’s already testifying about the persecution they’ve suffered or their fear.”

The proposal also allows asylum officers, who are employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and are not required to have earned law degrees, to deem affirmative asylum applications frivolous, and to do so based on a broader definition of “frivolous.”

Currently, applicants must knowingly fabricate evidence in an asylum application for it be deemed frivolous. But the proposal would lower that standard, while expanding the definition of “frivolous” to include applications based on foreclosed law or that are considered to lack legal merit.

The penalty for a frivolous application is steep. If an immigration judge agrees that the application is frivolous under the expanded term, the applicant would be ineligible for all forms of immigration benefits in the U.S. for making a weak asylum claim, Collopy said.

“And under the new regulation, everything is a weak application,” she added.

Benson also said that allowing asylum officers to deny applications conflicts with a mandate that those asylum screenings not be adversarial.

When consulting for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, Benson had once supported giving asylum officers more authority to grant asylum requests on the spot when migrants present with strong cases from the get-go. But with this proposal, DHS “took that idea,” but then went “the negative way,” she said.

. . . .

“I can’t even think of a single client I have right now that could get around this,” Collopy said.

“It’s a fairly well-crafted rule,” said Yale-Loehr. “They clearly have been working on this for months.”

But it may not be strong enough to ultimately survive a court challenge, he said.

The proposal was met with an onslaught of opposition from immigrant advocates and lawmakers, drawing sharp rebukes from Amnesty International, the American Immigration Council and AILA, as well as from House Democrats.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who leads the committee’s immigration panel, slammed the proposal in a Thursday statement as an attempt “to rewrite our immigration laws in direct contravention of duly enacted statutes and clear congressional intent.”

If the rule is finalized — the timing is tight during an election year — attorneys said it would likely face a constitutional challenge alleging that it doesn’t square with the due process clause by infringing on an individual’s right to access the U.S. asylum system.

And while the administration will consider public feedback before the policy takes effect, attorneys said it could still be vulnerable to a court challenge claiming it violates administrative law.

Benson said the proposed rule fails to explain why its interpretation of federal immigration law should trump federal court precedent.

“They can’t just do it, as much as they might like to, with the wave of a magic wand called notice-and-comment rulemaking,” she said.

Yale-Loehr predicted a court challenge to the policy, if finalized, could go the way of DHS’ public charge rule, which was struck down by multiple lower courts, and recently by a federal court of appeals, but was allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to take effect while lawsuits continued.

If the policy is in place for any amount of time, it will likely lead to migrants with strong claims for protection being turned away, attorneys said. But Yale-Loehr didn’t believe it would lead to fewer asylum claims.

“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”

–Editing by Kelly Duncan.

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

Read Suzanne’s full analysis at the above link.

Although nominally designed to address the current Immigration Court backlog by encouraging or even mandating summary denial without due process of nearly 100% of asylum claims, as observed in the article, the exact opposite is likely to happen with respect to backlog reduction.

As Professor Steve Yale-Loehr points out, finalization of these regulations would undoubtedly provoke a flood of new litigation. True, the Supreme Court to date has failed to take seriously their precedents requiring due process for asylum seekers and other migrants. But, enough lower Federal Courts have been willing to initially step up to the plate that reversals and remands for fair hearings before Immigration Judges will occur on a regular basis in a number of jurisdictions.

This will require time-consuming “redos from scratch” before Immigration Judges that will take precedence on already backlogged dockets. It will also lead to a patchwork system of asylum rules pending the Supreme Court deciding what’s legally snd constitutionally required.

While based on the Court Majority’s lack of concern for due process, statutory integrity, and fundamental fairness for asylum seekers, particularly those of color, shown by the last few major tests of Trump Administration “constitutional statutory, and equal justice eradication” by Executive Order and regulation, one can never be certain what the future will hold.

With four Justices who have fairly consistently voted to uphold or act least not interfere with asylum seekers’ challenges to illegal policies and regulations, a slight change in either the composition of the Court or the philosophy of the majority Justices could produce different results.

As the link between systemic lack of equal justice under the Constitution for African Americans and the attacks on justice for asylum seekers, immigrants, and other people of color becomes clearer, some of the Justices who have enabled the Administration’s xenophobic anti-immigrant, anti-asylum programs might want to rethink their positions. That’s particularly true in light of the lack of a sound factual basis for such programs.

As good advocates continue to document the deadly results and inhumanity, as well as the administrative failures, of the Trump-Miller White nationalist program, even those justices who have to date been blind to what they were enabling might have to take notice and reflect further on both the legal moral obligations we owe to our fellow human beings.

In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court asylum opinion, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987), Justice Stevens said:

If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United. States acceded in 1968.

These proposed regulations are the exact opposite: without legislation, essentially repealing the Refugee Act of 1980 and ending U.S. compliance with the international refugee and asylum protection instruments to which we are party. Frankly, today’s Court majority appears, without any reasonable explanation, to have drifted away from Cardoza’s humanity and generous flexibility in favor of endorsing and enabling various immigration restrictionist schemes intended to weaponize asylum laws and processes against asylum seekers. But, are they really going to allow the Administration to overrule (and essentially mock) Cardoza by regulation? Perhaps, but such fecklessness will have much larger consequences for the Court and our nation.

Are baby jails, kids in cages, rape, beating, torture, child abuse, clearly rigged biased adjudications, predetermined results, death sentences without due process, bodies floating in the Rio Grande, and in some cases assisting femicide, ethnic cleansing, and religious and political repression really the legacy that the majority of today’s Justices wish to leave behind? Is that how they want to be remembered by future generations?

Scholars and well-respected legal advocates like Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, Professor Lenni Benson, and Dree Collopy have great expertise in immigration and asylum laws and an interest in reducing backlogs and creating functional Immigration Courts consistent with due process and Constitutional rights. Like Professor Benson, they have contributed practical ideas for increasing due process while reducing court backlogs. Instead of turning their good ideas, like “fast track grants and more qualified representation of asylum seekers, on their heads, why not enlist their help in fixing the current broken system?

We need a government that will engage in dialogue with experts to solve problems rather than unilaterally promoting more illegal, unwise, and inhumane attacks on, and gimmicks to avoid, the legal, due process, and human rights of asylum seekers.

