https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/10/good-judge-bad-judge.html
Guest blogger: Kelsea Villanueva, law student, University of San Francisco
Not all judges should be immigration judges. Sometimes being a judge is just not for everyone, period. Bad attitudes and questionable decision making within the immigration courts often cause the most noise because the impact is often more than a rude remark. While I do not believe problematic judges make up the whole picture of immigration courts, just one bad judge can be enough to impact the lives of many, and I only wonder whether it is the system that perpetuates behavior, the history and beliefs of immigration, or both that give rise to bad experiences.
Surprisingly in our own city, San Francisco Judge Nicholas Ford was the subject of a complaint that was sent to the U.S. Justice Department for being hostile and having biased treatment of immigrants in the courtroom. The accusations stated that he belittled migrants’ stories and struggles by making inappropriate comments. One account stated that he said “I can tell an indigent person when I see one, and you can afford an attorney” in response to someone who claimed they could not pay. Many accounts also made it a point to mention that he had previously been criticized for jailing a pregnant woman without bail for a nonviolent crime – this gives an idea of his character in court. When he was first appointed by the Attorney General under the Trump administration, Ford had been a judge in the criminal justice system and apparently had no prior immigration law experience. Other judges that have similar backgrounds can take biases from the criminal justice system and bring them into the immigration law field. There is the risk that the treatment of criminals becomes synonymous with the treatment of immigrants.
Even if judges like Ford represent a minority, the behavior exhibited by him is not unusual in immigration courts. In Jacinto v. INS, 208 F. 3d 725 (9th Cir. 2000), it was difficult for the respondent to even answer basic questions about her family’s struggles; she was constantly faced with interruptions by the immigration judge and a blatant lack of patience. Most people regardless of being an immigrant or not could become overwhelmed during questioning or lack of information about legal procedures. Lacking compassion and basic manners, whenever Jacinto was asked a question regarding why she was seeking asylum, the immigration judge or government attorney would interrupt her midsentence and not allow her to ask any clarifying questions. The transcripts reveal a sense of confusion and urgency, as they treated her as if they were in a rush and like she was wasting their time.
. . . .
*************************
Kelsea Villanueva, a law student, “gets” it! So why don’t Garland and his lieutenants?
Perhaps, because they are too far removed from the human trauma and and the practical problems in the broken and unfair “courts” for which they are responsible! They obviously have become indifferent to the unnecessary human suffering they cause by tolerating this systemic stain on American justice.
It’s not that there aren’t lots of exceptionally well-qualified immigration lawyers, practical scholars, and effective litigators in the Bay Area (and most other areas where Immigration Courts are located) who would make great Immigration Judges. Therefore, it has taken a concerted effort over the past four Administrations, including the Biden Administration, NOT to recruit, attract, and hire the “best and brightest” for these life or death judicial positions.
One “key to building dysfunction” has been the childish, demeaning, and disrespectful treatment heaped upon the “IJ Corps” by DOJ politicos and EOIR “Management” trying to appease their “handlers.” Attempts to enforce “assembly line justice,” lousy technology, poor training, screwed up and always changing “priorities,” micromanagement by non-judges, and favoring “quick numbers” over thoughtful high quality judicial work product obviously discourages many of the most talented and well-qualified lawyers in the business from even applying.
Some of those who do make the effort are then demoralized and discouraged when clearly inferior candidates, some lacking even basic immigration and asylum knowledge, are hired by a DOJ bureaucratic system that too often seeks and rewards complicity and “following orders” over intellectual excellence, proven immigration and human rights expertise, and the courage to make the right decisions even in the face of political pressure from above to “go along to get along” with each Administration’s enforcement agenda.
Surely, no panel of immigration/human rights experts would have recommended hiring someone like Judge Ford for the job! So, why was he even on the Immigration Bench in the first place?
In every way, Judge Ford was EOIR’s self-created problem! It tied up both private resources and Government investigative resources that could have been better used. It further damaged EOIR’s reputation and ruined human lives. In the end, the “Ford brouhaha” produced no transparent results, thus further eroding public confidence in Government. It prompted neither accountability nor reforms to insure a better judicial selection process!
The best way to limit the administrative nonsense, unnecessary and inappropriate meddling, and time and resources wasted building a needless, ineffective bureaucracy to “monitor performance” and investigate complaints is to hire exceptionally well-qualified judges in the first place — good judges need neither much supervision nor significant monitoring. All they need is support, independence, professional training, continuing judicial education, and some inspirational encouragement from dynamic, well-qualified judicial leadership — things that generally have been in short supply within the EOIR bureaucracy, particularly over the past four years!
Leaders should be sitting judges — not just disconnected bureaucratic “managers” — who continue to handle regular dockets so they have the necessary perspective and first-hand experience to lead this broken system back to functionality. In what other “real” judicial system do the “chief judges and chief justices” largely or completely cease to perform judicial duties?
For example, Chief Justice John Roberts has no shortage of administrative and leadership tasks. Yet, somehow, he finds time to participate in every merits case coming before the Court!
Almost every day, we see Court of Appeals decisions in which the Chief Judge of the Circuit was a panel member, sometimes even writing the opinion. Chief U.S. District Judges hear cases and sometimes author lengthy opinions in notable and controversial cases.
There are few, if any, examples of successful judiciaries in which those in leadership positions isolate and insulate themselves from the judicial tasks of their colleagues! Yet, this has become “standard operating practice” at DOJ/EOIR. This is despite “clear and convincing evidence” that DOJ/EOIR’s bloated “Vatican style” (a/k/a “Legacy INS style”) bureaucracy is incapable of practical problem solving and has presided over the demise of a court system that once aspired to greatness, even if the efforts sometimes fell short!
The taxpayer money wasted on ludicrous “Immigration Judge Dashboards,” unnecessary “supervisors” who almost never go to court, ineffective and inefficient “Dedicated Dockets,” establishing “TV Adjudication Centers” in strange places, and running “kangaroo courts” embedded in the DHS Gulag could be repurposed into funding legal representation programs, a functioning e-filing system, more Judicial Law Clerks, judicial training by experts, and other badly needed and long overdue improvements and reforms. These things would actually help the system achieve justice with efficiency, rather than aggravating existing problems!
EOIR’s “customer service,” transparency, and engagement with the public get consistently low marks from Government watchdogs. I see no improvement under Garland.
Any legitimate system for judicial tenure or retention relies on robust public input and some peer involvement — things that are foreign to the DOJ/EOIR model which, if I do say so myself, bears a disturbing resemblance to the Byzantine bureaucracy of the “Legacy INS” (although the there are only a few us still around who experienced the latter “first hand”).
Ironically, EOIR was originally established as an independent agency within DOJ to “free” it from the “Legacy INS;” over the years it has come more and more to look, feel, and operate like the worst aspects of that long-disbanded agency.
In particular, it has “retaken on” the image of “being just another appendage of immigration enforcement” — a complete abandonment of the original goal of increased judicial independence in both fact and appearance!
Numerous private lawyers have related to me that being in an EOIR “courtroom” is too often “like facing two prosecutors.” Some say that their already traumatized clients are “re-traumatized” by the rude, disrespectful, and inhumane treatment they receive in Immigration Court as they attempt to plead for their lives and their families’ futures! What kind of judiciary “operates” in this manner?
For heaven’s sake, even former AG Alberto “Gonzo I” Gonzalez, hardly a “due process warrior,” spoke out publicly against demeaning treatment of migrants by Immigration Judges! Article III Courts continue to document instances of bias, incompetence, and cavalier treatment of human lives in Garland’s Immigration Courts at both trial and appellate levels. Yet, he says nothing and has taken few actions to solve the myriad of festering problems! We deserve better, much better, from the “people’s top lawyer!”
It’s also worth contemplating why law students understand the systemic problems and potential solutions better than the senior Government lawyers and officials we are employing and paying to mismanage it!
You can read the rest of Kelsea’s excellent piece at the above link!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
10-20-21