"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
With lots of help from our friends, the Round Table has become a “Powerful Force of Nature,” carving out a spot for due process even along the most wild and rugged coasts! PHOTO: PWS Maine Collection“Our Fearless Leader,” Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase forwarded this note of appreciation from one of the all-star advocates who represented The Round Table in drafting an amicus brief:
You, Paul and the Roundtable played a central role in this decision. Beyond the persuasive amicus brief, your group—along with . . . . —gave me the confidence to pursue the due process claim . . . . Your advocacy is admirable and much needed; it also has an impact beyond just the individual cases you support as an amicus. . . . . [T]his case has been one of the most impressive collaborative efforts I’ve had the opportunity to be involved with [in my decade of professional experience.] Thank you again for your interest and support of this important case, as well as your work in this space more broadly.
This is also a great space to once again thank all of the top flight legal talent, law firms, NGOs, and legal clinics that have donated their time and talents pro bono to the cause of due process, equal justice for all, and advancing best practices. Indeed, you have “given us a voice” — one that has proved to have an outsized impact on our American justice system.
Working with our wonderful“partners in due process and professional excellence” has been a total joy and fulfilling career opportunity for each of us! We never, ever forget what we owe to your skill and generous donation of time, resources, and effort. Just as we are committed to insuring that all individuals appearing in Immigration Court — the essential “retail level” of our justice system — have a right to be heard, YOU have insured that WE will be heard — loudly and clearly for a long time to come! Thank you again from the bottom. of our “collective hearts!”💕
The Center for Migration Studies is proud to present Karen T. Grisez Esq. with the Humanitarian Service Award, in recognition of her extraordinary commitment to the protection of migrants and refugees, impact and leadership in the practice of immigration law, and tireless dedication to justice. Ms. Grisez has served as Chair of the American Bar Association’s (ABA’s) Commission on Immigration, is a member of the Advisory Board of the ABA’s Immigration Justice Project in San Diego, and is a former co-chair of the ABA Section of Litigation’s Immigration Litigation Committee.
Each week, we send a FREE newsletter which covers the latest US and international policy updates in English and Spanish, news articles related to migration issues, CMS featured articles, and Catholic/Faith-based updates. Click the button below to sign up for this weekly newsletter, and share it with your friends and colleagues.
The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) is a New York-based educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. For more information, please visit www.cmsny.org.
Dr. Alicia Triche Superlawyer, Co-Editor, immigrationcourtside.com Memphis, TN
🗽📰
Featured cases:
Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip v. Garland, 114 F.4th 487 (6th Cir. 2024)
Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, ___ F.4th ___, 2024 WL 4551637 (Oct. 23, 2024).
MEANINGLESS WORDS. …It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning… George Orwell, Politics and the English Language.
I draft this first Courtside during a pivotal moment in US History. Readers can barely power up any screen, anywhere, without seeing dire warnings that the “rule of law” is on the ballot; that the “rule of law.” Hangs on a string. But, those who advocate for the integrity of US refugee law have seen that string threaten to come unraveled for almost a decade. And in this first of blogs, I offer two unequivocal rays of hope. In two of its most vulnerable places—possibly even the most unlikely of places—the fragile thread has endured; the rule of law has held fast.
When I reference this “rule of law,” I’m invoking the idea that “words are supposed to carry meanings,” and great “danger lies in straining a text beyond the outermost limits of its natural elasticity.”[i] When words lose meaning, we don’t have rule of law, we have rule of people, with all that implies. At its core, protection for US refugees is not people-based; it is statutory. It is comprised not by executive or political policies, but in the words of the US Immigration and Nationality Act. Yet, as the subject of “immigration” endures focus-glare equal to the Eye of Sauron, in a constant stream of press, litigation, and politicization, the legal nature of the words in the statute become ever more vulnerable to deterministic and bad-faith interpretation.