As Professor Yale-Loehr presciently says at the end of Suzanne’s article:

“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”

Isn’t it time for our Supreme Court Justices, legislators, and policy makers to to recognize the truth of that statement and require our asylum system and our Immigration Courts to operate in the real world of refugees?

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

PWS

06-16-20

🤡EYORE’S WORLD: AILA, Other NGOs Protest EOIR’s Unilateral COVID-19 Reopening Plan!

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-correspondence/2020/letter-eoir-resumption-nondetained-docket

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

Fresh off third-party revelations of chronically unreliable data, poor record keeping, and mismanagement of interpreter funds, to name just a few management failures that have recently come to light, EOIR tries to jam an ill-advised reopening plan down the throats of stakeholders and their own employees without prior consultation. No wonder the backlog grows astronomically!

One way to get the backlog under control would be to solicit the input of the public, the Judges’ representative (NAIJ), court staff, and ICE counsel. These are the folks who know most about what’s on the docket and how best and most safely to get cases moving again. To state the obvious: Bureaucrats in EOIR headquarters and politicos at DOJ who don’t actually adjudicate local cases are in the worst position to make these decisions in a vacuum.

Competent court management and backlog reduction requires a plan developed with input from all interested parties. EOIR’s wacko “my way or the highway” approach to court management can only lead to more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and even bigger backlogs.

The letter linked above offers EOIR lots of practical, common sense ideas for improving the courts and avoiding backlog creating and life threatening mistakes. EOIR must start paying attention to the experts rather than kowtowing to the politicos at DOJ.

PWS

06-12-20

👍🏼GOOD NEWS: FINALLY, SUPREMES DEAL DOUBLE DEFEAT TO TRUMP REGIME BIGOTS — High Court Thwarts Latest Attacks on America’s Latino, LGBTQ Communities!

SESSIONS’S SCOFFLAW ANTI-SANCTUARY CAMPAIGN ENDS IGNOMINIOUSLY WITH WELL-DESERVED BEATDOWN BY COURTS

David G. Savage reports for the LA Times:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-15/supreme-court-rejects-trumps-challenge-to-california-sanctuary-law

In major victory for California, Supreme Court rejects Trump’s challenge to state sanctuary law

The U.S. Supreme Court’s action is a major victory for California in its long-running battle with President Trump. (Associated Press)

By DAVID G. SAVAGESTAFF WRITER

JUNE 15, 20206:42 AM UPDATED8:03 AM

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the Trump administration’s challenge to a California “sanctuary” law, leaving intact rules that prohibit law enforcement officials from aiding federal agents in taking custody of immigrants as they are released from jail.

Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted to hear the administration’s appeal.

The court’s action is a major victory for California in its long-running battle with President Trump.

At issue was a clash between federal power and states’ rights.

. . . .

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

Ryan Grenoble
National Reporter
HuffPost

SESSIONS-HATCHED ATTACK ON CIVIL RIGHTS & HUMANITY OF AMERICA’S LGBTQ COMMUNITY GOES DOWN IN FLAMES

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scotus-lgbtq-transgender-decision_n_5ebefe48c5b6299362046713

Ryan Grenoble reports for HuffPost:

The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees from being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The court on Monday issued opinions on two major decisions with far-reaching implications for the civil rights of transgender and LGBTQ individuals.

It was a 6-3 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the four liberal justices in the majority.

Writing for the majority, Gorsuch argued that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is fundamentally no different than discrimination based on sex.

“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions,” Gorsuch wrote. “That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” he added later. “But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”

The rulings rest on a pair of arguments the court heard in October in which justices considered whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits workplace discrimination, applies to LGBTQ and transgender workers.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of both articles at their respective links. So, at least for a day, justice rules in America, despite the efforts of the Trump regime kakistocracy to promote bigotry and intolerance.

In simple terms, this regime and its corrupt officials have consistently promoted acts of invidious discrimination, bias, and hate toward various American communities. It’s hardly any wonder that our nation is dealing with the traumatic effects of such government malfeasance on so many fronts. When you put a kakistocracy in charge, malicious incompetence, abuses, and unrest are naturally going to follow.

It’s beyond disgusting that homophobic, anti-Latino bigots like Trump, Sessions, Whitaker, Barr, Miller, and Francisco have wasted the public’s money, what little credibility to DOJ had left, and the Federal Courts’ time launching baseless legal attacks intended to spread the hate and dehumanization directed against some of America’s must vulnerable communities. Actually, these are communities that the Department of Justice should be working to protect, not persecute. But, don’t expect much real improvement until this scofflaw regime is removed from power.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

06-15-20

IMAGINE: How Would YOU Like To Be Judged in America’s Star Chambers?

IMAGINE: How Would YOU Like To Be Judged in America’s Star Chambers?

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Special to Courtside

June 14, 2020

Imagine yourself in a foreign land. You don’t speak the language, and you don’t know the rules. You’re arrested for a minor crime. You think you have a plausible defense. But, it could result in capital punishment. You are detained in squalid conditions. You’re hauled before a court. The bond is ludicrously high, set by the prosecutor and judge under rules they make up as they go along. You don’t have a lawyer because you can’t afford one. The “judge” is appointed by the chief prosecutor. The judge herself is a former prosecutor. The prosecutor makes the rules.

If you win, the prosecutor can appeal to a body stacked in his or her favor. If you lose, you can appeal to a tribunal hand-selected by the chief prosecutor because of their harshness and votes to convict more than 90% of the time. If, against those odds, you still win acquittal, the chief prosecutor can take over the case, rewrite the rules, and change the verdict to guilty. In the meantime, you’ll remain imprisoned in the “Gulag.”

Doesn’t sound like much fun does it? Am I describing something out of a third-world dictatorship or a Kafka novel? Absolutely not! This system operates right here in our United States of America, right now.

It’s chewing up and spitting out the lives of men, women, and even children who are supposed to receive due process and fundamental fairness and instead get the exact opposite. It’s enabled by Supreme Court Justices, Federal Judges, legislators, and public officials who won’t stand up for the legal and Constitutional rights of migrants and asylum seekers in the face of grotesque Executive abuses.

It’s called the U.S. Immigration Court. It exists in a “Constitution & humanity-free zone.” It’s run by Chief Prosecutor Billy Barr and his subordinates at the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). It’s not really a “court” at all, by any rational definition.

