"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
REYNOSA, Mexico — When Joe Biden was running for president, he promised to close a squalid border tent camp in Mexico where thousands of migrants had been left to await the outcome of their immigration cases by the Trump administration.
Last spring, Biden emptied the camp, allowing most of the migrants to claim asylum and enter the U.S. even as his administration continued enforcing a Trump pandemic policy that effectively barred most other asylum seekers.
Soon after the Matamoros camp was bulldozed last March, a new camp formed about 55 miles west across from the border bridge to the more dangerous, Gulf crime cartel stronghold of Reynosa. Now that camp and another in Tijuana are home to thousands of asylum seekers, many with spouses and children in the U.S. They’re expected to grow after federal courts reinstated Trump’s so-called Remain in Mexico program last week, making it even harder for asylum seekers to enter the U.S. legally.
“We all thought this would get better when Biden got the presidency,” said Brendon Tucker, who works at the camp clinic run by the U.S.-based nonprofit Global Response Management, which also ran a clinic at the Matamoros camp.
Instead, he said, Biden’s pandemic ban on asylum claims, “is creating worse conditions in Mexico.”
About 2,000 migrants were living at the camp in Reynosa, Mexico, last week.(Molly Hennessy-Fiske / Los Angeles Times)
A White House spokesman declined to comment about the migrant camps, referring questions to the Department of Homeland Security.
Homeland Security said in a statement that, “This administration will continue to work closely with its interagency, foreign, and international organization partners to comply in good faith with the district court’s order [on Remain in Mexico] while continuing our work to build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system that upholds our laws and values.”
In Reynosa, where about 2,000 migrants were living last week, conditions are in many ways worse than they were in Matamoros, Tucker said. There’s less potable water, fewer bathrooms, showers and other sanitation that U.S.-based nonprofits spent months installing in Matamoros. Mexican soldiers circle in trucks with guns mounted on top. Migrants face not only cartel extortion and kidnapping, but also COVID-19 outbreaks and pressure to leave from Mexican authorities. Fewer U.S. volunteers, including immigration lawyers, are willing to cross the border to help due to security concerns. Few at the camp understand their rights and U.S. pandemic restrictions, although they say they asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents about them before they were expelled.
“They didn’t tell us anything, they just left us here,” said Salvadoran migrant Emerita Alfaro Palacios, 34, who’s been living at the camp with her 17-year-old daughter Pamela since June, hoping to join her brother in Houston.
Migrants call the camp Plaza Las Americas, the name of the park it occupies. The first to arrive last spring holed up inside the central gazebo. Those who followed pitched tents outside, their warren of droopy tarps and clotheslines expanding daily. Gone were the mariachis who used to congregate in the park, in the shade of a dilapidated casino that still draws throngs on weekends. Last week, only the gazebo’s spindly roof was visible, like the center of an enormous, patched circus tent. Taxis and vendors still circled, selling fruit popsicles, tacos, pupusas and other dishes catering to hungry migrants, mostly Central Americans. Many said they came to the border hoping Biden would allow them to claim asylum. Some had seen reports about how he helped those at the camp in Matamoros.
Many Reynosa residents and officials consider the camp an eyesore.
Standing on the roof of a nearby building overlooking the camp last week, maintenance worker Hector Hernandez Garrido, 33, said it was the responsibility of the U.S. to accept the asylum seekers. He said he feared the camp was contaminated by COVID-19 and other diseases.
Two weeks ago, Reynosa authorities removed cook stoves from the camp kitchen, citing safety risks. They pressured U.S. volunteers to stop cordoning off a section of the camp for migrants who had tested positive for COVID-19, and have threatened to cut the camp’s electricity and water supply.
“They want us out,” said Gina Maricela, a Honduran single mother and nurse at the GRM clinic.
It’s not clear where the migrants would go. Last month, Reynosa officials also launched a legal battle to demolish the city’s primary nonprofit migrant shelter, already home to hundreds, arguing it lies in a floodplain. Felicia Rangel-Samponaro, who has been crossing the border daily to help migrants at the Reynosa camp through her nonprofit Sidewalk School, said they rented a 20-room hotel for those who are COVID-positive to quarantine. They may build a new camp, she said, but that would take weeks and cost tens of thousands of dollars.
“It’s exactly like Matamoros, but with less support,” Rangel-Samponaro said. “Cut what you like, that’s not going to stop the encampment.”
As in Matamoros and other border cities in the surrounding Tamaulipas state, it’s not city officials or even migrants who ultimately control the plaza — it’s the cartel. Migrants who enter or leave the city without paying a smuggler risk getting kidnapped and held for ransom. So do those who leave the camp, even for a few hours to shop or look for work.
Honduran migrant Lesly Pineda, a factory worker, said she and her 11-year-old son Joan were kidnapped with eight other migrants in July and released only after she paid a $2,000 ransom. A single mother, Pineda, 33, then took her son to the border and sent him across the Rio Grande with a smuggler. He remained at a federal shelter in Texas last week, she said. She had left her two oldest children, ages 15 and 14, with her mother in Honduras.
. . . .
**********************
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — Will U.S. policy makers ever get beyond this jaundiced view of the “proper place” for asylum seekers in modern society? So far, despite Biden’s and Harris’s campaign rhetoric, the “reality on the ground” (or “in the river,” as the case might be) has remained disturbingly unchanged! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
Read Molly’s full report at the link.
The Trump kakistocracy considered the legal asylum system to be a “loophole” in their White Nationalist agenda. So, they just overtly violated the law. Thanks to an indulgent “Dred Scott” Supremes’ majority, they largely got away with it!
The Biden Administration considers complying with asylum laws, due process, and the rule of law, essentially a “political option” that they are working on (slowly, and incompetently).
In the meantime, they simply continue the Trump Administration’s illegal policies. Because, hey, it’s not real humans whose rights, lives, and humanity are being stomped upon here. Just “foreign nationals” and mostly “people of color” at that. Let ‘em continue to twist in the wind, while the Administration gets its act together. That’s particularly convenient if it’s happeningsouth of the border where, except for a few courageous folks like Molly and some NGOs and religious workers, the human trauma is largely “out of sight out of mind.”
If all else fails, we can always blame Trump. Like Trump, Biden has largely ceded control of southern border policies and migration from Latin America to cartels, smugglers, and traffickers. When the legal system fails, the underground and the black market take over.
I don’t think that there is any doubt that restoring the legal asylum system and actually, for perhaps the first time,administering it fairly, lawfully, generously, and with competent expert Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges (“new blood” required) would result in a substantial number of border arrivals being granted legal asylum or other forms of protection.
We’d actually be able to screen individuals, know who we have admitted, where they are going, have them in possession of legal work authorization, in a position to pay taxes, and in many cases have them on a path to eventual full integration into our society. And, by all legitimate accounts, after four years of Trump’s legal immigration disaster and a falling birth rate, we certainly can use more legal immigration.
Instead of looking at asylum seekers as a self-defined “problem,” why not look at saving them and integrating their skills and undoubted courage, energy, and perseverance into our society in a constructive manner as an “opportunity?” Because, that’s exactly what it is!
Human migration will continue, as it always has been, to be a major force in the 21st Century. “Smart money” is on the countries that best learn how to adapt and take advantage of its realities and embrace its opportunities as the “winners of the future.”
Given a fair, functional, generous system, many asylum seekers would be motivated to apply in an orderly fashion at ports of entry, or even abroad (if we actually had a robust functioning refugee program for Latin America, which we don’t). With an honest system that treats them fairly, listens carefully, and provides reasoned understandable decisions, even those who don’t qualify would be more likely to accept the result and consider constructive alternatives.
If the U.S. stepped up, fulfilled our legal obligations, and set a good example, other countries in a position to accept refugees and asylum seekers might also be motivated to improve their performance.
But, what we’re doing right now to those we falsely promised to treat fairly won’t be swept under the carpet forever. Historians are likely to highlight the cowardly abrogation of our legal duties to refugees and asylum seekers, by Administrations of both parties, as alow point in the American story.
“A federal judge declared unlawful the U.S. government’s turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry along the U.S southern border. The court ruled that the United States is required by law to inspect and process asylum seekers when they present themselves at ports of entry, and condemned the practice of denying access to the asylum process through metering and similar practices.
The decision came after oral arguments were held before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern District of California on Tuesday.
The case, Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, was brought 4 years ago by Al Otro Lado and a group of 13 individuals seeking asylum in the United States whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection turned back. The Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center, American Immigration Council, and the law firm Mayer Brown challenged the policy.
Nicole Ramos, Border Rights Project Director of Al Otro Lado, said, “After over four years, a U.S. federal court concluded what our team at Al Otro Lado has known all along, that CBP’s turning away of asylum seekers from ports of entry and metering are illegal and violate the rights of the individuals and families most in need of our protection. Despite DHS’s lies about their capacity to process asylum seekers, the reasons behind why metering exists, and the agency’s destruction of evidence in the case, today the rule of law and justice prevail.”
Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “This is such an important victory for our heroic partners at Al Otro Lado, who have fought for asylum seekers for years against every variation of government lie, denial, and abuse of power. The decision will protect thousands of vulnerable people at the border.”
Melissa Crow, Senior Supervising Attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said, “This decision affirms what people fleeing persecution and immigrant rights advocates have argued for years: the U.S. government’s denial of access to the asylum process at ports of entry is blatantly illegal. The Court properly recognized the extensive human costs of metering, including the high risk of assault, disappearance, and death, when CBP officers flout their duty to inspect and process asylum seekers and instead force them to wait in Mexico.”
“Turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry unconstitutionally stripped people of their right under U.S. law to access the asylum process in the United States. Ports of entry are a critical part of our nation’s asylum system and serve as the front door for arriving asylum seekers. Today’s decision underscores that the government may not simply shut that door and deny asylum seekers this right. The law protects asylum seekers arriving at our doorstep as it does those who stepped over the threshold. CBP must inspect and process arriving asylum seekers,” said Karolina Walters, senior attorney at American Immigration Council.
“Today’s decision is not just a victory for justice and the rule of law, it takes a significant step towards ending a troubling chapter in our nation’s history,” said Stephen Medlock, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP. “Under the turnback policy that was at issue in this case, the very government officials that should have been welcoming and assisting victims of persecution and torture were told to turn them away from the United States. The district court found that to be unequivocally illegal.”
Maria Frausto at the American Immigration Council, mfrausto@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7526; Marion Steinfels at SPLC, marion.steinfels@splcenter.org or 202-557-0430; Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, 212-614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org; Melissa Flores, Al Otro Lado, melissa@alotrolado.org, 213-444-6081.”
*******************
Not surprisingly to those of us who understand the system, this illegal, inane, and unnecessary policy instituted by the Trump kakistocracy and inexplicably continued under Biden has fueled illegal entries, as we effectively gave asylum seekers no legal avenue to make their applications.
As noted above, the Trump Administration also lied to the court and the public about the justification for the program, which clearly was fabricated.
But, to be fair, the Biden Administration has done little to re-establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at the Southern Border. Obviously, this case demands a long overdue investigation into the DOJ attorneys who handled and defended the indefensible, and the misconduct of those attorneys and CBP officials in hiding or destroying evidence and creating bogus scenarios to “justify” their illegal actions. But, don’t hold your breath for Garland, who seems largely indifferent to misconduct at the DOJ or anywhere else in Government, to take any action.
Legal asylum seekers suffer severe consequences for the Government’s concerted attack on their legal rights and humanity. The “perps on our payroll” — not so much. No wonder our legal system is in free fall!
It isn’t clear to me how this case interacts with Biden’s continuation of Title 42 which illegally bars many asylum seekers from pursuing their claims in any manner. There are exceptions, but they appear to be somewhat arbitrary and depend mostly on what CBP feels like doing on any particular day.
For those allowed to pursue claims in the U.S., the Biden Administration still doesn’t have a functioning way of promptly and fairly determining their cases. “Dedicated Dockets” at EOIR are just another “designed to fail” gimmick, almost certain to increase backlogs without promoting fairness and efficiency.
That which would make the asylum system functional for all — immediate EOIR reform, including new progressive leadership, a progressive BIA, much better asylum precedents, some progressive IJs well-qualified to handle asylum cases fairly and efficiently (e.g., getting them right initially, insisting that Asylum Officers do likewise, and cracking down on frivolous behavior by DHS in Immigration Court, rather than the haste makes waste “any reason to deny culture” that drives EOIR’s incredibly poor and inept performance on asylum cases today) and working agreements with the private bar for representation and reasonable scheduling — has been of little visible interest to Garland and his lieutenants to date.
With Congress more or less living on another planet, that’s likely to leave reshaping the asylum system to the Federal Courts. There, as this case shows, there is still a smattering of Article III Judges committed to due process and the rule of law for asylum seekers. But, there are now enough right wing extremists put on the bench by the GOP to make it highly likely that any hard won progressive judicial reforms will eventually be undone.
The one place where progressive reforms could actually take place, and be made to endure, at least for the balance of this Administration — EOIR — has been mishandled by Garland to date.
What an awful, disgraceful mess — with no viable plans for improvement on the horizon!
Proposed asylum regulation changes that rely heavily on a currently broken, dysfunctional, non-expert EOIR to protect the rights of asylum seekers — after years of intentionally bashing them on behalf of their nativist overlords — is an obvious non-starter that fails to “pass the straight face test” as those who actually are condemned to practice before EOIR know all to well. Of course, the regulatory proposal wasn’t drafted by those actually familiar with the human trauma of litigating asylum cases at EOIR.
Ah, Casey, “why can’t anyone out there in ‘Bidenland’ play this game?”
“Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland. The rest of us not so much.” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
These two op-eds make compelling cases for the 5th Circuit rivaling the Supremes as the most scofflaw, out of control, and dangerous court in America! But, hey, is there a “dark horse” in this righty “race to the bottom?” 🐴 (Curiously enough, “owned” and “trained” by Biden-Garland Stables!)
First, let’s hear from my friend, NDPA Stalwart, Houston Law Immigration Clinic Director, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman:
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
CAT a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit? I respectfully dissent
By Geoffrey A. Hoffman
This week a panel of the Fifth Circuit issued Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, interpreting the Convention Against Torture’s (CAT’s) state action requirement so restrictively that it led the dissenting judge to call CAT a virtual “dead letter” in most cases (in the Fifth Circuit, at least).
In this piece, I want to consider this dire prognostication and also think about what it may mean for future practice – at least for those of us in the Fifth Circuit.
Two panel members found that petitioner failed a key requirement for relief: that the government in Honduras “consented or acquiesced” to the torture. In dissent, Judge W. Eugene Davis remarked, “I agree with the IJ, the BIA, and the majority that [petitioner] will likely be tortured by MS-13 gang members. . .[but] I read the record to compel a conclusion that the torture will be with the acquiescence of a public official.” According to Judge Davis, the majority raised the bar so high regarding this requirement under CAT that “for most if not all” people CAT will be out of reach, if they are from countries with (merely) corrupt policy or police without the will or courage to protect them from brutal gangs. While I agree with Judge Davis, the fact is CAT need not be a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit.
I was moved to comment on another split panel decision previously in the Fifth Circuit in Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr, see my prior post here, and I am similarly moved to write about this present decision.
Significantly, the majority here carefully acknowledges up front that the BIA and IJ below found petitioner “likely to be tortured or killed” if returned to Honduras, and even catalogued the horrible injuries he had already suffered, mentioning “gruesome photos” that are part of the record in the case.
Because I think the majority erred, and would agree with most of what the dissenting judge says, let me address three issues where I think the majority got it wrong: (1) what it means for a record to “compel” a different conclusion on appeal; (2) what it means for a government to consent or acquiesce to torture and (3) the notion that Petitioner waived his argument about the correct standard of review merely by failing to bring it up in a motion to reconsider.
I address all three of these points below.
First, the majority importantly conceded in its opinion that the police “failed to investigate” petitioner’s injuries. However, because the Board and IJ interpreted these “failures” of the police as “better explained” by the fact the petitioner “was unable to disclose the specific identity of any of his attackers” this showed the police did not “willfully ignore” the attacks. The majority reasoned that the “evidence” did not “compel” a contrary conclusion and therefore the IJ’s findings, adopted by the BIA, were considered “conclusive.”
I am struck here by the notion that just because the BIA and IJ had inserted their own explanations for the unrebutted record evidence showing lack of any police action that this must have meant (according to the majority) that the appellate court was constrained to accept this explanation and would not disturb the lower tribunal’s interpretation of the evidence.
Such a reading of the word “compel” means that judges can have an “out” anytime they want to rubber stamp any decision of the Board, all they have to do is say the explanation offered characterizing the evidence in one way or another was good enough and must not be disturbed. But this is a very troubling proposition.
Take, for example, the present case where the supposition on the part of the BIA and IJ was that the petitioner was somehow at fault for not being able to identify his attackers by name. Think about that for a minute…Police are not acquiescing and not at fault and should not be held to have “turned a blind eye” because the victim was unable to identify his attackers.
But this does not make sense.
Such a blame-the-victim mentality goes against the motivation and underlying rationale behind other federal types of relief immigrants have available, for example, U visas for crime victims, VAWA, T visas, etc., premised in many cases on the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement and their investigation. Just because a victim does not know the exact identities of their attackers does not disqualify them from relief. Would that be a reasonable interpretation for example of the U visa statute and attendant regulations?
In addition, let’s consider the use of the “compel” standard for a minute and where it came from exactly. This standard, as acknowledged by the majority, comes from a previous case, Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006), among other cases. Chen in turn cites 8 USC 1252(b)(4)(B) and emanates from the Supreme Court’s famous decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), authored by Justice Scalia.
Chen was a case about a Chinese petitioner who converted to Christianity after entry into the U.S. and so her applications did not rely on past persecution but a well-founded fear of future persecution based on religion. The IJ in the former case found that there were “many Christians in China” and that Chen’s claims of future persecution were allegedly “highly speculative.” The facts of Chen and the current case relating to police inaction in Honduras could not be further apart. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit in Chen was not considering past persecution, as here, but the more difficult to prove “future persecution” and well-founded fear standard.
Similarly, Justice Scalia in Elias-Zacarias was concerned about proof supporting a political opinion claim. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner could not produce evidence “so compelling” that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution on account of political opinion. The “so compelling” language has been used by many courts to deny asylum on many other grounds throughout the past decades and has not been limited to political opinion claims.
But the reliance in the present case for the “compel” standard on the statute in question, 8 USC 1252(b) here is misguided. The statute states in pertinent part as follows: “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary . . . .” But the “consent and acquiescence” determination under CAT is not a determination of “administrative facts” but is certainly a mixed question of law and fact. As such, the entire structure of the “compel” standard should not have been applied but instead de novo review applied.
And this brings me to the practice pointer that this case so unfortunately stands for. Although on appeal before the circuit court the issue of standard of review was raised by petitioner, it was rejected by the majority on the theory that he had to have filed a “motion to reconsider” before the Board to preserve the issue for appellate review.
This waiver argument has always seemed to me a weak and tenuous one.
For example, what if the petitioner (i.e., the respondent before the BIA) argued in his brief to the Board that the correct standard of review was de novo due to the mixed question raised by a very complicated “consent or acquiescence” determination under CAT, and courts have so held, but the BIA decided to just rubber stamp the IJ and refused to overturn the IJ’s finding based on clear error. Wouldn’t that have preserved the issue? Why is there a need for a litigant to then file a motion to reconsider after the fact to preserve an issue which had already been preserved? To make matters worse it appears Mr. Tobora Gutierrez appeared pro se, see page 3 of the Fifth Circuit majority decision, at least initially. The decision does not reveal if he had appellate counsel before the BIA. But if he did not it would be an especially onerous requirement to impose an “after the fact” requirement that a litigant must file a “motion to reconsider” to preserve an issue for appellate review, especially if he is unrepresented.
All of that said, the practice take-away here is: (1) everyone must file a very carefully drafted and thorough motion to reconsider on all issues that could be in any way (mis-)interpreted to be subject to waiver so you preserve all issues for review before the circuit courts; and (2) everyone should read Judge Davis’ cogent and reasoned dissenting opinion, which hopefully will be followed instead of the majority’s strained application of the “compel” standard. Judge Davis was right: the evidence does compel a different outcome. Judge Davis does a wonderful job also of distinguishing the prior case law in this area and showing how Mr. Tobora Gutierrez’s case is fundamentally different. As he says, “if the egregious facts of this case are not sufficient to support a finding of public-official acquiescence, CAT relief will be a dead-letter to most if not all individuals who live in countries where the police are corrupt or simply do not have the will or courage to protect them from brutal gang attacks.”
Judge Davis is right, this is a most troubling decision but not just for the reason he provides. It is troubling for the further reason that the majority applies the wrong legal standard here, the “compels” standard versus a de novo review. The majority also leaves the door open for “deferred action,” for this sympathetic and horrendous case, although it declines to recommend it. Most importantly, it also leaves the door open for de novo review, in future cases, at least where those litigants are perceived to have preserved the issue. Litigants can do this by filing a motion to reconsider with the BIA, then filing (another, second) petition for review when the motion to reconsider is denied, and then (following the procedure mandated by section 1252) consolidating the two cases.
(Institution for identification only)
Geoffrey Hoffman
Clinical Professor, UHLC Immigration Clinic Director
Let’s not forget that Garland’s DOJ defended this grotesque miscarriage of justice. In a grim way, Geoffrey’s “practical scholarship” ties in nicely with Ruth Marcus’s recent op-ed in WashPost on the righto-wacko 5th Circuit’s dangerous assault on American justice:
Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus, moderates a panel discussion about chronic poverty with Education Secretary John B. King (blue tie) and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (striped tie), during the National Association of Counties (NACo), at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park, in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture photo by Lance Cheung.
Opinion: The 5th Circuit is staking out a claim to be America’s most dangerous court
Opinion by Ruth Marcus
August 31 at 6:37 PM ET
The Supreme Court is, no doubt, the nation’s most powerful court. But the 5th Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is staking out a claim to be the most dangerous — the least wedded to respecting precedent or following an orderly judicial process.
The 5th is arguably the most conservative among the country’s dozen appeals courts. It inclined in that direction even before President Donald Trump managed to install six nominees. And they constitute quite a bunch: Stuart Kyle Duncan, who said the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling establishing a right to same-sex marriage “imperils civic peace” and “raises a question about the legitimacy of the court.” Cory Wilson, who tweeted about Hillary Clinton using the hashtag #CrookedHillary, called the Affordable Care Act “illegitimate” and said he supported overturning Roe v. Wade. James C. Ho, who issued a concurring opinion lamenting the “moral tragedy of abortion.”
How conservative is the court, where 12 of 17 active judges were named by Republican presidents? “As conservative a federal appeals court as any of us have seen in our lifetimes,” says Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, noting that even as the circuit’s conservatives tend toward the extreme end of the spectrum, its liberals aren’t all that liberal.
One measure: During each of the last two Supreme Court terms, with conservative justices firmly in the majority, the high court has reviewed seven cases from the 5th Circuit. It reversed 6 of 7 decisions in the 2019-2020 term and 5 of 7 in 2020-2021.
These included the appeals courts’ rulings striking down the Affordable Care Act and upholding the constitutionality of a Louisiana abortion law, identical to a Texas statute the justices had tossed out several years earlier — another 5th Circuit special reversed by the high court. If you thought the appeals court judges would have learned their lesson the first time, you don’t know the 5th Circuit.
Texas can ban the abortion procedure most commonly used to end second-trimester pregnancies, a federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 18. (Reuters)
The circuit’s latest shenanigans involve, unsurprisingly, abortion, and Texas’s latest attempt to eviscerate abortion rights. This Texas law, which goes into effect Wednesday, is both blatantly unconstitutional (it purports to prohibit abortion once there is a detectable fetal heartbeat, around six weeks into pregnancy) and an audacious effort to evade judicial review (it leaves enforcement of the ban up to private vigilantes, not state officials.)
In this effort to end-run and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, the 5th Circuit has already proved itself an eager co-conspirator. Texas abortion clinics filed suit in federal court challenging the law and seeking to block it from taking effect. A federal judge had scheduled a hearing on whether to grant such an injunction.
But on Friday a panel of the 5th Circuit — two Trump judges and one Reagan appointee — issued an extraordinary order preventing the district judge from going ahead with the hearing, thus letting the law take effect in the interim — all this even as the appeals court refused to speed up its consideration of the case. In a sign of their desperation, the clinics appealed that action to the Supreme Court, not exactly a friendly venue these days for abortion rights.
. . . .
Read the rest of Ruth’s op-ed at the link.
But, the right-controlled Supremes aren’t going quietly into the night in this competition. The right to a reasoned decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker is fundamental to Constitutional due process — except at the Supremes. The righty majority now employs the “shadow docket” to avoid explanation and accountability for some of it’s most outrageously scofflaw decisions! Many of these have hurt or even killed migrants. David Leonhardt @ NY Times explains:
Davide Leonhardt Journalist NY Times PHOTO: Wikipedia
This one came out shortly before midnight on Wednesday. It consisted of a single paragraph, not signed by the justices who voted for it and lacking the usual detailed explanation of their reasoning. And there had been no oral arguments, during which opposing lawyers could have made their cases and answered questions from the justices.
Instead, the opinion was part of something that has become known as “the shadow docket.” In the shadow docket, the court makes decisions quickly, without the usual written briefings, oral arguments or signed opinions. In recent years, the shadow docket has become a much larger part of the Supreme Court’s work.
Shadow-docket rulings have shaped policy on voting rights, climate change, birth control, Covid-19 restrictions and more. Last month, the justices issued shadow decisions forcing the Biden administration to end its eviction moratorium and to reinstate a Trump administration immigration policy. “The cases affect us at least as much as high-profile cases we devote so much attention to,” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, told me.
Shadow-docket cases are frequently those with urgency — such as a voting case that must be decided in the final weeks before an election. As a result, the justices don’t always have time to solicit briefs, hold oral arguments and spend months grappling with their decision. Doing so can risk irreparable harm to one side in the case.
For these reasons, nobody questions the need for the court to issue some expedited, bare-bones rulings. But many legal experts are worried about how big the shadow docket has grown, including in cases that the Supreme Court could have decided in a more traditional way.
“Shadow docket orders were once a tool the court used to dispense with unremarkable and legally unambiguous matters,” Moira Donegan wrote in The Guardian. “In recent years the court has largely dispensed with any meaningful application of the irreparable harm standard.”
Why the shadow docket has grown
Why have the justices expanded the shadow docket?
In part, it is a response to a newfound willingness by lower courts to issue decisions that apply to the entire country, as my colleague Charlie Savage explains. By acting quickly, the Supreme Court can retain its dominant role.
But there is also a political angle. Shadow-docket cases can let the court act quickly and also shield individual justices from criticism: In the latest abortion case, there is no signed opinion for legal scholars to pick apart, and no single justice is personally associated with the virtual end of legal abortion in Texas. The only reason that the public knows the precise vote — 5 to 4 — is that the four justices in the minority each chose to release a signed dissent.
Critics argue that judges in a democracy owe the public more transparency. “This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,” Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, has said. “If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power.”
During a House hearing on the shadow docket in February, members of both parties criticized its growth. “Knowing why the justices selected certain cases, how each of them voted, and their reasoning is indispensable to the public’s trust in the court’s integrity,” Representative Henry Johnson Jr., a Georgia Democrat, said. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said, “I am a big fan of judges and justices making clear who’s making the decision, and I would welcome reforms that required that.”
The shadow docket also leaves lower-court judges unsure about what exactly the Supreme Court has decided and how to decide similar cases they later hear. “Because the lower-court judges don’t know why the Supreme Court does what it does, they sometimes divide sharply when forced to interpret the court’s nonpronouncements,” writes William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Baude coined the term “shadow docket.”
Six vs. three
The court’s six Republican-appointed justices are driving the growth of the shadow docket, and it is consistent with their overall approach to the law. They are often (though not always) willing to be aggressive, overturning longstanding precedents, in campaign finance, election law, business regulation and other areas. The shadow docket expands their ability to shape American society.
The three Democratic-appointed justices, for their part, have grown frustrated by the trend. In her dissent this week, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this court’s shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.” In an interview with my colleague Adam Liptak last week, Justice Stephen Breyer said: “I can’t say never decide a shadow-docket thing. … But be careful.”
Roberts also evidently disagrees with the use of the shadow docket in the Texas abortion case. In his dissent, joining the three liberal justices, he said the court could instead have blocked the Texas law while it made its way through the courts. That the court chose another path means that abortion is now all but illegal in the nation’s second-largest state.
The justices are likely to settle the question in a more lasting way next year. They will hear oral arguments this fall in a Mississippi abortion case — the more traditional kind, outside the shadows — and a decision is likely by June.
Read more from David in “The Morning” e-mail from the NYT.
******************************
Abrogating a treaty, intellectual dishonesty, neutering Federal statutes and regulations, scoffing at Constitutional due process, disregarding decency and human life (at least “life after birth”), AND illegally sending another human back to be tortured to death is indeed a “hard act to follow” and makes the 5th a serious contender. But, remember where this “opportunity to dump on migrants” came from!
Immigration practitioners will tell you never to underestimate the sloppiness, lack of expertise, irresponsibility, disdain for due process, and disregard for human lives that has become institutionalized at Garland’s “Miller Lite” captive appeals “court,” the BIA! And, like the Supremes and unlike the 5th Circuit, the BIA has nationwide jurisdiction and sets national precedents. But, unlike the Supremes, who decide fewer than 100 cases in an average year, the BIA assembly line charms out 20,000 to 30,000 cases annually through its defective processes, and it’s lousy, one-sided, anti-immigrant precedents and reactionary guidance that destroy thousands of lives and futures in Immigration Court every day!
So, when it comes to worst court of today, don’t count out the BIA!
Charlotte Klein Staff Writer Vanity Fair PHOTO: Twitter
The “Commanding Generals” of this effort are unprincipled, far-right GOP jurists. Their initial targeted victims are, of course, the usual vulnerable suspects: migrants, asylum seekers, women, voters of color, transgender kids, the poor, union members, etc. But, eventually, all of us who reman true to liberal democratic values will be targeted for some kind of punishment. Immigration “led the way” in the “Dred Scottfication of the other” by the Supremes at the behest of the Trump kakistocracy. But, don’t think that’s where this heinous resuscitation of one of the worst cases in American jurisprudence will end!
Meanwhile, this latest phase of the assault has unleashed the usual Dem arsenal of feckless weaponry, including:
Statements of outrage untied to realistic possibilities;
Largely meaningless public demonstrations that are “media events” and not much else;
Idle threats of reprisals;
A barrage of op-eds decrying that the fringe radical right and their relatively unpopular agenda has once again outflanked liberals who represent the views and values of the majority;
Statements of fact that have no material effect (public support for the complete elimination of abortion, al la Texas, the 5th, and the Supremes holds steady at 8%, while a large majority of Americans favor abortion in some form or another — explain how that has made a difference — also, does anybody really think that these right wingers give a fig that many women will die from illegal abortions and others will be saddled with unwanted children — the only part of human life that creates much compassion or empathy for this righty gang is that which occurs prior to birth);
Appeals to precedent, fairness, decency, reasonableness, confirmation promises, and respect for the law addressed to a party and its jurists who value none of these things if they get in the way of their authoritarian agenda.
But, Dems, here’s a better idea! For once, why not try a different approach and actually work within what you DO control and CAN change? Something that will showcase the positive attributes of honest, expert, progressive judging while developing best practices and saving lots of lives in the process. What do you have to lose, Dems? Can actually doing something to combat right-wing control of the judiciary rather than just impotently raging against it produce a worse result than you have already achieved — even when controlling the Executive, House, and Senate?
There is not much in the immediate future that Biden and the Dems can (and are willing to) do to change the composition and tenor of the Supremes and the 5th Circuit. But Biden and Garland have complete control over the “Miller Lite” BIA and the Immigration Courts!
A new, well-qualified, BIA comprised of progressive expert judges unswervingly committed to scholarship, quality, due process, respect for migrants and their attorneys, and correct results could (and should) be installed by now. But, disgracefully, it isn’t! Progressives need to hold Biden’s and Garland’s feet to the fire until they create the positive change they promised, but have not delivered!
Then, once a new BIA is in place, go to work on re-competing all Immigration Judge jobs on a merit basis, incorporating key progressive values and real-life experiences, and also involving input from practitioners and outside experts in the area. Create a better progressive Federal Immigration Judiciary and let it lead the way to restoring due process, best practices, efficiency, humanity, fundamental fairness, and integrity to our broken immigration system!
Humanity is suffering! Garland must pull the plug 🔌 on the “BIA Clown Show” 🤡 before it kills ⚰️ anyone else! Pull the BIA from the “Most Dangerous Court In America Competition” before they can “win” it. A “win” for the BIA would certainly be a “loss” for America!
Immigration Courts are the “living, breathing repudiation” of racial justice in America!🏴☠️
Repeatedly, Federal Courts at all levels say that foreign nationals are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Then, they often go on to convert that to an insulting platitude by approving legal travesties and substandard performance by EOIR inflicted on migrants of color, their attorneys (if any), and their communities. Maybe, it’lls because talented Hispanic judges with actual experience representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court are so few and far between. Maybe it’s because Garland has failed to actively recruit judges from among immigration and human rights attorneys of color and has continued to employ a flawed “insider-tilted” selection process that was designed and implemented to “slam the door” on experts from the non-governmental advocacy and academic communities.
Whatever the reason, EOIR has become the “living refutation” of the assertion that Hispanics and other communities of color are treated fairly and equally under our laws and that that race-based decision-making and jurisprudence have vanished from our legal system.
Maybe it’s time for Hispanics and their allies to stop being “tolerant of inequity and bias” and start taking a more aggressive and less compromising position on Garland’s disgraceful, disorderly, dysfunctional, non-diverse, tone-deaf Immigration Courts! Your voices are NOT being heard by those running the Star Chambers and cranking out “assembly line injustice.”
Why does the Hispanic community put up with being demeaned, dehumanized, and degraded by Garland’s “Clown Courts”🤡 and also by a Democratic Party that promised change but has delivered “same old same old” at EOIR?
Recent Supreme Court mockeries of justice show that the rights of minorities are under assault by a radically right-wing Article III Judiciary stocked with GOP appointees. The Immigration Courts, by contrast, are under the total control of the Administration and present an unparalleled opportunity for minority communities to both showcase their judicial skills and to start winning back their legal rights after four years of unrelenting assault by the White Nationalist right.
Why is this perhaps once-in-a lifetime opportunity for long overdue, radical reform of a broken, biased, and incompetent system being squandered and buried by Garland as if Stephen Miller and his cronies were still calling the shots? How many Hispanic and other lives will be sacrificed to EOIR over the next three plus years? How many attorneys of color will continue to be abused, misused, and under-appreciated by an Administration pledged to “do better?” What will be left of racial justice in America if entrusted to a DOJ that doesn’t even believe in the concept in their own court system?
“We hold that B.C. was denied due process because the IJ did not conduct an adequate initial evaluation of whether an interpreter was needed and took no action even after the language barrier became apparent. Those failures resulted in a muddled record and appear to have impermissibly colored the agency’s adverse credibility determination. We therefore vacate the BIA’s decisions and remand for a new hearing on the merits of B.C.’s claims. On remand, the agency must also remedy other errors B.C. has identified, which include dealing with the corroborative evidence he submitted.”
“Baljinder Singh achieved what many immigrants to our country seek: he became a naturalized citizen. Unfortunately, he did so through willful misrepresentation, and, as a consequence, his citizenship was revoked. Before that revocation and while he was still a citizen, he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs. That led the government to initiate removal proceedings against him, and he was in fact ordered to be removed. Singh now petitions for review of that final order of removal, arguing that the pertinent statutory provisions, by their terms, permit removal only of individuals who were “aliens” at the time of their criminal convictions, whereas he was a naturalized citizen when convicted. The government responds that we must defer to the interpretation given by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to those statutes and therefore must deny the petition for review. In the alternative, the government contends that Singh should be treated as if he had never been naturalized and was actually an “alien” at the time he was convicted. We disagree with both of the government’s arguments and will grant Singh’s petition for review.”
Who would have thought that nearly eight months into the Biden Administration, Garland would still be living in this guy’s house and cranking out some of America’s most unabashedly horrible “jurisprudence” that actually threatens human lives! This is competence? Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
So many systemic problems here! So many obvious solutions! So much progressive expert talent out here who could get this system back on track and save lives in the process! So few excuses for Garland’s gross mishandling of the ongoing EOIR disaster!
The “culture of sloppiness, denial, and anti-immigrant bias” remains at EOIR almost eight months into the Biden Administration! Major personnel (new expert progressive judges committed to due process) and structural changes are necessary and long, long overdue!
The BIA needs to be replaced. Yesterday! Not rocket science! 🚀 Garland and his DOJ have no credibility whatsoever on civil rights, voting rights, or other racial justice issues as long as they run “star chambers” targeting primarily migrants of color (not to mention their long-suffering and dedicated lawyers, many acting pro bono).
“Justice” Star Chamber Style — Garland’s star chambers look and function disturbingly like those of Stephen Miller! Is this REALLY the “progressive humanitarian change” progressives voted for?
Immigrant justice IS racial justice IS equal justice for all! I’m certainly not the only person to have observed this!
⚠️WARNING TO PROGRESSIVE ADVOCATES: There can be no legitimate “asylum reform” without a strong, courageously progressive EOIR to set proper precedent, insure consistency, establish best practices, train judges and adjudicators, and police both the Immigration Courts and the Asylum Offices, including ordering corrective action to be taken in cases of those judge and officers repeatedly and demonstrably “not up to the job.” In simple terms, the culture of anti-asylum bias, racial dehumanization, and sloppy anti-immigrant decision-making that was promoted and institutionalized at EOIR under Sessions and Barr must be eradicated!
Do you seriously think that “this version” of EOIR, poorly trained, weakly staffed, and led by a BIA custom designed and packed by nativists to deny asylum and tilt in favor of DHS enforcement, will insure fairness and due process to asylum seekers in a “streamlined system?” No way!
Yet, beneath all the legal gobbledygook surrounding the proposed asylum regulation changes is the ugly reality that inflicting a “Miller-Lite” EOIR on asylum seekers and their advocates is EXACTLY what Garland and Mayorkas are absurdly proposing!
Advocates need to make their voices heard for immediate EOIR reforms from Garland and establishment of a new well-qualified, well-trained, progressive EOIR as an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite to any more “gimmicks,” including most of the proposed asylum regulations.
As proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, day after day, Garland’s EOIR is “not quite ready for prime time” — not by a long shot! JUST SAY NO TO STREAMLINING & YET MORE “GIMMICKS” (see, e.g., “Dedicated Dockets”) WITHOUT RADICAL PROGRESSIVE EOIR REFORMS!⚖️🗽
The main problem with the current asylum system isn’t the law. It’s the unqualified folks charged with interpreting and applying it, those “defending the indefensible” (also an abuse of our legal process), and the spineless politicos unwilling to stand up for due process and the rule of law for migrants — at the border and elsewhere!
The failure of effective progressive leadership on EOIR reform at DOJ is simply appalling! And, OIL isn’t exactly covering itself in glory either! You can’t win the game without new and better players on the field. Right Casey?
“Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland. The rest of us not so much.” Not going to win many games for humanity and the rule of law with Stephen Miller’s “nativist team” on the field. Is that fundamental truth really too deep for Garland and his “spear carriers” to grasp? PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
SCOTUSblog: The Supreme Court on Tuesday night rejected the Biden administration’s plea for a reprieve from a district-court order requiring it to reinstate a Trump-era program known as the “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in U.S. immigration court. The court was divided on the decision to deny relief, with the court’s three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – indicating that they would have granted the government’s request and put the district court’s order on hold. See also The Supreme Court’s stunning, radical immigration decision, explained; Biden administration will continue challenging ‘Remain in Mexico’.
Politico: U.S. officials in Kabul gave the Taliban a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to grant entry into the militant-controlled outer perimeter of the city’s airport, a choice that’s prompted outrage behind the scenes from lawmakers and military officials. See also In evacuation mission’s 11th hour, hope dims for Afghans seeking escape.
AP: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must test detainees for COVID-19 before they are transferred to the immigrant detention center in Tacoma, a federal judge ordered Monday.
The Intercept: ATLAS helps DHS investigate immigrants’ personal relationships and backgrounds, examining biometric information like fingerprints and, in certain circumstances, considering an immigrant’s race, ethnicity, and national origin. It draws information from a variety of unknown sources, plus two that have been criticized as being poorly managed: the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database, also known as the terrorist watchlist, and the National Crime Information Center. Powered by servers at tech giant Amazon, the system in 2019 alone conducted 16.5 million screenings and flagged more than 120,000 cases of potential fraud or threats to national security and public safety.
AP: Five months after the Biden administration declared an emergency and raced to set up shelters to house a record number of children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border alone, kids continue to languish at the sites, while more keep coming, child welfare advocates say.
NYT: a new camp sprang up about 55 miles farther west, in the Mexican city of Reynosa, and this one, aid workers say, is far worse than the one at Matamoros ever was. Overcrowded already, with more than 2,000 people, it is filthy and foul-smelling, lacking the health and sanitation infrastructure that nonprofit groups had spent months installing at Matamoros. Assaults and kidnappings for ransom are commonplace.
NYT: . Through July, Border Patrol officials found 383 dead migrants, the highest toll in nearly a decade, and one already far surpassing the 253 recovered in the previous fiscal year.
Law360: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis demanded the Biden administration provide personal information on undocumented migrants being relocated to Florida, including names, addresses and the number of people who tested positive for COVID-19 or refused the coronavirus vaccine.
Law360: A federal watchdog on Wednesday called on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to improve its employment eligibility verification system, finding shortcomings that kept the agency from accurately confirming workers’ identities and work authorization in at least 800,000 instances.
AILA: The Supreme Court denied the application for a stay and thus preventing the Biden administration’s effort to halt the reminstatement of “Remain in Mexico.” (Biden, et al. v. Texas, et al., 8/24/21)
AILA: The court extended the district court stay on the preliminary injunction on the Biden immigration enforcement memos indefinitely. (Texas, et al., v. USA, et al., 8/27/21)
Law360: A Nepalese asylum-seeker has another shot at avoiding deportation after the Second Circuit ruled Friday that an immigration judge had prematurely declared his story of Maoist intimidation and violence not credible without giving him a chance to address minor discrepancies.
Law360: The Second Circuit rejected an immigrant’s arguments Wednesday that after being beaten by members of a rival political party for his affiliation with a Sikh party, he could not escape the threat of more violence by moving within India, affirming a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to deny asylum and deport the man.
Law360: A panel of Fifth Circuit judges vacated a Pakistani man’s deportation order issued after he was convicted for synthetic marijuana possession, finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to fully consider whether his state law conviction is equivalent to federal drug law.
AILA: Where the petitioner alleged that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya made his removal unlawful, the court held that the BIA did not err by construing his motion as a motion to reconsider nor by denying it as time barred. (Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 8/13/21)
AILA: The court granted the petition for review of the BIA’s denial of the petitioners’ motion to reopen, finding the BIA abused its discretion by departing from established policy when it failed to apply the Matter of Sanchez Sosa factors. (Gonzales Quecheluno v. Garland, 8/12/21)
AILA: Where BIA had reversed the IJ’s findings that petitioner would more likely than not be tortured in Somalia, the court found that BIA applied the correct legal standard to the Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim and did not engage in impermissible fact finding. (Mohamed v. Garland, 8/13/21)
Law360: The Eighth Circuit refused to stop an Ethiopian refugee’s deportation, ruling Friday that a portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act allowing the deportation of certain migrants who face persecution upon return is ambiguous, but not unconstitutionally vague.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit Wednesday revived a Cameroonian rape survivor’s asylum bid, ruling that the immigration judge cherry-picked discrepancies in the woman’s testimony to justify deporting her and “displayed a dubious understanding of how rape survivors ought to act.”
AILA: The court upheld BIA’s determination that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1)(C) due to his conviction for an offense described in INA §212(a)(2), even though he had been previously admitted into the United States. (Sanchez-Ruano v. Garland, 8/11/21)
AILA: The court held that the IJ failed to put the petitioner on notice that his alleged false claim of U.S. citizenship would be at issue during his hearing, and that such failure violated due process by denying him a full and fair hearing. (Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8/16/21)
AILA: The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner’s challenge to his expedited removal proceedings, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in DHS v. Thuraissigiam abrogated any colorable constitutional claim exception to INA §242(a)(2)(A). (Guerrier v. Garland, 8/16/21)
AILA: The court held that an Interpol Red Notice, among other evidence, created a serious reason to believe that the petitioner had committed a serious nonpolitical crime before entering the United States, and that he was ineligible for withholding of removal. (Villalobos Sura v. Garland, 8/17/21)
AILA: The court held that the record did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner suffered hardship in India that rose to the level of past persecution, where he did not experience significant physical harm and his harm was an isolated event, among other factors. (Sharma v. Garland, 8/17/21)
AILA: Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that vehicle theft under California Vehicle Code §10851(a) is indivisible in its treatment of accessories after the fact, and thus is not an aggravated felony theft offense under INA §101(a)(43)(G). (Lopez-Marroquin v. Garland, 8/18/21)
AILA: The court denied the petition for review, holding that because petitioner was convicted of a violation of 18 USC §1546(a) and his sentence was greater than one year, his conviction expressly fell under the definition of aggravated felony in INA §101(a)(43)(P). (Germain v. Att’y Gen., 8/18/21)
Law360: A split Eleventh Circuit panel refused Tuesday to grant asylum to a member of a Sri Lankan ethnic minority or to block his deportation, ruling he hasn’t proven past persecution or credible fear of future persecution.
Law360: A Texas federal judge has blocked an executive order from the state’s governor banning the transportation of certain migrants in the state, holding it violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution by authorizing state officials to make federal immigration determinations.
Law360: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must test immigrants for COVID-19 before transferring them to a Washington state detention center, after a federal judge blamed the agency for 240 detainees and facility staff contracting the virus over the past three months.
Law360: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has told a California federal judge that it could not produce an administrative record related to its practice of turning back asylum-seekers at the southern border because no such policy existed.
AILA: USCIS provided information regarding a proposed class settlement in A.O., et al. v. Jaddou, et al. No. 19-cv-6151 (N.D. Cal.) regarding juvenile court orders in the California Juvenile Court with subsequent filed Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) petitions after the age of 18 years old.
AILA: DHS released a memo with guidance on immigration processing for certain Afghan nationals, stating that they will be paroled into the U.S. on a case-by-case basis for a two-year period and may be eligible to apply for status through USCIS.
AILA: EOIR launched its FOIA Public Access Link (PAL), which will allow users to submit requests, check the status of requests, download records, browse the FOIA reading room, and correspond with the EOIR FOIA Service Center. The PAL also allows users to pay required fees online.
AILA: ICE issued interim guidance to all OPLA attorneys to guide them in appropriately executing interim civil immigration enforcement and removal priorities and exercising prosecutorial discretion. Note, on 8/19/21, OPLA suspended reliance on this guidance due to litigation.
Thanks, Elizabeth! It’s interesting and satisfying that several Circuits, including the 2d and the 9th, are openly rejecting EOIR’s practice of “nit-picking” asylum applicants’ testimony in an attempt to deny meritorious applications. It’s all part of the “culture of denial” that continues to flourish at EOIR’s deportation assembly line under Garland.
Sadly, the Circuits haven’t yet had the guts to face the larger problem here — the EOIR system, as currently staffed with too many “Trump plants” as judges and a continuing lack of expertise and anti-asylum, anti-immigrant bias is clearly unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment!
Indeed, some Circuit panels take judicial review seriously, others function as rubber stamps, and most individuals wronged in Immigration Court lack the lawyers and wherewithal to take their case to the Circuits. This means that inconsistent results and lack of consistently applied expertise at all levels of the Federal legal system just add to the inconsistencies and unfairness heaped on migrants in violation of the Due Process Clause. To date, no Circuit has been willing to act on the glaring constitutional defects at EOIR staring them in the face.
Unhappily, Congress also has failed to act on long-overdue legislation to create an independent, Article I Immigration Court. In the interim, it would be possible to ameliorate, if not entirely eliminate, these constitutional problems by replacing marginally qualified IJs and BIA judges with well-qualified progressive experts and then giving them independence to issue precedents and make necessary procedural and structural changes to restore some semblence of Due Process, quality control, fair procedures, and efficiency to this disgracefully dysfunctional, unnecessarily backlogged system. The private bar could be constructively involved in creating universal representation and sane docket management. Indeed experts recommended these very changes to Garland, only to be ignored in favor of the “same old, same old” incredible mess and gross indifference to both the rule of law and human life at EOIR!
Not surprisingly, a recently issued report from the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) highlighted lack of “shareholder engagement” — something specifically discouraged by the Trump kakistocracy — as an endemic and continuing problem at EOIR. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-104404
Shareholder engagement means having a meaningful dialogue with those practicing before the courts, and honestly considering their input in advance of promulgating new policies. So called “Town Halls” to announce unilaterally developed bureaucratic policies are the antithesis of this meaningful process. It’s no mystery why EOIR continues to founder and stumble under Garland.
– Sozi