Because they involve some of the most controversial aspects of current immigration law—that is, the arrival and protection of the most vulnerable of the world’s refugees—the words at issue in today’s two cases are particularly vulnerable to political appropriation. As seen in our first case, Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip, survivors of severe domestic violence seek protection from persecution on account of “membership in a particular social group,” which is referenced at INA Section 101(a)(42)(A). The phrase originated in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,[ii] and it is well known among scholars that its definition was not meaningfully discussed during drafting history of the Convention. Indeed, it was not until the final drafting phase, at the Geneva Conference, that the Swedish delegate, Monsieur Petren, proposed (without further explanation) that “membership of a particular social group” should be added to the definition of refugee.[iii] The amendment did pass, but the transcriber of the summary records indicates no discussion whatsoever regarding what “particular social group” meant to the delegate who approved its addition.[iv]
This flexible nature of the language of “particular social group” has a good side, for it has made room for the phrase to be interpreted consistently with developing human rights norms, especially regarding the rights of women. Our illustrious Courtside founder, when he was Chairman of the BIA, initiated the use of the phrase for gender-based protection in the landmark case Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). As Judge Schmidt explains it, Kasinga constructed a PSG that the Board, sitting en banc, was willing to accept as a whole. And, key to the case was the central tenet that “FGM can be a basis for asylum.” 21 I&N Dec. at 358.
Years later, after ongoing advocacy by Karen Musalo, Deborah Anker and others, PSG also became the vehicle through with the Board (in effect) ruled that severe domestic violence, when sufficiently unchecked by the State, may be a legitimate ground for asylum. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014). But, especially in the domestic violence context, the case “law” regarding PSGs was vulnerable to an ongoing, seemingly endless parade of developing rules and “interpretations,” many of which seemed to defy the normal rules of logic.[v] In 2018, the Board sacked refugee attorneys with an affirmative duty to articulate their PSGs—or lose them—in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018). This has led to attorneys regularly providing 5, 10 or even more “particular social groups,” in effort to provide the one an Immigration Judge might hook onto. It has led to PSG formulations that might sound less than perfect, to put it mildly, such as the “Salvadoran women of childbearing age” proposition that unexpectedly led to the good result in Zometa-Orellana v. Garland, 19 F.4th 970 (6th Cir. 2021). And, most importantly for this Blog, it has provided an opportunity for some executive adjudicators at EOIR to engage in decision making that arguably crosses the line from legal to political, divorcing too far from the words at hand, the words contained in the law itself.
This is why what the Sixth Circuit did a few weeks ago in Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip is so very remarkable. The Court’s central holding is that the group “victims of domestic violence” does not, on its face, violate what’s known as the “circularity” rule. The reasoning of the Court is what’s so remarkable, for it constitutes a strong assertion of integrity of the rule of law in the refugee context. The Court holds that no PSG can be dismissed “in a perfunctory manner,” solely by looking at the words used in formulating it. 114 F.4th at 498. Invoking Zometa-Orellana’s emphasis on “international obligations”, the Court says that any PSG analysis must utilize an independent review of the record “as a whole”, including country conditions. Id..
The case doubles down on what I (frankly) thought was the most vulnerable aspect of Zometa-Orellana v. Garland: that the point of a domestic-violence based adjudication is to comply with US “international obligations” to protect refugees (id. at 498) (italics in original (!)) The Court also repeats that failure to “exactly delineate a convoluted legal concept” (i.e., PSG), is not a grounds for denial of refugee protection (id. at 501), and that there is an “independent role” (read, power) for BIA and Immigration Judges to assess domestic-violence based claims consistently with international obligations—particularly during assessment of the proposed PSG. (id. at 500–502.) In other words, the Court doubles down on the admonition that had already been implied in Zometa-Orellana: refugee law, is, law; the words contained therein are not to be used as a pretext to deny protection to domestic violence survivors who otherwise qualify as refugees under the CSR; and if the ”decision” being reviewed seems to do so, it will be reviewed, substantively, for signs of having crossed that line.
A final note for any advanced PSG practitioners who might be tuned in—there’s a good argument, in my opinion, that Tista-Ruiz can be invoked to assert that, as long as any one PSG is offered up in compliance with W-Y-C-/H-O-B-, , the IJ and/or the Board can delineate any cognizable group that it finds to exist on the record. It’s worth remembering here that, in Kasinga, the PSG formulated by the Board, was “very similar to” but not the exact “formulation suggested by the parties.” 21 I&N Dec. at 365.
In these blogs, I do intend to stay in my own lane, which is individual removal defense. But I can’t help noting that, as I went to press on this one, the Ninth Circuit also issued Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, ___ F.4th ___, 2024 WL 4551637 (9th Cir. 2024). The case is a complex, substantial class-action suit that is deserving of its own individual treatment in another context. But it also contains at least one prime example of a Court giving meaning to words. The Ninth Circuit stood fast in the language and purpose of the INA, even in the context of border arrivals—the group in the hottest of flames under Sauron’s eye. Under INA Section 208(a)(1), any non-citizen “who arrives in the United States…may apply for asylum” under INA Section 208(a)(1). In one of several controversial iterations of a “metering” program, Ports of Entry run by US Customs and Border Patrol had been sending arriving asylum seekers back into Mexico, claiming they had not yet “arrived” in the country. The Ninth Circuit “conclude[d] that a noncitizen stopped by U.S. officials at the border is eligible to apply for asylum under” § 208(a)(1). Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, ___ F.4th ___, 2024 WL 4551637, *10 (Oct. 23, 2024)
One of the intrepid litigators of Al Otro Lado, Melissa Crow, issued a statement in reaction to the decision, and I will let her observations take us out:
“Our government has a legal duty to provide a fair and meaningful legal process to all people seeking safety at our border, no matter what. Border agents cannot arbitrarily turn people back to Mexico, a practice that violates our laws, exacerbates chaos at the border, and places refugees directly in harm’s way.”[vi]
[i] Ben Saul, Defining Terrorism in International Law 55 (2006) (citations omitted).
[ii] July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150. The US is bound by Articles 2 through 34 as a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6224, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (‘Protocol’). A Convention refugee is a person who, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion…is unable or…owing to such fear, is unwilling to return” home. CSR Art. 1A(2).
[iii] Terje Einarsen, “Drafting History of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol”, in Andreas Zimmermann (ed), The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary 37, [52] (2011), citing UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons: Summary Record of the Twenty-second Meeting, 26 November 1951, A/CONF.2/SR.22, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae68cde10.html [accessed 11 April 2016].
[v]See, e.g., Karen Musalo, A Short History of Gender Asylum in the United States: Resistance and Ambivalence May Very Slowly Be Inching Towards Recognition of Women’s Claims, Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2010); Blaine Bookey, Gender-Based Asylum Post-Matter of A-R-C-G-: Evolving Standards and Fair Application of the Law, 22 SW J. Intl. L 1, 4 (2016). In addition, BIA decisions were and are subject to direct alteration by the Attorney General, and in 2018, Jeff Sessions blatantly attempted to end “claims pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors” as a grounds for asylum. Matter of A-B-I, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 310 (A.G. 2018), vacated, Matter of A-B-III-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021).
Many congrats to all who worked on this multi-year, intensive, cooperative effort to achieve justice that should never, ever have gotten to this point IF EOIR and OIL were competently staffed and administered by Garland! Interesting, that even the most “conservative” Circuits often tire of the constant unprofessional, “deny protection for any reason” nonsense shoved at them by Garland’s DOJ. Perhaps, that’s a “basis for hope” as we appear to be moving into a wasteful “bipartisan political world of mindless and lawless restrictionism and denial of fundamental rights to migrants.” Here’s hoping for the best!
A Helping Hand.jpg Image depicts a child coming to the aid of another in need. Once we have climbed it is essential for the sake of humanity that we help others do the same. It is knowing that we all could use, and have used, a helping hand. Safiyyah Scoggins – PVisions1111 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 While some politicos and voters have abandoned Traditional Judeo-Christian values in favor of a cruel and demonstrably ineffective response to forced migration, the rest of us must hold true to our “better angels.”
