Republished from ImmigrationProf Blog:
Thursday, February 10, 2022
Guest Post: Foreground and Background Issues by Geoffrey A. Hoffman
By Immigration Prof
Share
Foreground and Background Issues by Geoffrey A. Hoffman*
I want to say a bit about “foreground” versus “background” issues in immigration cases. I have noticed puzzlement at these concepts and recently when lecturing noticed that people do not appreciate the difference. In addition, it is not a common way of thinking about the law. It has become crucial for me, however, in my experience to clearly and effectively distinguish between these two concepts. It is also a rich source of ideas, strategies and techniques in a variety of cases, so let me try to explain it here. The other motivation for laying out the theory is that (in the future) I can point to this piece of writing as a “backgrounder” for my lectures … Sorry for the pun!
First, what are some foreground issues? You can start by readily imagining the elements of any claim – take for example an asylum case. In such a case, the applicant (or a respondent, in court) has the burden to prove most (but not all) of the issues. Those may include past persecution, future persecution, nexus (“on account of” one of the five statutory grounds), etc. The applicant may or may not have to prove that he or she cannot safely internally relocate or that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances in the country of origin. Nevertheless those are all “foreground” issues. Other pretty straightforward issues that have to be adjudicated and will be evaluated by the IJ include (1) credibility; (2) sufficiency of the evidence or corroboration; and (3) related to credibility, the consistency or coherence of the applicant’s story. Of course, background and foreground do not apply just to asylum, but can be imagined in the context of any case, and in any field of the law.
At this point, I would implore students to shout-out any “background” issues they can think of. In a pedestrian sense, all issues that come up in the course of a hearing or series of proceedings can be “brought to light” – by the judge or either party – and therefore get converted from “background” to “foreground.” But, many times these issues are not brought up, and often go unaddressed. If they are not brought up by counsel, for example, they may be waived and therefore a rich source of argument on appeal may be lost.
Some examples of background issues, and by now you probably see where I am going, include, interpreter (verbal) or translation (written) errors, transcription issues, competency or more saliently “incompetency” issues, jurisdiction, firm resettlement, other bars to relief, U.S. citizenship as a defense to deportation, other defenses, the existence of qualified relatives, unexplored avenues for relief, etc., etc. Basically, any issue that is lurking behind the scenes in any immigration court litigation can be seized upon and (in appropriate cases) be used on appeal when the BIA is reviewing what happened below before the trial judge.
A good example from an actual case may be helpful as an illustration to the reader at this point.
In my first pro bono BIA appeal years ago I utilized a series of “background” issues that resulted successfully (albeit after several months or years) in: (1) a remand to the IJ; (2) termination of the case on remand; and (3) ultimately, an (affirmative) grant of asylum for the mother and young child before USCIS. The case involved a young Haitian mother and her 7 or 8 year-old son. I got the case on appeal and read the transcript immediately. What struck me on reviewing the record was that at the very beginning of the proceedings, at the Master Calendar Hearing, an attorney or the judge mentioned very briefly in passing that the young boy was deaf. He had a disability that resulted in his being fitted with a device, a cochlear implant. The comment went unexplored or unremarked upon throughout the pendency of proceedings. Ultimately, the judge denied the political asylum claim of the mother. The fact that the child would be persecuted on account of his disability was not argued, mentioned, or even touched upon in the IJ’s decision denying relief.
As appellate counsel, I wondered if this “background” issue might be addressed on appeal. By researching how to make this a “foreground” issue on appeal, and hopefully a basis for a good remand, I learned about a very helpful case, Matter of Lozada (still good law) and was able to follow the rules and strict procedures in that case to prove that the prior attorney was ineffective by failing to bring out a key argument that could have been dispositive of the entire case.
The task was not an easy one. It should not be overlooked that Lozada and the case’s not insignificant requirements are burdensome. Moreover, the motion to remand had to be very thoroughly documented with expert affidavits, NGO reports, witness statements, and not to mention medical documents.
Once remanded, I noticed a further issue: in the file there was a one-page document with an old agency stamp which happened to be a copy of the I-589 asylum application that my client had never received an interview on and which had not been adjudicated. In bringing this further “background” issue to the Court’s attention, the burden shifted to my opposing counsel to provide the Department’s position on when, if ever, the agency had provided the required affirmative interview as required by Due Process, the INA, and the regulations.
Because the government could not prove that the interview had ever occurred, the motion to terminate was granted and I was permitted to file affirmatively (again) with USCIS, arguing this time the dire circumstances that would befall my clients in Haiti in consideration of the disability of the son and other details about the case involving the political situation in their home country.
Given these considerations, it is important for attorneys on appeal to take the record not as a given, as static, but something dynamic that can be researched and creatively explored at every level. A part of the case that was not appreciated previously can and often does exist. It may be a change of law that occurred while the case was winding its way through the lengthy and frustrating backlog (which stands of this writing at 1.6 million cases). It could be misdirection or mistaken advice by notarios or prior counsel. It can take the form of errors, made perhaps innocently and innocuously by interpreters that, if uncorrected, doom the respondent’s chances.
A further point: the retrospective stance of an appeal makes seeing background issues perhaps easier than seeing them in real time. What is really hard sometimes is seeing such issues as they happen in the context of the trial court setting. A key example of such issues that often get overlooked is burden of proof. We often see attorneys conceding deportability or inadmissibility, often overlooking key arguments or defenses. These are not really background but should be foreground issues, especially where the burden is on the government in most situations to prove by clear and convincing evidence the ground of deportability, now removability, has been proven. Other key arguments, for example, surrounding admissibility of statements of ICE officers, or others such as in the I-213 record of inadmissibility / deportability are also largely overlooked.
Finally, I want to mention in closing further fall-out from Niz-Chavez v. Garland and Pereira v. Sessions, and the latest developments surrounding the defective NTA issue. The defective NTA problem is probably one of the most underappreciated “background” issues because it implicates “jurisdiction,” or as the Board has left open, and it still remains to be decided, at the very least a “claims-processing” rule violation.
More specifically, for everyone who has an in absentia order, the rule in Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351, 354–56 (5th Cir. 2021), in the Fifth Circuit, and more recently, Singh v. Garland, (No. 20-70050), in the Ninth Circuit, has given us important opportunities to raise this as a crucial background issue. Even though these cases are at odds now with Matter of Laparra, 28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA 2022), there are two circuits finding that in absentia orders must be reopened where the NTA was defective under most circumstances.
Given these developments there is no question that the defective NTA issue is not going away anytime soon. And if, as I think the Board will soon find, a defective NTA is indeed a claims-processing rule violation, at the very least, it will be important to raise such a “background” issue to reopen proceedings, obtain a remand, or otherwise preserve the procedural issue to ensure relief is available for many respondents.
*Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center; Individual Capacity and institution for identification only
KJ
***************************
Thanks, Geoffrey, for giving us such a timely and much-needed dose of your “accessible practical scholarship!” And, as always, thanks to Dean Kevin Johnson and ImmigrationProf Blog for getting this out to the public so quickly.
I’d pay particular attention to Geoffrey’s “red alert’ ❗️about defective NTA issues and the BIA’s flailing effort to again shun the Supremes and best practices in Matter of Laparra — a decision that has been “thoroughly roasted” by “Sir Jeffrey” Chase and me, among others. See, e.g.,https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/02/01/%f0%9f%97%bd%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8fhon-jeffrey-chase-garland-bias-double-standard-strict-compliance-for-respondents-good-enough-for-govern/
Laparra is already in trouble in two Circuits at opposite ends of the spectrum — the 9th and the 5th. As Geoffrey points out, the potential of “counter-Laparra” litigation to force some due process back into both the trial and appellate levels of Garland’s dysfunctional “courts” is almost unlimited!
But, litigation challenging Laparra and raising defective NTAs as a “claims processing rule” must be timely raised at the first opportunity. It’s a great example of “background issues” that talented NDPA litigators must “bring to the foreground” and use to save lives! It also shows the importance of great practical scholarship and meticulous preparation. Good lawyering wins!
Thanks again Geoffrey!