PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA9 on Fundamental Fairness: Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland
“Despite its obligation under Saidane, the DHS made no effort—good faith or otherwise—to procure for Alcaraz’s cross-examination the witnesses whose testimony was embodied in the probation report and upon whose testimony the BIA ultimately relied in denying his appeal. See id. This failure impugned the probation report’s reliability and rendered the BIA’s procedure fundamentally unfair. … Based on the BIA’s failure to require the DHS to make a good faith effort to present the author of the probation report or the declarant for Alcaraz’s cross-examination and the prejudice generated therefrom, we grant in part Alcaraz’s petition and remand for a hearing that comports with the requirements of § 1229a(b)(4)(B). … On remand, cross-examination of the author of the probation report (or the declarant) could affect both the IJ’s credibility determination as to Alcaraz and the BIA’s decision to credit the probation report’s version of events over Alcaraz’s.”
[Hats off again to Bob Jobe!]
*********************
5th Cir. on illegal in absentia, defective notice, blown MTR:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60655.0.pdf
Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case. Here, as in Rodriguez, “[t]he initial NTA” sent to Lemus-Ayala “did not contain the time and date of [his] hearing.” Id. And just as in Rodriguez, see id., the BIA’s holding in this case that Lemus-Ayala was not entitled to recission of the in absentia removal order rested on the Board’s legal conclusion that an NTA “that does not specify the time and place of an individual’s removal hearing . . . meets the requirements of … §1229(a), so long as a hearing notice specifying this information is later sent to the individual.” The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021.
An in absentia removal “order may be rescinded . . . upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with . . . section 1229(a).” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). Lemus-Ayala was not notified “in accordance with . . . section 1229(a),” and so, as in Rodriguez, the proper disposition is to vacate the BIA’s decision to deny Lemus-Ayala’s motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia removal order, and to remand the case for further proceedings. See 15 F.4th at 356.1
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
*****************
Dan Kowalski again:
CA4 on PSG: Escobar Gomez v. Garland (Unpub., 2-1)
“Carlos Escobar Gomez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his application for asylum. The BIA determined that Escobar Gomez was ineligible for asylum because he failed to establish membership in a particular social group defined with sufficient particularity. Because this ruling is not supported by a reasoned explanation, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.” [Note the long and detailed concurrence by Judge Wynn.]
[Hats off to Nathan Bogart!]
****************
Even 4th Cir. “Ultra-conservative” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III has finally had enough, joining his panel colleagues in remanding after the BIA ignored both their own precedent and Circuit precedent on administrative closing in their “rush to no” to please their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/202322.U.pdf
Finally, Merida-Saenz asserts that the Board erred by failing to remand to the IJ for the administrative closure of his case pursuant to our decision in Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282, 297 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that IJs and the Board possess “the general authority to administratively close cases”). While the Board acknowledged that Merida-Saenz had argued for administrative closure on appeal, it neither explicitly resolved that argument nor applied any of the relevant administrative closure factors thereto. See In re Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 696 (B.I.A. 2012) (specifying administrative closure factors). Moreover, the Board’s resolution of Merida-Saenz’s continuance request did not resolve his administrative closure argument. Although a continuance and an administrative closure are similar forms of relief, they are distinct in purpose and in result. See Romero, 937 F.3d at 289, 294 n.12 (contrasting circumstances in which continuance is appropriate with circumstances in which administrative closure is appropriate); Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that administrative closure is “like” a continuance but not identical thereto). Because the Board’s decision does not demonstrate that it has actually considered Merida-Saenz’s administrative closure argument, we grant the petition for review as to this argument and remand to the Board for further proceedings. See Gonzalez, 2021 WL 4888394, at *10 (remanding for Board to address administrative closure argument in first instance); Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 693-94 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that we cannot review the Board’s decision when the Board has given us “nothing to review”).
*****************
Obviously, the Article IIIs have their own due process problems with burying significant rulings, particularly in immigration, in highly inappropriate, approaching unethical, “unpublished” decisions. These aren’t “routine” cases except that material errors at Garland’s BIA are so frequent that Circuit Courts have wrongly come to view them as “routine” and thereby to “normalize” substandard judging.
That’s basically sweeping the festering and ever-growing problem of a dysfunctional and unjust EOIR “under the carpet” — something that both Garland and EOIR apparently have come to rely upon. The unpublished cases highlighted above each have important messages and analytical points for practitioners as well as the EOIR judges who screwed them up! Even Garland could learn by paying attention to the poor quality work being churned out by EOIR in his name!
You know you’ve hit rock bottom as an immigration jurist when even Judge Wilkinson can’t think of a way to paper over your errors and explain away your abuse of immigrants! The same might be said when you start getting reversed on a regular basis by the 5th Circuit — a court that almost never saw a migrant they didn’t want to dehumanize and deport!
In a real court system with real judges, DHS would be treated as a “party” not a “partner.” But, not in Garland’s courts, where judicial quality and fundamental fairness have gone to die and be buried. ⚰️🪦
Wonder why Dems struggle to govern? Look no further than the astounding lost opportunity for transforming EOIR into a real court system where great judges could be modeling due process, fundamental fairness, backlog-reducing better precedents, and best practices.
One of the best ‘fixes” for any broken system is appointing talented experts who will get the decisions right in the first place and promote excellence and efficiency by establishing, promoting, and, most of all enforcing, “best practices” systemwide, with particular emphasis on getting it right at the initial level, be that Immigration Court or the USCIS Asylum Office.
Of course, at EOIR that would mean appointing a BIA with judges who have the backgrounds and expertise to actually recognize what best interpretations and best practices are in the first place! Hint: It’s got nothing to do with bending over backwards to help “partners” at DHS enforcement, maximizing removal orders, positioning OIL to argue Chevron or Brand X, or thinking of new and creative ways that the system can be mis-used as a “deterrent” to individuals making claims for legal relief. Those were Sessions’s and Barr’s “priorities,” and Garland has done little to change the rancid culture in his Immgration Courts. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/15/%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bd%f0%9f%a4%ae-aimless-docket-reshuffling-adr-on-steroids-eoir-dysfunction-shows-what-happens-when/
Instead, Garland has given us a potentially fatal dose of “good enough for Government work” — on steroids, with lives and the foundations of our democracy hanging in the balance every day!🤮👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽🤡
It’s an entirely unnecessary, ongoing national disgrace!🤮
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
12-20-21