IRC, Documented, launch resource platform for NYC asylum seekers and migrants: Documented.info
Legacy media has been providing service journalism focused on middle-class and wealthier communities for decades, and Documented is proud to bring this tradition of service journalism to low-income immigrant communities who have often been left out of the conversation.
Over the past year, Documented has been working with the International Rescue Committee to launch a digital platform called Documented.info (sneak peak link). This new digital platform is designed to provide asylum seekers and migrants in New York City with reliable, multilingual information covering everything from access to shelter and mental health resources, employment eligibility, and labor rights to how to navigate the asylum process and find legal support.
Anyone familiar with Documented knows that this is not a departure from how we’ve served immigrant readers since we launched in 2018. During the pandemic, it became clear that the immigrant community urgently needed practical, actionable information to address their concerns, whether about the legal system, government programs, or even basic necessities like where to find food. We received so many questions that it made sense to start documenting the answers we were giving.
This led to the creation of a collection of resource guides, explainers, and articles, all designed to address the questions we were being asked. To ensure accuracy and relevance, we collaborated with immigration lawyers, advocates, experts in the field, and individuals familiar with immigrant communities, allowing us to provide a comprehensive breakdown that directly addressed the communities’ needs.
Documented’s staff, including Rommel H. Ojeda, who’s our correspondent for Spanish-speaking communities, began interacting with readers and immigrant communities on Documented’s WhatsApp platform. He then began to populate Documented’s website with resources to help the immigrant and undocumented population in New York City find information about legal representation, financial relief, and more. That guide grew into a list of hundreds of helpful resources on our website, which consist of information about education, child care, employment, workers rights, finances, food aid, health, safety, housing, shelter, legal services, scams, and misinformation, to name a few.
“When New York City had asylum seekers coming in, we saw that a lot of the obstacles they were facing were also related to the guides that we had already created for migrants that were here five to 10 years before them,” Ojeda said. “I think just having this constant dialog with the community where we are answering their questions through experts, we’re also able to provide the guides to new people in the sense that we can send it to them as soon as they contact us. With this new partnership, we are able to continue doing that work, but on a larger scale.”
Documented.info addresses the unique challenges asylum seekers and immigrants — especially those from underserved backgrounds — face in navigating complex legal systems and services. Immigrants can message their questions to Documented.info via popular messaging platforms Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger. Journalists and experts respond — in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French at launch — and share actionable resources, vetted services and original, targeted reporting. The platform aims to close critical information gaps, counter misinformation affecting immigrant communities and build trust.
“I’m pretty glad that we have the Haitian Creole version because we have thousands of newly arrived Haitian immigrants who came to New York, especially under the Humanitarian Parole Program,” said Ralph Thomassaint Joseph, Documented’s correspondent for non-Spanish-speaking Caribbean communities, who has been leading our engagement with communities on Nextdoor.
And there’s more. Continue reading on Documented to see what leaders at the International Rescue Committee and Documented have to say about the new Documented.info digital platform.
Have tips on furthering this story? Share your thoughts with us by responding to this email or sending us a message at earlyarrival@documentedny.com
************************
Many thanks to all the NDPA warriors involved in this wonderful cooperative effort. We need to be asking why our politicos and national governance is failing so miserably to face and promote the truth about asylum and other aspects of legal migration and to take actions for the common good, rather than squandering resources, promoting cruelty and lawlessness, and“picking on the most vulnerable” to gain a perceived political upper hand?
Beyond that, we need to be planning NOW on how to prevent a repeat of this year’s utterly disgraceful, totally toxic, wrong-headed, badly misleading, and blatantly dishonest treatment of, and “non-dialogue” about, the immigration, human rights, and equal justice issues by politicos of both parties during this election season! This bogus dialogue was scandalously and unprofessionally parroted and aided by the “MSM!” 🤮 No matter who wins in November, we must strive to do better in the future — for everyone’s sake and for the good of our nation!🇺🇸⚖️🗽
NOVEMBER 8, 2024 for a DAY-LONG EVENT in the Landis Auditorium Room 184 Myron Taylor Hall Cornell Law School.
To celebrate the career of Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr and his contributions to the field of immigration law.
“The (Im)possibility of Immigration Reform?,” will feature three panels and a light-hearted roast of Professor Yale-Loehr. Click HERE to view the agenda.
The conference will include lunch and a reception. Articles written for the conference will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Cornell International Law Journal.
REGISTER TODAY
If you haven’t already registered, please register to attend in person HERE. Space is limited and filling up fast as you can imagine.
Or click HERE if you can’t attend in person and would like to register for the webinar.
Thank you,
CENTERS & PROGRAMS TEAM
Administrative Assistant | Centers & Programs | Cornell Law School
I am delighted to announce some exciting changes coming to this blog. As “Courtsiders” know, I have been “on sabbatical” since this May, with reduced postings, while my wife Cathy and I focus on travel and other, perhaps less uplifting, aspects of proceeding through our retirement years. I decided that I can no longer devote the time, energy, and “emotional involvement” (a/k/a “Gonzo Journalism”) to operating Courtside as a “daily” with new blog content every day (or almost every day). I have also “upped” my postings on Linkedin, which I have found to be an “easier” platform for my “quick thoughts.”
At the same time, I don’t want the “Voice of Courtside” and particularly the “online archives” of more than 5,500 blog posts, some of which are personal recollections and anecdotal immigration history that will otherwise “disappear” when I do, to be lost to posterity.
Happily, my friend, noted immigration law maven, and distinguished “practical scholar” Dr. Alicia Triche has come to the rescue by agreeing to join me as “Co-Editor” of Courtside! We aspire to keep the blog operating in a new and somewhat different way that would not become an undue burden on the time of either of us.
Our general goal is for Alicia to contribute several more in-depth, analytical “thought pieces” on immigration law each month, while I would contribute occasional posts “as the spirit moves me.” We would also encourage contributions from others featuring “practical scholarship” that might help or inspire other members of our “New Due Process Army” and/or analyze trends that do not otherwise get covered in the “Mainstream Media.” Additionally, we are hoping by “combining our contacts” to solicit more “feature content” by other experts in the field. So, please let us know if you have contributions you think would be helpful to Courtside’s readers.
Dr. Alicia Triche Superlawyer, Co-Editor, immigrationcourtside.com Memphis, TN
Here is Alicia’s (a/k/a “Delta Ondine”) detailed biography:
Dr. Alicia Triche is a nationally recognized US immigration attorney who has practiced removal defense is a wide range of contexts throughout her storied legal career. Her most notable victory is Zometa-Orellana v. Garland, 19 F.4th 970 (6th Cir. 2021), the ground-breaking Sixth Circuit case involving domestic violence-based refugee protection. In May, 2022, the Federal Bar Association’s Immigration Law Section named her “Lawyer of the Year.”
Triche is currently based in Memphis, Tennessee, where she maintains a boutique practice focused solely on legal research and writing for her own clients and fellow attorneys. In recent years, she provided briefing in two (rare) resounding Fifth Circuit victories: Lopez-Ventura v. Sessions, 907 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2018) and Aben v. Garland, 113 F.4th 457 (5th Cir. 2024).
The “Dr.” part of Triche consists of a 2013 Oxford D.Phil. in international refugee law. At Oxford, she served on the executive editorial board of the Oxford Commonwealth Law Journal, the department’s flagship graduate legal publication. For several years, she also served as editor-in-chief of the “Green Card,” the official newsletter of the FBA’s immigration law section.
When her D.Phil was completed, Dr. Triche found herself living in Memphis, Tennessee, where she had happened to obtain a part-time job as a non-profit attorney/adjunct clinical professor. In a twist-of-fate, the Delta Blues called out to her. Instead of (as originally planned) pursuing legal academia, she became “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter. Ondine performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and she will soon be recording her first full, professional album.