No, it’s a national disgrace and an intentional perversion of the constitutional right to due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity. It’s also an unmitigated management disaster where DOJ-promoted “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) has built an astounding 1.4 million case backlog with cases stretching out beyond the next Administration, even after doubling the number of “judges.” More judges means more backlog in this wacko system.

In the words of my friend and fellow panelist, Ira Kurzban, “this is not normal.” Yet complicit public officials, legislators, and life-tenured Federal Judges continue to “normalize” “America’s Star Chambers” and their biased, race-driven nativist attack on our Constitution and our humanity!

It needs to change. But, all three branches of our government currently lack the courage, leadership, and integrity to make “equal justice under law” a reality rather than just a slogan.

The three things I would do right up front are:

First, remove the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and create an independent, Article I U.S. Immigration Court as recommended by ABA President Judy Perry Martinez, the FBA, the NAIJ, AILA and almost all other true experts in the field.

Second, return the Immigration Courts to their previous noble mission of “through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” End the disgraceful, unlawful, unconstitutional use of the Immigration Courts as a tool of DHS Enforcement, a deterrent, and a weaponized enforcer of a nativist, anti-human-rights agenda.

Third, replace the current highly-biased, one-sided judicial hiring system with a merit-based hiring process that properly weighs and credits demonstrated fairness, scholarship in immigration and human rights, experience representing asylum seekers and other migrants, and involves meaningful public input in judicial selections. Since 2000, the current skewed system has favored prosecutors and other “government insiders” by a ratio of more than 9-1, and has totally excluded private sector candidates from appellate judgeships at the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).

Our Constitution requires “equal justice for all.” To achieve it, we need public officials, legislators, Supreme Court Justices, and other Federal Judges who actually believe in it. That means real change in all three branches of our failing (and worse) Federal Government. Due Process Forever; Corrupt Officials, Feckless Legislators, and Complicit Courts, Never!

This is derived from my virtual panel presentation before the ABA Section on International Law on June 8, 2020.

DHS/BIA JOINT DEPORTATION MILL CONTINUES TO CRANK OUT ERRONEOUS DENIALS — 2D CIR LATEST TO EXPOSE POTENTIAL DEATH SENTENCE W/O DUE PROCESS — Martinez de Artiga v. Barr — The Vile Legacy of Those Complicit in The Trump Regime’s Racist Human Rights Abuses Will Be Their Lasting Shame!

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Rebecca Press Esquire — Rebecca Press, Esquire
Legal Director
UnLocal

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-cat-el-salvador-ms-13-martinez-de-artiga-v-barr

Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis/Nexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

10 Jun 2020

CA2 on CAT, El Salvador, MS-13: Martinez de Artiga v. Barr

Martinez, 2d Cir.

“Patricia Xiomara Martinez De Artiga challenges the denial of her 26 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 27 Convention Against Torture (CAT). Martinez listed her son as a derivative 28 beneficiary on her application. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Martinez 29 testified credibly regarding serious, individualized threats against her and her 30 children by the infamous Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang. Nevertheless, the IJ 31 denied Martinez’s claims for asylum and withholding, concluding that the 32 gang targeted Martinez because she had frustrated the gang’s recruitment 33 efforts and not on account of membership in her son’s family. On the issue of 34 CAT protection, the IJ determined that Martinez failed to meet her burden for 35 relief because she fled El Salvador promptly after MS-13 threatened her. We 36 hold that the IJ erred as a matter of law when it penalized Martinez for her prompt flight, and we cannot confidently predict that a remand would be 2 futile. We therefore DENY the government’s motion for summary denial, 3 GRANT Martinez’s petition for review, and REMAND the case.”

[Hats off to Rebecca Press!]

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

Let’s see. Woman credibly threatened with torture by group known to have capability, often aided and/or abetted by a corrupt and often complicit government, and renowned for leaving a trail of headless corpses behind. She does what any reasonable human might do in the same position: flees immediately for her life. It’s an “open and shut” case for CAT protection — should have been granted by stipulation between the parties.

Instead, in the warped, twisted, irrational, misogynist, and racially biased world of EOIR, a Latino women’s rational actions become a judge’s reason to deny her clearly warranted protection. According to this judge, she had to be dumb or unfortunate enough to wait to be tortured or killed to get protection. Of course it’s absurd! But, what’s even more absurd is that a corrupt, unconstitutional system that daily metes out this type of deadly utter nonsense to vulnerable humans seeking legal protection is allowed to continue to operate in our nation at all.

Can it really get any worse! It raises the obvious question of why the “appellate immigration judges” who approved this ludicrous abomination of illegality and “counter logic” are still on the bench rather than in remedial training or looking for other jobs.

It’s no surprise that a fundamentally unjust and unconstitutional system that wastes time looking for ways to deny cases that should easily be granted is running an uncontrolled backlog of at least 1.4 million cases. It’s obvious that under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr, the already stressed, reeling, and mismanaged Immigration “Courts” have become hotbeds of misogyny, anti-immigrant bias, anti-asylum bias, anti-Latino bias, pro-DHS favoritism, unprofessionalism, grotesque mismanagement and waste of taxpayer funds, and just all around horrible judging. They are America’s Star Chambers, pure and simple.

Remanding individual cases is not going to fix these systemic problems that are bringing down our Constitution and de-legitimizing our entire justice system. But, shutting down the system and requiring that it be administered by an independent judicially-appointed monitor to return some semblance of due process and fundamental fairness is not only within the Article III Courts’ power, but is actually constitutionally required to halt this Administration’s systemic abuses of justice. Or, send the cases that actually need to be tried at this point in time to U.S. Magistrate Judges for real due process hearings.

The Courts of Appeals constantly expose the elementary mistakes, illegality, outright irrationality, the widespread, intentional denials of due process, fundamental fairness, and the gross failures of basic judicial expertise by the “EOIR Subdivision” of DHS Enforcement. But, you can be sure that this is just the “tip of the iceberg.”

Some Court of Appeals panels use the same “rubber stamp” techniques as the BIA, hiding their own deficiencies behind a shield of “undue deference” to a failed and unconstitutionally biased agency. And, even more individuals with potentially valid claims are unfairly turned down because they can’t find competent lawyers or don’t have the wherewithal to get to the Court of Appeals at all.

Then there are those who can’t stand the pain and torture inflicted by the “New American Gulag” so give up viable claims without full litigation. Or they are sent to rot and die in Mexico waiting for a purposely unfair hearing system stacked against.

Now, tens of thousands, many with potentially valid claims for protection, are simply being turned back at the border in clear violation of our statutes, our Constitution, and international obligations, not to mention our obligations to our fellow humans. They are denied access to the system. The Administration fabricates numerous lies and false myths to justify its actions, most rooted deeply in the anti-Hispanic racism and misogyny of Trump, Miller, and their accomplices.

The reasons given by the regime for this racist misconduct are phony as a three dollar bill. Yet, some equally dishonest authorities, including judges who should know better, will accept them without critical examination of their fraudulent nature.

Complicity comes in many forms and can often be hidden in the present. But, the the massive, intentional, human rights violations, fueled by the inherent racism of the Trump Administration and its toadies, will someday come out. The full extent of the entirely unnecessary human carnage inflicted on humanity by our nation and the invidious reasons behind it will be documented.

Then, future generations will ask: Where were the Federal Courts while this was happening? Why didn’t privileged and supposedly independent life-tenured judges stop the “slaughter of innocents?” Why did they allow baby jails, kids in cages, family separation, torture in the New American Gulag, Star Chambers, and Nazi-style abuses by corrupt U.S. border guards to continue, unabated? Why were they complicit in the dehumanization of people of color by an overtly racist and scofflaw regime? What is it about Trump’s and Miller’s racist agenda that they were too dim or intellectually dishonest to understand?

Justice will be too late for the dead, tortured, maimed, dehumanized, and destroyed. But, the reputations of these “Modern Day Confederates, Jim Crows, and their enablers” eventually will come tumbling down just like the statutes of their morally and intellectually bankrupt predecessors who also fought for or advanced the cause of racism and man’s inhumanity to men, women, and particularly, children. They had their own flimsy excuses, fabrications, myths, and B.S. justifications which have crumbled over time leaving just the nakedness and ugly truth of their racism and/or complicity for others to see.

This is not a “normal Administration” and falsely treating it as such by approving or failing to stand up to their attacks on our Constitution, human rights, and human dignity is not “normal behavior” for Federal Judges, legislators, and other public officials who allow this grotesque system to continue to destroy lives. “Deferring” to patently racist schemes and overtly biased officials isn’t legal, even when the “cover” of some other legal pretext is offered.

Those who are witness to the many abuses must insure that those who operate and allow this thoroughly corrupt system to persist don’t escape with the “Nuremberg Defense” of “just following orders” or “just following the law.”

Actually, equal justice for all isn’t just a slogan. Our Constitution clearly requires it, and it’s the job of Federal Judges to insure that it happens. Judges who won’t do that, don’t belong on the bench. Certainly, when there is regime change, no future Federal Judge or Justice should be appointed or confirmed unless he or she has demonstrated a commitment to equal justice for all supported by a record of opposing the systemic racial injustice and other invidious discrimination inflicted by the Trump regime through its program of “Dred Scottification” of the other.

There is no national emergency more important right now than the failure of our justice system to provide and enforce equal justice for all. The many who are enabling this regime’s toxic agenda by insuring that justice is unequal and that the system discriminates against and demeans immigrants, asylum applicants, and others of color are themselves operating outside the law, not to mention humanity. There will be a reckoning! Count on it!

Due Process Forever. Complicity in Racist Abuses, Never!

PWS

06-13-20

🏴‍☠️☠️👎🏻BIA KICKS OFF VOLUME 28 WITH BIG-TIME BEATDOWN OF HAPLESS CAMEROONIAN ASYLUM SEEKER — Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I&N Dec. (BIA 2020)

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMDA2MTIuMjI4Nzg3MzEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xMjg0ODc2L2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.MlFeLjL3rhv-CztQ06DfqLriAPpnSh2HoL0CN1w84xQ/br/79800749996-l

Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2020)

BIA HEADNOTE:

To prevail on a motion to reopen alleging changed country conditions where the persecution claim was previously denied based on an adverse credibility finding in the underlying proceedings, the respondent must either overcome the prior determination or show that the new claim is independent of the evidence that was found to be not credible.

PANEL: Board Panel: MALPHRUS and HUNSUCKER, Appellate Immigration Judges; GEMOETS, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.

OPINION BY: GEMOETS, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge

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

Just what this totally dysfunctional system needs: More ideas on how to deny asylum! The only question: Will Respondents lose every case in Volume 18? Don’t bet against it!

PWS

06-13-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮TWO NEW ITEMS FROM IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG SHOW A MALICIOUSLY INCOMPETENT AND CORRUPT TRUMP REGIME IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY THAT BELIEVES AND FUNCTIONS LIKE IT IS ABOVE THE LAW, ACCOUNTABILITY, & HUMAN MORALITY!

TWO NEW ITEMS FROM IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG SHOW A MALICIOUSLY INCOMPETENT AND CORRUPT TRUMP REGIME IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY THAT BELIEVES AND FUNCTIONS LIKE IT IS ABOVE THE LAW, ACCOUNTABILITY, & HUMAN MORALITY!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2020/06/gao-says-customs-and-border-protection-spent-migrant-medical-funds-on-dirt-bikes.html

Friday, June 12, 2020

GAO Says Customs and Border Protection Spent Migrant Medical Funds on Dirt Bikes

By Immigration Prof

McCord Pagan for Law360 reports that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) violated the law by taking funds designated by Congress for consumables and medical care for migrants and instead used some of the money for its canine program, dirt bikes and upgrades to its computer system, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

While CBP spent some of the designated funds on baby products, food, defibrillators, and masks, CBP violated the law by spending certain funds meant for such migrant care on canines, boats, dirt bikes, ATVs, a vaccine program for its employees, and upgrades to its computer network, sewer system, as well as janitorial services, according to the GAO report.

The 2019 law providing supplemental funds to CBP to help address a surge of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border designated about $112 million to CBP for “consumables and medical care.”

“We conclude that CBP violated the purpose statute when it obligated amounts expressly appropriated for consumables and medical care and establishing and operating migrant care and processing facilities for other purposes,” according to the GAO opinion. The Congressional watchdog is conducting an audit of CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on the care of the adults and children in its custody, it said.

In response to GAO’s findings, a CBP spokesperson sent Law360 a statement calling the violations “technical in nature” and said it will take prompt remedial action.

Nick Miroff for the Washington Post also reports on the story.

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

Thursday, June 11, 2020

District Court Halts ICE Enforcement Operations at New York Courthouses

By Immigration Prof

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff

For several years, the Chief Justice of California has sought to keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) away from the California courts. Last year, a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked ICE courthouse arrests there.

CNN reports the latest skirmish between the state courts and federal immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued an order yesterday blocking ICE from making arrests in New York courts, finding that the practice is illegal. The introductory paragraph of his ruling reads as follows:

“Recent events confirm the need for freely and fully functioning state courts, not least in the State of New York. But it is one thing for the state courts to try to deal with the impediments brought on by a pandemic, and quite another for them to have to grapple with disruptions and intimidations artificially imposed by an agency of the federal government in violation of long-standing privileges and fundamental principles of federalism and of separation of powers.”

State and local officials argue that when ICE officers apprehends immigrants at courthouses — where they are making appearances as defendants, witnesses or victims — it endangers public safety by making it harder to prosecute crimes.

ICE has defended the arrests, saying apprehending people in controlled settings is safer than arresting them on the streets.

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

Baby jails, stealing from kids, interfering with the administration of justice. Just another day in the Disunited Kakistocracy of Trump.

These situations result in part from a feckless Congress led by Mitch and a failed Supremes led by Roberts who won’t stand up for our Constitutional rights and restrain an obviously corrupt and lawless Executive with a racist agenda.

It’s no surprise that much of Trump’s wrongdoing is exposed by the Government’s own ”watchdogs.” Unlike GAO, which works for Congress, those in the Executive Branch often are then unethically fired by Trump as Congress and the Supremes fail to stand up for honesty in Government. Worse yet, they fail to protect public employees who courageously expose corruption.

And, the high ranking legislators and judges who have watched and enabled Trump’s scurrilous attacks on our Constitution and human values ultimately bear much of the responsibility! As my friend Ira Kurzban would say, “this is not normal.” “Normalizing” and “enabling” illegal, unethical, and racist-driven behavior is obscene. If “watchdogs” and U.S. District Court Judges can speak out against lawless actions and corruption, how is it that Mitch, Roberts, and the rest of the GOP have “swallowed the whistle?”

PWS

06-12-20

KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Catherine Rampell @ WashPost Shows How Regime’s Maliciously Incompetent White Nationalist Stupidity @ USCIS Has Bankrupted Once-Profitable Agency! PLUS: Once Again, Failed Supremes Big Part of The Problem! — What’s The Purpose of A Court That Promotes Injustice And Fails To Resist Evil?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-so-set-on-harassing-immigrants-that-his-immigration-agency-needs-a-bailout/2020/06/11/52c2ae06-ac1b-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html

Catherine writes:

The immigration agency admonishing immigrants to pull themselves up by their bootstraps seems to have destroyed its own boots.

For three years, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — the federal agency that processes visas, work permits and naturalizations — has lectured immigrants about how they should become more self-sufficient. It has alleged, without evidence, that too many immigrants are on the dole. (Actually, immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in federal benefits, and the foreign-born use fewer federal benefits than do their native-born counterparts.)

The agency implemented a broad, and likely illegal, rule allegedly designed to weed out immigrants who might ever be tempted to become a “public charge” and try to benefit from taxpayer largesse.

Well, now USCIS is broke — and is trying to become a “public charge” itself, by begging Congress for a bailout.

The agency is funded almost entirely by user fees, rather than congressional appropriations. But under President Trump’s leadership, it has mismanaged its finances so badly that it has sought an emergency $1.2 billion infusion from taxpayers.

Unless it get a bailout, the agency will furlough three-quarters of its workforce next month, Government Executive reported Thursday.

The agency claims it’s a novel coronavirus victim. No doubt, the covid-19 pandemic has disrupted operations. But USCIS was in financial trouble long before the virus’s outbreak.

[[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]]

It acknowledged as much in public documents last fall, when it proposed a massive increase in user fees because of large projected budget deficits.

It didn’t have to be this way. When Trump took office, USCIS inherited a budget surplus. Last year, the agency saw record highs in both revenue and revenue per user.

So what went wrong?

The administration has frittered away funds on phantom cases of immigration fraud — which, like the president’s allegations of voter fraud, it has struggled to prove is an actual widespread problem that’s been going undetected.

USCIS has siphoned resources to create a denaturalization task force, which strips citizenship from immigrants found to have lied or otherwise cheated on applications. Last year, the agency revealed intentions to double the size of its fraud detection unit.

The bigger drain on resources, though, is its deliberate creation of more busy work for immigrants and their lawyers — as well as thousands of USCIS employees. These changes are designed to make it harder for people to apply for, receive or retain lawful immigration status.

For instance, the agency has demanded more unnecessary documentation (“requests for evidence”) and more duplicative, mandatory in-person interviews. Previously, staffers had more discretion to determine whether these interviews were necessary.

Staffers have been directed to comb through applications looking for minor (frivolous) reasons to reject otherwise eligible applicants.

. . . .

The American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Immigration Council offer a few obvious suggestions, including eliminating some of the stupid processing requirements that raise costs for both applicants and USCIS without actually adding value. Other ways to reduce costs include holding virtual naturalization oath ceremonies and allowing electronic payments for everything.

Congress could also demand the agency raise more money on its own, without gouging, say, poor asylum seekers. For instance, it could expand the cash cow known as “premium processing” (faster processing, for a fee) to more types of its applications.

Finally, get rid of the “public charge” rule. It’s a perfect example of everything that got USCIS into this mess: an expensive-to-administer — and, again, likely illegal — solution in search of a problem, whose only purpose is to punish immigrants just trying to follow the law.

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

Read the rest of Catherine’s article at the link.

Wow, what a terrific analysis! The “problems” were self-created by a regime with an irrational, White Nationalist, racist agenda. The solutions are actually quite obvious and readily available, as Catherine points out. But, they won’t happen until Trump is removed from office.

Catherine also raises a larger problem in America’s abject failure to insist on constitutionally-required social justice for everyone, regardless of color, status, or ethnicity. Stephen Miller’s racist changes in the public charge regulations never should have happened. It’s not rocket science. It’s Con Law 101, Administrative Law 101, with a dose of common sense and human decency thrown in.

In fact, the lower Federal Courts spotted the “racist stink-bomb” in Miller’s idiotic public charge changes right from the “git go” and properly stopped the change in its tracks. But, a GOP Supremes’ majority improperly granted Solicitor General Francisco’s unethical and blatantly disingenuous request for a stay of the injunction, providing no reasoning for their outrageous conduct. Four Justices dissented, led by Justice Sotomayor who lodged a vigorous dissent exposing the unlawful favoritism shown by her GOP colleagues to the Trump/Miller racist immigration agenda. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/22/complicity-watch-justice-sonia-sotomayor-calls-out-men-in-black-for-perverting-rules-to-advance-trump-miller-white-nationalist-nativist-immigration-agenda/

The current racial crisis, failure to achieve Constitutionally-required equal justice for all, and perhaps worst of all pandering to obviously fabricated pretexts for the Trump regime’s racist agenda, particularly as it has targeted asylum seekers and migrants of color, can be laid to no small degree at the feet of five GOP-appointed Supreme Court Justices disgracefully led by our failed Chief Justice.

They have failed to achieve and enforce equal justice for all because they don’t believe in what our Constitution requires. Millions of individuals who are neither lawyers nor judges know exactly what our Constitution requires and what morality and simple human decency mandates. It’s the exact opposite of what Trump stands for.

But, a Supremes’ majority that neither believes in Constitutional due process and equal justice for all nor possesses the guts and human decency to stand up to an overtly racist President and his toadies will continue to be part of the problem, rather than the solution to the blatant injustices that currently plague our society.

I’m certainly not the only former judge to recognize the intellectual dishonesty and moral corruption at the heart of today’s failed Supremes!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/03/12/u-s-district-judge-lynn-s-adelman-channels-courtside-blasts-roberts-company-for-aiding-the-forces-seeking-to-destroy-our-democracy-instead-of-doing-w/

America needs and deserves better Justices who believe in and stand up for equal justice. Our Supremes’ institutional failure isn’t an exercise in legal academics or legitimate intellectual differences of opinion, like the majority often pretends.

No, bad judging injures, maims, and kills people every day. It undermines the health and safety of America every day. It allows baby jails and star chambers to flourish in our midst. It allows the illegal return of refugees to the dangerous countries they fled without any process at all, let alone “due” process. In enables corrupt Government officials to propose an outrageously unlawful, malicious, bogus, misogynist, and evil “administrative repeal” of asylum accompanied by a battery of racist-inspired lies because they know there is no legal accountability for their reprehensible conduct so long as the J.R. Five is there to protect their misdeeds. It allows police officers to act believing they won’t be held accountable for killing George Floyd.

It’s no wonder that democracy is crumbling before our eyes when the majority of Justices charged with protecting it place loyalty to a political party and its immoral, unqualified leader, perhaps the greatest threat to our democracy and the rule of law in our history, above the common good.

Due Process Forever. Complicit, Racism-Enabling Courts, Never!

PWS

06-12-20

⚖️👍🏼🗽7TH CIR. REFUSES TO FOLD IN FACE OF “J.R. FIVE’S” KOWTOWING TO MILLER’S WHITE NATIONALIST AGENDA — Circuit Court Re-Instates Injunction Against Illegal, Racially-Motivated “Public Charge” Regulation Change Aimed at Ethnic Communities — Cook County v. Wolf

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2020/D06-10/C:19-3169:J:Barrett:dis:T:fnOp:N:2529215:S:0

Cook County v. Wolf, 7th Cir., 06-10-20, published

PANEL: WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and BARRETT, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: CHIEF JUDGE DIANE WOOD

KEY QUOTE:

WOOD, Chief Judge. Like most people, immigrants to the United States would like greater prosperity for themselves and their families. Nonetheless, it can take time to achieve the American Dream, and the path is not always smooth. Recognizing this, Congress has chosen to make immigrants eligible for various public benefits; state and local governments have done the same. Those benefits include subsidized health insurance, supplemental nutrition benefits, and housing assistance. Historically, with limited exceptions, temporary receipt of these supplemental benefits did not jeopardize an immigrant’s chances of one day adjusting his status to that of a legal permanent resident or a citizen.

Recently, however, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new rule designed to prevent immigrants whom the Executive Branch deems likely to receive public assistance in any amount, at any point in the future, from entering the country or adjusting their immigration status. The Rule purports to implement the “public-charge” provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4). States, cities, and nonprofit groups across the country have filed suits seeking to overturn the Rule.

Cook County, Illinois, and the Illinois Coalition for Immi- grant and Refugee Rights, Inc. (ICIRR) brought one of those cases in the Northern District of Illinois. They immediately sought a preliminary injunction against the Rule pending the outcome of the litigation. Finding that the criteria for interim relief were satisfied, the district court granted their motion. We conclude that at least Cook County adequately established its right to bring its claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting preliminary injunctive relief. We therefore affirm.

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

The performance of the “J.R. Five” in granting a totally unwarranted, unjustified stay of the preliminary injunction in this case tells you all you need to know about why racial injustice and dehumanization of “the other” in America are continuing problems.

PWS

06-12-20

IN HIS OWN WORDS: AMERICA’S LEADING WHITE NATIONALIST “PUBLIC-CHARGE” TELLS YOU EXACTLY WHY REAL RACIAL JUSTICE CAN’T BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT “REGIME CHANGE” — As Arranged & Compiled by Dana Milbank of the WashPost — Plus: Why We Won’t Achieve Equal Justice for All With a Court That Doesn’t Believe in It!

Dana Milbank in the Washington Post:

Opinions
Add to listAdd to list
Here is Trump’s speech on race — word for word, alas

By
Dana Milbank
Columnist
June 10, 2020 at 7:15 p.m. EDT
President Trump’s planned address to the nation on race, American Urban Radio’s April Ryan reports, is being written by none other than Stephen Miller, a Trump aide and aficionado of white nationalism.

This is bound to raise a fuhrer. What next? Paul Manafort drafting a presidential address on business ethics?
But Miller can stand down. Trump has already given his remarks on race — many times, in fact. Here they are, entirely in Trump’s own words, excerpted:
I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks. Oh, look at my African American over here. Look at him.
Nobody has ever done for the black community what President Trump has done. My Admin has done more for the Black Community than any President since Abraham Lincoln. George [Floyd] is looking down right now and saying this is a great thing that is happening for our country. A great day for him.

Diamond and Silk, you’re so, so great. Thank you, Kanye, thank you. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.
Think of this: Blacks for Trump, Black Voices for Trump, African Americans for Trump. Call it whatever the hell you want. I have a group of African American guys and gals, by the way, that follow me around, and they think I pay them and I don’t.
A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market. If I were starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black, because I believe they do have an actual advantage. Sadly, because President Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won’t see another black president for generations!

To the African American community, I say what the hell do you have to lose? You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth is unemployed. Last in crime, last in this, last in homeownership, last in the economy, lowest wages. Our inner cities are a disaster. You get shot walking to the store. They have no education, they have no jobs.

Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now”?
Why is so much money sent to the Elijah Cummings district when it is considered the worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States? No human being would want to live there. A disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested).

So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came?
Why do we need more Haitians? Why are we having people from all these shithole countries come here? We should have more people from places like Norway.

An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that @BarackObama’s birth certificate is a fraud. His grandmother in Kenya said, “Oh, no, he was born in Kenya.” A lot of people do not think it was an authentic certificate.
You ever see Maxine Waters? A low-IQ individual. LeBron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made LeBron look smart, which isn’t easy to do.

What has happened to the respect for authority, the fear of retribution by the courts, society and the police? Let our politicians give back our police department’s power to keep us safe. Unshackle them from the constant chant of “police brutality.” BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY AND BRING BACK OUR POLICE!
You also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park, from Robert E. Lee to another name. Robert E. Lee was a great general. They’re trying to take away our culture. A Great American Heritage.

I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching. I am the least racist person that you’ve ever encountered. I don’t have a Racist bone in my body!

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

So, you think a speech on race written by neo-Nazi racist Stephen Miller is going to bring the nation together and solve the problem of racial injustice? The very idea is so totally absurd that it shows why we won’t have anything approaching racial justice in America until Trump and the GOP are removed from power.

It can’t happen. The regime won’t allow it. And, we have a Supremes’ majority unwilling to stand up for justice in America. Heck, Trump could claim that an end of laws promoting racial justice is necessary because of COVID-19 and the “JR Five” would say “right on.” In case you haven’t noticed, Trump is a total legislative failure; he merely rules by Executive Decree. And the JR Five doesn’t bat an eye as democracy goes down the drain.

Miller, of course, is the architect of Trump’s White Nationalist racist attack program on the asylum system and other parts of our immigration laws and constitutional due process for persons of color. It’s called “Dred Scottification” or “dehumanization of the other.”

George Floyd was a tragic example, but by no means the only one. Ask separated families, caged kids, asylum applicants returned to constant danger and squalid conditions in Mexico, women and children “orbited” back to face torture and death in the Northern Triangle without hearings, Muslim refugees stuck in horrible camps and separated from families forever, non-criminals suffering in inhumane conditions in the “New American Gulag” primarily because of the color of their skin, Latinos too scared to seek the health care they need and are entitled to because of the “public charge” travesty, “Dreamers” left to twist in the wind so that they can be “bargaining chips”for politicos, or Blacks and Latinos intentionally disenfranchised from having their vote count by the GOP, to name just a few.

Of course, Miller’s real targets are all (non-GOP) people of color — Latino asylum seekers and migrants are just “first in line” because higher Federal Courts seem largely unwilling to recognize and stand up for their legal and Constitutional rights as well as their right to be treated with respect and human dignity. But, you can bet they won’t be the last of “the others” targeted by the Trump/Miller/Barr/Wolf/Cotton White Nationalist agenda.

The bigger problem is that the Trump/Miller racial agenda has “admirers in high places:” None other than John Roberts and four of his GOP-appointed colleagues on the Supremes. When lower Federal Courts have quickly and emphatically quashed the various outrageous White Nationalist assaults on our Constitution, laws, and human decency, the “JR Five” has been right there to intervene. There is no obvious pretext, legally disingenuous argument, or xenophobic racist myth that Trump Toady Solicitor General Noel Francisco can utter that wouldn’t find favor with “The Five.”

They even bend the rules so that Francisco and his ethics-free team of White Nationalist apologists won’t have to go through the trauma of defending their bogus, unethical, and morally repugnant positions in lower Federal Courts, like other “peons” in “The Five’s” twisted, distorted, and privileged legal world are forced to do.

In a show of extreme bias, toadyness, and complete tone-deafness, several Justices have even publicly bemoaned the fact that Trump and Francisco have to deal with the indignity of nationwide injunctions against the regime’s assaults on the rule of law. Why not make unrepresented migrants of color and those with pro bono lawyers have to win before all 600 some Federal District Judges to stop the abuse?

Why would folks with such feeble understanding of due process, asylum law, human rights, what really goes on in Immigration Court, what it’s like to be a lawyer defending migrants in a systemically biased, patently unfair system, and the real human lives and futures being ground into mush by the likes of Miller, Sessions, and Barr even be on the Supreme Court in the first place!

Actually knowing how the law works on human lives, experiencing the practical effects of bad judging, and having represented the most vulnerable trying to make their way through our “intentionally user unfriendly” system is 10x more important for a qualified Justice than an Ivy League law degree and fancy political connections. If we really want “equal justice for all” in America, rather than just another snappy buzz-phrase, we’ve been looking at the wrong candidates for our highest Federal Courts!

Does anyone really think that America would still have “Baby Jails” and “Immigration Star Chambers” if the Justices on our highest Court had actually experienced Professor Phil Schrag’s Baby Jails: The Fight to End The Incarceration of Refugee Children in America?” Of course not! But, “Baby Jails” are alive and well in America today, while the Supremes dither over how else to advance Trump’s agenda. Moral leadership and the courage to “just say no” to tyranny and racism counts! But, you wouldn’t know it by today’s Supremes’ majority.

How do we expect to achieve equal justice for all with a majority of Justices who lack the knowledge and experience to make the Constitution function in the real world? They also lack the human empathy, flexibility, ambition, and philosophical inclination to learn from others and make amends for their past mistakes. By, their often wooden, tone-deaf, and sometimes intentionally incomprehensible jurisprudence they show that they fully intend to retain their blind spots and continue making the same mistakes that promote inequality and injustice until someone stops them.

Of course there is institutionalized racism in America! How can it be otherwise when we have allowed a political party led by an overt racist like Trump to be in charge of our institutions?

Dr. Martin Luther King said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” That’s why the murder of George Floyd affects us all.

I understand Dr. King’s message; you understand it. But a majority of the Supremes neither understand it nor are willing to honor it. Until we get a Court where the majority of the Justices actually believe in and stand up for equal justice under law, we won’t achieve it as a nation.

America needs and deserves a better Supreme Court. November is perhaps our last chance to start the process of change that we will need to move our nation forward to a future with equal justice for all. We can’t get there as long as we have a majority of Justices who share, enable, and support Trump’s and Miller’s belief that black, brown, and immigrant lives don’t matter and act accordingly.

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts That Enable Injustice, Never!

PWS

06-11-20

EX-US JUDGE UNLOADS TRUTH IN USDC FILING ABOUT BILLY BARR’S ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT JUSTICE BY UNDOING FLYNN PROSECUTION: Corrupt, Dishonest, Unethical, Unprofessional – DOJ’s Request to Dismiss Flynn Prosecution is “Preposterous” – Our Police Departments Aren’t The Only Part of Our Foundering, Rudderless, & Disturbingly Ineffective, Racially & Morally “Tone-Deaf” Justice System That Needs Substantial & Meaningful Reform!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/preposterous-court-appointed-lawyer-michael-flynn-case-slams-doj-attempt-n1229336

Pete Williams reports for NBC News:

WASHINGTON — The retired judge appointed to act as a friend of the court in the Michael Flynn case strongly urged the court Wednesday not to let the Justice Department abandon the prosecution.

In a scorching 83-page submission, John Gleeson said the government’s move to drop the case was “riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact,” which were contradicted by the positions it has taken in other false statement cases and by its own previous court filings about Flynn’s conduct as well as his decisions to plead guilty twice.

“Even recognizing that the Government is entitled to deference in assessing the strength of its case, these claims are not credible,” the retired judge wrote. “Indeed, they are preposterous. For starters — and most unusually — they are directly and decisively disproven by the Government’s own briefs filed just months ago in this very proceeding.”

Gleeson said judges must ordinarily defer to the wishes of the Justice Department about whether to pursue a prosecution, but not when the motives of the government are suspect. In Flynn’s case, the government’s move to dismiss the case “is based solely on the fact that Flynn is an ally of President Trump.”

Federal District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan of Washington appointed Gleeson to submit arguments about why the government should not be allowed to drop the case, so that Sullivan could consider both sides.

The appointment came after the Justice Department last month asked the judge to dismiss the case, having determined that even if Flynn lied to FBI agents in early 2017 about his phone calls with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., his lies were not “material” to any investigation and did not, therefore, violate the false statement law at the heart of his case.

Flynn told the FBI that he did talk to Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the Trump transition but denied that they talked about Russia’s response to the latest Obama sanctions or about a forthcoming UN vote. He later admitted that both those statements were untrue.

Those statements, Gleeson said, were clearly important to the FBI’s investigation into potential connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

“It is hard to conceive of a more material false statement than this one,” Gleeson said.

Gleeson said without any firm legal basis for wanting to drop the case, the only other reason must be Flynn’s relationship with Trump. Wednesday’s brief noted that the president tweeted or re-tweeted about Flynn at least 100 times since March 2017.

Clearly the president is personally invested in ensuring that Flynn’s prosecution ends, Gleeson said, adding, “Everything about this irregular.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Pete’s article at the link.

Add this to the absolute legal, ethical, constitutional, and management disaster going in in the U.S. Immigration Courts under Barr’s “maliciously incompetent” management, and the case for removing him from office is overwhelming. Won’t happen. But, it should!

Actually, filing a “preposterous motion” backed by clearly untrue assertions is a clear violation of an attorney’s role as an “officer of the court” owing “candor to the tribunal.” If Barr were a private practitioner, it would likely earn him a referral to his state bar authorities for possible discipline or license revocation.

But, in Federal Courts these days the “undue deference” and unfairly favorable treatment of DOJ attorneys continues. It has actually been institutionalized, and even unjustly rewarded, by the Supremes. Talk about encouraging worst practices and highlighting “negative role models!”

The whole ethical debacle of the Trump Administration DOJ and the overall feckless performance of our Federal Courts, particularly the Supremes and certain Circuit Courts of Appeals, at halting clear Executive abuses and requiring honesty and professionalism (including rejecting racist or religiously bigoted agendas) from the Federal Government before tribunals cries out for a serious re-examination of: 1) who should be sitting on the Federal Bench; 2) what ethical standards they should be held to; and 3) the undue favoritism and leniency traditionally shown by Federal Courts to Government lawyers engaging in misrepresentations, sloppy work, promoting pretexts for overtly racist agendas, and constantly using dilatory litigation tactics intended to punish individual litigants for asserting their legal rights.

The last three years have shown that better Federal Judges and much more courageous, effective judicial leadership committed to guaranteeing due process and fairness for all is absolutely necessary for our nation to achieve “equal justice under law.” The current sorry state of the Article III Judiciary shows that police departments are not the only part of our broken justice system that needs reform and some “different faces” to achieve equal justice under law. As a nation, we can’t achieve social and racial justice with the gang that promoted, enabled, and in some cases even encouraged injustice in charge. And, that goes for all three failed branches of our Federal Government.

George Floyd’s death should never have happened; nor should families be separated, kids put in cages, legal asylum applicants told to rot in Mexico, and Billy Barr be allowed to operate unconstitutional “Star Chambers” masquerading as “courts” (when they are nothing of the sort). The problems in our justice system go much deeper than the Minneapolis Police Department!

Yes, they can be solved! But, not without some new faces, new approaches, and some progressive thinking and input from all of society, particularly our younger generations! You have to believe in equal justice to achieve equal justice! We can’t get there with the current gang of “non-believers” in charge and promoting their failed, and all too often overtly or covertly racially biased, agendas.

Due Process Forever!

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

06-11-20

This November, vote like your life and the lives of many others depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

SESSIONS’S SCOFFLAW ANTI-SANCTUARY CAMPAIGN ENDS IGNOMINIOUSLY WITH WELL-DESERVED BEATDOWN BY COURTS

SESSIONS-HATCHED ATTACK ON CIVIL RIGHTS & HUMANITY OF AMERICA’S LGBTQ COMMUNITY GOES DOWN IN FLAMES

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever. Complicity in Racist Abuses, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever. Complicit, Racism-Enabling Courts, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts That Enable Injustice, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts: