Cornell Law
Expert: “Change Happens From The Ground Up”
Victor Reklaitis, MarketWatch, Dec. 22, 2022
“Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell showed last week that he’s thinking about how recent lower immigration has factored into the ongoing U.S. labor shortage, but he said it’s not appropriate for the Fed to call for increased legal immigration to help alleviate the shortage. Could his remarks, careful as they were, somehow move the needle on immigration policy? His comments came as one new bipartisan proposal for immigration reform flopped in Congress, and some analysts say they aren’t optimistic about progress on immigration next year in a divided Washington. Still, others see Powell’s remarks having a small effect. … Powell’s answer could be seen as part of a slow process that eventually results in long-awaited fixes to the U.S. immigration system, according to Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School. “To me, it’s like water dripping on a rock,” Yale-Loehr told MarketWatch in an interview. “A single drop of water, whether it’s from Fed Chairman Powell or somebody else, won’t make a difference by itself. But if enough drips of water from other people and other studies consistently show that immigration can help our labor shortages and improve our economy, then I hope that will move the needle so that Congress will seriously take up immigration reform in 2023.” … The Cornell professor also suggested that grassroots efforts eventually might end up spurring U.S. lawmakers to do more. “A lot of change happens from the ground up, rather than the top down — if you think about civil-rights legislation in the 60s, the Environmental Protection Act of 1970, the antiwar efforts,” he said. “It was because people really protested the existing framework that they forced Congress to make changes in those areas. And so too, I think that if more Americans stood up and said, ‘We need immigration reform,’ I think that that would help persuade Congress to actually put pen to paper and make some significant changes.””
Compare with my recent post on the need and opportunity to get more NDPA experts on the immigration bench @ EOIR. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/12/21/%f0%9f%91%a9%f0%9f%8f%bb%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%a8%f0%9f%8f%bd%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-five-attorneys-with-recent-experience-representing-individuals-in-immigration-court-among-garland/
*********************
What better place to start forcing some long overdue changes than by getting more NDPA “practical scholar/experts” onto the EOIR bench where lives are on the line every minute of every working day? There are lots of ways to do justice at the “retail level” despite, or perhaps because of, the indifference of those in charge!
Folks, approximately a decade ago, the asylum grant rate at EOIR exceeded 50%! When grants of withholding (many the result of the 1-year-bar on asylum) and CAT were added in, almost 2/3 of asylum applicants who got a merits determination received some form of legal protection!
The vast majority of these cases were not appealed to the BIA. Slowly, but steadily, the EOIR system “at the retail level” was committing to expertise, sound scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, faithful application of the generous legal principles established in Cardoza, Mogharrabi, and the regulatory presumption of future future persecution based on past persecution.
For years, those precedents and that regulation were resisted by many EOIR judges who continued, in practice, to apply the higher “more likely than not” standard rejected in Cardoza. But, following a series of savagely critical reversals of EOIR asylum denials by the Courts of Appeals the ground started to shift toward a more generous, proper, and correct interpretation of asylum law. Notably, those Court of Appeals “roastings” came after AG John Ashcroft “purged” the BIA in 2003 of appellate judges who spoke out for a better legal interpretation of asylum laws — one that faithfully followed Cardoza, Mogharrabi, and international standards!
As I used to tell my Georgetown Law students, a quarter century after the Supremes’ landmark decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, establishing the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum (reasonable likelihood = 10% chance) and the BIA’s implementation of that standard in Matter of Mogharrabi (asylum can be granted even where it is significantly unlikely that persecution will occur) the more generous standard was actually achieving “traction” at EOIR!
The law hasn’t changed very much since 2012. But, the progress toward a “Cardoza/Mogharrabi compliant” interpretation and application of asylum law halted and regressed substantially during the last part of the Obama Administration and during the Trump era.
What did change, for the worse, was the attitude of politicos, who have seen the Immigration Courts as captive “tools” to deter asylum seekers and “send negative messages” rather than insuring that they function as due-process-oriented, independent, subject matter expert, courts of law. The qualifications of those selected as Immigration Judges were “watered down” to favor high-volume government prosecutorial experience over demonstrated expertise in immigration and asylum laws and “hands on” experience representing individuals before EOIR.
Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates dropped precipitously during the Trump years. Although they have rebounded some under Biden, they still remain below the 2012 levels. It’s certainly not that conditions have substantially “improved” in major “sending countries.” If anything, conditions are worse in most of those countries than in the years preceding 2012.
So, if the law hasn’t changed substantially and conditions haven’t improved, what has caused regression in asylum grant rates at EOIR? It comes down to poor judging, accompanied by inadequate training, too much emphasis on “churning the numbers over quality and correctness,” and a BIA that really doesn’t believe much in asylum law and lacks the expertise and commitment to consistently set and apply favorable precedents and end disgraceful inconsistencies and “asylum free zones” that continue to exist.
Some of the most disgraceful, intentional asylum misinterpretations by Sessions and Barr now have been reversed by Garland. Unfortunately, he failed to follow-up to insure that the correct standards are actually applied, particularly to recurring circumstances. It’s one of many reasons that the Biden Administration struggles to re-establish a fair and efficient legal asylum system at the Southern Border — notwithstanding having two years to address the problems!
But, it doesn’t have to be this way! Recently, a number of notable “practical scholar experts” have been appointed to the Immigration Judiciary. When such well-qualified jurists reach a “critical mass” in the expanding EOIR, systemic changes and improvements in practices and results will happen.
The “dialogue” among Immigration Judges from government backgrounds and those from the private/NGO sector will improve. Lives will be saved. Life-threatening inconsistencies and wasteful litigation to correct basic mistakes at all levels of EOIR will diminish. The EOIR system will resume movement toward the former noble, but now long abandoned, vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
So, warriors ⚔️🛡of the NDPA, make those applications for EOIR judgeships! Storm the tower from below! Make a difference in the lives of others and help save our democracy! If not YOU, then who?👩🏻⚖️👨🏽⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸
🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!
PWS
12-23-22