"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Thank you for your prayers and support this week. In the days leading up to Binsar’s habeas hearing on Friday, we are continuing to build momentum and raise our voices to God and to the people who hold secular power.
Today we gathered at the ICE Field Office in Baltimore and held a demonstration. Three of us were able to gain entry into the building and pressed the staff until they agreed to deliver our bix box of printed petitions to the Field Office Director. The District Commander that I spoke to said he had read about the case in the papers, and we should take it to the National Headquarters in DC. So we will (see below.)
Tomorrow, we are driving calls to elected representatives. Our Maryland Congressional Delegation has said that they are on board, yet in the last two weeks they have been reluctant to speak out publicly on Binsar’s behalf. We are asking them to put their names on the line and to stand with our church, regardless of whether they personally think it will affect meaningful change. I have pasted a script below. You can pass this on to other people, as the phone number lets people enter their zip codes and connect to their own state’s congresspeople.
Thursday, we are planning a faith march from Christ UMC in Southwest DC to the ICE National Headquarters. It is a 1 mile walk. We are inviting ecumenical and multifaith people to join us as we deliver four petitions with a combined total of more than 15,000 signatures. We’ll meet at 8:30am at Christ UMC and will leave for the walk at 9am, and will conclude by 10am.
Friday, Binsar’s habeas hearing is at 2:30pm. I implore you to fast and pray with me from sundown on Thursday through the hearing time on Friday. I have invited the Bishop and other conference leaders to do the same. We cannot be there physically because of the court’s restrictions, but we can be in absolute, focused solidarity.
Thank you again, and let’s keep going.
peace,
rev. kara
CONGRESSIONAL PHONE CALL SCRIPT
Universal Phone Number for Any State: 1-844-332-6361 (you can enter your zip code without listening to the whole message)
My name is __, from ___. I’m calling to ask Senator/Representative _________ to personally and publicly intervene to support a Maryland resident. Binsar Siahaan, an asylum-seeker from Indonesia, has lived in Maryland for over 30 years with his family, including two citizen children. ICE lied to Binsar and arrested him on church grounds. This is an unprecedented attack on faith communities and immigrants of faith.
I’m asking that the Senator call ICE Director Pham and express outrage at ICE’s treatment of Binsar, and ask for his immediate release and approval of his stay of removal. I also call on the Senator/Representative to initiate an investigation into ICE’s actions in this case, and hold ICE accountable to its sensitive locations policy.
—
Rev. Kara Scroggins
she/her/hers
*********************
Trump adheres to no religion except that of greed and “unenlightened self-interest.” Meanwhile, communities of faith actually engaged in carrying out Christ’s message of compassion, redemption, and outreach to the most vulnerable are being attacked by Trump’s ICE to carry out a corrupt, immoral political agenda of hate, racism, and dehumanization of ”the other.”
This is just the beginning! According to recent reports, Trump’s campaign appendage ICE plans to launch attacks on communities of color and “Democratic” cities in a perverted (and totally illegal and unethical) attempt to bolster Trump’s floundering re-election campaign!
Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out!
Vote for Biden,Harris and Democrats for the return of human decency, morality, reasonableness, and ethics to Government!
Brittany Bakken, Kelsey Friberg, and I are thrilled to share with you that Matter of HGG has been reversed. Of course, the government will appeal. Nevertheless, a great way to end a Monday.
Hats off to these fierce “Warriors of The New Due Process Army” 🏆⭐️🥇
David Wilson, Esquire Managing Attorney Wilson Law Group, Source: wilsonlg.com
Brittany Bakken, Esquire Senior Attorney Wilson Law Group Source: wilsonlg.comKelsey Friberg, Esquire Associate Attorney Wilson Law Group Source: wilsonlg.com
*****************************
The case is Hernandez v. Barr, USDC D MN
Not only was the USCIS position a violation of the plain meaning of the statute, as found by Chief Judge Tunheim, it is totally stupid from a policy standpoint! With hundreds of thousands of law-abiding TPS recipients in the U.S., integrated into our society, and contributing to our economy, a rational, non-racist, non-xenophobic Administration would welcome and utilize ways of integrating them into our legal immigration system. Instead, the Trump kakistocracy, wastes time, squanders resources, and violates the law looking for bogus ways to “get to no.” How dumb and counterproductive can it get!
Days before they were to go into effect, a federal court in the Northern District of California issued a national injunction blocking a dramatic fee hike for appliations for naturalized citizenship, permanent residency, asylum, and access to other immigration benefits. The new fees would have made immigration benefits unattainable for many. It would have nearly doubled citizenship from $640 to $1,170; increased lawful permanent residency and related application fees from $1,125 to $2,270; and added a $50 fee for asylum applications (the first time a fee has been assessed for asylum applications). The rule would have also eliminated most fee waivers for immigrants who cannot afford to pay the fees.
Judge Jeffrey White ruled that the nonprofit organizations that had challenged the fee increases would be likely to prevail in showing that Wolf’s appointment as Acting Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, without Senate confirmation, violated the rules of succession. As a result, the fees ordered under his stewardship cannot take effect while the litigation progresses. Similar reasoning had been used in a separate lawsuit regarding Ken Cucinelli and his asylum directives.
MHC
*******************************
MHC = Professor Ming Hsu Chen one of the all-star ⭐️ team of bloggers at ImmigrationProf Blog. Thanks, Professor, for this timely item! These illegal and clearly punitive fee increases were scheduled to into effect at the beginning of October!
Ming Hsu Chen Associate Professor of Law Colorado Law Courtesy Appointment in Political Science Ethnic Studies Faculty Affiliate Faculty-Director, Immigration and Citizenship Law Program Photo: ImmmigrationProf/ Col. Law
This is also a great illustration of why, totally contrary to the nonsense GOP party line and folks like GOP-owned Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, the nationwide injunction is an essential tool for achieving justice. According to the GOP’s false dogma, plaintiffs, many pro se, or appearing with pro bono or “low bono” representation, should be required to win their cases before over 650 U.S. District Judges and in 12 Circuits to get effective relief from the Trump regime’s unrelenting war on our Constitution and the rule of law.
While Trump and his GOP toadies and sycophants spout BS platitudes about “law and order” the truth is simple: This is a party of arrogant, immoral “scofflaws” from top to bottom!
This Fall, vote like your life and our future as a nation depend on it! Because they do! Vote the GOP kakistocracy out at every level! Don’t let their dark & dishonest plans become YOUR future!☠️⚰️
Here’s Phil’s obit sent in by retired U.S. Immigration Judge & former senior attorney manager at the BIA Hon. Wayne Stogner. The picture credit of Phil at his desk at the BIA goes to former BIA Attorney Advisor and current contributor to The Hill Nolan Rappaport, a person of multi-talents. The obit is actually based on a summary of Phil’s career prepared by the late BIA Judge Fred W. Vacca for the occasion of Phil’s retirement from the BIA.
Hon. James P. “Phil” Morris 1929 – 2020 Photographed in his BIA Office by Nolan Rappaport
James “Phil” Morris a eight year resident of Annapolis and previously of Alexandria, VA passed away on Wednesday, September 23, 2020. Phil was born on February 4, 1929 in Asheville, NC the youngest of four children to the late Frank and Carrie Morris. Phil attended the local high school and was a young teenager when the World d War II broke out. Phil’s’ older brother, Frank, Jr was already serving in Germany as an Armored Calvary Officer and would made the ultimate sacrifice. He is buried in Belgium. Phil volunteered for military service after high school. He trained in the Army infantry and found himself on a troop carrier headed for Japan at the age of 16. After serving for 13 months in the Army of Occupation, Phil was released from active duty. Once Phil returned to Asheville he began his educational career. He later moved to Washington, DC where he completed his undergraduate studies in foreign affairs at George Washington University. A variety of transition jobs following graduation led to a career in law enforcement when Phil was appointed as a special agent with Office of Naval Intelligence, Washington, DC in 1952. Conducting criminal and security investigations by day and studying law at night at George Washington, Phil was a busy man. Nonetheless, he took time out to marry and rear two daughters, Jean and Karen. Upon graduation from law school and admission to the Bar, Phil continued his employment as a investigator for the Navy. His long-term employment with the United States Department of Justice began in 1961, as a trial attorney in the Criminal Section of the Internal Security Division. He would later become a Deputy Section Chief. In 1973 he transferred to the Criminal Division where he was responsible for the Immigration and Extradition Unit. In 1981, Phil was appointed by the Attorney General of the United States as a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Phil and his current wife, Margaret enjoyed many mutual interests including golf, skiing and travel. Phil also belonged to a poker group that for 50-years gathered on Friday nights to play their beloved game. In December of 2012 Phil and Margaret moved to Bay Woods in Annapolis. They enjoyed meeting new friends and their time spent together. In addition to his parents, Phil was predeceased by his siblings, Frank, Jr, Donald, and Gena Goldmon. He is survived by his wife, Margaret; daughters, Jean Wilson of Frederick, MD and Karen King of Friendswood, TX.
Mass of Christian Burial will be held on Monday, September 28, 2020 at 10:30 am at St. John Neumann Catholic Church, 620 Bestgate Road. Interment to follow with military honors at Resurrection Cemetery, Clinton, MD.
*******************************
I knew Phil for many years going back to my days of officing with the late BIA Judge Lauri Steven Filppu at the BIA during our years as Attorney Advisors from 1973 to 1975. The BIA then was on the top floor of the now long gone “International Safeway Building.” Phil worked for the Government Regulations & Labor Section of the DOJ Criminal Division on a floor below us. Phil was the head of the unit whose job in those days was to defend the BIA’s final decisions in the various U.S. Courts of Appeals. We used to ride the elevator and chat together. I had many future occasions to work with Phil during my time in the “Legacy INS” Office of General Counsel in the late 1970s.
Eventually, the “Gov Regs & Labor Section” “morphed” into the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) and “migrated” to the Civil Division during the “Inman-Schmidt Era” at the “Legacy INS.” By then, Phil had been appointed to the BIA. However, Lauri Filppu, then with the Criminal Division, was part of the group that transferred to OIL where he eventually became Deputy Director.
Phil had retired by the time Lauri and I were appointed to the Board in 1995. However, the three of us were “reunited” when Phil came out of retirement to serve as a Temporary Board Member for a time during my tenure as Chair.
I always remember Phil as a soft-spoken “true gentleman,” thoughtful lawyer, and a good colleague to everyone with whom he worked.
My deepest sympathies to Phil’s wife, Margaret, and their two daughters.
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.
New
Opening dates for non-detained courts:Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, October 16, 2020. [Note: Despite the standing order about practices upon reopening, an opening date has not been announced for NYC non-detained at this time.]
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: EOIR has reorganized its operational status website. The list of individual court statuses and standing orders can now be accessed by scrolling down on the new map page:https://www.justice.gov/eoir-operational-status/operational-status-map. This is especially important for NYC given that the 26 Fed Court website still has an incorrect link for one of three standing orders, but the links are correct on the map page.
Vox: As an appellate court judge, Barrett helped to advance one of Trump’s key immigration policies. She sided with his administration in a case over Trump’s policy imposing a wealth test on the millions of immigrants who seek to come to the US annually. In her whopping 40-page dissent in that case, she laid out why the US has the right to block people who it deems likely to become dependent on public assistance in the future — even if they have never used public assistance in the past.
Courthouse News: Immigration advocacy groups have challenged the rule in California, Massachusetts, and in the District of Columbia, where they asked a federal judge for an injunction in a hearing Thursday. On Friday, it was U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White’s turn to hear arguments on whether the rule should be invalidated. In addition to weighing the competing financial interests at stake, White said the fee hike “raises series issues on constitutional checks and balances and the limit to executive power.”
CBS: In updated guidance on its website on Tuesday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said it would apply the 2019 public charge test to all future and pending green card applications filed after February 24, 2020, when the agency implemented the rule following the Supreme Court’s green light. Applications filed after Daniels’ injunction in July that have been approved will not be re-adjudicated, USCIS said.
Inside Higher Ed: Trump administration proposes revamping visas so students would have to apply for an extension after fixed terms of no more than four years. Some students would have to reapply after two years, depending on their country of origin.
BBC: On Monday Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said his government could take legal action against the US if the allegations were confirmed, Mexican newspaper El Universal reports.
CNN: Immigrants in US custody faced widespread failures in medical care, including some issues that resulted in death, according to a new congressional investigation released Thursday.
NYT: Predictions were that immigrants would stop sending money home when the coronavirus took their jobs. But that did not take into account how determined foreign workers were to help their families.
WNYC: Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 54 immigrants — an extraordinarily high number — from the Essex County Correctional Facility Tuesday for deportation. The jail is the largest facility in the region that contracts with ICE to hold immigrants awaiting hearings or deportations. The population fluctuates from day to day, but it’s unusual to see 54 immigrants removed at once.
The AG ruled that, in reviewing asylum claims, the BIA must examine de novo whether facts found by the IJ meet all statutory requirements, and should review each element of the claim before affirming or independently ordering a grant of asylum. Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20092530
The BIA ruled that in assessing whether to admit expert witness testimony, an IJ should consider whether it is sufficiently relevant and reliable, and if it is admitted, how much weight it should receive, and how probative and persuasive it is. Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20092532
USCIS temporary final rule providing that, from 9/23/20 through 3/22/21, asylum applicants who cannot proceed with the interview in English must ordinarily use DHS-provided telephonic interpreters, due to COVID-19. (85 FR 59655, 9/23/20) AILA Doc. No. 20092202
USCIS announced that following the Second Circuit decision, it will apply the public charge rule and related guidance to all petitions submitted on or after 2/24/20. USCIS will not readjudicate any petitions that were approved following issuance of the 7/29/20 injunction continuing until 9/22/20. AILA Doc. No. 20092204
ICE proposed rule to change the admission period of F, J, and I nonimmigrants from “duration of status” to an admission for a fixed time period. Comments are due 10/26/20. (85 FR 60526, 9/25/20) AILA Doc. No. 20092401
DOS posted the October 2020 visa bulletin. In addition to final action dates and dates for filing for family and employment-based petitions, it contains notes on the DV category, movement of the October final action and application filing dates, visa availability in the coming months, and more. AILA Doc. No. 20092400
CBP issued a notification of the continuation of temporary travel restrictions limiting travel of individuals from Mexico into the United States at land ports of entry along the United States-Mexico border through 10/21/20 due to COVID-19. (85 FR 59669, 9/23/20) AILA Doc. No. 20092331
CBP issued a notification of the continuation of temporary travel restrictions limiting travel of individuals from Canada into the United States at land ports of entry along the United States-Canada border through 10/21/20 due to COVID-19. (85 FR 59670, 9/23/20) AILA Doc. No. 20092330
This page contains resources for members concerning national interest exceptions under President Trump’s June 22, 2020, proclamation (10052) and April 22, 2020, proclamation (10014), and the country-specific COVID-19 travel bans. AILA Doc. No. 20092205
DHS OIG released a report on a 2019 incident that compromised about 184,000 traveler images from CBP’s facial recognition pilot, known as the Vehicle Face System, at ports of entry. Per OIG, CBP “did not adequately safeguard sensitive data on an unencrypted device” using during the pilot program. AILA Doc. No. 20092333
DHS ratification of actions taken by Acting Secretary Chad Wolf between 11/13/19 and 9/10/20, to “resolv[e] any potential defect in the validity of those actions” due to challenges to the legality of his service. (85 FR 59651, 9/23/20) AILA Doc. No. 20092137
DOJ OIG released a report on EOIR’s Recognition and Accreditation Program, finding that OLAP should improve program oversight and administration due to weakness in its controls for approving or rejecting applications, monitoring activities of accredited representatives, and investigating misconduct. AILA Doc. No. 20092233
The House Committee on Homeland Security released a report finding that DHS fails to effectively identify and correct deficient conditions at ICE detention facilities, and that facilities frequently fail to meet basic standards of care, including mental and physical care of the migrants in custody. AILA Doc. No. 20092201
COVID MTC Listserv: Email rexchen@lsnyc.orgto join private discussion among pro-immigrant advocates about immigration court motions during Covid, including continuance motions. You can also fill out the related survey.
Amicus Invitation: Due Date: October 5, 2020: Where the Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP) notice and advisal sheets are not signed nor otherwise acknowledged by the respondent on the record, and the record contains no specific attestation of any kind, from either party, that the respondents received specific advisals adequate to allow them to appear at the scheduled hearing from their location in contiguous territory, is notice of the hearing adequate to satisfy due process?
Bill Barr Consigliere Artist: Pat Bagley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
From the EOIR website:
Garry Malphrus
Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge
Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Garry Malphrus as a deputy chief appellate immigration judge in September 2020. Judge Malphrus earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1989 from the University of South Carolina and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the University of South Carolina. From August 2008 to September 2020, he served on the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, including as acting board chairman from October 2019 to May 2020. From 2005 to 2008, he served as an immigration judge at the Arlington Immigration Court. From 2001 to 2005, he served as associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. From 1997 to 2001, he worked for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which included serving as chief counsel and staff director on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight and the Subcommittee on the Constitution. From 1995 to 1997, Garry served as a law clerk for the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd, U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina. From 1994 to 1995, he was a law clerk for the Honorable William W. Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. From 1993 to 1994, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Judge for South Carolina. Judge Malphrus is a member of the South Carolina Bar.
****************
No surprise here, folks, as Courtside had predicted this back in May:
This appears to be the “penultimate step” in the ongoing process of “benching” the long-time “holdover” Vice Chair Chuck Adkins-Blanch. First, he was “passed over” when Judge Malphrus became the BIA’s Acting Chair following the hasty departure of former Chair David Neal. Now, Malphrus basically has been “layered in” to be the “real Deputy,” who will faithfully continue to carry out Billy’s nativist political agenda, presumably until Adkins-Blanch reaches retirement and finally pulls the plug.
Needless to say, Judge Adkins-Blanch’s name has been conspicuously absent from the BIA’s most recent barrage of anti-immigrant, anti-asylum “precedents.” That is, of course, the “precedents” that Billy lets the BIA write as opposed to the ones that he and his fellow political hacks at “Main DOJ” issue as “AG precedents.”
More and more, the AG, whom nobody except, perhaps, a few intentionally tone-deaf Circuit Court of Appeals Judges, would mistake for an “expert” in immigration law, has taken over the BIA’s precedent setting function. That leaves the BIA basically to do the “mop-up work” of maximizing the impact of Billy’s anti-immigrant policies and insuring that just and fair results below favoring immigrants are reversed upon demand of “EOIR’s masters” at DHS Enforcement.
Talk about the need for an Article I Court with a new cast of characters selected on a merit basis for their demonstrated immigration expertise, and established commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, human rights, and practical applied scholarship! That so many Article III judges continue to “go along to get along” with this vile legal charade says some pretty sad things about the overall state of justice and the judiciary in America!
An Article I Court requires judicial leadership that replaces “built to fail ‘Vatican Style’ (or “Legacy INS Style”) hierarchical bureaucracy” with professional court administration and a much “leaner and flatter” judicial structure. A judicial structure where most resources are devoted to actually fairly and efficiently deciding cases, establishing “best practices,” and leading by example. That would eliminate the “Mickey Mouse” demeaning “control freak supervision (“suppression”)” of supposedly senior level “judges” who, if properly selected, would need effective support, but little to no “supervision” in the normal bureaucratic sense of the term.
In the meantime, expect the backlog to grow unabated and the Article IIIs to continue to reverse and return an essentially random selection of the BIA’s reliably “one-sided” jurisprudence for “redos!” That will further increase the backlog without effectively addressing the fundamental problem of an unconstitutional system with a clearly established anti-immigrant political bias!
Just more signs of an Americanjustice system now in the throes of institutional failure!
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in the Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020)
(1) In assessing whether to admit the testimony of a witness as an expert, an Immigration Judge should consider whether it is sufficiently relevant and reliable for the expert to offer an informed opinion, and if it is admitted, the Immigration Judge should then consider how much weight the testimony should receive.
(2) In considering how much weight to give an expert’s testimony, the Immigration Judge should assess how probative and persuasive the testimony is regarding key issues in dispute for which the testimony is being offered.
PANEL:MALPHRUS, MULLANE, and CREPPY , Appellate Immigration Judges.
OPINION BY: MALPHRUS, Appellate Immigration Judge
*************
In this case, the BIA sent an asylum grant well-supported by expert opinion back to the IJ for no particular reason other than the DHS didn’t like the result.
The message: The IJ should always look for reasons to disallow, disbelieve, or diminish the weight of the asylum applicant’s persuasive evidence. The IJ should always be looking for “any reason to deny” asylum applications because that’s what Billy wants from his wholly-owned. “judges.”
To quote my friend and Round Table colleague retired IJ Jeffrey S. Chase:
[The BIA], McHenry, and Barr are engaging in tag-team destruction of asylum.So this gives the signal to ignore country experts when their opinions support grants of asylum.Which was stated more explicitly in the proposed 161-page asylum regs.And then if the IJ relies on the DOS report, the Board or AG will say the quoted passage was too vague and generalized to support a finding of social distinction or nexus.
The good news is that a number of brigades of the NDPA are hard at work on comprehensive alternative expert country reports that are much more accurate and well-documented than current DOS propaganda. A number of Courts of Appeals already have “called out” the BIA for routinely ignoring evidence and expert opinions favorable to asylum applicants.
I certainly hope they will see through and expose this rather transparent attempt to further “game the system” against asylum applicants. Actually, under the U.N. Handbook asylum seekers are supposed to receive the “benefit of the doubt.” But, not from this scofflaw regime and their toadies masquerading as “judges.”
It’s also worth noting that this case has already been pending for almost a decade. Obviously, time is no object for EOIR when it comes to looking for ways to deny asylum.
To Trump and his core enablers and supporters, the laws of Trump Nation authorize him to do whatever he wants. Anti-Trump Nation’s laws constrain him, but they’re illegitimate because they are made and enforced by the people who reject him.
If he loses the election, Trump will not accept the result because it would be the product of Anti-Trump Nation
So Trump’s call to the president of Ukraine seeking help with the election was “perfect”. It was fine for Russia to side with him in 2016, and it’s fine for it to do so again. And of course the justice department, postal service and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should help him win re-election. They’re all aiding Trump Nation.
By a similar twisted logic, Anti-Trump Nation is dangerous. Hence, says Trump, the armed teenager who killed two in Kenosha, Wisconsin, acted in “self-defense”, yet the suspected killer of a rightwinger in Portland deserved the “retribution” he got when federal marshals killed him.
It follows that if he loses the election, Trump will not accept the result because it would be the product of Anti-Trump Nation, and Trump isn’t the president of people who would vote against him. As he recently claimed, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.”
In the warped minds of Trump and his acolytes, this could lead to civil war. Just this week he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power. His consigliere Roger Stone urges him to declare “martial law” if he loses. Michael Caputo, assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, warns “the shooting will begin” when Trump refuses to go.
Civil war is unlikely, but the weeks and perhaps months after election day will surely be fraught. Even if Trump is ultimately forced to relinquish power, his core adherents will continue to view him as their leader. If he retains power, many if not most Americans will consider his presidency illegitimate.
So whatever happens, Trump’s megalomaniacal ego will prevail. America will have come apart over him, and Trump Nation will have seceded from Anti-Trump Nation.
Perhaps ironically, the pro-democracy, pro-health care, pro-environment, pro-jobs, pro-science, more fiscally responsible Government promoted by Biden & Harris will help “Trump Nation” much more than anything in Trump’s tiny and overwhelmingly negative book of “achievements.” Even the pre-pandemic economy that Trump and his cult like to tout was as at least as much Obama as Trump.
Vote like your life and our future depend on it. Because they do!
The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.
Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.
He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.
As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing, his finances are under stress, beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed. Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million.
The tax returns that Mr. Trump has long fought to keep private tell a story fundamentally different from the one he has sold to the American public. His reports to the I.R.S. portray a businessman who takes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year yet racks up chronic losses that he aggressively employs to avoid paying taxes. Now, with his financial challenges mounting, the records show that he depends more and more on making money from businesses that put him in potential and often direct conflict of interest with his job as president.
The New York Times has obtained tax-return data extending over more than two decades for Mr. Trump and the hundreds of companies that make up his business organization, including detailed information from his first two years in office. It does not include his personal returns for 2018 or 2019. This article offers an overview of The Times’s findings; additional articles will be published in the coming weeks.
The returns are some of the most sought-after, and speculated-about, records in recent memory. In Mr. Trump’s nearly four years in office — and across his endlessly hyped decades in the public eye — journalists, prosecutors, opposition politicians and conspiracists have, with limited success, sought to excavate the enigmas of his finances. By their very nature, the filings will leave many questions unanswered, many questioners unfulfilled. They comprise information that Mr. Trump has disclosed to the I.R.S., not the findings of an independent financial examination. They report that Mr. Trump owns hundreds of millions of dollars in valuable assets, but they do not reveal his true wealth. Nor do they reveal any previously unreported connections to Russia.
. . . .
*****************
Read the full report at the link.
Duh! According to NBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, an American who actually worked for a living and made $18,000 would pay $760 in taxes.
Not much of a surprise to those familiar with Trump’s endemic lies, corruption, and dishonesty. You can be sure that whatever lies and misdirection Trump spews forth about this report, it will have little or nothing to do with truth.
Sorry for the small print. But, well worth the read.
Compare the courage and fidelity to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice for all, and defense of human dignity demonstrated by brilliant lawyers like Michelle Mendez, Aimee Mayer Salins (former BIA JLC), and the terrific CAIR litigators with the warped right wing, anti-constitutional, anti-humanity jurisprudence of Trump’s Supreme Court choice, Judge Amy Coney Barrett:
Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.
There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.
In other words, guns yes; human rights and human dignity, no! Some lawyers spend their lives saving lives and advancing humanity; others spend them pursuing and spreading anti-humanitarian, right wing dogmas. Why are commitments to cruelty, inhumanity, and a fundamentally unjust society things to “tout” in a judicial candidate? You need to look inside the deep perversity of the GOP minority who control our nation and are running it into the ground to get the answer.
There are thousands of progressive lawyers, many of them women and minorities, committed to standing up for equal justice for all who are better qualified than Judge Barrett. There is something wrong with a system that elevates the wrong people to the judiciary and other high offices.
It’s time to establish meritocracy and save our democracy. Vote to throw the GOP out of office and end the selection of far-right judges whose reactionary views and lack of empathy for the most vulnerable in society are far outside both the reality of our diverse nation and our future as a vibrant, progressive democracy that will promote equal justice and human rights at home and abroad!
Keep the future Judge Barretts where they belong — on the sidelines and in the margins of our legal system, while those with a better view of the Constitution, the rule of law, and human progress take their rightful places in positions of power and progressive influence in all there branches of our Government.
Judge Barrett parrots great admiration for RBG while aiming to trash her legacy of fairness and equality with a far-right, exclusive, intolerant agenda. In the future, we need Federal Judges who will constantly confront Judge Barrett, her soon-to-be-fellow GOP Supremes, and other righty judges bent on taking us back to the darkest corners of our past. Make them face the truly courageous and enlightened legacy of RBG and others like her. Force the “Barretts of the world” to reckon with their own smugly disingenuous jurisprudence and their lack of commmitment to humanity and true equality before the law for all persons in the U.S.! Constantly confront complicit courts for change!
Better judges for a better, fairer America!
This Fall, vote like your life and the future of humanity depend on it! Because they do!
I am a lawyer specializing in asylum and refugee law. I have taught refugee law at George Washington University, University of San Francisco and Howard University. I have worked with the U.S. government and the UN Refugee Agency in refugee resettlement all over the world, most recently in Rwanda until COVID shut down our interviews.
In 2011 I self-published my legal memoir, My Trials: Inside America’s Deportation Factories, focusing upon the deportation system and my time as an immigration judge. It is time to update the book, given all the changes and destructive policies that have occured in recent years to our asylum system. The book received great reviews: “My Trials is both a scathing indictment of a broken immigration system that sends vulnerable immigrants back to perilous situations from which they fled, and a heartfelt call for a return to the values upon which our nation was founded.” American Immigration Lawyers Association. It was endorsed by renowned criminal defense attorney Gerry Spence.
The budget will include $2000 for editing and formatting, and $3000 for a limited publicity campaign. I am currently working with an editor to make the book available on Amazon by first week of October, so funds are essential now. It will be available on all other platforms mid-October.
This book has been a labor of love and education, and I have not profited from it. I will be tremendously grateful for assistance to make this updated book available at this critical junction in our nation’s history.
Click here it contribute to Paul’s “Go Fund Me” Campaign:
Judge, educator, public servant, humanitarian, author, role model, tireless advocate for due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all: Thanks, Paul, for all you have done and continue to do. It’s a total honor to serve with you on the Round Table!🛡⚔️👍🏼
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHonorable Joan Churchill Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member Round Table of Retired JudgesHon. Cecelia M.Espenoza Former Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA Source: Denverdemocrats.orgHon. Rebecca Jamil U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Source: Twitter
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is composed of 47 former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We were appointed by and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have centuries of com- bined experience adjudicating asylum applications and appeals. Our members include nation- ally-respected experts on asylum law; many regularly lecture at law schools and conferences and author articles on the topic.
Our members issued decisions encompassing wide-ranging interpretations of our asylum laws during our service on the bench. Whether or not we ultimately reached the correct result, those decisions were always exercised according to our “own understanding and conscience,”1 and not in acquiescence to the political agenda of the party or administration under which we served.
We as judges understood that whether or not we agreed with the intent of Congress, we were still bound to follow it. The same is true of the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and for that matter, the President.
INTRODUCTION
Initially we note that the current practice of reducing the time for notice and comment, severely undermines the ability for the public to digest and comment on rules. The reduction of time to
1 See Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266-67 (1954). 1
30 days violates the intent of Congress to give full deliberation to regulatory changes. As experi- enced adjudicators, we are in a unique position to contextualize these changes, but even with our experience, the breadth of these proposed regulations should allow for additional time to review and comment.
Next, we note that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), contains changes that continue to diminish the role and function of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) as an independent adjudicatory body free from political pressure. For example, the granting of certification author- ity to judges who are supposed to be subject to the appellate review of the BIA, does not further the objectives of finality or due process. Further, these rules are slanted in ways that diminish actions and take away tools used by Immigration Judges and Board to manage dockets and en- sure consideration of changed circumstances that might arise for either party. Under the NPRM, the Department of Homeland Security is invited to utilize unlimited power to reopen cases for negative information, and all opportunity for respondents to obtain reopening for new infor- mation have been removed.
In our review we do not object to the clarifications and changes regarding: 1) finality; 2) the ex- pansion of the authority to grant voluntary departure to the BIA; and 3) having cases that only need security checks being placed on hold by the BIA.
However, we do object to: 1) the proposed shortened briefing schedule; 2) simultaneous briefing in non-detained cases; 3) the prohibition from receiving new evidence on appeal, remanding a case for the immigration judge to consider new evidence in the course of adjudicating an appeal, or considering a motion to remand based on new evidence; 4) the elimination of the ability of immigration judges to consider issues beyond the express scope of the remand; 5) giving Immi- gration Judges Certification Authority over BIA decisions; 5) the proposed elimination of admi- nistrative closures; 6) the proposed elimination of the delegation of sua sponte reopening author- ity; 7) removal of BIA certification authority; 8) the imposition of new deadlines and timeframes for adjudication of appeals with those failing to be adjudicated in the specified time being re- ferred to the EOIR Director for adjudication; and 9) the elimination of Immigration Judge review of transcripts.
In short, there is little in the NPRM, that furthers the interests of ensuring a fair and neutral adju- dication. We are concerned with the overall diminishment of the BIA as an appellate body.
Read the full 17-page comment with the names of all the signers here:
The Attorney General has issued a decision in Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020)
In conducting its review of an alien’s asylum claim, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) must examine de novo whether the facts found by the immigration judge satisfy all of the statutory elements of asylum as a matter of law. See Matter of R‑A‑F‑, 27 I&N Dec. 778 (A.G. 2020).
When reviewing a grant of asylum, the Board should not accept the parties’ stipulations to, or failures to address, any of the particular elements of asylum—including, where necessary, the elements of a particular social group. Instead, unless it affirms without opinion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i), the Board should meaningfully review each element of an asylum claim before affirming such a grant, or before independently ordering a grant of asylum. See Matter of L‑E‑A‑, 27 I&N Dec. 581, 589 (A.G. 2019).
Even if an applicant is a member of a cognizable particular social group and has suffered persecution, an asylum claim should be denied if the harm inflicted or threatened by the persecutor is not “on account of” the alien’s membership in that group. That requirement is especially important to scrutinize where the asserted particular social group encompasses many millions of persons in a particular society.
An alien’s membership in a particular social group cannot be “incidental, tangential, or subordinate to the persecutor’s motivation . . . [for] why the persecutor[] sought to inflict harm.” Matter of A‑B‑, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 338 (A.G. 2018) (citations omitted). Accordingly, persecution that results from personal animus or retribution generally does not support eligibility for asylum.
To state the obvious, “personal animus” and “retribution” often are involved in cases where race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social, or political opinion is “at least one central reason” for the persecution. That’s what the “mixed motive” doctrine is all about.
Look at Nazi Germany where many of the persecutors stood to gain personally or professionally or to extract retribution from the removal of their Jewish neighbors or former colleagues from society. What do you think happened to the property, possessions, and positions of those sent off to be gassed?
Billy the Bigot’s unethical, illegal, and immoral attempt to rewrite asylum law is part and parcel of the “any reason to deny” program aimed disproportionally at women (probably the “most persecuted social group in the world“) and applicants of color. Yet, time and again, Article III Courts fail to effectively “call out” this racism and misogyny driving an illegal rewrite of asylum laws! Asylum is intended to “protect, not reject.”
Also to state the obvious, this decision makes party stipulations, a key to fairly reducing the backlog and achieving justice in an adversary system, meaningless. Applied across the board, this would basically disable the American justice system at both the Federal and State levels.
But, of course, the Bigot’s real intent is to dump on asylum seekers, who tend to be individuals of color. The same standards won’t necessarily be applied when the interests of certain privileged White folks are at stake. It’s the unconstitutional, intentionally “unequal justice system” promoted by the GOP.
It’s another example of “Dred Scottification” of minorities and the most vulnerable by the regime and the Federal Courts. Once, a better qualified Supremes required the Executive to carry out the statutory mandate of a generous asylum system that complied with international standards (INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca). Now, it’s all about the Supremes’ majority’s furthering the regime’s White Nationalist agenda!
The Supremes’ GOP majority has been too intellectually dishonest and past Dem Administrations too “willfully dense” to connect the dots. But, this type of neo-Fascist nonsense by a bigot totally unqualified for public office, let alone purporting to serve in a quasi-judicial capacity, is a gross violation of established ethical standards that ties directly into the breakdown in the fabric of our society in a crescendo of racism, bigotry, false narratives, public mistrust, and authoritarianism! Lawyers with immigration and human rights experience recognize this, even if others are blind — whether willfully or negligently.
There is no excuse for an intentionally enfeebled, intellectually dishonest, and too often anti-democracy Federal Judiciary that has failed to hold Trump, Barr, Wolf, Miller, Francisco, and other other members of the anti-democracy, Jim Crow movement that drives today’s GOP accountable for their unethical, unconstitutional conduct, overt racism, and other gross misdeeds!
Better judges for a better America! Vote the kakistocracy out this Fall and usher in the age of the “Radical Progressive Humanitarian Judiciary” before it’s too late! Equal justice applies to all persons, not just Billy the Bigot’s favored, largely White male, class.
Convicted felons get reduced sentenced and motions to dismiss charges. Corrupt public officials avoid the law and mock ethical standards. Refugees of color get banishment and death!
The Center for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at Georgetown Law announces that it is now accepting applications for its annual fellowship program in clinical legal education. CALS will offer one lawyer a two year teaching fellowship (July 2020 June 2022), providing a unique opportunity to learn how to teach law in a clinical setting.
At CALS, our two fellows and faculty members work as colleagues, sharing responsibilities for designing and teaching classes, supervising law students in their representation of clients, selecting and grading students, administering the clinic, and all other matters. In addition, the fellow will undertake independent legal scholarship, conducting the research and writing to produce a law review article of publishable quality.
This fellowship is particularly suitable for lawyers with some degree of practice experience who now want to embark upon careers in law teaching. Most of our previous fellows are now teaching law or have done so for substantial portions of their careers.
Since 1995, CALS has specialized in immigration law, specifically in asylum practice, and our docket focuses on presenting asylum claims in immigration court. Applicants with experience in U.S. immigration law will therefore, be given preference. The fellow must be a member of a bar at the start of the fellowship period.
The fellow will receive full tuition and fees in the LL.M. program at Georgetown University, and a stipend of 57,000 in the first year and 60,000 in the second year. On successful completion of the requirements, the Fellow will be granted the degree of Master of Laws (Advocacy) with distinction.
To apply, send a resume, an official or unofficial law school transcript, a writing sample, and a detailed statement of interest (approximately 5 pages). The materials must arrive by December 2, 2019. The statement should address: a) why you are interested in this fellowship; b) what you can contribute to the Clinic; c) your experience with asylum and other immigration cases; d) your professional or career goals for the next five or ten years; e) your reactions to the Clinic’s goalsand teaching methods as described on its website, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/experiential-learning/clinics/center-for-applied-legal-studies/; and f) anything else that you consider pertinent. Address your application to Directors, Center for Applied Legal Studies, Georgetown Law, 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Suite 332, Washington, D.C. 20001, or electronically to lawcalsclinic@georgetown.edu.
Georgetown University is an equal opportunity affirmative action employer. We are committed to diversity in the workplace. If you have any questions, call CALS at (202) 662-9565 or email to lawcalsclinic@georgetown.edu.
*******************************************
Great opportunity, at a great school, with great Clinical Professors! (Full disclosure: I am an Adjunct Professor @ Georgetown Law.)
The “CALS Alumni List Above” reads like the “All-Star Team of Social Justice.” They are doing great things and teaching others, literally from coast to coast.
There is only one place where they can’t be found – yet! That’s the Federal Government, particularly our failing Federal Judiciary!
One of the reasons our nation is in turmoil, governed by a kakistocracy, with failing institutions, is the glaring lack of immigration and human rights expertise and the concomitant courageous commitment to Constitutional principles of Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, Equal Justice for All, and practical problem solving that it brings! The stunning and disgraceful lack of all these necessary qualities for a successful, prosperous, vibrant 21st Century democratic republic runs throughout the Executive, Legislature, and particularly the Judiciary – including both the Article IIIs and the “wannabes” (like Immigration “Courts” that don’t function like “courts” but could be fixed with better leadership and a merit-based judiciary.)
So, what about teaching and advocacy? Aren’t they supposed to be the goals of CALS? Well, as once pointed out to me by a colleague, judges are teachers and courtrooms at every level also function as classrooms. And, advocacy? Well, what is great judging if not a form of unswerving fearless advocacy for due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all?
There is no doubt that CALS and similar programs at other institutions have played a seminal role in improving advocacy. Today’s leading immigration advocates are superstars in what has become the most important field in today’s law – one that combines intellectual challenge with practical humanity, all in the context of the highest stakes imaginable for individuals, our nation, and our world.
But, too often today that great advocacy is falling on the tone-deaf ears of a non-responsive, non-representative, far right-wing judiciary selected for their commitment to a cruel, exclusive, basically anti-Constitutional, and often virulently anti-democracy agenda. In this toxic context, even the greatest advocacy becomes largely an exercise in futility. It’s past time for the leading lights of immigration and human rights advocacy, many of them CALS alums, to penetrate the Federal Judiciary and eventually dominate it.
To survive, prosper, and lead into the future, our diverse and talented nation needs a “radical progressive humanitarian judiciary.” So, my advice to those of you wanting to lead the way to a better and more just future: Get your CALS Fellowship Application in now! Prepare yourself aggressively to seek political, governmental, and judicial power and progressively to use it for the common good!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify the latest information on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.
New
Opening dates for non-detained courts: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, October 9, 2020. [Note: Despite the standing order about practices upon reopening, an opening date has not been announced for NYC non-detained at this time.]
DocumentedNY: In July 2020, judges in New York City’s immigration courts completed 273 cases combined, a fraction of the estimated 2,200 cases completed in July 2019. While the judges were slowing down, ICE filed over 100,000 new immigration cases nationwide during just the first two-and-a-half months of the current shutdown.
Guardian: Immigrants in a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) detention center in Georgia are being subjected to horrific conditions and treatment, including “jarring medical neglect” and a high rate of hysterectomies among women, according to a whistleblower complaint filed by several legal advocacy groups on behalf of a nurse who works there.
Gothamist: The march calling for the abolition of ICE hadn’t gone more than a few blocks through Lower Manhattan on Thursday afternoon when NYPD officers ran into the crowd, tackling marchers to the ground, and taking them into custody.
Daily News: A security guard flashed her gun at Abolish ICE protesters who stormed inside a federal building in Lower Manhattan, video posted on social media shows.
ProPublica: Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department inspectors general are investigating allegations that ICE guards assaulted detainees in camera blind spots.
NPR: The Trump administration has undertaken more than 400 executive actions on immigration, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Those include tougher border and interior enforcement, restricting asylum, rolling back Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), slashing refugee visas, streamlining immigration courts and creating Remain in Mexico.
CNN: The nomination hearing comes as courts and the Government Accountability Office have raised concerns about the legitimacy of Wolf’s appointment to lead DHS. Over the objections of the department, the GAO stood by its August opinion that Wolf and his deputy Ken Cuccinelli were appointed as part of an “invalid order of succession.”
NPR: The 9th Circuit Appeals Court’s decision affects citizens from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Sudan, many of whom have lived in the U.S. for decades, have U.S.-born children and have been considered essential workers during the coronavirus pandemic. At issue is the termination of temporary protected status, a form of humanitarian relief created by Congress and administered by the Department of Homeland Security.
TRAC: These included nearly a million filings by immigrants previously present in the court files TRAC received that had gone missing. The resulting public outcry caused the EOIR to restore most of these records but persistent problems remained: each month, new records continued to disappear.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to update and clarify the procedures USCIS officers follow when termination of asylum status is considered in relation to adjudicating an asylum-based adjustment of status application.
Finding that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their challenge to Presidential Proclamation 10052, a district court judge in D.C. held that injunctive relief would not remedy plaintiffs’ claimed irreparable harms or be in the public interest. (Panda, et al. v. Wolf, et al., 9/16/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091804
The district court preliminarily enjoined the defendants from enforcing a subset of the new asylum employment authorization document (EAD) rules as applied to individual members of Casa de Maryland and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. (Casa de Maryland, Inc., et al. v. Wolf, et al., 9/11/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091507
Granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, a federal district court in New York concluded that President Trump’s July 2020 memo exceeded the authority of the president and constituted an ultra vires violation of the statutes. (State of New York, et al. v. Trump, et al., 9/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091400
Unpublished BIA decision holds that 2004 conviction for third degree grand larceny under N.Y.P.L. 155.35 is not a CIMT under Obeya v. Sessions, 884 F .3d 442 (2d Cir. 2018). Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Diaz Ortiz, 4/13/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091404
Unpublished BIA decision finds conviction vacated under Calif. Penal Code 1473.7(3) is no longer valid for immigration purposes. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Antunez Delgado, 4/29/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091800
Unpublished BIA decision rejects DHS argument that the respondent’s conviction remained valid for immigration purposes because the state court order vacating conviction was drafted by his attorney. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Fearon, 4/17/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091607
Unpublished BIA decision reopens proceedings sua sponte for respondent with TPS to adjust status in light of intervening decision in Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017). Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Castellanos, 4/14/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091505
Unpublished BIA decision holds that Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga, 26 I&N Dec. 847 (BIA 2016), does not apply retroactively to convictions for theft under Texas Penal Code 31.03. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Ozougwu, 4/9/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091403
Unpublished BIA decision holds that burglary of building under Texas Pen. Code 30.02 is not a CIMT because the target offense is not an element and could include simple assault. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of De Leon Gonzalez, 4/15/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091506
Unpublished BIA decision equitably tolls the MTR deadline and terminates proceedings where respondent filed motion more than two years after Ninth Circuit decision holding that conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Dang, 5/7/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091801
Unpublished BIA decision remands for further consideration of ineffective assistance claim in light of evidence submitted on appeal that the respondent’s complaint against his prior attorney was referred to a disciplinary committee. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Nguyen, 4/22/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091608
The court held that although the district court correctly found that Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice had Article III standing to sue over USCIS’s denial of N-648 waivers, it did not fall within the zone of interests of the INA, the APA, or the Due Process Clause. (Moya v. DHS, 9/15/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091612
The court rejected Matter of Castro-Tum’s conclusion that administrative closure is not within an IJ’s authority to take “any action” appropriate and necessary for the disposition of cases pursuant to 8 CFR §1003.10(b). (Meza Morales v. Barr, 6/26/20, amended 9/3/20) AILA Doc. No. 20070207
Upholding the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the court held that the BIA did not err in determining that the petitioner had failed to show he would more likely than not be tortured if removed to Bangladesh. (Ahmed v. Barr, 9/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091604
The court issued a panel decision vacating a district court’s preliminary injunction to terminate TPS designations of Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, and El Salvador. (Ramos v. Wolf, 9/14/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091405
The court reversed and vacated the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s injunction barring ICE from issuing detainers based solely on searches of electronic databases to make probable cause determinations of removability. (Gonzalez, et al. v. ICE, et al., 9/11/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091500
The court held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s conclusion that the government of El Salvador was willing and able to control the Mara-18 gang that attacked the petitioner and killed his son, and found that the gang continues to be a threat. (J.R. v. Barr, 9/11/20) AILA Doc. No. 20091605
The court held that the BIA erred by not reviewing the IJ’s factual findings for clear error, as required by 8 CFR §1003.1(d)(3)(i), when it reversed the IJ’s grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Guerra v. Barr, 3/3/20, amended 9/11/20) AILA Doc. No. 20030632
USCIS announced updates to some design features of the USCIS online account creation process to make it easier for representatives to link certain paper-filed cases to newly-created online accounts; to identify which paper-filed forms are eligible for online linking; and more. AILA Doc. No. 20091809
On September 18, 2020, DHS updated its fact sheet on measures to limit non-essential travel across the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders and to limit the spread of the coronavirus. The measures have been extended until October 21, 2020. AILA Doc. No. 20032336
USCIS updated guidance in its Policy Manual regarding the residency requirements for children and spouses of service members or U.S. government employees stationed overseas to acquire citizenship under INA §320, as amended by the Citizenship for Children of Military Members and Civil Servants Act. AILA Doc. No. 20092130
