🏴‍☠️👎🏻🤮“HOUSTON, WE’VE STILL GOT A PROBLEM!” — A HUGE AND GROWING ONE — Garland’s Failure To Restore “Justice @ Justice” Reverberates Throughout Our Nation!🆘

Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for immigrants @ Justice:

“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color

Gone from the West Wing, but he and his EOIR “plants” remain an inspiration for “Dred Scottification” of the other, unconstitutional “judging,” worst practices, and demeaning treatment of human rights experts and due process advocates by the DOJ! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 5, 2021

This just in from a NDPA stalwart in Houston, TX:

Houston we still have a (huge) problem! Luckily we also have some great immigration advocates and members of the due process army.

. . . .

Houston EOIR is still closed for non-detained. They have just built a third immigration court here, “Greenspoint”, with over 30 brand new judges, just collecting dust (although that’s probably a good thing as it would only serve as a deportation mill). If you can believe the absurdity, you have to file a motion for change of venue + a motion to consolidate, to join family members whose cases have been placed in different courts all here in Houston. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I believe Houston now has the 2nd largest backlog after New York City now, in large part due to the mismanagement by EOIR HQ.

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

From coast to coast, from the Rio Grande to the Great Lakes, Courtside followers and NDPA warriors are making it clear: Garland’s failure to take due process and racial justice in Immigration Court seriously and his disregard and disrespect for immigration/human rights experts is furthering havoc in the American justice system!

Is it “malicious incompetence” or just plain old incompetence and disregard for the due process rights of “the other” by Garland? Does it make any difference?

What will make a difference is flooding the Article IIIs with litigation challenging this ongoing constitutional nonsense and squandering of taxpayer funds! Overwhelm EOIR with applications for judicial positions and “bore out” the rotten foundations of this system from the inside with the tools of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Also, inundate your Congressional representatives with demands that this blot on American justice be removed from the DOJ forthwith! Write those op-eds and keep informing your local media about the unmitigated, unnecessary, unconscionable, unconstitutional continuing disaster at Garland’s EOIR and how it destroys human lives on a daily basis! Shine the beacon of due process and justice on the dark, secretive, unconstitutional “Star Chambers” Garland operates in the guise of Immigration “Courts.”

Star Chamber Justice — Progressives must put an end to Garland’s Star Chamber Style “Justice” @ Justice. Demand REAL courts with independent, progressive, expert judges who have actually represented human beings in Immigration Court! No more “plants,” “insiders,” and “go along to get along” appointments to America’s key human rights and racial justice judiciary. No more bureaucratic incompetence, assembly line justice, anti-immigrant misogynist culture, and “deportation adjudication centers” masquerading as “courts!” Open up this secretive, closed, unjust bureaucracy to the light of justice and the NDPA! Due Process Forever!

NDPA legions, don’t be content to “wander in the wilderness” while clueless politicos and bureaucrats @ Garland’s DOJ destroy your sanity and the lives of the humans you represent! Stand up to institutionalized racism, continuing incompetence, disgraceful misogyny, intransigence, and ongoing “Dred Scottification” of communities of color by the Garland DOJ! End the DOJ’s anti-immigrant culture and disrespect for the defenders of due process and American democracy that goes on Administration after Administration as if your clients’ lives and your professional expertise were “chopped liver!” Enough is enough! Fight back against “Miller Lite Justice!”

My fellow warriors for justice, YOU are again being ignored, shut out, marginalized, abused, looked down upon, dehumanized, insulted, and scorned by yet another Dem Administration that YOU helped put in office! Time to stand up and be heard for YOUR rights, the rights of the people YOU represent, and the future of our Federal Judiciary and our American Democracy!

NO MORE “MILLER LITE @ JUSTICE!” ASK YOURSELVES: WHO WON THE LAST ELECTION? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “WIN” IF GARLAND CONTINUES TO RUN THE IMMIGRATION COURTS LIKE STEPHEN MILLER IS STILL IN CHARGE?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-06-21

DIVIDED 3RD CIR. REJECTS CASTRO-TUM, DEEPENING CIRCUIT SPLIT & INCREASING CHAOS RESULTING FROM GARLAND’S FAILURE TO BRING IN “PRACTICAL EXPERTS” TO FIX BROKEN IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM & RESTORE BEST PRACTICES!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-2-1-says-no-to-castro-tum

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA3 (2-1) Says “No!” to Castro-Tum

Arcos Sanchez v. Atty. Gen.

“We are fully persuaded that, as discussed in Romero and Meza Morales, the regulations afford IJs and the Board authority to take any action (including administrative closure) as is appropriate and necessary (in the context of each case) for the disposition of such case to resolve questions in a timely and impartial manner consistent with the Act and regulations. After applying the standard tools of interpretation, by considering the text, structure, history, and purpose of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), we hold that the plain language establishes that general administrative closure authority is unambiguously authorized by these regulations. … For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the relevant regulations confer the general authority to administratively close cases to IJs and the Board. We therefore grant the petition for review, vacate the Board’s order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Jerard A. Gonzalez!]

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

So, the Third joins the Fourth and the Seventh in rejecting Castro-Tum, while the Sixth (wrongly) upheld it. In the other Circuits, Castro-Tum remains in effect “by default.” I’ve received reports, though, that some IJ’s in the Fourth Circuit simply ignore the Circuit precedent, emboldened by the “in your face contemptuous attitude” inculcated by the Trump Administration. Apparently, they fear their “enforcement boss” — the AG — more than life-tenured Article III judges. And, to date, Garland has done little or nothing to dispel that attitude.

Shortly after the election, many experts pointed out to the incoming Biden Administration the critical importance of “hitting the ground running” on EOIR reform: immediately vacating the Sessions/Barr precedents; ousting incompetents and restrictionists from EOIR “management,” replacing the BIA with expert progressive judges who could issue correct guidance and keep nativist judges in line; slashing artificial backlogs; reinstating the NAIJ; establishing progressive criteria for hiring and retaining judges; re-establishing a legal asylum system, particularly at the border; ending misogynistic attitudes and treatment of women of color; and bringing in nationally recognized immigration/human rights experts to reestablish due process and best practices nationwide.

Garland has basically ignored the experts in favor of an incomprehensible “Stephen Miller Lite” program of continued injustice, disrespecting and ignoring the needs of stakeholders and foreign nationals, and promoting chaos, inconsistency, and inept practices.

For example, without Castro-Tum, the majority of cases languishing in the 1.3 million backlog probably would be prime candidates for administrative closing under the Biden Administration’s own criteria of what constitutes a “priority.” Having differing and uncertain rules from Circuit to Circuit, along with tolerating IJs who feel empowered to ignore Circuit law, is a recipe for further disaster.

So far, 75% of the Circuits to consider the question have rightly rejected Castro-Tum. If this plays out, hundreds of thousands of cases will be subject to redos, reconsideration, and reopening because of Sessions’s poor judgment combined with Garland’s failure to engage with the endemic problems in “his” courts.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-05-21

🏴‍☠️👎🏻MORE INFO ON AG’s “STEALTH IJs” — Some Will Be “Union-Busting Unit Chief IJs,” Others Will Staff “Video Star Chambers,” As Garland Quickly Sinks To “New Low” In Relationship With EOIR “Stakeholders!”

An anonymous source writes to Courtside:

but yesterday the Director’s message indicated that the 17 new judges were – In April, we welcomed 17 new Immigration Judges (IJs), including one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, six Unit Chief Immigration Judges, and ten IJs. They will serve in the following locations: Adelanto, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, New York, Portland, and Richmond

A thought to share – I suppose one who is familiar with the above courts could check out each court website listing the judges snd see who is new. Then some web searching can get backgrounds. Takes time, yes, but perhaps more fruitful than waiting for EOIR to respond.

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

So, EOIR “welcomed” new IJs in April without bothering to introduce them to the community whose lives and professional futures will be in their hands. This is how Garland intends to “do business” with those in the advocacy community who helped put him in his job! Nice touch, Judge G!

Heck, even Sessions & Barr were willing to announce publicly the names and backgrounds of those with whom the were “packing” their Immigration Courts. They actually were quite proud of their anti-due-process, anti-progressive, non-expert picks that they could “shove down the throats” of the advocacy community (“dirty lawyers” as Gonzo Sessions called them) and their clients — the “other” in our society, not worthy of the legal and human rights conferred on “real persons.”

But, Team Garland is neither as honest nor as forthcoming. “Get it though the rumor mill” or find out the day of your “star chamber proceeding” is apparently the new attitude of contempt at DOJ/EOIR for the NDPA!

Obviously, expansion and staffing of the “Richmond VTC” — a “kangaroo court” arrangement opposed and panned by most immigration and human rights experts is a slap in the face to ethnic communities and activists who helped put Biden and Harris (and indirectly Garland, Monaco, and Gupta) in office.

Fortunately, the NDPA knows a thing or two about how to “speak through litigation and political agitation” if that’s the game the Biden Administration wants to play. It’s now becoming clear that any positive changes and due process in the Immigration Courts over the next four years will come from outside the Administration.

So be it! It might not bode so well, though, for the Biden Administration when they come around seeking support from the immigration/human rights/civil rights communities for the next election!

The GOP treats the immigration advocacy community with consistent contempt. With Dems, the contempt is also pretty consistent — but with an exception every fourth year during Presidential campaigns.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-05-21

🤮👎🏻SHOCKING BETRAYAL@ “JUSTICE” — GARLAND DISSES PROGRESSIVE EXPERTS WITH SECRET APPOINTMENTS OF 17 UNQUALIFIED IMMIGRATION JUDGES! — New AG’s Open Contempt For Racial Justice, Due Process, Human Rights Enrages Advocacy Community Who Believed & Supported Biden-Harris Campaign Pitch! — THE REINCARNATION OF “DEEP THROAT” @ EOIR “BLOWS WHISTLE” ON NEW AG’S ATROCIOUS FAILURE TO TAKE SERIOUSLY MOCKING OF DUE PROCESS, INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM, MISOGYNY, LACK OF SCHOLARSHIP, AVERSION TO PRACTICAL PROBLEM SOLVING IN AMERICA’S DEADLY, DYSFUNCTIONAL STAR CHAMBERS!⚰️☠️🏴‍☠️

Deep Throat — Reincarnated @ EOIR? — Creative Commons License

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 4, 2021

Recently, some of America’s top legal minds were “wordsmithing” their “practical scholarly” advice on what actions Judge Garland should take to begin straightening out his EOIR mess. Common sense steps to slash the largely self-created Immigration Court backlog of an astounding 1.3 million cases actually could and should have been taken within hours of Garland’s swearing in as Attorney General. But, unknown to these experts, the battle they steadfastly had been fighting for the past four years in behalf of due process, common sense, and humanity in a broken system already was lost.

Basically, Garland and his team had secretly delivered the “big middle finger” to progressives earnestly seeking to assist and guide them in the right direction on long overdue reforms at Garland’s incredibly backlogged, totally dysfunctional, anti-due-process, Immigration “Courts” that don’t fit any known American definition of “court.” For while the wheels of scholarly, problem-solving brainpower were grinding away, Garland had cavalierly and clandestinely handed out 17 of the most important (and certainly most readily available to progressive judicial candidates) Federal Judicial positions to unqualified insiders and prosecutors basically “in the Stephen Miller White Nationalist pipeline.” Adding insult to injury, Garland and his lieutenants covered up their disgraceful actions. But, thanks to a reincarnated “Deep Throat” @ EOIR (see, Watergate for newer generations), we now know the truth.

According to “Deep Throat 2021,” (“DT-21”) it’s worse than I previously thought about Immigration Judge appointments. (And, I thought it was bad.) Garland actually secretly appointed 17 new IJs in April, but EOIR hasn’t released the names publicly because they (rightly) fear “the blowback” from Dems and progressives.

So, who is Team Garland” trying to please? “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller? “Billy the Bigot” Barr? Gene Hamilton? Donald Trump? Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions? Chad “Wolfman” Wolf? Ken “Cooch Cooch” Cuccinelli? “Teddy the Traitor” Cruz? Tom “Blacks & Hispanics Should be Pickin’” Cotton?

The 17 include some for the VTC black box “court” in Richmond. The only one that went public was a story a judge himself placed. That’s apparently the one that Dan Kowalski and I picked up. According to sources, none of Garland’s new judges are good for due process or for progressive, expert, independent judging.

Also, there’s a rumor that the open BIA position is going to go to an “EOIR insider,” not someone from the outside who could help restore due process and fundamental fairness.

Let’s see, so far the Biden Administration has had exactly zero progressive Federal Judges confirmed by the Senate. Meanwhile, over at DOJ, Garland has handed out these 17 powerful judgeships with life or death authority serving on the front lines of racial justice in America to non-progressives apparently recommended and tapped by his restrictionist predecessor.

Make sense? Only if you’ve watched past Dem Administrations’ inept handling of the Immigration Courts.

In positive news, there’s “internal chatter” that EOIR Deputy Director Carl C. Risch, a political hack “burrower” from the Trump Administration, is leaving EOIR.

But, “DT-21” is still gravely concerned that “Millerite” BIA Chair David Wetmore (Maury Roberts must be turning over in his grave) has yet to be removed with his “probationary period” set to expire at the end of this month. What, exactly, have been Wetmore’s contributions to human rights scholarship, “applied due process,” fundamental fairness, racial justice, and fair treatment of female asylum seekers that justify his continued tenure as essentially the “Chief Justice of Immigration?”

Garland’s malfeasance at EOIR is not just disappointing, but totally outrageous! On Tuesday, he disingenuously asked the House for more money to promote civil rights while running Star Chambers of institutionalized racism that are undermining the American justice system at the critical “retail level.”

Those advocates who almost single handedly kept the American justice system afloat by successfully challenging many of the unconstitutional racist actions of the Trump immigration kakistocracy once again find themselves “on the outside looking in.” Meanwhile, Judge Garland, who was hiding out above the fray @ the DC Circuit, treats them as “chopped liver” while continuing White Nationalist, anti-due-process policies and precedents initiated by Trump and his cronies.

How out of touch is Garland’s proposal to the House yesterday to address the Immigration Court backlog by casting 100 new Immigration Judges into this mess? (Presumably, these positions will be handed out “like candy” to more non-expert, non-diverse, non-due-process oriented insiders and former government prosecutors.) Well, even with many more Immigration Judges on the bench (more than twice as many as at the end of the Obama Administration), it’s been about two decades since EOIR has decided more cases than it has docketed! That’s how “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats builds uncontrollable backlogs!

Assume the highly unlikely, that under Garland, without any more quotas, corner cutting, or other anti-due-process gimmicks, the existing nearly 600 judges could keep “even” with new filings. Then, once selected, trained, and on duty (a process that took the Obama Administration an astounding average of two years), “Garland’s 100 new judges” could devote themselves to “backlog reduction.” At the DOJ’s quota of 700 cases per judge, the new judges could decide 70,000 cases per year. At that rate, it would take them approximately two decades (or five 4-year Administrations) to “wipe out” the backlog.

Sound like a plan? Only if you don’t understand the fundamental, endemic problems plaguing EOIR and have no “real life experience” representing individuals whose hopes, lives, and futures are being ground to dust by EOIR malfeasance on a daily basis!

Folks, this has to stop! Keep pressing those constitutional arguments that eventually will bring Garland’s corrupt, dysfunctional system to a screeching halt. And keep pushing for legislation to take this ungodly mess out of the DOJ. Also, keep reminding President Biden who helped get out the vote and get him his job. And, where is our African/Asian American/daughter of immigrants Vice President while this outrage at “Justice” is playing out?

How do supposedly progressive women legal luminaries like Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta justify their role in Garland’s misogynist, due process farce @ EOIR?

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — Lisa Monaco & Vanita Gupta have wandered into a strange vision of “justice” for refugee women of color @ “Justice!”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

As for “DT-21,” he/she/them remains as enigmatic, unverifiable, unabashed, and unafraid as ever! This is a 21st Century “patriot” tired of the abuse of due process, racism, incompetence, and misogyny that EOIR has fostered over Administrations of both parties. EOIR under Garland is a progressive’s continuing nightmare!

Does “DT-21” lurk in the shadows of a parking garage, beyond the view of security cameras, as did the famous 1970’s namesake? Or, at the outskirts of an interstate rest area? Perhaps in a dark unwatched corner of an overcrowded Zoom chat room?

And, while you’re at it, say a prayer for Linda Lovelace (1949-2002), the original “Deep Throat” (1972), who later said she was an abused spouse coerced into a career as an adult actress that she eventually rejected. Somehow, there is a tie-in between Lovelace’s exploitation in the 1970s and the systemic mistreatment of asylum seeking domestic violence victims that went into high gear during the Trump regime and continues unabated under Garland! Interestingly, before her untimely death in 2002, Lovelace became an anti-porn activist who testified before the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (a/k/a “The Meese Commission”) in 1986.

Stay tuned for more “truth from the Tower.” You certainly won’t get it from “Team Garland.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-21

🆘NOT ROCKET 🚀 SCIENCE — EXCEPT WHEN DEMS RUN THE DOJ! — Group Of America’s Leading Legal Experts — “Practical Scholars” — Ask Judge Garland To Immediately Slash Backlogs To Align His Now Dysfunctional, Unjust Immigration Courts With Administration’s Stated Priorities — This Should Have Been “Day 1 Stuff” For Judge G, Who Inexplicably Has Stephen Miller “Plants” and Holdovers In Key Positions In Huge, Broken, “Life Or Death” Federal Court System That Controls The Future Of American Democracy!

Here’s the letter to Judge Garland:

April 30, 2021
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

RE: U.S. Department of Justice Authority to Remove Non-Priority Cases from the Active Docket of the Nation’s Immigration Courts

To Attorney General Garland:

As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our opinion on the scope of executive branch legal authority for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to utilize well-established administrative tools to address the historic backlog of cases pending in immigration courts. Each case in the backlog involves an immigrant, many waiting for years to have a “day in court” to defend against charges of removability or to have an application for relief adjudicated. The Attorney General, through EOIR, has the authority to address the immigration court backlog by rapidly and systemically removing nonpriority cases from the active docket.1

For years, the immigration court docket remained relatively steady, hovering between 100,000 and 200,000 cases.2 During the Obama administration, however, the system began to accumulate a substantial backlog, eventually rising to over 500,000 cases.3 These numbers continued to spike during the Trump administration. Currently, the immigration court backlog sits at 1.3 million cases,4 which Lisa Monaco, President Biden’s nominee for Deputy Attorney General, has acknowledged is a “direct impediment to a fair and effective system.”5 Addressing the immigration court backlog is critical to restoring the integrity of the immigration court system.

As a consequence of the immigration court backlog, the average wait time for respondents’ next immigration court hearing, measured from the time a case entered the immigration court docket, is now over 1,600 days.6 Less than 50% of all cases now pending in the immigration backlog are even set for an individual merits hearing, which means many cases will require subsequent hearings, resulting in additional delay.7 This backlog impedes the proper functioning of the immigration court system and its ability to dispense justice. It also undermines core administrative law values that include but are not limited to consistency, efficiency, public acceptability, and transparency.

The immigration backlog also impacts immigration judges, who face crushing caseloads, now approaching 3,000 cases per judge.8 Such caseloads undermine the ability of immigration judges to reliably and competently complete the complex legal analysis and careful credibility and discretionary determinations that removal cases demand.9 The backlog also harms immigrants, who face years of legal limbo while their cases are pending. This legal limbo can be destabilizing to families and communities and delay immigrants’ access to the legal status many are ultimately granted.
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

The Attorney General has the legal authority to create a more functional and fair immigration court system, using existing tools of discretion and deferred adjudication. Specifically, the EOIR has the authority under regulations to identify and defer the adjudication of nonpriority cases. The EOIR Director has clear authority to defer adjudication of cases pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii). Specifically, the Director has the “power, in his discretion, to set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases [and] to direct that the adjudication of certain cases be deferred…”10 Further, the Director has the authority to “issue operational instructions on policy” pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1). The Attorney General also has broad discretionary authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g) to “issue such instructions, . . . delegate such authority, and perform such other acts as the Attorney General determines to be necessary” for the administration of the nation’s immigration courts.11

The use of deferral authority is not merely theoretical. Systemwide deferrals have recently been implemented by EOIR leadership through policy memorandum.12 Deferral acts as a pause in adjudication, akin to the historic use of the status docket, as opposed to a final resolution.13 Indeed, the deferral mechanism can be used as an alternative to the status docket, grounded more firmly in the regulatory scheme, or in tandem, such that deferred cases are placed on the status docket to free up capacity for priority cases. At a future point in time, deferred cases could be recalendared when a determination is made as to the appropriate path to final resolution.14 Based on current agency authority, termination, generally requires a legal deficiency;15 dismissal, generally requires a motion from DHS;16 and administrative closure, is severely constrained.17 However, deferral power remains available as a mechanism that EOIR leadership can independently and immediately deploy at its discretion. Removing nonpriority cases from the immigration courts’ active docket will substantially improve the functioning of the courts and shrink the proverbial haystack, thereby allowing immigration judges to fairly and expeditiously adjudicate priority cases.

Less than one percent of the cases in the EOIR backlog satisfy the Biden administration’s current enforcement priorities.18 Accordingly, consistent with the administration’s own priorities, EOIR could exercise its discretion to defer nonpriority immigration cases. As a first step, EOIR could establish categories of nonpriority cases that can be identified and deferred at a headquarters level without the need for a case-by-case file review.19 This is the path recently recommended by a group of United States Senators and over 150 leading immigration, civil rights, and human rights organizations.20 These Senators and organizations have proposed specific categories of such nonpriority cases that could be systematically identified through existing EOIR data, including: cases that have been pending for more than five years and cases that involve respondents who have potential affirmative pathways to status, such as applications for adjustment of status or new asylum claims, that could be adjudicated by the USCIS.21 These are non-exhaustive examples of the types of nonpriority cases that could be systematically identified and deferred. EOIR should explore these and other similarly identifiable nonpriority categories.

This letter outlines the legal foundation and method by which the Attorney General can restore the fairness and integrity of the nation’s immigration courts. The legal authority, under the existing statutory and regulatory framework, to remove nonpriority cases from the active docket of the immigration courts is clear. Thank you for your attention. For any follow up inquiries, please contact Professor Peter L. Markowitz at peter.marowitz@yu.edu or at 646-592-6537. _____________________________________________________________________________
2
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

1 While this letter focuses on EOIR’s authority to manage the court docket, we do not mean to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not play an important corresponding role in establishing enforcement policies and priorities for the initiation and resolution of proceedings. In fact, DHS has exclusive authority to decide whether to institute proceedings, see Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 17, 19 (BIA 2017) and, as noted infra note 21, DHS’s discretion to dismiss removal proceedings could also play a critical role in permanently removing nonpriority cases from the immigration court docket.
2 TRAC Immigration, Backlog of Pending Cases in Immigration Courts (data through Feb. 2021), https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog.php.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 The Nomination of the Honorable Lisa Oudens Monaco to be Deputy Attorney General Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Hon. Lisa Oudens Monaco).
6 TRAC Immigration, The State of the Immigration Courts: Trump Leaves Biden 1.3 Million Case Backlog in Immigration Courts (data through Feb. 2021) [hereinafter “TRAC, The State of the Immigration Courts”], https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/637/#f1.9.
7 Id.
8 According to EOIR, there are approximately 466 immigration judges nationwide sharing the 1.3 million cases. EOIR, Adjudication Statistics, Immigration Judge (IJ) Hiring (Jan. 2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1104846/download. However, an unknown number of these judges serve in an administrative capacity and thus do not carry a docket of their own. TRAC Immigration, Crushing Immigration Judge Caseloads and Lengthening Hearing Wait Times (data through Oct. 25, 2019), https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/579/. The crushing caseloads are driving many experienced immigration judges to leave EOIR, further exacerbating the backlog. Amulya Shankar, Why US Immigration Judges Are Leaving the Bench In Record Numbers, THE WORLD (July 20, 2020), https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-07-20/why-us- immigration-judges-are-leaving-bench-record-numbers (interview with former Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor, then president of the National Association of Immigration Judges).
9 See Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. of United States, 945 F.3d 772, 794 (3d Cir. 2019) (McKee, J. concurring) (acknowledging the “incredible caseload foisted upon [immigration courts]” and how immigration judges being “horrendously overworked” contributes to the denial of fair and impartial hearings); Chavarria-Reyes v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 275, 280 (7th Cir. 2016) (J., Posner dissenting) (noting how “crushing workloads” cause immigration judges to routinely “botch” cases); United States Government Accountability Office, Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges 30-1 (June 2017), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-438.pdf (reporting that increased caseloads have prevented immigration judges from “conduct[ing] administrative tasks, such as case-related legal research or staying updated on changes to immigration law”); see also Julia Preston, Deluged Immigration Courts, Where Cases Stall for Years, Begin to Buckle, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 1, 2016), www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/deluged-immigration-courts-where-cases- stall-for-years-begin-to-buckle.html?_r=0.
10 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii). This management authority can also be exercised by the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Chief Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(a)(2)(i)(C), 1003.9(b)(3) (identifying the similar subordinate authority of the Chairman of the BIA and the Chief Immigration Judge).
11 See also, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (reserving to the Attorney General certain powers related to the “administration and enforcement of . . . laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens”); 6 U.S.C. § 521(“[T]he Executive Office for Immigration Review . . . shall be subject to the direction and regulation of the Attorney General”).
12 See e.g., EOIR, Policy Memorandum: Immigration Court Practices During The Declared National Emergency Concerning the COVID-19 Outbreak, PM 20-10, fn.2 (Mar. 18, 2020), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1259226/download (deferring all non-detained cases at the outset of the pandemic for a limited period of time); EOIR, Notice: Executive Office for Immigration Review Operation During Lapse in Government Funding (Oct. 1, 2013), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/legacy/2013/10/24/Shutdown09302013.pdf (deferring all non-detained cases during government shutdown).
13 See Memorandum from EOIR Director James R. McHenry III, EOIR Policy for Use of Status Dockets in Immigration Court Proceedings (Aug. 16, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1196336/download (explaining how “[v]arious types of status dockets under different labels have existed at individual immigration
3
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

courts for many years”). While the McHenry Memorandum established historically narrow criteria for use of the status docket, the parameters for such use have been subject to change as a matter of administration policy. Id.
14 Such eventual pathways may include later individualized determinations to administratively close or dismiss cases or to return them to the active docket, once capacity exists, for full adjudication. Notably, while individuals await final resolution, a deferral order, like administrative closure, would neither confer nor disturb respondents’ entitlement to work authorization.
15 Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462, 465-67 (A.G. 2018). But see, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1)(i) (providing for termination pursuant to joint motion for adjudication of a U visa); 8 C.F.R. § 1245.13(l) (providing for termination upon the of adjustment of status to certain Cubans and Nicaraguans); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f) (providing for termination to pursue naturalization in certain circumstances).
16 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(c); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c); see also Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. at 466.
17 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b); see also Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018). Ultimately, EOIR should individually evaluate all pending cases to determine whether they meet the administration’s priorities. To achieve this, the Attorney General should also ensure that immigration judges have the ability to prioritize their cases and “exercise their independent judgment and discretion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b). Indeed, you were clear in your confirmation hearing that the solution to the immigration court backlog must include “some ability to give to the judges to prioritize their cases.” The Nomination of the Honorable Merrick Brian Garland to be Attorney General of the United States: Day 1 Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Hon. Merrick B. Garland). The primary tool used by immigration judges to remove cases from the active docket has historically been “administrative closure.” However, this authority was recently and imprudently curtailed, such that § 1003.10(b) now divests judges of administrative closure authority. See also Matter of Castro-Tum, supra. You can reaffirm and restore the authority for all immigration judges to administratively close nonpriority cases on a case-by-case basis. We express no opinion herein on the merits of current agency precedent regarding termination or dismissal but note that such precedent is subject to your review and could potentially be expanded in the future.
18 There are currently three enforcement priorities: (1) people suspected of engaging in terrorism or who pose a national security threat; (2) people apprehended at the border after November 1, 2020; and (3) people deemed to be a public safety threat, which includes primarily certain individuals with aggravated felony convictions. Memorandum from ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, Interim Guidance: Civil Enforcement and Removal Guidance (Feb. 18, 2021), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2021/021821_civil-immigration-enforcement_interim- guidance.pdf. Out of the 1.3 million people with cases pending in immigration court right now: less than 100 have any type of terrorism or national security charge, virtually all had cases initiated before November 1, 2020, and less than 0.01% involve aggravated felony charges. TRAC, The State of the Immigration Courts, supra note 6. There is no publicly available data on the number of cases that would fall within the new narrowed gang-based public safety priority group, but it is doubtful this category would substantially increase the percentage of priority cases since less than 0.01% of all cases involve any type of criminal removal ground.
19 While it is critical that such cases can be systematically identified this does not mean that consideration of individualized circumstances is foreclosed. Notices of intent to defer could permit respondents to lodge objections if they would be prejudiced by deferral and DHS attorneys to object if it believes a respondent’s case is not appropriate for deferral. Indeed, deferral could act to facilitate individualized prosecutorial discretion determinations, if DHS coordinates to consider whether deferred cases are appropriate for dismissal, and if affirmative applications in deferred cases are ultimately processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
20 Letter from Eight U.S. Senators to Attorney General Garland (Mar. 23, 2021), https://www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile/88403; Letter from 165 Organizations to President Biden (Feb. 1, 2021), https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-correspondence/2021/aila-and-partners-send-letter-to-president-biden. 21 For the affirmative pathway to ultimately be realized, in most instances, the removal proceedings will eventually need to be dismissed or terminated. In this regard, DOJ should coordinate its docket review effort with DHS. DHS has the authority to move to dismiss such cases, and immigration judges have the authority to dismiss such cases, because the notice to appear was “improvidently issued” or continuation is “no longer in the best interest of the government.” 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(c) (permitting DHS to move to dismiss any case where the notice to appear was “improvidently issued” or where “continuation is no longer in the best interest of the government” (incorporating grounds enumerated in 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(a))); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (same); see also Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 464 (reaffirming DHS authority to move to dismiss on such bases). Indeed, DHS has previously made clear that when relief is “appropriate for adjudication by [US]CIS” DHS attorneys “should consider moving to dismiss proceedings.” Memorandum from William J. Howard, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Principle Legal Advisor, Prosecutorial Discretion, (Oct. 24, 2005), AILA Doc. No. 06050511.
4
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Cori Alonso-Yoder
Visiting Professor of Law & Director of the Federal Legislation Clinic Georgetown University Law Center
Jojo Annobil Adjunct Professor NYU School of law
Lauren Aronson
Associate Clinical Professor, Director Immigration Law Clinic University of Illinois, Champaign/Urbana
David Baluarte
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Washington and Lee University School of Law
Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law
David Bedingfield
Visiting Professor Florida State University College of Law Florida State University
Lenni Benson
Distinguish Professor of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School
Kaci Bishop
Clinical Professor of Law
The University of North Carolina School of Law
Linda Bosniak Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
Stella Burch Elias
Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law
Jason Cade
Associate Dean for Clinical Programs and Experiential Learning J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law
Director, Community Health Law Partnership Clinic
University of Georgia School of Law
5
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Kristina Campbell
Professor of Law
UDC David A Clarke School of Law
Stacy Caplow Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School
Violeta Chapin
Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado Law School
Michael Churgin
Raybournee Thompson Centennial Professor in Law University of Texas at Austin
Julie Dahlstrom
Clinical Associate Professor Boston University School of Law
Alina Das
Professor of Clinical Law
New York University School of Law
Ingrid Eagly Professor of Law UCLA School of Law
Bram Elias
Clinical Professor
University of Iowa College of Law
Kate Evans
Clinical Professor of Law
Duke University School of Law
Jill Family
Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Paula Galowitz
Clinical Professor of Law Emerita New York University School of Law
6
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Denise Gilman
Director, Immigration Clinic University of Texas School of Law
Lindsay Harris
Associate Professor,
Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
Laura Hernandez Professor of Law Baylor Law School
Barbara Hines
Retired Clinical Professor of Law University of Texas School of Law
Geoffrey Hoffman
Director, Immigration Clinic University of Houston Law Center
Alan Hyde Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
Anil Kalhan
Professor of Law
Drexel University Kline School of Law
Kathleen Kim
Associate Dean and Professor of Law LMU Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Jennifer Koh
Visiting Lecturer
University of Washington School of Law
Yoana Kuzmova
Staff Attorney Northeast Justice Center
Eunice Lee
Associate Professor of Law
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
7
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Lynn Marcus
Clinical Law Professor
Director, Community Immigration Law Placement Clinic University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Peter L. Markowitz
Professor of Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Fatma Marouf
Professor of Law
Texas A&M School of Law
Amelia McGowan
Adjunct Professor, Immigration Clinic Mississippi College School of Law
M Isabel
Medina Ferris Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Jennifer Moore
Professor of Law and Pamela Minzner Chair in Professionalism University of New Mexico School of Law
Elora Mukherjee
Jerome L. Greene Clinical Professor of Law Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Columbia Law School
Raquel Muñiz Assistant Professor Boston College
Natalie Nanasi
Assistant Professor
SMU Dedman School of Law
Lindsay Nash
Clinical Assistant Professor of Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Lori Nessel
Professor of Law
Seton Hall University School of Law
8
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Mauricio Noroña
Clinical Teaching Fellow
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Michael A. Olivas
Wm B. Bates Distinguished Chair (Emeritus) University of Houston Law Center
Maria Pabon
Professor of Law Loyola College of Law
John Palmer
Professor Agregat Interí Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Reena Parikh
Assistant Clinical Professor Boston College Law School
Helen Parsonage
Adjunct Professor of Immigration Law Wake Forest University School of Law
Sarah Plastino
Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Denver, Sturm College of Law
Anam Rahman
Adjunct Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center
Jaya Ramji-Nogales Professor of Law Temple Law School
Shruti Rana
Assistant Dean & Professor
Hamilton Lugar School of Global & International Studies Indiana University Bloomington
Victor Romero
Professor of Law
Penn State Law, University Park
9
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Rachel Rosenbloom
Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law
Kevin Ruser
Richard and Margaret Larson Professor of Law M.S. Hevelone Professor of Law
Director of Clinical Programs
University of Nebraska College of Law
Mario Russell
Adjunct Professor of Law
St John’s University, School of Law
Faiza Sayed
Visiting Professor of Clinical Law Brooklyn Law School
Andrew Schoenholtz
Professor from Practice Georgetown University Law Center
Erica Schommer
Clinical Professor of Law
St. Mary’s University School of Law
Kim Thuy Seelinger
Visiting Professor
Washington University School of Law
Rebecca Sharpless
Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
Anna Shavers
Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion University of Nebraska College of Law
Gemma Solimene
Clinical Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law
10
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Jayashri Srikantiah
Associate Dean for Clinical Education Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Stanford Law School
Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law
Mark Steiner
Professor of Law
South Texas College of Law Houston
Maureen Sweeney
Law School Professor
University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Margaret Taylor
Professor of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law
Claire Thomas Director, Asylum Clinic New York Law School
David Thronson
Alan S. Zekelman Professor of International Human Rights Law Michigan State University College of Law
Emily Torstveit Ngara
Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Georgia State University College of Law
Enid Trucios-Haynes
Professor of Law
Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville
Diane Uchimiya
Director of Clinical Programs Creighton University School of Law
Leti Volpp
Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law in Access to Justice UC Berkeley School of Law
11
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law Penn State Law, University Park
Jonathan Weinberg
Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research Wayne State University
Anna Welch
Clinical Professor
University of Maine School of Law
Michael Wishnie
William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School
Lauris Wren
Clinical Professor of Law
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Elliott Young Professor of History Lewis & Clark College
cc: Susan Rice, White House
Esther Olavarria, White House
Tyler Moran, White House
Matt Clapper, DOJ
Margy O’Herron, DOJ
Jean King, EOIR
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, DHS Angie Kelley, DHS
Kamal Essaheb, DHS
David Shahoulian, DHS
Tom Jawetz, DHS
12
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

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

All the familiar problems that have plagued the DOJ under past Dem Administrations and helped create the due process and human rights disaster in today’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts,” that aren’t “courts” at all as operated by Judge Garland, are on display here!

First, I know that I’m not the only person who made this or a similar recommendation to the Biden Transition Team. So, 100 days in, why are we still writing letters while those supposedly “in charge” dawdle over common sense “day one stuff” that would dramatically improve the delivery of justice in America?

Second, the “sign on” list here looks like a “who’s who” of the practical experts who should be running EOIR, comprising the entire BIA, and filling vacant Immigration Judge positions! That they are writing letters from the “outside” rather than running the system from “the inside” shows dramatically why Judge Garland is on a course for failure at DOJ — a failure that American democracy can’t afford!

To date, to my knowledge, Judge Garland has made only one Immigraton Judge appointment — a white, male former prosecutor with no prior immigration, human rights, or judicial experience! In other words, same old, same old ignorant devaluing of Immigration Judge positions and the power they hold over human lives and the future of our nation. When will they ever learn?

The irony or ironies — in all of history, there has been only one Attorney General to recognize the true power and potential of the Immigration Judiciary — for good or evil — and act accordingly. Unfortunately, that happened to be White Nationalist, misogynist, xenophobic, racist Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions! Why is he effectively “still in charge” under Judge Garland and an Administration that ran on a platform of fair and just treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants?

Letters are nice — but they are no substitute for action to solve festering problems!

Who REALLY ‘runs” our disgraceful and dysfunctional Immigration “Courts”

This guy?

Or, this guy?

Judge Merrick Garland — Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

How can you tell?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-04-21

⚖️🗽COMING TOMORROW — REGISTER NOW — NY City Bar Presents: “100 Days: Accountability on Immigration” — Moderator Liz Gibson of NYLAG (& The NDPA) Leads An All-Star Panel! — Don’t Miss It!

Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

Webcast

100 Days: Accountability on Immigration
Wednesday, May 5, 2021 | 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Description:
After a tumultuous four years in immigration law, the Biden administration promised to make immigration reforms a priority. The term started off with a series of executive orders reversing some policies, directing implementation of new ones, and asking agencies to pause and reassess. This panel will explore what has changed in the first 100 days of the administration and what still needs to be done with regard to family separation, enforcement, and due process as well as humanitarian, family, and business immigration law.

Moderator:

Elizabeth Gibson, New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG)

Speakers:

Denise Bell, Amnesty International
Kennji Kizuka, Human Rights First
Claire Razzolini, Gibney Anthony & Flaherty, LLP
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, American Immigration Council
Charles Wheeler, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

Program Fee:

Free for Members | Free for Non-Lawyers | $15 for Non-Member Lawyers

Non-Lawyers please call Customer Service at 212-382-6663 to register.

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

Presumably, the panel will discuss the ongoing failure of the Biden Administration & “Team Garland” to address the continuing due process disaster, institutionalized racism, and misogyny at EOIR.

We have just seen on refugee numbers how channeled public outrage and organized pressure can quickly turn around misguided nativist policies. How can the advocacy community, legal community, academia, humanitarians, religious groups, civil rights organizations, ethnic communities, and other members of NDPA unite to force Judge Garland to make the long, long, long overdue progressive changes in our Immigration Courts and to reinstitute at least some semblances of fairness, due process, and independence into this totally dysfunctional system until Congress creates an Article I Court?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-21

🇺🇸🗽👍🏼PRESSURE FROM HUMANITARIANS WORKS: Biden Finally Keeps Promise To Raise Refugee Cap To 62,500 After Strong Pushback From Earlier Bobble!

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-05-03/biden-lifts-trump-refugee-cap-after-delay-backlash

By MATTHEW LEE AND ZEKE MILLER

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MAY 3, 2021 1:48 PM PT

WASHINGTON —

President Biden is formally lifting the nation’s refugee cap to 62,500 this year, weeks after facing bipartisan blowback for his delay in removing former President Trump’s limit of 15,000.

Biden last month moved to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements, removing one roadblock to refugees entering the U.S. put in place by Trump, but he had initially stopped short of lifting the annual cap, with aides saying they did not believe it was necessary. But Biden faced sharp pushback for not at least taking the symbolic step of authorizing more refugees to enter the U.S. this year and swiftly reversed course.

Biden, in a statement, said the new limit “erases the historically low number set by the previous administration,” adding that Trump’s cap “did not reflect America’s values as a nation that welcomes and supports refugees.”

“It is important to take this action today to remove any lingering doubt in the minds of refugees around the world who have suffered so much, and who are anxiously waiting for their new lives to begin,” Biden added.

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

So, excruciating, aggressive, very public pressure from progressive humanitarians works with a President who pays attention to facts and actually wants to govern in the public interest.

Maybe the same advocacy groups, interest groups, and legislators need to radically step up the pressure for progressive changes (or at least the end of active oppression) at the Immigration Courts, which are a main impediment to a fair asylum system. Folks, asylum seekers are “refugees” — first and foremost! The failure to recognize that and treat them legally and humanely is beyond disgraceful!

The unmitigated Immigration Court disaster also undermines racial justice in America every single day that “Team Garland” continues with Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist nativist policies and Miller’s restrictionist “judges” in the Immigration Courts!

Judge Garland has been “living in the Ivory Tower” for a long time, obviously too long! But Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta actually have had to make a living in the “real world” for the past four years. Somebody in the advocacy community who knows these two needs to pick up the phone and read them the “riot act” on the racist, misogynistic, nativist, anti-due-process, regressive, mismanaged human rights disaster unfolding on their watch every day at EOIR — America’s worst excuse for a “court system!”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-21

CHARLES M. BLOW @ NYT BEGS TO DIFFER WITH GOP SENs SCOTT & GRAHAM: “However, it is important to remember that nearly half the country just voted for a full-on racist in Donald Trump, and they did so by either denying his racism, becoming apologists for it, or applauding it. What do you call a country thus composed?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/02/opinion/america-racism.html?referringSource=articleShare

. . . .

I personally don’t make much of Scott’s ability to reason. This is the same man who said in March that “woke supremacy,” whatever that is, “is as bad as white supremacy.” There is no world in which recent efforts at enlightenment can be equated to enslavement, lynching and mass incarceration. None.

Colfax

It seems to me that the disingenuousness on the question of racism is largely a question of language. The question turns on another question: “What, to you, is America?” Is America the people who now inhabit the land, divorced from its systems and its history? Or, is the meaning of America inclusive of those systems and history?

When people say that America is a racist country, they don’t necessarily mean that all or even most Americans are consciously racist. However, it is important to remember that nearly half the country just voted for a full-on racist in Donald Trump, and they did so by either denying his racism, becoming apologists for it, or applauding it. What do you call a country thus composed?

Historically, however, there is no question that the country was founded by racists and white supremacists, and that much of the early wealth of this country was built on the backs of enslaved Africans, and much of the early expansion came at the expense of the massacre of the land’s Indigenous people and broken treaties with them.

Eight of the first 10 presidents personally enslaved Africans. In 1856, the chief justice of the United States wrote in the infamous ruling on the Dred Scott case that Black people “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

The country went on to fight a Civil War over whether some states could maintain slavery as they wished. Even some of the people arguing for, and fighting for, an end to slavery had expressed their white supremacist beliefs.

Abraham Lincoln said during his famous debates against Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 that among white people and Black ones “there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.”

Some will concede the historical point and insist on the progress point, arguing that was then and this is now, that racism simply doesn’t exist now as it did then. I would agree. American racism has evolved and become less blunt, but it has not become less effective. The knife has simply been sharpened. Now systems do the work that once required the overt actions of masses of individual racists.

. . . .

As Mark Twain once put it: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’Tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

Being imprecise or undecided with our language on this subject contributes to the murkiness — and to the myth that the question of whether America is racist is difficult to answer and therefore the subject of genuine debate among honest intellectuals.

Saying that America is racist is not a radical statement. If that requires a longer explanation or definition, so be it. The fact, in the end, is not altered.

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

Read Blow’s full article at the link.

Four things that are clear to me:

The “history” that most of us in my generation learned in high school was “whitewashed;”
The monumental achievements of non-white Americans, women, and children which allowed this country to exist, prosper, and flourish have consistently been ignored or downplayed;
America still has race issues;
The GOP, in particular, has failed to come to grips with the issue of race in 21st century America (apologists Scott & Graham notwithstanding).

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For All Persons Under Law, Forever!

PWS

05-03-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️SCOFFLAW ADMINISTRATION: Biden, Garland, Mayorkas Continue Trump Policies That Fuel Kidnapping Of Asylum Applicants, Aid Smugglers! — Molly O’Toole Reports @ LAT!

Molly O’Toole
Immigration Reporter
LA Times
Source: LA Times website

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=3c4571fa-1131-4b45-8fd5-a1903b21b58f

By Molly O’Toole

WASHINGTON — With shaking hands, Karen Cruz Caceres manages to hit record on the call.

“How many days have you gone without food?” she asks into the phone.

Tani, her younger sister, is heard sobbing. “Help me,” she gets out.

Cruz Caceres assures her: “I am going to pay today. I’ll make another deposit.”

The April 1 call ends abruptly, and Cruz Caceres stops recording.

A week before, Cruz Caceres, a single mother from Honduras who won asylum in Tennessee, had gotten another call that upended her already precarious life: Kidnappers in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, had abducted her pregnant sister Tani and Tani’s 4-year-old son, and they wanted more than $20,000, according to a video recording of the call and messages reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. The family asked The Times not to use her sister’s last name, for fear of retribution from the kidnappers in Mexico and gangs back home.

Tani, 33, and her son were kidnapped on March 25, Cruz Caceres and lawyers said — just after U.S. authorities expelled them from Texas alongside other mothers and children under a Trump-era pandemic policy known as Title 42, which President Biden has continued.

The unprecedented policy, which relies on an obscure 1944 public health statute to indefinitely close the border to “nonessential” travel, has made migrant children and parents easy prey for the criminal groups waiting just on the other side. Biden’s continued reliance on Title 42 to quickly remove the vast majority of migrants at the southern border without due process contrasts with his pledge to restore “human dignity” to a U.S. immigration system targeted by former President Trump.

“My sister and my nephew were told they were going to kill them and feed them to the dogs,” Cruz Caceres told The Times. “If [U.S. officials] want to deport them back to their country, why don’t they do it now like prior presidents did?” she asked. “Why dump them to try their luck in the most dangerous cities in Mexico, to get abducted by kidnappers?”

The abduction of migrants in northern Mexico and the extortion from U.S. family members isn’t new, lawyers, experts and officials told The Times — what’s new is the reliance on Title 42 to expel thousands of these already vulnerable families, leaving them at the mercy of kidnappers and other criminals.

Since the Trump administration implemented Title 42 in March last year amid a global pandemic, U.S. border officials have carried out more than 630,000 expulsions under the policy, some 240,000 since Biden took office in January, according to a Times analysis of the latest government data.

. . . .

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

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

The Biden Administration ran and took office on a platform of kinder, saner policies that would restore human rights and the rule of law at the border. So far, that promise has been a deadly lie!

Arbitrarily and unlawfully closing legal ports of entry to asylum seekers and abrogating asylum and refugee laws plays directly into the hands of human smugglers and cartels while expanding the extralegal immigration system and the resulting underground of undocumented residents. Many of these individuals could and should have been legally admitted through legal channels if we had a functioning immigration system overseen by fair, impartial, expert Immigration Courts staffed with well-qualified progressive Immigration Judges.

Inevitably and predictably, these gross government failures lead to the type of human tragedy that occurred yesterday when a smuggling boat sank off the California coast, killing at least three and injuring dozens. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-02/boat-capsizes-off-coast-of-point-loma

Naturally, with no legal asylum system in place, and with asylum seekers arbitrarily rejected at legal ports of entry, as described in Molly’s article, desperate individuals will turn to smugglers to achieve refuge. It’s not rocket science; but sadly the human tragedy that illegal, inhumane government policies cause at our border appear to be “out of sight, out of mind” to Judge Garland and other Biden Administration officials. That is, until the dead bodies start to pile up on their doorsteps!

“Floaters” — “Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers”
This appears to be the Garland, Monaco, Gupta view of human rights and the rule of law for asylum seeker! What if we thought of these folks as our fellow human beings, rather than statistics or problems to be “deterred” through illegal, deadly, and ultimately ineffective policies? What if Garland replaced Miller’s nativist “judges” with REAL progressive Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum and due process and have the guts to grant legal protection to eligible migrants in a prompt, fair, and timely manner and to demand that DHS Asylum Officers do likewise? (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

🇺🇸⚖️🗽😎🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-21

EOIR WRONG AGAIN: BIA’s Attempt To Limit Its Own Jurisdiction To Grant Waivers Thwarted By 4th Cir. — Jiminez-Rodriguez v. Garland

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-waivers-jimenez-rodriguez-v-garland#

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA4 on Waivers: Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland

Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland

“Reading the broad language of §§ 1003.10(b) and 1240.1(a)(1)(iv), we conclude that these regulations give the IJ the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to grant a § 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) waiver. … [W]e grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s final removal order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Brad Banias!]

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

Seldom has a supposed quasi-judicial tribunal worked as hard as the current BIA to find limits on its ability to solve legal and humanitarian problems. That leaves the work to the Circuits, as in this case.

So, why have EOIR at all? The system clearly is unconstitutional because it lacks fair and impartial adjudicators and even minimally competent administration of due process. If Garland, Monaco, and Gupta have no interest in fixing these glaring problems, then why not just transfer EOIR’s functions to the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Magistrate Judges under the supervision of the Courts of Appeals?

Dems talk big about the need for a more progressive Federal Judiciary to achieve racial justice. But, given the chance actually to create one, they sit on their hands!

Not so the GOP! Restrictionists, nativists, reactionaries and White Nationalists recognize the repressive power of a captive and co-opted Immigration Judiciary and act accordingly. “Act” — that’s the operative word that doesn’t appear to be in the Dem’s vocabulary when it comes to building a better Federal Judiciary for a better America.

Progressives might initially have cheered the appointment of these three to top leadership posts @ the DOJ. But, to date, they have shown no interest in rescinding Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist immigration policies or replacing Miller’s nativist judges with progressive expert judges @ EOIR.

Lisa Monaco
Deputy AG
Official USG Photo, Public Realm

Vanita Gupta
Associate Attorney General
Photo: Brookings Institution, Paul Morigi, Creative Commons License.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-02-21

🛡⚔️👍🏼“SIR JEFFREY” CHASE — Garland’s Immigration “Judges” Pull The Ol’ “Bait & Switch” — They Only Are “Judges” When “OIL” Is Trying To Convince Ethically & Legally Challenged Article III Courts To “Defer” To EOIR Decisions — Otherwise, They Are Expected To Act Like DOJ ”Grundoons” Mindlessly Carrying Out The Executive’s Agenda Cloaked In Quasi-Judicial Disguise!

Grundoon
From Walt Kelly’s “Pogo”
SOURCE: Pininterest

Grundoon: A diapered baby groundhog (or “woodchunk” in swamp-speak). An infant toddler, Grundoon speaks only gibberish, represented by strings of random consonants like “Bzfgt”, “ktpv”, “mnpx”, “gpss”, “twzkd”, or “znp”. Eventually, Grundoon learns to say two things: “Bye” and “Bye-bye”. He also has a baby sister, whose full name is Li’l Honey Bunny Ducky Downy Sweetie Chicken Pie Li’l Everlovin’ Jelly Bean. [From the Walt Kelly comic strip “Pogo.”]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/4/29/the-dojs-contradictions

Contact

The DOJ’s Contradictions

In a recent blog post, I discussed the difficulty in establishing asylum based on a political opinion expressed against MS-13. In the specific case discussed, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the asylum-seeker had expressed a political opinion to MS-13 members.1 In reversing the Immigration Judge, the BIA specifically stated as to MS-13 that “the gangs are criminal organizations, and not political or governmental organizations and gang activities are not political in nature.” The BIA has repeatedly expressed this same view (using this or similar boilerplate language) in its decisions denying asylum. In the particular case discussed in my blog post, a split panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not find enough evidence of record to compel the majority to overturn the BIA’s conclusion.

The BIA is of course a part of the U.S. Department of Justice; its judges are appointed by and employed by the Attorney General. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was one of the Department officials to make the following point to a class of new Immigration Judges in March 2019:

Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.

Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.

The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.2

The clear message being conveyed is “Don’t get any big ideas of judicial independence and neutrality; you work for ‘Team Justice,’ and you will behave accordingly.” Am I alone in thinking that the motto cited by Rosenstein, “when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation,” here comes across as a boss reminding new employees where their loyalties lie rather than as a commitment to truth and justice?

As wrong as this message is when conveyed to judges who are supposed to enjoy the independence and neutrality to rule against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General when the facts and law compel such an outcome, let’s examine this view for the consistency of its application as to all DOJ employees. Presumably, the Board’s official stance that MS-13 is not a political organization and that its activities are criminal and not political in nature enjoys the Department’s seal of approval. In fact, other Department of Justice attorneys, working for the Office of Immigration Litigation, defend that view when the BIA”s decisions are reviewed on appeal by the Circuit Courts. I’m not aware of any Attorney General action to certify a BIA decision expressing this view in order to correct the Board’s position on this issue, or even to remand to the Board for further consideration of its position in light of other conflicting views within the Department.

Regarding such conflicting views, I was recently made aware of a criminal indictment drafted by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in the Eastern District of New York.3 The indictment was filed in December, 2020, while the Trump Administration was still in office. The opening paragraph of the indictment states that MS-13 is a transnational criminal organization engaged in terrorist activity, and that its members use violence “in order to obtain concessions from the government of El Salvador, achieve political goals and retaliate for government actions against MS-13’s members and leaders.” (emphasis added).

The indictment contains a specific section titled “Political Influence in El Salvador.” The indictment states that a unit of MS-13, the Ranfla Nacional, “gained political influence as a result of the violence and intimidation MS-13 exerted on the government and population of El Salvador.” It continued that the organization exercised leverage on the Salvadoran government through its control on the level of violence. The indictment states that in 2012, MS-13 exercised its leverage to negotiate a truce with the ruling FMLN party and its rival 18th Street “to reduce homicides in El Salvador in return for improved prison conditions, benefits and money.” According to the indictment, MS-13 also negotiated a similar agreement with the rival ARENA party, promising to deliver votes in return for benefits. The indictment states that over time, “the Ranfla Nacional continued to negotiate with political parties in El Salvador and use its control of the level of violence to influence the actions of the government in El Salvador.”

The indictment also contains a section explaining the purpose of the Ranfla Nacional. The second specific goal listed is: “Influencing the actions of governments in El Salvador and elsewhere to implement policies favorable to MS-13.”

The attorneys who made the above claims in an indictment filed in Federal District Court are also employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. They are also members of the executive branch, following lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and sharing a duty to enforce the law. In the Second Circuit case I recently discussed, other Department of Justice attorneys in their brief to the court defended the Board’s decision by depicting MS-13 as “an institution that is entirely non-governmental – that is…a group of criminals who, in fact, reject the rules set out by the government.” Noticeably absent from the same brief was any mention that this “rejection of the rules set out by government” includes strategies to pressure said government into undertaking specific actions, as well as its entering into negotiations and ultimately agreements with political parties, the terms of which include MS-13’s delivering votes in return for the parties’ commitment to enacting beneficial policies.

So how can it be that attorneys in one office of the Department of Justice argue that MS-13 as an organization is engaged in exerting political influence to achieve its political goals, and at the same time, another group of attorneys within the same Department of Justice can sign orders sending victims of the same MS-13 to their death by employing a boilerplate sentence that MS-13 is not a political organization and its activities are not political in nature? And that the decisions of that latter group are then defended by a third group of Department attorneys on appeal who make no mention of the conflicting arguments? Let’s remember that, according to Rosenstein, these attorneys were taught from day one that their duties as Department of Justice employees include gathering the facts and seeking the truth.

In 1997, a very different BIA wrote the following in a decision that, although still binding as precedent, seems long forgotten:

immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done. In that regard, the handbook for trial attorneys states that “[t]he respondent should be aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation and controlling court decision, of the requirements of fairness.” Handbook for Trial Attorneys § 1.3 (1964). See generally Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(finding astonishing that counsel for a federal administrative agency denied that the A.B.A. Code of Professional Responsibility holds government lawyers to a higher standard and has obligations that “might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission”); Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991)(noting that government counsel has an interest only in the law being observed, not in victory or defeat).4

This matter deserves the immediate attention of Attorney General Merrick Garland. The ability of asylum seekers to receive a fair review of their claims based on accurate information is a matter of life and death. At this early stage of the Biden Administration, it is critical that the Department send a clear message that the “obligation” mentioned in its motto is to serve an ideal of justice that is independent of the particular politics of those temporally in charge.

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, No. 17-2284, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir., Feb. 26, 2021).

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-opening-remarks-investiture-31-newly.

E.D.N.Y. Docket No.: 20-CR-577 (JFB). The Department of Justice’s Press Release can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/ms-13-s-highest-ranking-leaders-charged-terrorism-offenses-united-states.

Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997).

APRIL 29, 2021

Reprinted by permission.

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

As most outside the nativist world know, the BIA’s position that Northern Triangle gangs aren’t political in nature and action is absurd! For Pete’s sake, these guys negotiate “peace treaties” with governments, control large swaths of territory, manipulate “public death rates” for political gain, aid or punish political candidates and police, collect taxes, control jobs, and have economic policies. Sure sounds like a quasi-governmental, clearly political entity to me. Somewhere, there is a dissent of mine in an old published CAT case saying approximately that.

At least at one point, gangs in El Salvador controlled more jobs than did the Salvadoran Government! No competent, unbiased group of adjudicators (not to mention supposed “experts”) could have reached the BIA’s ridiculous, clearly politicized conclusions!

Sadly, to date, Judge Garland has followed in the footsteps of his dilatory Dem predecessors by destroying lives, promoting injustice, and blowing the Dems’ best chance to build a progressive, due process oriented, human rights advancing judiciary that also would help resolve America’s failure to come to grips with the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and its key role in our legal immigration system as well as being a prerequisite to achieving racial justice in America.

Supposedly, these are the goals of the Biden Administration. Unfortunately, Garland, Monaco, and Gupta haven’t gotten the message, although it has been “delivered” time after time by numerous experts and advocates!

A few historical notes:

I was on the en banc BIA that decided Matter of S-M-J-, cited by Jeffrey. It was written by Judge Michael J. Heilman, a fellow Wisconsinite who once had worked for me at the “Legacy INS” General Counsel, following service as a State Department consular officer. That case “originated” on a three-member panel of Heilman, the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu, and me. It reflects the “government wins when justice is done” message that I had incorporated into INS attorney training years earlier, as well as fealty to UN Handbook standards encouraged by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and the “best practices” that bygone BIA was consciously and aggressively advancing.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was once a respected career prosecutor who served Administrations of both parties. Then, he “sold out” to the Trump Administration and its neo-fascists. Although that probably should have ended his legal career, he’s currently enjoying life in “big law” while those victims harmed and wronged by the illegal and unethical policies (or, in some cases their survivors) he furthered continue to suffer.

Radical progressive due process reforms @ EOIR, starting with wholesale personnel changes and revocation of restrictionist, racist, misogynist policies and practices is long overdue. Nearly two months into his tenure Judge Garland has yet to demonstrate awareness of the need for immediate, decisive action. Meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up and the “adverse decisions” from the Article IIIs bearing his name and tarnishing his reputation continue to roll in!

Actually, Judge, each wrong decision from the BIA represents a human life ruined, often irrevocably. Is that the type of “impact” on American justice that you intend to leave as your “legacy?”

EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”)
By Pieter Bruegel The Elder
Public Domain

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-01-21

Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for immigrants @ Justice:

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 5, 2021

This just in from a NDPA stalwart in Houston, TX:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 4, 2021

Related posts:

Who REALLY ‘runs” our disgraceful and dysfunctional Immigration “Courts”

This guy?

Or, this guy?

How can you tell?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For All Persons Under Law, Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽😎🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts: