🇺🇸⚖️STRAIGHT TALK FROM HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: “[F]or decades the BIA has enforced the offensive, outdated message to women seeking protection from such abuse that ‘this is not their world.’ The time has come to finally put an end to this sad substitute for true administrative appellate review.”

Trial by Ordeal — Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/4/6/the-bias-mansplaining-of-gender-based-asylum

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

The BIA’s Mansplaining of Gender-Based Asylum

“Every woman knows what I’m talking about. It’s the presumption that makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field; that keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”

Rebecca Solnit, Men Explain Things to Me

On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision in Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland. The opening sentences of the decision are heartbreaking:

Since the age of five, Petitioner has been told that men will beat her if she does not submit. Her mother demanded that she learn how to do housework, how to accept spousal abuse, and how “to obey everything that [her] husband would say.” She beat Petitioner with various objects almost daily, in part to prepare her for future beatings from her husband.

But along with the darkness there was also hope. The decision’s opening paragraph concludes: “Yet Petitioner came to believe that ‘there should be equality in opinions[] and in worth’ between men and women. She became a teacher.”

Remarkably, over all the years that followed, the Petitioner’s hope survived the most brutal attempts to crush her into silence and submission. As her mother had foreseen, she endured unspeakable and repeated forms of physical and psychological torture, including beatings and rape, at the hands of her husband. Yet she continued to express the belief in her rights as an equal, and was brutally punished each time she did so, in an attempt to destroy the part of her capable of forming such belief. Neither the police nor her own family offered her any possibility of protection.

When she finally succeeded in escaping to the U.S., her abuse continued, merely transferred to the hands of another domestic partner with whom she had three children in this country. In 2017, our government deported both her and her latest abuser. Facing the prospect of continued harm in her native Mexico, her still unbroken hope guided her to the U.S. once again, where she was placed into removal proceedings.

Her hope was briefly rewarded when an Immigration Judge granted the Petitioner asylum, ruling that her persecution was on account of her feminist political opinion. The Immigration Judge alternatively held that asylum was warranted on account of the Petitioner’s membership in the particular social group consisting of “Mexican females,” which formed at least one central reason for her persecution.

It isn’t clear why ICE appealed the IJ’s decision. On appeal, the BIA acknowledged the Petitioner’s honesty and the ongoing, systemic nightmare of violence she endured because of her gender and unbroken belief that she possessed rights. And yet the BIA chose to act like a rubber stamp for the administration it served, and found a way to reverse the IJ’s well-reasoned decision. According to a concurring opinion of the circuit court, the BIA managed this by suggesting that the Petitioner’s brutal suffering was motivated by her “personal relationship” with her abuser. According to the concurrence, the BIA supported this conclusion by relying on the decision of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in Matter of A-B-.

Of course, asylum applications require an individualized analysis of the facts of the specific case under consideration. Matter of A-B- involved a different asylum seeker from a different country who experienced different facts than this petitioner. So in citing A-B- to reach a conclusion so at odds with the facts of this case, the BIA’s judges were signaling their choice of a specific policy objective over their duty to neutrally apply law to specific facts.

Among the facts the BIA chose to ignore was the opinion of an expert who drew “on more than three decades of research, writing, legal representation, and lawmaking” in support of her conclusion. The expert, Prof. Nancy Lemon of the Univ. of Cal. – Berkeley Law School, explained how all of the weapons at abusers’ disposal are “tied to social belief systems that ‘men are entitled to dominate and control women because the male sex is considered superior.’” Prof. Lemon went into great detail in explaining the political nature of the mistreatment. Of course, it mattered not to the Board.

In discussing this case, an esteemed colleague pointed to a decision that the same court issued more than three decades ago. In 1987, in an opinion authored by Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., a conservative Reagan appointee, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a Salvadoran woman subjected to repeated sexual abuse and other violence by a sergeant in the Salvadoran military had been persecuted on account of her political opinion where the abuser threatened to falsely label her a “subversive if she refused to submit to his abuse.”1 In the words of Judge Noonan, the fact that the persecutor gave the asylum seeker “the choice of being subjected to physical injury and rape or being killed as a subversive does not alter the significance of political opinion…” The decision reversed the conclusion of the BIA that “the evidence attests to mistreatment of an individual, not persecution,” precisely the same finding the Board used more than three decades later in denying Ms. Rodriguez Tornes of her grant of asylum.

In 1993, Justice Samuel Alito, then sitting at the Third Circuit, wrote that “we have little doubt that feminism qualifies as a political opinion within the meaning of the relevant statutes.”2 28 years later, the Ninth Circuit cited Justice Alito’s words in Rodriguez Tornes, adding that it had reached the same conclusion in its own unpublished 1996 decision.3 These were obviously not the decisions of liberal judges forwarding a political agenda. To the contrary, these judges were able to transcend political ideology by neutrally applying law to facts; this is what judges do. As a result, the law of asylum has progressed to increasingly provide asylum protection to victims of domestic abuse. Immigration Judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic administrations have followed suit, authoring well-reasoned decisions granting asylum in numerous cases of domestic abuse, including this one.

Yet over the same period of time, the BIA has stubbornly refused to budge from its 1980s position that domestic abuse is simply a personal matter not linked to a political opinion within society. In the words of Jeff Sessions in Matter of A-B-, the vile abuse was simply due to the abuser’s “preexisting personal relationship with the victim.”4

When a mother feels compelled to begin abusing her five year old daughter to prepare her to obey her husband one day, can the inevitable spousal abuse that follows really be dismissed as just a personal matter? And when the record contained Prof. Lemon’s evidence (because expert testimony is evidence) of “a correlation between patriarchal norms that support male dominance and violence against women by intimate partners,” what unsupported overconfidence did the BIA’s judges rely on in explaining that they know better?

The BIA decided this case during the Trump Administration. For those hoping that the change in administration will usher in a change in the Board’s view, it bears noting that neither the Clinton nor Obama administrations brought about a sea change in the Board’s approach to domestic violence claims. Under Clinton, the BIA issued Matter of R-A-,5 a precedent that essentially precluded the granting of asylum to domestic violence victims based on their membership in a particular social group. The decision was vacated by then-Attorney General Janet Reno, who promised more enlightened regulations on the issue that never arrived. Similar regulations were rumored to be in the works under Eric Holder, but again did not materialize. The BIA’s one grudging concession to the political climate of the Obama era, Matter of A-R-C-G-, was later vacated by Jeff Sessions. While the BIA discussed a second decision under Obama expanding on the narrow holding of A-R-C-G-, it too never came to be.

Based on that history, it seems safe to say that without drastic action by Attorney General Merrick Garland, the BIA will continue issuing the same denials for the same reasons as before. For every individual such as Ms. Rodriguez Tornes who is able to succeed on appeal, there are countless more who merely end up as stratistics, deported to face more of the horrendous abuse that drove them here in the first place. The Ninth Circuit recently had to correct the BIA’s determination that attempted gang rape did not constitute persecution,6 and last year, reversed the Board erroneous rejection of a domestic violence victim’s particular social group on the grounds that it contained a few too many words.7 The BIA continues to be composed of the exact same group of judges who issued each of those decisions.

It is the role of the BIA to reach fair decisions by applying the applicable law to the individual facts. Doing so in the domestic violence context would require the Board to finally recognize opposition to systemic male oppression as a political opinion warranting asylum. Instead, for decades the BIA has enforced the offensive, outdated message to women seeking protection from such abuse that “this is not their world.” The time has come to finally put an end to this sad substitute for true administrative appellate review.

Notes:

Lazo-Majano v. INS, 813 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1987).

Fatin v. I.N.S., 12 F.3d 1233, 1242 (3rd Cir. 1993).

Moghaddam v. I.N.S., 95 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished).

Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 339 (A.G. 2018).

22 I&N Dec. 906 (BIA 1999).

Kaur v. Wilkinson, No. 18-73001, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir., Jan. 29, 2021).

Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2020).

Copyright 2021, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Republished by permission.

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

Different style, but the same message as I delivered yesterday about the BIA’s institutionalized racist misogyny and the strange tolerance that Attorney General Merrick Garland has exhibited to date for this type of grotesque judicial misconduct.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/04/06/%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8fbias-misogynistic-anti-asylum-ignore-the-experts-the-evidence-approach-%f0%9f%a4%ae-rebuked-again-9th-cir-slams-bia-big-time-in-rodriguez/

And, this is on top of the astounding, largely self-inflicted 1.3 million case backlog and total dysfunction generated by the BIA’s failures combined with the “maliciously incompetent” effort by DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats to disguise a “deportation railroad” as “administrative review!” Leaving aside all the legal travesties, the mal-administration and waste of public resources alone would be more than enough to require the immediate replacement of EOIR “upper (mis)management” and the entire BIA with qualified judicial professionals and professional judicial administrators.

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Jeffrey and I are hardly the first to expose the charade of “appellate review” at the BIA. Two decades ago, following the “Ashcroft Purge,” administrative scholar and former GOP House Counsel Peter Levinson published his seminal work “The Facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence In Immigration Appellate Adjudications” documenting the mockery of due process and legitimate judicial practices being foisted off on the public by DOJ politicos.

COURTSIDE HISTORY: LEST WE FORGET: THE “ASHCROFT PURGE” AT THE BIA IN 2003 DESTROYED THE PRETEXT OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AT EOIR FOREVER – HERE’S HOW! — Read Peter Levinson’s 2004 Paper: “The Facade Of Quasi-Judicial Independence In Immigration Appellate Adjudications”

In the two decades since, legislators, DOJ Officials, and Article III Judges have done their utmost to ignore and paper over the glaring constitutional and administrative disasters identified by Peter. Not surprisingly, during that time the BIA and the Immigration Courts have descended into a slimy mass of disastrous bias, injustice, and judicial and administrative incompetence unequaled in American Justice since the heyday of the First Era of Jim Crow. (We are now in the “New Era of Jim Crow.”)

Of course, we need an independent Article I Immigration Court as a matter of the highest national priority. But, it’s not on schedule to happen tomorrow, even though it should! In the interim, Judge Garland could fix lots of the festering problems in this system. I gotta wonder if and when he is going to wake up and pay attention to the “assembly line injustice” being cranked out by “his” Immigration Courts?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-07-21

☠️AMERICAN INJUSTICE: BIA “Double Doinks” Again — Normally “Gov. Friendly” 11th Cir. Finds “ICE-Owned & Operated” Jurists Violated Plain Statutory Language & Supremes’ Precedent In Failed Effort To Deport Former U.S. Citizen! — Another Bad Day For Deadly “Falls Church Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️!

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

How horrible is today’s BIA? Well, there are endless examples documented in Courtside and the Jeffrey S.Chase Blog from my friend and Round Table colleague. But, here’s a particularly striking recent travesty from our friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-plain-meaning-hylton-v-atty-gen

The case is Hylton v. Att’y Gen. Here, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, hardly a hotbed of judicial liberalism or anti-Government sentiment, reamed the “Star Chamber BIA” for 1) misreading the plain statutory language, and 2) ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to reach an anti-migrant result.

This is merely the latest in a long line of screw-ups resulting from a powerful appellate body that lacks independence, expertise, and the institutional courage to uphold individual rights against the constant overreach of DHS Enforcement (characterized as “partners” by Sessions & Barr — how would you like to be tried by a “court” where the prosecutors and the judges are “in partnership” to extinguish your legal rights and humanity?)

Two major legal errors by supposed “expert judges” in the same case? Oh, and get this! This case misreading the “plain language” of the statute and dissing binding precedent from the Supremes, just to produce an (illegal) order of removal, was deemed so “routine” at the “Falls Church denial factory,” that it was handled by a single appellate “judge” — didn’t even merit consideration by a three-member panel!

That’s what the DOJ’s politically-motivated “deny and deport culture” produces. And, it’s not like this is an aberration; the BIA cranks out this sloppy garbage on a daily basis. Most of it doesn’t get caught by the U.S. Courts of Appeals, who all too often are on their own type of “autopilot” when it comes to the legal rights of migrants — many of them people of color!

For Judge Garland to be credible on any racial justice issue, and for EOIR to provide due process, we need radical, not incremental, change!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-07-21

SPORTS/ENTERTAINMENT: A.R.’s Jeopardy Debut A Winner! — “Who Wanted To Kick That Field Goal?” NOT The Correct Answer In Double Jeopardy!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/aaron-rodgers-jeopardy-host-joke_n_606c339fc5b6832c793b6572

**************
Actually, the right answer was “Mr. Rogers” (as in Fred Rogers).

The internet is already ablaze in rumors that A.R. might combine a long term run on one of America’s favorite game shows with another run at the elusive second Super Bowl as the “Leader of the Pack” (an actual category when A.R. won “Celebrity Jeopardy” several years back!)

Since he is now engaged to actress Shailene Woodley, I suppose a “dual life” in Green Bay and Hollywood wouldn’t be out of the question.

Go Pack, Go!

PWS

04-07-21

🏴‍☠️BIA’S MISOGYNISTIC, ANTI-ASYLUM, IGNORE THE EXPERTS & THE EVIDENCE APPROACH 🤮 REBUKED AGAIN — 9th Cir. Slams BIA Big Time In Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland! — “Concurring, Judge Paez wrote that in addition to ignoring evidence that Rodriguez was targeted on account of her feminist political opinion, the Board also ignored extensive record evidence from a leading authority on domestic violence that directly rejected the Board’s premise that domestic violence is presumed to be motivated by nothing more than the private dynamics of a ‘personal relationship.’”

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Woman Tortured — “Nothing to see here, fellas, just the private dynamics of a personal relationship! Tough noogies, baby! You should have been born a man. It’s your own fault! Ha! Mercy and compassion? Those aren’t in any of our precedents, are they?” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Kangaroos — “Expert, what expert? We’re the experts! That is, in misogyny, abuse of asylum seekers of color, and specious legal reasoning. And, Garland is letting us get away with it! Whew, for a moment I thought he might have been a ‘real’ judge, but seems he’s just like us. Think I’ll jump for joy! Four more years of unbridled abuse of the most vulnerable and helpless, and I’ll be eligible to retire! Shooting down female asylum seekers for no good reason is like shooting fish in a barrel, just like Jeffy Gonzo and Billy the Bigot taught us! Wonder how many we can kill this year? Happy hunting! But, let’s stay out of the 9th Circuit. It’s dangerous territory. I hear the 5th Circuit loves misogynists and White Nationalists!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/04/05/19-71104.pdf

Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 9th Cir., 04-05-21

PANEL: Susan P. Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Graber

CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Paez

COUNSEL: Elaine J. Goldenberg (argued), Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, D.C.; Sara A. McDermott, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, California; Richard Caldarone, Julie Carpenter, and Rachel Sheridan, Tahirih Justice Center, Falls Church, Virginia; for Petitioner.

Timothy Bo Stanton (argued), Trial Attorney; Sabatino F. Leo, Senior Litigation Counsel; Office of Immigration

ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND 5

Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

Blaine Bookey, Karen Musalo, Neela Chakravartula, and Anne Peterson, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, U.C. Hastings College of Law, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.

Betsey Boutelle, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, California; Anthony Todaro, Jeffrey DeGroot, and Lianna Bash, DLA Piper LLP (US), Seattle, Washington; for Amicus Curiae National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project.

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

Immigration

The panel granted Maria Rodriguez Tornes’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision reversing an immigration judge’s grant of asylum and withholding of removal, and remanded, holding that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Rodriguez established a nexus between her mistreatment in Mexico and her feminist political opinion.

The panel noted that under the Attorney General’s recent decision in Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (“Matter of A-B- II”), in order to establish the requisite nexus for asylum relief, a protected ground (1) must be a but-for cause of the wrongdoer’s act; and (2) must play more than a minor role—in other words, it cannot be incidental or tangential to another reason for the act. The panel explained that this standard was substantively indistinguishable from this circuit’s precedent. The panel wrote that the fact that an unprotected ground, such as a personal dispute, also constitutes a central reason for persecution does not bar asylum. Rather, if a retributory motive exists alongside a protected motive, an applicant need show only that a protected ground is “one central reason” for his or her persecution.

Observing that this court has held repeatedly that political opinions encompass more than electoral politics or formal

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND 3

political ideology or action, the panel wrote that it had little doubt that feminism qualifies as a political opinion within the meaning of the relevant statutes. The panel concluded that Rodriguez’s testimony concerning equality between the sexes, her work habits, and her insistence on autonomy compelled the conclusion that she has a feminist political opinion. The panel also held that the record compelled the conclusion that Rodriguez’s political opinion was at least one central reason for her past persecution. The panel explained that some of the worst acts of violence came immediately after Rodriguez asserted her rights as a woman, and that the fact that some incidents of abuse may also have reflected a dysfunctional relationship was beside the point, as Rodriguez did not need to show that her political opinion—rather than interpersonal dynamics—played the sole or predominant role in her abuse. By demonstrating that her political opinion was “one central reason” for her persecution, the panel concluded that Rodriguez likewise established that her political opinion was “a reason” for her persecution for purposes of withholding of removal.

Because in granting relief under the Convention Against Torture the agency necessarily determined that Rodriguez carried her burden to prove the other elements of her claims for asylum and withholding of removal, the panel concluded that Rodriguez’s petition presented a recognized exception to the ordinary remand rule under I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per curiam). The panel explained that because the agency concluded that Rodriguez met the higher burden of establishing that she is likely to be tortured, she necessarily met the lower burdens for asylum and withholding relief of establishing that she has a well-founded fear, or clear probability, of persecution. Similarly, because the Board determined that the Mexican government would acquiesce to

4 ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND

Rodriguez’s torture, the panel concluded that the Board had necessarily decided that the Mexican government would be unwilling or unable to protect Rodriguez from future persecution. The panel also concluded that because the Board determined that it would be unreasonable for Rodriguez to relocate within Mexico to avoid future torture, she likewise could not relocate to avoid future persecution.

The panel held that Rodriguez was thus eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal, and it remanded for the Attorney General to exercise his discretion whether to grant Rodriguez asylum, and if asylum is not granted, to grant withholding of removal.

Concurring, Judge Paez wrote that in addition to ignoring evidence that Rodriguez was targeted on account of her feminist political opinion, the Board also ignored extensive record evidence from a leading authority on domestic violence that directly rejected the Board’s premise that domestic violence is presumed to be motivated by nothing more than the private dynamics of a “personal relationship.”

CONCURRING OPINION:

PAEZ, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I join Judge Graber’s fine opinion in full. I write separately on a point the court’s opinion does not address. In rejecting Ms. Rodriguez Tornes’s political opinion claim, the BIA suggests that the presence of a “personal relationship” motivation for intimate partner violence implies that there were no intersectional or additional bases for the violence Ms. Rodriguez Tornes experienced. The court’s opinion thoroughly documents the record evidence, which the BIA ignored, demonstrating how Ms. Rodriguez Tornes was targeted for violence by her domestic partners on account of her feminist political opinion. The BIA, however, also ignored extensive record evidence from expert witness Prof. Nancy Lemon, a leading authority on domestic violence, that directly rejects the BIA’s premise that domestic violence is presumed to be motivated by nothing more than the private dynamics of a “personal relationship.”

In contrast to the BIA’s “personal relationship” view of domestic violence,1 Prof. Lemon draws on more than three

1 The BIA cites Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 338–39 (A.G. 2018) as the basis for its assumption.

22 ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND

decades of research, writing, legal representation, and lawmaking to explain that “the socially or culturally constructed and defined identities, roles and responsibilities that are assigned to women, as distinct from those assigned to men, are the root of domestic violence.” She analyzes data from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and studies from leading medical and social science publications to highlight “compelling evidence that heterosexual domestic violence is, in significant part, motivated by bias against women and the belief that men are entitled to beat and control women.” Prof. Lemon summarizes cross-cultural studies within the United States and internationally that demonstrate “a correlation between patriarchal norms that support male dominance and violence against women by intimate partners.”

In her report, which the IJ referenced in her decision, Prof. Lemon provides a lengthy examination of social science research exploring how particular behaviors exhibited by male abusers—including emotional abuse, sexual abuse, marital rape, economic abuse, blaming, guilt and using children—are each tied to social belief systems that “men are entitled to dominate and control women because the male sex is considered superior” and operate to “exploit the traditional socially constructed roles, identities, duties and status of women in intimate relationships.” In describing the legal, social, cultural, and political structures that lay the foundations for intimate partner violence, Prof. Lemon explains that “domestic violence is not typically caused by behaviors unique to the victim or by inter-personal dynamics unique to the relationship between the abuser and the abused. . . . Rather, heterosexual male batterers have certain expectations of intimate relationships with regard to which partner will control the relationship and how control will be

ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND 23

exercised. These expectations are premised on a dogmatic adherence to male privilege and rigid, distinct, and unequal roles for women and men.”

The record evidence of Prof. Lemon’s rigorous expert analysis undermines the BIA’s unsubstantiated premise that, unless otherwise shown, domestic violence is a purely private matter. The BIA makes no mention of the record evidence of Prof. Lemon’s expert analysis, let alone the decades of publicly available social science research and public policy that all reject the BIA’s outdated view of domestic violence as a quirk within a “personal relationship.”2 Thus, the BIA’s assertion that domestic violence is presumptively a private matter is not supported by substantial evidence.

2 See e.g., Nina Rabin, At the Border Between Public and Private: U.S. Immigration Policy for Victims of Domestic Violence, 7 Law & Ethics Hum. Rts. 109, 111–12 (2013) (“Fifty years ago, domestic violence was widely understood to be a private matter, and the extent to which it was appropriate for the state to intervene was highly contested. Now, domestic violence shelters, state laws and policies specific to the prosecution of domestic violence crimes, and significant state and federal government support for efforts to eradicate domestic violence are all commonplace. Crucial to bringing about this shift in the state’s role vis-à- vis domestic violence victims has been the acknowledgment of the structural roots of domestic violence. When conceived of as a problem tied to gender subordination and pervasive inequality rather than interpersonal conflict, the violence at issue demands a state response.”); Violence Against Women: Victims of the System, 102d Cong., 63 (1991); Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Violence of Privacy, 23 Conn. L. Rev. 973 (1991); Reva B. Siegel, “The Rule of Love”: Wife Beating As Prerogative and Privacy, 105 Yale L.J. 2117 (1996); Leslye E. Orloff & Janice v. Kaguyutan, Offering A Helping Hand: Legal Protections for Battered Immigrant Women: A History of Legislative Responses, 10 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 95 (2001); see generally Am. Br. of the National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project.

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

Congrats to all counsel involved for the “good guys.”

Another completely disastrous performance by the BIA!

Bias, sloppiness, legal errors galore, misuse of the appeals process, dissing experts, ignoring evidence, lousy analysis, an ethically questionable remand attempt by OIL, almost every aspect of the unmitigated professional disaster at the BIA and the failed DOJ is on display in this truly terrible parody of justice. These fundamental defects are what has helped generate incredible backlogs that EOIR and DOJ are attempting to cover up and shift blame to the individuals they systematically malign.

This disgraceful muck heap 🤮 won’t be cleaned up by bogus “case processing requirements!” What this system needs is expertise, fairness, due process, quality control, common sense, and human decency — in huge doses! A complete professional makeover!

Among the many good things about the Circuit decision is that it basically limited the impact of the atrociously wrong Sessions “precedent” in Matter of A-B-, even while overlooking the obvious ethical errors in his maliciously biased dicta and the glaring overarching constitutional problem in his improper interference and participation in the quasi-judicial process. This should be Exhibit 1 in why this process needs to be removed from the DOJ, placed in an independent Article I Court, and a new, qualified Appellate Division with real judges — capable of fairly and efficiently adjudicating asylum cases — selected to replace the BIA.

One particularly cruel, senseless, and inane aspect of the BIA’s attempt to “snuff” the respondent’s asylum application: Because of the essentially uncontested CAT grant, she was going to be allowed to remain in the U.S. anyway! So, this was all about illegally depriving an abused refugee woman of color of her ability to get a green card, become eligible for citizenship, and obtain full legal and political rights in our society!

Compare the time and effort expended by the BIA in trying to deprive this woman of her human rights with the carelessness and sloppiness of their legal analysis. That’s what the racist-driven “any reason to deny” culture created by Sessions, Barr, and their toadies at EOIR does to our justice system!

Imagine how much different the “retail level” of American justice would look with real judges and professional administrators, committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices, in charge! Amazingly, that’s what the “EOIR Vision” once was, before the forces of darkness, ignorance, and bias took over the system.

Think of how different the skewed asylum statistics would look if we honored, rather than mocked, our legal obligations to asylum seekers. Think of how many more individuals could fairly and efficiently be welcomed into our country at our borders and abroad in a well functioning system, staffed with professionals, that adhered to the rule of law. Think of how a better, more honest, and more professional Immigration Court could provide positive guidance on how to grant needed protection, rather than gushing forth an endless stream of bogus “how to deny” precedents based on racial and gender bias and specious reasoning.

Professor Nancy Lemon
Hastings Law
Photo: law.hastings.com

Obviously, experts like Professor Nancy Lemon, Professor Karen Musalo, and her colleague Blaine Bookey are the types of individuals who should be Appellate Judges at the BIA. The current BIA’s glaring lack of professional competence and its unconscionable abuse of vulnerable asylum seekers, particularly the institutional ignorance and shameless misogyny with which claims by women refugees are treated, has to be one of the darkest and most inexcusable chapters in modern American legal history!

Food for for thought:

How would an unrepresented individual, particularly one in detention or stuck on a street corner in Mexico, be able to prepare, document, and present a case like this to a biased court and then appeal successfully to the Circuit?
How is this system constitutional in any way, shape, or form?
How might the massive investment of resources, time, effort, and expertise in vindicating the legal and human rights of one individual in a broken system be redeployed to promote systemic fairness and efficiency in a court system that actually complied with constitutional due process?

And, we shouldn’t forget that the Biden Administration is still illegally killing off asylum seekers at the border with no due process at all! Cowardly inflicting human misery on the most vulnerable in violation of our Constitution, our laws, and our international obligations has become our “new national pastime!”

We might be averting our eyes from the slaughter now, but history will document and remember what the world’s richest nation did to our fellow humans seeking protection in their hour of direst need! No wonder we must dehumanize “the other” to go on with our daily lives. No wonder that racial and social justice remain elusive, unfulfilled concepts, throughout our society, in today’s “What’s in it for me” atmosphere promoted by many of our politicos!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-06-21

🏴‍☠️NEW ADMINISTRATION, SAME OLD TONE-DEAF, INCOMPETENT🤡 EOIR! — Latest Attempt To Unilaterally “Micromanage” Dockets From “Falls Church Tower” Arrogantly Disses Meaningful Public Input, Compounds Problems, Ignores Best Practices, Attempts To Shift Blame For Grotesquely Mismanaged 1.3 Million Case Backlog, Mocks Due Process! — This Is NOT Justice — This Is NOT A Court!

Please see EOIR’s invitation to an information session regarding revised Case Flow Processing.

_________________________________________

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

703-305-0289

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

Just a few “off the top of my head” observations:

1) The process would work much better if EOIR consulted the stakeholders for their ideas before issuing any memo.

2) In the absence of a real e-filing system, the assignment of trial dates without consulting counsel as to their availability is likely to generate lots of motions for different dates.

3) In a system with 1.3 million cases, why not ask how much time counsel needs for prep and filing rather than setting arbitrary dates? “Live (or even TV) Masters” give the IJ and the parties an opportunity to “negotiate” mutually agreeable, realistic hearing dates. That, in turn, minimizes the number of motions to continue or reset and maximizes the chance of actually getting the case heard on the first scheduled Individual (Merits) Hearing date (barring more Aimless Docket Reshuffling from EOIR “management,” which is a continuing problem).

4) Given how messed up the EOIR dockets are, what’s the point of pushing for 30 day filings when the merits hearing might not be for years?

5) How do you encourage stipulations with precedents that make them worthless when the AG or BIA or IJ can choose to ignore them to deny? Stipulations seem to bind only one party: the respondent. Can’t imagine a much clearer indication of systemic bias or lack of due process and impartiality.

6) To me, this looks like just another gimmick to allow EOIR to “deny and deport” for failure to meet arbitrary filing deadlines, without EOIR committing to any reasonable limits on its own scheduling of merits hearings. The R has to “race or lose;” but, EOIR can (and does) take forever with no accountability.

7) What’s the empirical basis for all EOIR’s assumptions as to what best and most efficient practices are? How would an agency renowned for “malicious incompetence” know? Best and most efficient for whom? Falls Church bureaucrats? Politicos on the 5th Floor of the DOJ?

8) I completed lots of cases at Master, besides in absentias. In some situations, I suggested areas for stipulation or agreement, or invited joint motions to transfer to my “short calendar” if certain conditions were met. I’m not convinced that “interactive” Masters serve no purpose. I’d be interested in whether the private bar sees these procedures as an improvement. Amazing what you can actually accomplish when you have the parties and counsel in your actual presence as an IJ. Amazing what an IJ can actually teach and communicate from the bench during a “live” master.

9) To some degree, this ham-handed attempt at micromanagement “from afar and on high” looks like a restoration of the paper heavy and labor intensive chaos that existed in the system before EOIR was created in 1983 and the late Chief Judge William R. Robie “invented” Master Calendar as an essential scheduling tool that brought order from that chaos. If EOIR ever got competent court administration and created a functioning e-filing system (like almost every other tribunal in the U.S.), the private bar and actual sitting IJs could undoubtedly suggest some helpful “tune-ups” to the Master Calendar process to take advantage of efficiencies made possible through e-filling.

10) This memo also violates one of the key principles of effective judicial administration — that docket management and scheduling of cases should be left to local judges in conjunction with the private bar and the local DHS Chief Counsel. They, not bureaucrats in Falls Church or DOJ policies, are in the best position to develop the most reasonable and efficient docketing and scheduling procedures coordinator that particular court. The major contribution that “EOIR Headquarters” could make would be a functioning e-filing system — an area where they have an inexcusable two decade history of abject failure, wasted effort, and squandered public resources.

10) To me, this looks like another “designed to fail” edict from the purveyors of disaster, disorder, and injustice!

11) Other than that, it’s great!

Those wanting to contribute to an organized response to this latest “gut punch” might want to contact Michelle Mendez, Director of Defending Vulnerable Populations at CLINIC, or retired Judge Sue Roy (NJ Bar, AILA, Round Table).

On April 7, after you have attended the EOIR session, you might want to “tune in” to our panel for the Hispanic National Bar Association entitled “Who’s Judge Is It Anyway?” We’ll discuss ideas on how attorneys, particularly those from under-represented groups, can go about forcing change to the institutionalized racism, grotesque disorder, and systemic abuses of due processes, best practices, and human dignity still going on in our Immigration Courts even as the Biden Administration claims to be focusing on racial justice in America!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/03/29/%f0%9f%a7%91%f0%9f%8f%bd%e2%80%8d%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%87%ba%f0%9f%87%b8whos-judge-is-it-anyway-the-crisis-of-independence-in-our-immigration-court/

Let’s find ways to force Judge Garland out of his “ivory tower funk” and to make him start paying attention to the Constitutional mockery, amateurish jurisprudence, defiance of common sense, and racist dehumanization of “the other” going on in “his” wholly owned and beyond incompetently operated “courts!”

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04–05-21

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🗽COURT REFORM: GW IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS WEIGH IN ON ARTICLE I — Emphasize Critical Due Process Need To Entirely Remove AG From Decision-Making Process!

Here’s the letter to Chair Zoe Lofgren of the House Subcommittee on Immigration:

FIJC

GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera

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

Thanks to Professors Benitez and Vera for the great work for the NDPA that they are doing and the values they are instilling in their students. Just think what due process could look like in the Immigration Courts if all judges, trial and appellate, reflected those same values!

The concepts are actually very straightforward.

The Attorney General is a litigant before the Immigration Court. He or she can insert themselves in the process if they choose, to represent the Government as a litigant. But, the Attorney General should be treated as any other litigant — at arm’s length.
Individuals appearing before the Immigration Court are entitled to a fair and impartial independent adjudicator. As long as the Attorney General exercises control over the selection of judges, evaluates their performance, and can review and arbitrarily change their decisions, on his or her own whim, the system will remain unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair.

Interesting that law students see so clearly, recognize, and can articulate what Federal Judges, all the way up to the Supremes, legislators, and our Attorney General all fail to acknowledge and act upon. Hope for the future! But without better-qualified legislators, judges, and Executive Branch officials, will our justice system survive long enough to get to the future? Not without some very fundamental changes!

Every day, individuals have their constitutional, statutory, and human rights stomped upon, mocked, and abused by the broken Immigration Courts. Sometimes, Circuit Courts intervene to provide some semblance of justice in individual cases; other times they turn a blind eye to injustice and fundamentally unfair decision-making in the totally dysfunctional Immgration Courts.

But, nobody, but nobody, except members of the NDPA appears to be willing to recognize and act on the overall glaring constitutional and operational defects in the current Immigration “Courts” — that don’t resemble “courts” at all. That’s something that should concern and outrage every American committed to racial justice, equal justice for all, fundamental fairness, and constitutional due process!

EOIR and the U.S. Immigration Courts are an ongoing national disgrace — a festering sore upon democracy!🤮 Every day, they inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on those humans being abused by their fundamental unfairness and institutionalized chaos.!

How many ruined human lives ⚰️ and futures ☠️is it going to take for someone in the “power structure” to wake up and take notice!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-05-21

⚖️🗽WATCH, LISTEN TO PROFESSOR GEOFFREY HOFFMAN OF U. OF HOUSTON LAW DELIVER THE 2021 SKELTON LECTURE: “What Should Immigration Law Become?”

https://youtu.be/GvwuahGzZQ8

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

A few “takeaways” from one of America’s leading “practical scholars:”

Think about a new start with a “clean slate;”
Deportation is “state violence;”
Immigration Courts are constructed to provide Gov. with an unfair advantage;
No rules, no due process, no justice;
Kudos to the NDPA & the Round Table;
Trump Administration spent inordinate effort improperly skewing the law to insure everything is denied and remove equible discretion from IJs;
Good provisions that provided discretion in the past to alleviate hardship and injustice have been eliminated by Congress: suspension of deportation, JRAD, 212(c), 245(i), registry (not repealed but now virtually useless b/c of 1972 cutoff date).

👍🏼🗽Thanks, Geoffrey, and Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-04-21

👩🏻‍🎓HISTORY WE SHOULD HEED: Professor Julia G. Young On Why Politicos & Their Wrong-Headed Unilateral Cruel Enforcement Programs Have Failed At The Border — “Since the 1970s, Republicans and Democrats alike have tried to address undocumented immigration by constructing ever more draconian policies of border control, deportation and detention—border theater that grabs headlines and sometimes leads to short-term change, but never actually solves the problem.” — Vice President Kamala Harris Isn’t The First Political Figure To “Take On The Border” — Could She Be The First To Get It Right?

https://apple.news/AgbanNxVvSxGEHNVvJ1hFaw

Professor Julia Young in Time Magazine:

With the U.S. “on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years,” as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement March 16, immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border has emerged as one of the toughest challenges facing the Biden Administration. Last week, President Biden put Vice President Kamala Harris in charge of “stemming” the flow of migrants, Biden was questioned about the immigration situation at his first official press conference, immigrant detention centers began to fill up once again, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle made trips to the border to publicize the issue and propose solutions.

Biden’s attempts to address immigration may be new, but the issue is one that has dogged his predecessors for decades. Since the 1970s, Republicans and Democrats alike have tried to address undocumented immigration by constructing ever more draconian policies of border control, deportation and detention—border theater that grabs headlines and sometimes leads to short-term change, but never actually solves the problem.

There’s a reason why the U.S. government has failed for so many years to “control” the border: none of these policies have addressed the real reasons for migration itself. In migration studies, these are known as “push” and “pull” factors, the causes that drive migrants from one country to another.

Today, the countries sending the most migrants to the U.S.-Mexico border–especially the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador–are experiencing a combination of push factors that include poverty and inequality, political instability, and violence. And while the current situation may be unique, it is also deeply rooted in history.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

Many countries in Central America have struggled with poverty since the time of independence from Spain in the early 19th century. While they are beautiful countries that are rich in culture and history, that colonial past has meant they have historically been home to large, landless, poor, rural populations, including many indigenous people of Mayan descent. In the years after Spanish control, they were typically ruled by small oligarchies that disproportionately held wealth, land and power, and their economies were primary export-dependent, which brought great riches to landowners but also exacerbated and perpetuated inequality and the poverty of the majority. Those dynamics have carried forward to today. More recently, climate change–in particular, drought and massive storms–has forced the vulnerable rural poor out of the countryside.

. . . .

And while many Central Americans could indeed qualify for asylum based on their experiences of persecution, the previous administration made every effort to limit their ability to obtain it. Now the Biden Administration must decide whether to restore the asylum framework, which has become the only possible path to legal migration (as well as safety and security) for Central Americans and other migrants who—due to these combined push and pull factors—are desperate to come to the United States.

Given the complicated and deep-rooted reasons behind migration, lawmakers cannot control or “solve” the ongoing crisis at the border by simply pouring money and resources into ever more militaristic border theater. It’s no wonder that decades of such policies have done little to change the underlying dynamics.

Instead, if Americans are serious about changing the situation at the border, we need to address the push and pull factors behind Central American migration. We need to acknowledge the reality of the U.S. economy (in particular, that it demands immigrant labor to work low-wage jobs) and work to construct new legal frameworks that reflect that reality. We need to target financial and logistical support to encourage Central American countries to address the poverty and inequality that fuel migration, rather than cutting foreign aid, as the Trump Administration did. We need to do all we can to end the pervasive gang violence that pushes so many migrants out of their homelands. And of course, we must continue to evaluate our own historical and contemporary role in creating the longstanding problems that are pushing Central Americans to migrate.

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

Read the rest of Julia’s article at the link. One key truth: many more Central American migrants would qualify for asylum and be legally admitted to our society under a fair application of our asylum laws directed and supervised by real expert judges who scrupulously enforce due process and best practices on a now biased, unfair, and dysfunctional system!

“Stemming the tide” might be neither realistic nor possible at this time. But, controlling it, managing it humanely and legally, and regularizing it, while lessening the “push” factors should be achievable.

It would, however, require bold actions:

Recognizing the primacy of humanitarian protection laws and insisting on due process in implementing them;
Putting experts in humanitarian situations, due process advocates, diplomats, labor economists, and demographers in leadership positions; and
Embracing much larger levels of legal immigration, particularly from Latin America.

Vice President Kamala Harris — Vice President Kamala D. Harris
Vice President of the United States
(Official Senate Photo)

Unfortunately for Vice President Harris and the rest of us who want humane, realistic immigration policies, there are reasons for our half-century of overall failure on the border.

Bloated government bureaucracies, powerful corporate interests, nativist politicians, and even foreign leaders are heavily invested in expensive and guaranteed to fail “uber enforcement” gimmicks. Failure basically creates a never-ending demand for more: more enforcement agents, “civil prisons,” jailers, deporters, cars, trucks, guns, boats, ammo, walls, fences, technology, courts, judges, prosecutors, lobbyists, “baby jails,” processing centers, foreign aid that goes largely into the pockets of corrupt leaders and their cronies, and a never-ending supply of underground, low-wage, politically neutered workers.

Additionally, we now have an entire political party with an agenda of overt institutionalized racism, dehumanization of the other, and fear-mongering White Nationalist myths driving its bogus populist narrative.

None of these “architects and enablers of border failure and institutionalized racism” are going “quietly into the night.” They will fight tooth and nail to defend their sinecures, profitable empires, and politically useful White Nationalist myths.

The politician who finally breaks the deadly cycle of failure and human misery at our border, while harnessing and realizing the positive power of human migration, will become a hero for future historians and undoubtedly merit a chapter in a new edition of Profiles in Courage.

Sadly, such recognition and adulation is likely to come long after she is gone from the scene. Long term vision and moral courage are not necessarily rewarded with short-term political popularity. Just ask the few Republicans who voted in accordance with the overwhelming, basically uncontested, evidence of Trump’s “high crimes and misdemeanors!”

That’s why it’s a tough challenge even for someone of Vice President Harris’s undoubted intelligence and abilities. It’s up to those of us who believe in a better America to keep her from getting sidetracked and co-opted by the vested interests of failure and White Nationalist myth-makers and purveyors.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-04-21

🇺🇸⚖️ASYLUM IS THE LAW, NOT AN “OPTION” OR A “LOOPHOLE!” — Judge Garland’s Disturbing Failure To Publicly Stand Up For Rights & Humanity Of Asylum Seekers, & His Failure To End The Rabid Anti-Asylum Bias Of EOIR Stokes Humanitarian Misery, Scofflaw Behavior, & Moral Abdication @ Southern Border!🏴‍☠️ — Whatever Happened To The Scholarly, Humble Jurist Who Was Grateful That His Ancestors Were Rescued From Doom? ☠️— Are Refugee Women, Children, & Those Of Color Less Worthy Than His Family?🤮 — Why?

Felipe De La Hoz — Filipe De La Hoz
Investigative Journalist — Immigration
PHOTO: Twitter

Filipe De La Hoz in The Baffler:

This has been a bizarre conversation on a number of levels, not least because many interlocutors proceed from the assumption that permitting humanitarian migration is even a choice that the president gets to make. It is not: U.S. law lays out that any “alien . . . who arrives in the United States . . . irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” The statute enumerates certain exceptions, such as adults applying more than one year after entry and the existence of specific “safe third country” agreements (which formed another front in Trump’s efforts to gut asylum).

There are no exceptions, however, pertaining to considerations of the domestic political climate, or whether accommodating asylum seekers is deemed just too hard or, god forbid, conducive to others subsequently seeking help. Internationally, the principle of “non-refoulement” (literally non-return) holds that a state cannot “expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” as obligated by the United Nations’ 1967 protocol on refugees, of which the United States is a signatory. While the refugee definition itself is woefully outdated, the requirement to verify whether people fit the rubric before sending them away is absolute. These aren’t open questions, no matter how assertively they’re raised by political strategy hucksters and TV news hosts.

https://thebaffler.com/latest/asylum-is-not-an-open-question-de-la-hoz

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

Read the complete article, which makes many other valid points and corrects the daily errors and myths about asylum spewed forth by politicos and the “mainstream” media at the link.

Filipe gets it! But, Judge Garland apparently doesn’t! What’s wrong with this picture? Pretty much everything!

Is this how the DC Circuit Court of Appeals functioned when Judge Garland was on the bench. Is this what “due process” means in America? If not, why is Garland looking the other way as injustice rolls off his “judicial assembly line” in Falls Church?

For Judge Garland to be credible on any racial justice issue, and for EOIR to provide due process, we need radical, not incremental, change! It’s interesting that Biden is getting well-deserved kudos for nominating a very diverse progressive slate of Article III judicial nominees.

Yet, to date, EOIR, with more judges than Biden could appoint in four years, remains staffed and operating as if Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller were still in charge. And, non-diverse, anti-progressive would be an understatement for today’s Immigration “Courts.” For heaven’s sake, we still have an anti-due-process BIA churning out nativist precedents!

There is nary a “win” for an individual in the last four years of BIA/AG precedents. The BIA and the AG inevitably reject reasonable constructions of statutes presented by respondents in favor of inferior — even nonsensical — ones presented by DHS.

Sometimes, the BIA runs over clear statutory language, circuit precedents, regulatory requirements, or their own past precedents in the “race to remove.” Yet, in the “real” Federal Courts, even with a much more aggressively conservative composition, and their own often dismissive approach to immigrants’ rights, individuals prevail in published decisions almost every day! How outrageous is that!

I’ll believe that Judge Garland is serious about racial justice in America on the day that he 1) vacates every Trump-era AG precedent, and 2) removes the entire BIA and replaces them with a diverse group of progressive judges with human rights expertise and an unswerving commitment to due process. Appoint the “best and the brightest” as President Biden says!

Until then, I remain a skeptic and a strong critic of the just plain dumb, biased, and ill-informed approach to EOIR that has plagued past Dem Administrations.

It won’t be long until, predictably, the fallout from the so-called “border crisis” — unnecessarily hyped by the press and the GOP, but also stoked by the Biden Administration’s lack of expertise, preparation, and “Amateur Night @ the Bijou PR” — hits EOIR.

As of now, Judge Garland appears to be completely unprepared to handle it. So, here we go with another entirely preventable disaster brewing on top of the current grotesque dysfunction, institutionalized bias, and “worst practices” crippling democracy at the “retail level.” Judge Dana Marks said as much in an NPR interview recently. But, I nobody in charge appears to be paying attention! https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2021%2F03%2F26%2F981486753%2Fjudge-dana-marks-on-how-the-biden-administration-can-address-immigration-backlog&data=04%7C01%7Cegibson%40nylag.org%7C84cb037942e941a9fdf208d8f2ee428c%7C7a949b265bb44b6197ceb192e674d669%7C0%7C0%7C637526452442537480%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=4es4QSrVKwNB2WfgalWsQMYZppBI5nn985FaOvynr84%3D&reserved=0

It’s not rocket science! But, it does require a much much much more courageous and informed approach, along with common sense and some human decency. And, the “next gen” folks who could make it happen, are still “on the outside looking in.”

Meanwhile, the idiocy continues from the Garland SG’s Office. Handed a golden opportunity to abandon a totally boneheaded position on adjustment of status for TPS holders who qualify to immigrate legally, the Garland DOJ continues to press an irrational and illegal Trump interpretation; one that not only defies the plain language of the statute, but reaches a beyond stupid policy result that keeps hard-working folks who meet the qualifications for green card status in perpetual limbo — for no legal or rational reason whatsoever!

They could have taken the advice of renowned immigration expert and former Senior Executive at both the “Legacy INS” and DHS, Professor David A. Martin. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/03/14/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽professor-david-a-martin-explains-how-biden-administration-could-advance-its-immigration-agenda-by-abandoning-their-wrong-headed-position-before-the-supremes/

Instead, they have followed their morally vacant, “bad government,” and legally challenged predecessors in the Trump regime by taking a totally avoidable yet cruel and counterproductive stance that will actually increase EOIR backlogs while accomplishing nothing whatsoever of any value. Sounds like a lose, lose lose to me! https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law360.com%2Fimmigration%2Farticles%2F1368637%2Ffeds-back-green-card-limits-for-tps-holders-at-high-court&data=04%7C01%7Cegibson%40nylag.org%7C84cb037942e941a9fdf208d8f2ee428c%7C7a949b265bb44b6197ceb192e674d669%7C0%7C0%7C637526452442776422%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=6ZxLxyEb%2BKkjyGkfpSzAzj4e1QFmKWAB2Gn0%2BEzOwKc%3D&reserved=0

Sure, the tone-deaf Supremes’ GOP majority might buy it, since it furthers a culture of bias and de-humanization. But, that’s no excuse for what was supposed to be a smarter, more ethical, more humane Administration.

The case is Sanchez v. Mayorkas, and the lack of insight, common sense, and humanity with which Judge Garland has approached the most important topics in current American law — immigration/human rights/racial justice/social justice to date — remains appalling! There will be no racial justice in America until our leaders “connect the dots” between racist immigration policies, a racist-enabling Immigration Court, and degradation of people of color in all areas of the law!

Judge Garland could cut through all the BS by putting the right folks in charge of EOIR and turning them loose. We need a lot less talk and a lot more action!

Many of us out here have long supported social and racial justice, through good times and bad. But, we’re likely to remain unconvinced about the good faith and competence of the Biden Administration until we see radical due process and racial justice reforms at EOIR and the DOJ.

There are many folks who could solve America’s immigration problems in a humane, progressive, and efficient manner that advances and enhances due process. But, to date, Judge Garland short-sightedly refuses to put them in the game or even to publicly acknowledge the debilitating problems in his wholly-owned and incompetently operated courts! And, every minute of delay costs lives and credibility.

Here’s a very recent letter from Senator Gillibrand and other Senators requesting that Judge Garland turn his attention to the EOIR disaster/travesty.

https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Let.ImmigrationCourtReform.AGGarland.3.23.21.pdf

It’s a terrific letter. But, there is a major problem! All of this was well known long before the election! A number of us made the same points to the Biden Transition Team! Among other things, we emphasized the critical importance off “seizing the moment and hitting the ground running with a complete new approach at EOIR led by a team of available experts.”

The election was over in early November. Yet, here we are with the “same old, same old” failed anti-due process EOIR daily inflicting unnecessary pain, suffering, and abuse on migrants and their lawyers. Most of the same old DOJ unethical, legally questionable, defenses of the indefensible are still the order of the day. Some of the worst and most incompetent jurisprudence in modern American legal history, rendered in Garland’s name, is still being “outed” every week. There is no known plan for correction or even simple statement of awareness from Judge G.

Totally unacceptable! And the lack of preparation and basic competence is reflected in the problems the Administration has had at the border. A functional EOIR could and should have been part of reestablishing the rule of law at the border.

Instead, Judge Garland is making himself part of the latest chapter in America’s disgraceful and unnecessary failure to establish an asylum system that complies with due process and domestic and international laws. One that fulfills international treaty obligations, implements the generous protection objectives of the Refugee Act of 1980, rejects institutionalized racism, reflects the reality of forced migration, incorporates basic human values, and furthers the national interest.

It’s not rocket science; but it requires historical knowledge, recognition of the realities of human migration, legal competence, moral courage, and radical action that Judge Garland has yet to hint is within his capabilities. And, that’s bad news for American justice and humanity!

Inexcusable! But neither the issues of human migration nor the efforts of the NDPA to make the historically false, yet clear, promise of “due process and equal justice under law” a reality will go away, no matter how much Judge Garland and other “head in the sanders” in the Administration might want to believe and act otherwise!

Oh, yeah, don’t forget the heavy dose of overt misogyny that drove the Trump/Miller/Sessions/Barr/BIA “immigration jurisprudence” over the past four years. Yet, no repudiation from Judge Garland!

As I previously said, on “day one” Judge Garland would either repudiate or “own” the despicable treatment inflicted on female refugees and other migrants of color by the Trump kakistocracy. Until we see radical remedial action, Judge Garland now “owns” all the ugliness of the last four years. Our job becomes to let him escape neither responsibility nor the judgement of history for his failure of humanity and good judgement!

🇺🇸🗽🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-03-21

☠️⚰️POLITICOS, MEDIA CONTINUE TO GET THE BORDER WRONG — By Mary Giovagnoli In MS — “For the present, we must stop pretending that the U.S. can pick and choose when people will leave their countries and ask for asylum at our border.”👎🏻

Mary Giovagnoli · Senior Legal Counsel, Strategy and Special Programs at Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
PHOTO: Medium.com

The Misery Trump Left at the Border Is Finally Being Revealed – Ms. Magazine
. . . .

Trump supporters and hangers-on boast the “success” of Trump’s immigration policies, demonstrated by the supposed drop in illegal entries. But this is merely an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to managing a very real problem. It was a giant sleight of hand which hid the actual number of people seeking entry into the U.S. Biden’s policies have pulled back the curtain and like so many other aspects of Trump’s administration, it is clear that the claims of success are nothing more than fantasies.

And yet the Biden administration is not off the hook. While it did agree to permit unaccompanied children to enter the U.S. despite the Title 42 ban, it did so following a preliminary injunction issued by a federal court last November. DHS continues to expel families, as well as single men and women, under the existing Title 42 order.

. . . .

Despite the clear moral and legal imperatives to stop Title 42 expulsions, the Biden administration is clearly worried that returning to pre-pandemic processing of asylum seekers will overwhelm the system. It is also clear that they fear a political backlash if critics are able to characterize the border as out of control.

Taking these final steps takes courage and political will. Those of us who support the rights of asylum seekers have to let the administration know that doing the right thing will not tarnish its reputation and that we will work even harder to ensure that making good on humane immigration policy is not political suicide.

Protecting asylum seekers is a woman’s issue of the first order. We must encourage and challenge both the administration and Congress to live up to U.S. obligations. We must turn out at the voting booth to support candidates and elected officials who act on behalf of asylum seekers. And we must push back, every way we can, against those who hope to weaponize the border in a callous effort to turn following the law into a political liability.

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

Read Mary’s complete article at the link. Many thanks to Judge Alex Manuel of the ABA’s National Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary for passing this along.

Surprisingly, “forced migration,” is exactly what it says it is: “FORCED migration” — not optional! As I have pointed out before: “We can diminish ourselves as nation (and are doing so), but it won’t stop human migration.”

Refugees come, because that’s what refugees do. They often come when the world is in crisis, because that’s one of the primary reasons why refugees flee. They seldom come in an orderly manner because flight to save your life doesn’t lend itself to “regularity.” How many Jews perished in Nazi-controlled areas before and during WWII waiting for visas that were never going to come?

And, what brings refugees to our borders actually has little to do with inane statements of politicos, bureaucrats, border cops, and the media. One of the main consequences of illegally “closing the border to asylum seekers” is that large numbers simply enter between ports of entry. Those who used to turn themselves in to the Border Patrol are encouraged by our short-sighted policies and unwillingness to follow our own laws just to keep on going.

We’d certainly do much better if we “canned” all the Trump-era illegal, racist nonsense, reopened border ports to asylum seekers, and encouraged them to apply there or in locations abroad. But, to make that happen we would also have to review their claims in a timely, fair, and humane manner — not “rocket science,” yet something that largely has eluded our nation, particularly since 2014.

It’s achievable. But not without much better leadership coming from experts who actually know how to deal with refugee situations in a humane and effective manner. Failed bureaucrats and grandstanding politicos, those who usually “drive the train heading for a wreck,” can’t do the job! That’s been proved time and again! Why do we insist on repeating all our mistakes? Cruelty and threats simply aren’t effective.

To emphasize Mary’s concluding point about women’s concerns, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Neo-Nazi Stephen Miller made misogyny a focus of their vicious attack on people of color seeking asylum. It started with Sessions’s atrocious decision ignorantly and unlawfully targeting women refugees in Matter of A-B- and continued through Miller’s now-enjoined effort to unlawfully eradicate gender-based asylum grants. Never mind that women form the largest group of clearly identifiable refugees in the world and that femicide and violence against them driven by sexual antipathy and issues of control are rampant worldwide, particularly in the Northern Triangle.

But, a large problem here is that more than two months into the Biden Administration, Attorney General Merrick Garland has yet to repudiate Matter of A-B- and the other debilitating racist and misogynist “precedents” and grotesquely illegal anti-asylum policies of Sessions and Barr. Worse yet, he has neither stood up for the reinstatement of asylum laws and compliance with Constitutionally-required due process at the border, nor has he removed and replaced “his” Board of Immigration Appeals and taken steps to curb those of “his” Immigration “Judges” who are still engaged in furthering the Sessions/Barr White Nationalist, misogynist, anti-asylum agenda!

Interesting lack of action from a distinguished former Federal Judge who several months ago claimed great gratitude that his ancestors were given refuge from harm by the U.S. Is there some reason that those people of color and others now arriving at our borders and claiming legal protections under our laws are less deserving of fair, generous, and humane treatment?

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-03-21

BIDEN PLAN TO REFORM ASYLUM SYSTEM @ THE BORDER MAKES SENSE, BUT ONLY IF CORRECTLY IMPLEMENTED WITH THE RIGHT PERSONNEL — The Devil 👿 Is In The Details & Major Progressive Judicial Reforms @ EOIR ⚖️ Are A Prerequisite! — “Early Returns” On Actually Solving Immigration/Human Rights/Due Process Problems From “Team Biden” Not Encouraging!☹️

Frranco Ordonez — Franco Ordonez
White House Correspondent
NPR
PHOTO: Twitter

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/01/982795844/biden-administration-considers-overhaul-of-asylum-system-at-southern-border

Franco Ordonez reports for NPR:

President Biden’s top advisers promise “long-needed systemic reforms” to address a backlog of more than 1 million asylum cases in the immigration court system, which often keeps people applying for asylum waiting years to resolve their cases. That could mean some big changes to how asylum cases are processed at the southern border.

The plan the Biden administration is considering to speed up the process would take some asylum cases from the southern border out of the hands of the overloaded immigration courts under the Department of Justice and instead handle them under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, where asylum officers already process tens of thousands of cases a year, two people familiar with the discussions who were not authorized to speak about administration plans told NPR exclusively.

Those familiar with the discussions say one outcome could be discouraging unauthorized migration. That’s because those who can argue for a certain fear of persecution are able to gain temporary residence and often a work permit as they wait out their cases.

. . . .

Advocates say they welcome a more efficient system, provided changes are not used as a way to expedite removals as the Trump administration did.

Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First says there are a host of reasons to allow asylum officers to conduct the first set of interviews and reduce the numbers, but she says it’s important that applicants have a chance to appeal to the court before being removed.

“The massive backlog must be dealt with,” she said. “But the answer to that problem is not to deprive asylum seekers of due process and a fair hearing, or to weaponize the asylum process to try to deter other people from seeking U.S. protection.”

The Biden administration has already ended two of the Trump administration’s programs, the Prompt Asylum Case Review and the Humanitarian Asylum Review Program, that were designed to quickly return Mexican and Central American asylum seekers suspected of having invalid claims.

POLITICS

House Passes 2 Bills Aimed At Overhauling The Immigration System

Department of Homeland Security officials declined to discuss plans to shift border cases to the asylum division.

But an administration official said last week they are now working on a number of policies and regulations to create “a better functioning asylum system.”

That includes establishing refugee processing in the region and strengthening other countries’ asylum systems.

Biden also resurrected the Central American Minors program that reunited children with parents who are in the United States legally.

The Biden administration is now seeking to “pick up the pieces” after the Trump administration, with a different set of policies that abide by U.S. law but also international obligations, Meissner said.

“We need to have access to asylum,” Meissner said, “but it needs to be done in a way that can be prompt and fair, not in a way that leads to waits of years and years and court backlogs.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Why it could work:

Granting relief at the lowest level of the system is cost effective;
It’s easier to hire, train, and assign Asylum Officers than Immigration Judges;
Immigration Court time should be reserved for those cases where there is a real issue as to whether relief can be granted.

Why it probably won’t work:

Leadership is critical. Right now, there are only a few experts in government with the knowledge, proven leadership ability, organizational skills, and courage to lead this program.
- Two obvious names that come to mind are Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, currently USCIS Chief Counsel, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of the “founding mothers” of U.S. asylum law and pioneer of the well-founded fear standard. Both are past Presidents of the NAIJ. Neither has yet been tapped for this assignment.
- By contrast, there are a number of experts in the private/NGO sector who could lead this effort. Obvious choices would be Judge Paul Grussendorf, former Immigration Judge, Asylum Officer, UN Representative, and professor; Professor Karen Musalo, Director, Center for Refugee & Gender Studies, UC Hastings Law; Eleanor Acer, Senior Director, Refugee Protection, Human Rights First (quoted in this article); Professor Michele Pistone, Creator and Founder of the VIISTA asylum training program at Villanova Law; Professor Phil Schrag, Co-Director of the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law and author of Baby Jails and the upcoming release The End of Asylum; Michelle Mendez, Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations at CLINIC; or Judge Ilyce Shugall of our Round Table. But, nobody of that caliber has been tapped either.
- Without creative, dynamic, expert leadership, and a different approach to personnel, the program will be yet another bureaucratic failure. In case nobody has noticed, after four years of never ending abuse, gross mismanagement, and intentional misdirection by the Trump kakistocracy, the USCIS Asylum & Refugee program is also in shambles — demoralized, disorganized, leaderless, incredibly backlogged. An obvious untapped source is retired Asylum Officers and Adjudicators who could be brought back on a limited-term basis, intensively trained by experts from a “Better EOIR,” and who often are in a position to travel frequently and on short notice.

It’s not about deterrence. Already, this article speaks of “possible deterrent effect.” WRONG! The purpose of an asylum adjudication system is to provide fair, timely, generous adjudications of asylum eligibility in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol on which it is based, and the due process clause of our Constitution. We have never had such a system, which inevitably would be more orderly and efficient, but also result in many more grants.
- The main reason why we don’t currently have a functioning asylum system, and never have had the system that asylum seekers need and deserve, is that the system is at the mercy of a bogus Executive-controlled “court” system that time and time again has been compromised by politicos seeking who use it as an enforcement tool rather than an independent court of justice.
  - In 2014, the last year that I taught Refugee Law & Policy at Georgetown Law I “graded” the U.S. Asylum system at “B-.” Not as good as it should be, but not as bad as it could be.
  - Now I’d give it an “F.” Completely dysfunctional, highly arbitrary, and a tool of institutionalized racism and White Nationalism.
- The system is ineffective as a deterrent. There is no known basis to believe that quick and often arbitrary and wrongful “rejections” are an effective deterrent. That’s particularly true because rejections are seldom explained in a reasonable, understandable manner. So, to the extent that there is a “message” it’s that you got the wrong officer or the wrong judge on the wrong day or that the U.S. legal system is inherently unfair and should be avoided by hiring a smuggler to get you to the interior of the U.S. where, as a practical matter, you have a better chance of obtaining “de facto refuge.”
- The only “efficiency and leverage” that comes from the Asylum Officer system is in quickly identifying and consistently granting a substantial number of applications. That, and only that, does actually relieve the Immigration Court system of unnecessary cases. Otherwise, “non-grants” still have to go to the Immigration Courts for de novo review. I probably granted the majority of asylum cases “referred” from the Asylum Office. That leaves plenty of room to believe that a better trained and operated system with some positive guidance and effective supervision by better Immigration Judges and a truly expert BIA would achieve substantially higher grant rates and higher efficiency at the Asylum Office, thereby keeping many cases out of court and speeding the process for asylees to obtain permanent residence and eventually U.S. citizenship!

Some assumptions appear invalid. This article also repeats the unproven assumption that a fair, just, and efficient asylum system would result in rejection of the majority of cases. I doubt that.
- Prior to the Trump disaster, approximately 75-80% of asylum applicants at the Southern Border passed “credible fear.” That the majority of them never achieved asylum was due less to the lack of merit in their claims than to factors such as: 1) lack of a system to match asylum seekers with qualified counsel; 2) wrong-headed anti-asylum precedents from the BIA that were specifically directed against asylum seekers from Latin America — basically institutionalized racism in the guise of “enforcement;” 3) poor selection, training, and motivation of Immigration Judges some of whom simply did not treat asylum seekers fairly, nor were they given any incentive to do so.
- I granted asylum or other protection to many refugees from the Northern Triangle. I probably could have granted twice that number had the BIA precedents actually fairly and reasonably interpreted asylum law to specifically cover gender-based claims and claims arising from persecution by gangs basically operating “in lieu of government authorities” in most of the Northern Triangle.
- Additionally, an honest interpretation of the CAT by the BIA would have allowed life-saving protection to be extended to many others who lacked nexus but had a high probability of torture with Government acquiescence upon return. I believe that a return to the original Acosta-Kasinga line of asylum analysis and adoption of proper CAT interpretations along the lines set forth by the (exiled) dissenting judges in Matter of J-E- would result in grants of some type of protection (asylum, withholding, or CAT) in the majority of Southern Border cases coming from the Northern Triangle that passed credible fear or reasonable fear.
- Asylum, along with refugee status, is a key form of legal immigration to the U.S. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s NOT a “loophole.” It’s the law! Studies by groups of experts such as CMS have shown the huge benefits that refugees confer on the U.S. I have no reason to believe that asylum seekers as a group are any different.
- As long as we keep treating the reality of human migration and the strengths and humanity of asylum seekers as a negative rather than a positive, we will continue to fail, as we have for decades, to fully comply with either our own laws or international conventions.

A broken, dysfunctional, unfair EOIR will continue to drag American justice down. There must be de novo review of denials by EOIR and far, far more competent review and direction in the review of credible fear denials by EOIR. A better BIA could actually set binding precedents on “credible fear” and “reasonable fear.”
- Currently, EOIR is incapable of producing either consistently fair results (particularly for asylum seekers) or the inspired legal scholarship and leadership for the asylum system to be functional and held accountable. It’s going to require all new leadership, an all new BIA, elimination of all of the Trump-era precedents that impede fairness for asylum seekers, new merit-based selection criteria for Immigration Judges, professional administration from judicial experts, and an immediate slashing of the largely self-created “backlog” of 1.3 million cases by closing and removing from the docket every case more than a year old that doesn’t relate to a priority (most are folks who would be covered by Biden’s legalization program anyway; many are eligible for relief that USCIS could grant) to get EOIR in a position to provide the necessary legal guidance and system accountability for the Asylum Office. The absurdist notion that we could or would want to remove every one of the 10-11 million undocumented residents (many performing essential services that propped us up through the pandemic) is one of the “big lies” that has prevented rational reforms of our immigration system.
- In plain terms, EOIR needs an immediate “rebuild” with a new progressive, humanitarian judiciary of experts. There is no early indication that Judge Garland either understands that “mission-critical” need or has a plan for achieving it.

As we say in the business the “devil is in the details.” Right now, I can see neither the details nor the leadership in place or “in the pipeline” to solve the debilitating problems in our asylum system that actually are undermining the entire U.S. justice system.

Biden could fix it. But, I wouldn’t count on it. That means that the only real fix in the offing will be for the NDPA to force the Administration to “get it right” through aggressive, never-ending litigation as well as continuing to seek better legislators. Highly inefficient. Yet, sometimes it’s the only way to get the attention of those in power.

If nothing else, we’ll continue to make an important historic record of the cruelty and stupidity with which the current asylum system is being administered. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can always choose to follow our “better angels.” It just takes the courage and the good judgement to get the right folks in the right jobs to make it happen.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-01-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Go Pack, Go!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

👍🏼🗽Thanks, Geoffrey, and Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Why it could work:

Why it probably won’t work:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: