⚖️🗽NDPA: LAW YOU CAN USE: Leading Light 💡 Michelle Mendez @ NIPNLG With Practice Commentary On Matter of E-F-N-, 28 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2022) — PLUS BONUS COVERAGE: Links To NIPNLG Practice Advisories On 1) Overcoming Bars To Relief; 2) Post-Conviction Relief Motions; 3) Advocating For PD Under The “Doyle Memo”

Michelle writes:

Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 7:38 PM

 

While the facts were definitely bad in this case, I do think the decision provides a helpful framework for a fairly common issue–impeachment leading to adverse credibility– whereas before we did not have a framework and relied on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Through this decision, we now know and can argue that impeachment evidence may contribute to a credibility determination only where the evidence is probative and its admission is not fundamentally unfair, and the witness is given an opportunity to respond to that evidence during the proceedings. It is up to us to enforce these limitations. Furthermore, note a few helpful footnotes. Footnote 3 notes that proceedings were continued after DHS submitted impeachment evidence and both parties were given the opportunity to provide evidence and argument. This is what should happen. Footnote 4 refers to DHS correctly using the evidence as impeachment evidence as opposed to submitting late-filed evidence under the guise of impeachment, which is what usually happens and we must object to. Footnote 5 reminds us to  challenge the IJ’s determination that the border official’s notes are accurate and reliable pursuant to Matter of J-C-H-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 211, 216 (BIA 2018), which is a case we cover during our trial skills trainings. All in all, a bad outcome for this respondent, but a helpful case to the rest of us who want to avoid a similar outcome. 

Michelle  N. Méndez | she/her/ella/elle Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Address: 2201 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007 Cell: 540-907-1761 Based in Baltimore, MD; admitted in MD only www.nipnlg.org  | @nipnlg

GIVE NOW for justice!

If you found the contents of this email helpful to you or your practice, please consider becoming an NIPNLG member

here.

Here’s a link to Matter of E-F-N-:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1516746/download

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

Thanks Michelle, my friend! Please note that Michelle is now Director of Legal Resources & Training at NIPNLG and has provided her new contact information above.

NDPA advocates should also check out these other recent practice advisories from Michelle and her terrific team that transitioned from CLINIC to NIPNLG, two of which were in partnership with ILRC:

Practice Advisory: Understanding and Overcoming Bars to Relief Triggered by a Prior Removal Order (June 29, 2022):

https://nipnlg.org/PDFs/practitioners/practice_advisories/gen/2022_29June-removal-related-bars.pdf

Practice Advisory: Post-Conviction Relief Motions to Reopen (June 24, 2022):

https://nipnlg.org/PDFs/practitioners/practice_advisories/pr/2022_24June-advisory-PCR-MTR.pdf

Practice Advisory: Advocating for Prosecutorial Discretion in Removal Proceedings Under the Doyle Memo (June 21,  2022):

https://nipnlg.org/PDFs/practitioners/practice_advisories/crim/2022_21June-Doyle-memo-advisory.pdf

A few more points:

• I always offered the respondent a continuance to examine the impeachment evidence. However, few took my offer. I think that was because:
  • • • For those in detention, it meant further extending the period of detention;
      • For those on the always backlogged non-detained docket, continuances often meant months before the hearing could resume.
  • Instead, most counsel just took my offer of a short recess to examine the evidence and discuss it with the respondent.
  • As Michelle points out, it will be up to counsel to insure that these rules are enforced. In the “rush to deny for any reason” — still a major “cultural” problem at EOIR that Garland has failed to systemically address — precedents and aspects of precedents favorable to the respondent are too often ignored, glossed over, or distinguished on bogus grounds. It’s up to the NDPA to “hold EOIR Judges’ and ICE ACCs’ feet to the fire” on these points!
  • Garland had a chance to bring in folks like Michelle and other NDPA superstars to “clean up” EOIR and restore first class scholarship, due process, and fundamental fairness as the mission, but failed to do so. The results of his failure are pretty ugly, especially for those individuals seeking justice in a dysfunctional system where fair, legally correct results are a “crap shoot” 🎲 — at best! It doesn’t have to be that way!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-10-22