"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Category: American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”)
BILL BARR – Unqualified For Office – Unfit To Act In A Quasi-Judicial Capacity
There have been many articles pointing out that Bill Barr unethically has acted as Trump’s defense counsel rather than fulfilled his oath to uphold the Constitution and be the Attorney General of all of the American people. There have also been some absurdist “apologias” for Barr some written by once-respected lawyers who should know better, and others written by the normal Trump hacks.
Here are my choices for four of the best articles explaining why Barr should not be the Attorney General. It goes without saying that he shouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination be running the Immigration Court system. His intervention into individual cases in a quasi-judicial capacity is a clear violation of judicial ethics requiring avoidance of even the “appearance” of a conflict of interest. There is no “appearance” here. Barr has a clear conflict in any matter dealing with immigration.
Attorney General William Barr. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
House Democrats are going to face a difficult decision about launching an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Balanced against the president’s impressive array of misconduct is the fact that several more criminal investigations that may add to the indictment are already underway, and that impeaching the president might jeopardize the reelection of red-state Democratic members. But in the meantime, Attorney General William Barr presents them with a much easier decision. Barr has so thoroughly betrayed the values of his office that voting to impeach and remove him is almost obvious.
On March 24, Barr released a short letter summarizing the main findings of the Mueller investigation, as he saw them. News accounts treated Barr’s interpretation as definitive, and the media — even outlets that had spent two years uncovering a wide swath of suspicious and compromising links between the Trump campaign and Russia — dutifully engaged in self-flagellation for having had the temerity to raise questions about the whole affair.
Barr had done very little to that point to earn such a broad benefit of the doubt. In the same role in 1992, he had supported mass pardons of senior officials that enabled a cover-up of the Iran–Contra scandal. Less famously, in 1989 he issued a redacted version of a highly controversial administration legal opinion that, as Ryan Goodman explained, “omitted some of the most consequential and incendiary conclusions from the actual opinion” for “no justifiable reason.”
And while many members of the old Republican political Establishment had recoiled against Trump’s contempt for the rule of law, Barr has shown no signs of having joined them. He met with Trump to discuss serving as his defense lawyer, publicly attacked the Mueller investigation (which risked “taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president”), called for more investigations of Hillary Clinton, and circulated a lengthy memo strongly defending Trump against obstruction charges.
The events since Barr’s letter have incinerated whatever remains of his credibility. The famously tight-lipped Mueller team told several news outlets the letter had minimized Trump’s culpability; Barr gave congressional testimony hyping up Trump’s charges of “spying,” even prejudging the outcome of an investigation (“I think there was a failure among a group of leaders [at the FBI] at the upper echelon”); evaded questions as to whether he had shared the Mueller report with the White House; and, it turns out, he’s “had numerous conversations with White House lawyers which aided the president’s legal team,” the New York Times reports. Then he broke precedent by scheduling a press conference to spin the report in advance of its redacted publication.
It is not much of a mystery to determine which officials have offered their full loyalty to the president. Trump has reportedly “praised Barr privately for his handling of the report and compared him favorably to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions” —whose sole offense in Trump’s eyes was following Department of Justice ethical protocol. Trump urged his Twitter followers to tune in to Barr’s conference, promotional treatment he normally reserves for his Fox News sycophants.
The press conference was the final disqualifying performance. Barr acted like Trump’s defense lawyer, the job he had initially sought, rather than as an attorney general. His aggressive spin seemed designed to work in the maximal number of repetitions of the “no collusion” mantra, in accordance with his boss’s talking points, at the expense of any faithful transmission of the special counsel’s report.
Barr’s letter had made it sound as though Trump’s campaign spurned Russia’s offers of help: “The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” he wrote. In fact, Mueller’s report concluded, “In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer,” but that the cooperation fell short of criminal conduct.
Where Mueller intended to leave the job of judging Trump’s obstructive conduct to Congress, Barr interposed his own judgment. Barr offered this incredible statement for why Trump’s behavior was excusable: “[T]here is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” Barr said. “Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” and credited him further with taking “no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.”
Sincere? How can Barr use that word to describe the mentality of a man whose own staffers routinely describe him in the media as a pathological liar? Trump repeatedly lied about Russia’s involvement in the campaign, and his own dealings with Russia. And he also, contra Barr, repeatedly denied the special counsel access to witnesses by dangling pardons to persuade them to withhold cooperation.
It is true that many of Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice failed. As Mueller wrote, the president’s “efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
This is a rather different gloss on the facts than the happy story Barr offered the press. What’s more, it is a pressing argument for Barr’s own removal. Next to the president himself, the attorney general is the most crucial actor in the safeguarding of the rule of law. The Justice Department is an awesome force that holds the power to enable the ruling party to commit crimes with impunity, or to intimidate and smear the opposing party with the taint of criminality.
There is no other department in government in which mere norms, not laws, are all that stand between democracy as we know it and a banana republic. Barr has revealed his complete unfitness for this awesome task. Nearly two more years of this Trumpian henchman wielding power over federal law enforcement is more weight than the rickety Constitution can bear.
In the years after Watergate, Justice Department officials — from both parties — worked hard to banish partisan cronyism from the department. Their goal was to make it the least political, most independent part of the executive branch.
“Our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose,” Edward Levi, Gerald Ford’s attorney general, said at the time. Griffin Bell, later appointed to the same job by Jimmy Carter, described the department as “a neutral zone in the government, because the law has to be neutral.”
Attorney General William Barr clearly rejects this principle. He’s repeatedly put a higher priority on protecting his boss, President Trump, than on upholding the law in a neutral way. He did so in his letter last month summarizing Robert Mueller’s investigation and then again in a bizarre prebuttal news conference yesterday. As The Times editorial board wrote, Barr yesterday “behaved more like the president’s defense attorney than the nation’s top law-enforcement officer.”
Throughout his tenure, Barr has downplayed or ignored the voluminous evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing — his lies to the American people, his willingness to work with a hostile foreign country during a presidenial campaign, his tolerance of extensive criminal behavior among his staff and his repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation. Barr even claimed that Trump “fully cooperated” with that investigation, which Vox’s Ezra Klein notes is “an outright lie.”
Since he took office, Trump has made clear that he wants an attorney general who acts as first an enforcer of raw power and only second as an enforcer of federal law. In Barr, Trump has found his man. Together, they have cast aside more than four decades worth of Justice Department ideals and instead adopted the approach of Richard Nixon.
President Donald Trump has long wished for an attorney general who would act as his own private lawyer, protecting him from any potential legal damage. He finally found his man in William Barr.
Barr could have released special counsel Robert Mueller’s report from the beginning. Instead, the attorney general chose to twice present his own interpretation of the special counsel’s findings on foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. election ― before allowing members of the public to see the report and decide for themselves whether Trump and his associates did anything improper.
The first time the public received a glimpse of what was in the Mueller report was on March 24, when Barr sent a four-page letter to congressional leaders summarizing his conclusions from the report the special counsel team had submitted to Barr two days earlier.
The second time the public heard about the report’s content was in a Thursday morning press conference when Barr went out of his way to echo Trump talking points, attacking the media and the president’s “political opponents.”
To the Justice Department’s credit, the redactions in the Mueller report were relatively light ― allowing the public to see a substantial amount of the content.
But still, in his public comments, Barr made sure to paint as positive a picture of Trump before the report became widely available.
Here’s how the attorney general misled the public:
He left out the Trump campaign’s expectation of benefiting from hacked material.
In his letter to Congress on March 24, Barr wrote:
The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ”[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election inference activities.”
While it’s true that the Mueller report did reach that conclusion, that quote is incomplete. Barr left out the first part, which was less complimentary to the Trump campaign.
Below is the full quote from the Mueller report, with the part Barr omitted in bold:
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
He said it was up to him to make a decision on obstruction of justice.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Attorney General William Barr went to bat for Trump in a Thursday morning press conference.
In his March 24 letter, Barr said Mueller’s team did not come to a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed justice in the course of the investigation. Therefore, Barr claimed, it was now up to him to make that determination.
“The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” he wrote.
Barr said he concluded that the evidence “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
But Barr never had to make that legal conclusion, as Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department under President Barack Obama, pointed out. And Mueller never asked Barr to so.
Indeed, the report said the special counsel’s team couldn’t come to such a conclusion:
[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.
The report also said that ultimately, the obstruction call wasn’t for Mueller to make. The special counsel decided not to make a decision on whether to prosecute Trump because the Justice Department’s position, according to an Office of Legal Counsel memo, is that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
“Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations … this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction,” the report states.
Furthermore, it seems clear that Mueller and his team expected that ultimately, Congress would make the decision on obstruction of justice.
NBC News reported earlier that some in Mueller’s office had said “their intent was to leave the legal question open for Congress and the public to examine the evidence.”
“[W]e concluded that Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice,” the report says.
In other words, Congress can impeach the president if it wants to do so.
He gave an incomplete picture of Trump’s actions that could be construed as obstruction of justice.
“In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct,” Barr wrote in his March 24 letter.
The report doesn’t let Trump off the hook quite so easily. It says Trump tried to obstruct justice ― but he didn’t succeed because his staff refused to follow his orders.
“The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” the report reads.
The report detailed 10 acts by Trump that could amount to obstruction of justice.
He said Mueller found “no collusion.”
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been called to testify before Congress about his report.
One of Trump’s favorite phrases is that there was “no collusion” between his campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 elections. He has tweeted it 84 times.
Barr used the phrase four times in his 18-minute remarks in Thursday’s press conference:
“Put another way, the special counsel found no ‘collusion’ by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.”
“But again, the special counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign ‘collusion’ with the Russian government’s hacking.”
“After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the special counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel’s investigation.”
“At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was, in fact, no collusion.”
But the Mueller report never actually said the investigation found no collusion. In fact, the report explains specifically why it doesn’t use the term “collusion.” The word only appears in the report as part of this explanation or in quoting someone else.
MUELLER REPORT
The Mueller report avoided using the term “collusion,” and explains why here.
Therefore, Barr repeatedly saying Mueller found “no collusion” was simply the attorney general adopting a Trump talking point.
He said Trump fully cooperated with the investigation.
Barr was extremely sympathetic to Trump in Thursday’s press conference. He tried to paint a picture of a president under extreme ― and unfair ― pressure, telling reporters, “As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates.”
He said Trump was “frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” so it’s not surprising if he may have lashed out a bit. And, he added, Trump deserved credit for “fully cooperat[ing]” with the special counsel at all:
Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.
Trump, however, didn’t fully cooperate. He refused repeated requests to give an interview to Mueller and his team. The report said the special counsel’s team considered issuing a subpoena for Trump to testify but ultimately decided it wasn’t worth it:
MUELLER REPORT
The Mueller report says Trump refused to be interviewed by the special counsel and his team.
******************************************
Finally, this editorial form the SF Chronicle really “hammers home” Barr’s patent unfitness to continue serving.
Editorial: Attorney General Barr’s misplaced loyalties
Chronicle Editorial Board
Updated
Photo: Tom Brenner / New York Times
Attorney General William Barr has been acting as if he is Presisdent Trump’s personal attorney.
President Trump has never made any secret of his desire to have an attorney general whose first loyalty was to him. Regrettably for the nation and the honest administration of justice, Trump unquestionably now has one in William Barr.
The attorney general has lost all credibility with his disgraceful handling of the rollout of the Mueller report into Russian interference into the 2016 election. Barr left the American people for more than a month with a seriously skewed characterization of the “principal conclusions” from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings from the two-year investigation.
His four-page summary of those conclusions amounted to “nothing much to see here, folks.” While he was correct that the Mueller team could not make a case that anyone in Trump’s campaign broke the law by conspiring with Russians, the Barr summary was downright deceptive in its portrayal of the special counsel’s findings on possible obstruction of justice by the president.
Barr’s summary suggested that “difficult questions of law and fact” left it difficult for Mueller to determine whether Trump had obstructed the probe. Barr and his deputy took it upon themselves to conclude that “the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient” to establish obstruction.
Americans who have now read the Mueller’s team’s own words in the 448-page report discovered that Barr’s account was highly misleading. In fact, Mueller’s hesitation was not based on an inability to decide; it was guided in part by a Department of Justice policy that a sitting president could not be indicted. Given that, Mueller suggested it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime when the president could not have a chance to defend himself in a “speedy and public trial” with the constitutional protections.
Barr also suggested that Trump could not have obstructed justice into an investigation of a crime he did not commit.
Mueller’s report clearly stated otherwise.
“The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong,” it stated. Mueller’s investigation detailed “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
Rather than punting the obstruction decision to Barr, Mueller very clearly noted that a decision on what to do with the substantial evidence of wrongdoing he collected should be made by Congress, which has the power of impeachment.
Barr never bothered to correct Trump’s exhortation of “complete and total exoneration.” Barr might as well have been on a Trump spokesman, rather than the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, at a bizarre Thursday news conference (before the report’s release) in which he offered a sympathetic explanation for Trump’s repeated efforts to stymie the investigation. Barr chalked it up to Trump’s anger and frustration.
Justice has been frustrated. Americans are justifiably angry. Barr has proved himself unfit for the high office he holds.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
Undoubtedly, Trump is unfit for office as many of us have been saying for some time now. The Mueller report confirmed what most thinking people already knew: the guy is dishonest, immoral, pathological, and a not very bright “con man.” (He’s also a racist and a White Nationalist would be authoritarian, although those admittedly were not points of emphasis in the Mueller report which focused on other aspects of his totally disgraceful conduct.)
But, I’ll concede that Trump’s removal is unlikely to happen except at the ballot box. Even that is uncertain with about 40% of American voters apparently wedded to a “beggar thy neighbor, who cares about the majority, country be damned” worldview. Trump is already focused on a “race-baiting” strategy of leveraging the most problematic aspects of our electoral college system while treating the interests of majority of Americans with mockery and disdain.
It remains to be seen whether any Democratic candidate can unite the diverse majority of Americans for at least long enough to save our country by removing Trump and, hopefully, his GOP enablers along with him. It also remains to be seen whether any country where 40% of the voters are so out of touch with reality and the common interests of the rest of us can actually be governed, once majority rule is restored.
But, Barr is a different matter. He’s not elected, he’s not President, and we don’t have to enable his continued unethical misuse of authority at the DOJ, at least not in the the all important area of the U.S. Immigraton Court.
If Congress won’t do the job by creating an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, it’s time for the Article III courts to invalidate precedents produced by Barr’s and Sessions’s unethical participation in individual quasi-judicial decision-making and to start invalidating removal orders entered by “courts” controlled by political enforcement officials, in clear contradiction to the Due Process requirement that individuals facing the life or death authority of the Federal Government are entitled to have fair and impartial decision makers and reasoned decisions. That can’t happen in a system controlled and directed by biased political “enforcement only” officials like Barr (and Sessions before him). Barr has made it crystal clear that he always will put the selfish interests of Trump above truthfulness, the law, due process, fundamental fairness, and the common good.
Letting this farce of a “judicial system” continue unfairly endangering individual lives and deferring to officials who are neither subject matter experts nor fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision makers is unconstitutional. By letting it continue, life-tenured Federal Judges both tarnish their reputations and fail to fulfill their oaths of office.
As a young attorney in the Department of Justice during the Watergate Era, I, along with many others, were indelibly impressed and inspired when then Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his Deputy William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s illegal order to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor (a/k/a/ “The Saturday Night Massacre”). Obviously, Barr has dragged the Department and its reputation down to new depths — back to the days of Nixon and disgraced (and convicted) Attorney General “John the Con” Mitchell, who actually planned criminal conspiracies in his fifth floor office at the DOJ.
Obviously, there are systemic problems that have allowed unqualified individuals like Barr and Sessions to serve in and co-opt the system of justice, and denigrate the Department of Justice. (I spoke to some recently retired DOJ officials who characterized the morale among career professionals at the DOJ as “below the floor”). Some of those can be traced to the lack of backbone and integrity in the “Trump GOP” which controls the Senate and refuses to enforce even minimal standards of professionalism, meaningful oversight, and independent decision making in Trump appointees. That’s what a “kakistocracy” is. It’s up to the rest of us to do what is necessary under the law to replace the kakistocracy with a functioning democracy.
WASHINGTON, DC – On April 16, 2019, Attorney General William Barr issued a decision in Matter of M-S- in which he determined that asylum seekers who establish a credible fear of persecution and will be placed in removal proceedings are not eligible for an individualized determination of their custody status before the immigration court.
AILA Treasurer Jeremy McKinney stated, “With this decision, the Attorney General is unilaterally depriving asylum seekers of their right to a bond hearing in front of an immigration judge despite the fact they have passed a credible fear interview administered by a USCIS asylum officer. By overturning Matter of X-K, which provided for an independent review of the government’s justification to detain someone, the Attorney General is sweeping aside 14 years of standing Board of Immigration Appeals precedent that the courts and DHS have long implemented. This is a devastating blow to those seeking protection from persecution at the U.S. border, since far more will be held in detention. This decision further expands mandatory and prolonged detention of people who are neither dangerous nor flight risks, practices which are constitutionally suspect and a waste of taxpayer money. This administration is using detention as a sword against both due process and the humanitarian principles our nation was founded upon.”
AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson added, “While Matter of M-S- will not take effect for 90 days, the impact of Attorney General Barr’s decision, along with the other decisions issued by his immediate predecessors on asylum and the nation’s immigration courts, cannot be overstated. With full control over the immigration court system, the Attorney General is not only rewriting asylum and detention law but also stripping judges of the most basic operational authorities and judicial independence. Asylum seekers arriving at the southern border can be processed in an orderly way while also being provided with thorough and fair review of their asylum cases. To accomplish that, the immigration courts must be allowed to operate as courts, not puppets of the Attorney General. Without delay Congress should create an Article One immigration court system, separate from the Department of Justice to counteract the political machinations of the administration.”
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19041734.
**************************************
There is no end to this Administration’s campaign of unrelenting cruelty toward asylum seekers. Even lack of ability to carry out their morbid fascination with creating the “New American Gulag” —- this time targeting individuals who actually have established a “credible fear” of persecution — doesn’t deter their inhumanity. It’s likely to face Constitutional obstacles, at least in the lower Federal Courts.
AILA gets it right. It would be possible to fairly process asylum seekers with additional trained Asylum Officers (not Border Patrol Officers masquerading as Asylum Officers) through an independent Article I Immigration Court System committed to fairly and efficiently applying asylum laws. Lawyers are an essential part of the equation.
We should stop confusing families seeking asylum with “security threats.” Indeed, the obsession with those who present no real threat to our country actually detracts from efforts to combat real threats — drug smugglers and human traffickers. Those require undercover and anti-smuggling investigative techniques that have little to do with individuals and families turning themselves in at or near the border to apply for asylum or building physical barriers (although a modest building program could be part of a rational border security package).
True “Border Security” doesn’t require harsh, demeaning, or unfair treatment of asylum seekers, nor does it involve huge walls or more immigration prisons. A fairly administered asylum system along with targeting of smugglers and other criminals and more attention to the root causes of the migration would actually enhance real border security along with Due Process and adherence to the rule of law.
Lawyers slam ‘Wild West’ atmosphere in Texas immigration court
(CNN)Judges at an immigration court in El Paso, Texas, are undermining due process, making inappropriate comments and fostering a “culture of hostility” toward immigrants, according to a new complaint.
The administrative complaint, sent to the Justice Department on Wednesday and obtained by CNN, slams a number of allegedly recurring practices at the El Paso Service Processing Center court, which hears cases of immigrants detained at several locations near the border.
“El Paso feels like the Wild West in terms of the immigration system,” said Kathryn Shepherd, national advocacy counsel for the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Justice Campaign and one of the complaint’s authors. “There’s so little oversight. No one is talking about how bad it is.”
The complaint comes at a time of mounting criticism of the Justice Department-run courts that decide whether individual immigrants should be deported. And it comes as officials warn the number of cases those courts are tasked with handling is rapidly increasing with an influx of more undocumented immigrants crossing the border.
Among the allegations:
• Judges at the El Paso Service Processing Center court have “notably high rates of denial,” the complaint says, noting that the court granted less than 4% of asylum applications heard there between fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2017. Nationally, 35% of asylum cases in court are granted, according to the latest data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
• The complaint accuses judges in the court of making inappropriate comments that “undermine confidence in their impartiality” and are part of “a culture of hostility and contempt towards immigrants who appear” at the court. While hearing one case, a judge, according to the complaint, described the court as “the bye-bye place,” telling a lawyer, “You know your client is going bye-bye, right?” Another judge allegedly told court observers that “there’s really nothing going on right now in Latin America” that would provide grounds for asylum.
• Rules limiting evidence that can be presented at this court strip away due process, the complaint says. One judge’s standing order, for example, limits the length of exhibits that can be submitted to 100 pages. “This order is particularly harmful for individuals seeking protection whose cases are more complex or where country conditions are at issue,” the complaint says.
The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees US immigration courts, declined to comment on the allegations. Spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly confirmed that the office received the complaint letter on Wednesday.
An overwhelmed system
The allegations come amid mounting criticism of US immigration courts.
There are more than 60 immigration courts in the United States, and about 400 judges presiding over them. Immigration judges are hired directly by the attorney general and are employees of the Justice Department. They’re required to be US citizens, to have law degrees, to be active and licensed members of the bar and to have at least seven years of post-bar experience with trials or hearings, among other qualifications.
Both immigrant rights advocates and immigration hard-liners agree the court system is struggling under a crush of cases — but they diverge widely in their proposals for fixing it.
The Trump administration has moved to hire more judges and to pressure them to finish cases more quickly, accusing immigrants and the lawyers who represent them of gaming the system and overloading it with frivolous cases.
Advocates say the existing system denies due process and harms vulnerable people who have legitimate claims to remain in the United States but face an overwhelming number of obstacles to make their case. They’ve argued a major overhaul is necessary, proposing the creation of an independent court system that’s not part of the Justice Department.
In recent congressional testimony, Executive Office for Immigration Review Director James McHenry said his department had increased its number of case completions for the third consecutive year. And he said that every day, the office decides immigration cases “by fairly, expeditiously and uniformly interpreting and administering the nation’s immigration laws.”
‘The worst court in the country’
Lawyers argue the El Paso Service Processing Center facility is both a window into wider problems of the immigration system and a particularly egregious example.
“Immigration courts across the nation are suffering from many of the issues identified here,” the complaint alleges, “including the use of problematic standing orders, reports of inappropriate conduct from (immigration judges), and highly disparate grant rates which suggest that outcomes may turn on which court or judge is deciding the case rather than established principles and rules of law.”
But one reason advocates focused this complaint on this El Paso court, the American Immigration Council’s Shepherd said, was that it had the lowest asylum grant rate in the nation, based on statistics compiled from Justice Department reports over a five-year period.
Those figures, from annual fiscal year reports from 2013-2017, show the percentage of cases granted in the El Paso court has fluctuated in recent years, decreasing slightly from 2014-2016 and increasing slightly from 2016-2017. But for years, the figure has hovered at or under 5% — significantly below the national rate.
“If you look at the numbers, it’s the worst court in the country. But we wanted to understand really why that was the case,” she said. “What about El Paso, and what about how the judges conduct business in the court, makes it so hard to prevail?”
After researching that question and outlining their findings in the complaint, with the help of court observers and lawyers who regularly practice in the court, now Shepherd says they’re calling for the Justice Department to conduct its own investigation into the El Paso Service Processing Center court and other courts with similar problems.
Suggestions for improvement
An administrative complaint is a step in a formal grievance process used to bring issues to officials’ attention, Shepherd said, but does not trigger legal proceedings.
The complaint recommends a series of corrective measures, including providing more training on appropriate conduct for judges and requiring the Executive Office for Immigration Review to post publicly online any standing orders individual judges have issued.
No matter how officials respond, Shepherd said she hopes the complaint will be a jumping-off point for further research into how the court’s practices have affected people who were ordered deported there.
“It’s pretty overwhelming, actually,” she said, “if you think about the thousands of people who have passed through this immigration court and haven’t really had a chance to fight their case in a meaningful way.”
CNN’s Maegan Vazquez and Abby Phillip contributed to this report.
**********************************************
This isn’t Due Process! This isn’t justice! This is a farce, a fraud, and a parody of justice going on with the active encouragement and incompetent management of a Department of Justice that has abandoned due process and the rule of law in favor of restrictionist “deny ‘em all, deport ‘em all” policies actively promoted by Trump, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and adopted by current Attorney General Bill Barr.
This national disgrace and existential threat to our entire justice system and constitutional order will not end until the Immigration Courts are removed from the Department of Justice and reconstituted as an independent, fair, impartial court system dedicated to insuring fairness and due process for all, including the most vulnerable among us.
FOIA Reveals EOIR’s Failed Plan for Fixing the Immigration Court Backlog February 21, 2019
Contact: Laura Lynch (llynch@aila.org) 1
On December 19, 2018, AILA and the American Immigration Council obtained a partially redacted memorandum through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), entitled the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan (hereinafter “EOIR’s plan”). EOIR’s plan, which was approved by the Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 31, 2017,2 states that the overarching goal was “to significantly reduce the case backlog by 2020.” 3 In the following months, DOJ and EOIR implemented the plan by rolling out several policy initiatives, including multiple precedent-setting opinions issued by then-Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions.
Contrary to EOIR’s stated goals, the administration’s policies have contributed to an increase in the court backlog which exceeded 820,000 cases at the end of 2018.4 This constitutes a 25 percent increase in the backlog since the introduction of EOIR’s plan.5 For example, the October 2017 memorandum reveals that EOIR warned DOJ that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) potential activation of almost 350,000 low priority cases or cases that were not ready to be adjudicated could balloon the backlog.6 Nonetheless, then-AG Sessions ignored these concerns and issued a decision that essentially stripped immigration judges (IJs) of their ability to administratively close cases and compelled IJs to reopen previously closed cases at Immigrations Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) request.7
The policies EOIR implemented as part of this backlog reduction plan have severely undermined the due process and integrity of the immigration court system. EOIR has placed enormous pressure on IJs by setting strict case quotas on and restricting their ability to manage their dockets more efficiently. This approach treats the complex process of judging like an assembly line and makes it more likely that judges will not give asylum seekers and others appearing before the courts enough time to gather evidence to support their claims. People appearing before the courts will also have less time to find legal counsel, which has been shown to be a critical, if not the single most important factor, in determining whether an asylum seeker is able to prove eligibility for legal protection.
The foundational purpose of any court system must be to ensure its decisions are rendered fairly, consistent with the law and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Efforts to improve efficiency are also important but cannot be implemented at the expense of these fundamental principles. EOIR’s plan has not only failed to reduce the backlog but has eroded the court’s ability to ensure due process. Furthermore, EOIR’s plan demonstrates the enormous power DOJ exerts over the immigration court system. Until Congress creates an immigration court that is separate and independent from DOJ, those appearing before the court will be confronted with a flawed system that is severely compromised in its ability to ensure fair and consistent adjudications.
I. Background on EOIR’s Inherently Flawed Structure
The U.S. immigration court system suffers from profound structural problems that have severely eroded both its capacity to deliver just and fair decisions in a timely manner and public confidence in the system
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)
itself.8 Unlike other judicial bodies, the immigration courts lack independence from the Executive Branch. The immigration courts are administered by EOIR, which is housed within DOJ – the same agency that prosecutes immigration cases at the federal level. This inherent conflict of interest is made worse by the fact that IJs are not classified as judges but as government attorneys, a classification that fails to recognize the significance of their judicial duties and puts them under the control of the AG, the chief prosecutor in immigration cases. The current administration has taken advantage of the court’s structural flaws, introducing numerous policies — including EOIR’s plan — that dramatically reshape federal immigration law and undermine due process in immigration court proceedings.
II. Policies Identified in EOIR’s Plan
Administrative Closure
Stated Policy Goal: To reduce the case backlog and maximize docket efficiency, EOIR’s plan called for the strengthening of EOIR and DHS interagency cooperation.9 EOIR’s plan advised DOJ that “any burst of case initiation by a DHS component could seriously compromise EOIR’s ability to address its caseload and greatly exacerbate the current state of the backlog.”10
Reality: Despite EOIR’s warning, then-AG Sessions issued a precedent decision in Matter of Castro Tum,11 which contributed to a rise in the case backlog. This decision severely restricts a judge’s ability to schedule and prioritize their cases, otherwise known as “administrative closure” and even compels IJs to reopen previously closed cases at ICE’s request.12
Administrative closure is a procedural tool that IJs and the BIA use to temporarily halt removal proceedings by transferring a case from active to inactive status on a court’s docket. This tool is particularly useful in situations where IJs cannot complete the case until action is taken by USCIS or another DHS component, state courts and other authorities. Prior to the issuance of Matter of Castro Tum, numerous organizations, including the judges themselves, warned DOJ that stripping IJs of the ability to utilize this docket management tool “will result in an enormous increase in our already massive backlog of cases.”13 In fact, an EOIR-commissioned report identified administrative closure as a helpful tool to control the caseload and recommended that EOIR work with DHS to implement a policy to administratively close cases awaiting adjudication in other agencies or courts.14
Nonetheless, the former AG issued Matter of Castro Tum15 sharply curtailing IJs’ ability to administratively close cases. The decision even called for cases that were previously administratively closed cases to be put back on the active immigration court dockets.16 In August 2018, ICE directed its attorneys to file motions to recalendar “all cases that were previously administratively closed…” with limited exceptions—potentially adding a total of 355,835 cases immediately onto the immigration court docket.17 Three months later, ICE had already moved to recalendar 8,000 cases that had previously been administratively closed, contributing to the bloated immigration court case backlog.18 In response, members of Congress sent a letter to DOJ and DHS outlining their concerns about ICE’s plans to recalendar potentially hundreds of thousands of administratively closed cases, further clogging the system and delaying and denying justice to the individuals within it.19
Quotas and Deadlines
Stated Policy Goal: To expedite adjudications, EOIR’s plan calls for the development of caseload
management goals and benchmarks.20
Reality: EOIR imposed unprecedented case completion quotas and deadlines on IJs, that pressure judges to complete cases rapidly at the expense of balanced, well-reasoned judgment.21
2
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)
At the time EOIR’s plan was issued, EOIR’s collective bargaining agreement with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) prohibited “the use of any type of performance metrics in evaluating an IJ’s performance.”22 Despite opposition from NAIJ,23 DOJ and EOIR imposed case completion quotas and time-based deadlines on IJs, tying their individual performance reviews to the number of cases they complete.24 Among other requirements, IJs must complete 700 removal cases in the next year or risk losing their jobs.25 Disturbingly, DOJ unveiled new software, resembling a “speedometer on a car” employed to track the completion of IJs’ cases.26
Sample Image of “IJ Performance Data Dashboard”
(Source: Vice News)27
AILA, the American Immigration Council, and other legal organizations and scholars oppose the quotas that have been described by the NAIJ as a “death knell for judicial independence.”28 The purported argument for these policies is that it will speed the process up for the judges. However, applying this kind of blunt instrument will compel judges to rush through decisions and may compromise a respondent’s right to due process and a fair hearing. Given that most respondents do not speak English as their primary language, a strict time frame for completion of cases interferes with a judge’s ability to assure that a person’s right to examine and present evidence is respected.29
These policies also impact asylum seekers, who may need more time to gather evidence that is hard to obtain from their countries of origin, as well as unrepresented individuals, who may need more time to obtain an attorney. The Association of Pro Bono Counsel explained that the imposition of case completion quotas and deadlines “will inevitably reduce our ability to provide pro bono representation to immigrants in need of counsel.”30 Unrepresented people often face hurdles in court that can cause case delays, and scholars have concluded that immigrants with attorneys fare better at every stage of the court process.31 Furthermore, these policies compel IJs to rush through decisions may result in errors which will lead to an increase in appeals and federal litigation, further slowing down the process.
Continuances
Stated Policy Goal: To “streamline current immigration proceedings”32 and “process cases more
efficiently,”33 EOIR’s plan called for changes in the use of continuances in immigration court.34
Reality: The restrictions DOJ and EOIR placed on the use of continuances make it far more difficult for immigrants to obtain counsel and interfere with judges’ ability to use their own discretion in each case.
EOIR and DOJ introduced policies that pressure judges to deny more continuances at the expense of due process. In July 2017, the Chief IJ issued a memorandum which pressures IJs to deny multiple continuances, including continuances to find an attorney or for an attorney to prepare for a case.35 Following this policy change, then-AG Sessions issued the precedential decision, Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., interfering with an IJ’s ability to grant continuance requests and introducing procedural hurdles that will also make it harder for people to request and IJs to grant continuances.36
3
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)
These policy changes weaken due process protections and contradict the agency’s plan to “improve existing laws and policies.” Continuances represent a critical docketing management tool for IJs and are a necessary means to ensure that due process is afforded in removal proceedings. The number one reason respondents request continuances is to find counsel, who play a critical role in ensuring respondents receive a fair hearing.37 Continuances are particularly important to recent arrivals, vulnerable populations (such as children), and non-English speakers—all of whom have significant difficulties navigating an incredibly complex immigration system. Furthermore, individuals represented by counsel contribute to more efficient court proceedings. NAIJ’s President, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, explained, “It is our experience, when noncitizens are represented by competent counsel, Immigration Judges are able to conduct proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly.”38
Video Teleconferencing (VTC)
Stated Policy Goal: To expand its adjudicatory capacity, EOIR called for pilot VTC “immigration
adjudication centers.”39
Reality: EOIR expanded the use of VTC for substantive hearings undermining the quality of communication and due process.
A 2017 report commissioned by EOIR concluded that court proceedings by VTC should be limited to “procedural matters” because appearances by VTC may lead to “due process issues.”40 Despite these concerns, EOIR expanded use of VTC for substantive hearings. A total of fifteen IJs currently sit in two immigration adjudication centers—four in Falls Church, Virginia, and eleven in Fort Worth, Texas.41 IJs are currently stationed at these “centers” where they adjudicate cases from around the country from a remote setting.42
For years, legal organizations such as AILA and the American Bar Association (ABA) have opposed use of VTC to conduct in immigration merits hearings, except in matters in which the noncitizen has given consent.43 Technological glitches such as weak connections and bad audio can make it difficult to communicate effectively, and 29 percent of EOIR staff reported that VTC caused meaningful delay.44 Additionally, VTC technology does not provide for the ability to transmit nonverbal cues. Such issues can impact an IJs’ assessment of an individual’s credibility and demeanor, which are significant factors in determining appropriate relief.45 Moreover, use of VTC for immigration hearings also limits the ability for attorneys to consult confidentially with their clients. No matter how high-quality or advanced the technology is that is used during a remote hearing, such a substitute is not equivalent to an in-person hearing and presents significant due process concerns.
IJ Hiring
Stated Policy Goal: In order to increase the IJ corps and reduce the amount of time to hire new
IJs, the former AG introduced a new, streamlined IJ hiring process.46
Reality: Following DOJ’s implementation of the streamlined IJ hiring process, DOJ faced allegations of politicized and discriminatory hiring47 that call into question the fundamental fairness of immigration court decisions.
On its face, the agency “achieved” its goal to quickly hire more IJs, reducing the time it takes to onboard new IJs by 74 percent and increasing the number of IJs on the bench from 338 IJs at the end of FY2017 to 414 IJs by the end of 2018.48 What these statistics do not reveal is that the new plan amended hiring processes to provide political appointees with greater influence in the final selection of IJs.49 In addition to procedural changes, DOJ also made substantive changes to IJ hiring requirements, “over-emphasizing litigation experience to the exclusion of other relevant immigration law experience.”50 Both Senate and
4
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)
House Democrats requested an investigation with the DOJ Inspector General (IG) to examine allegations that DOJ has targeted candidates and withdrawn or delayed offers for IJ and BIA positions based on their perceived political or ideological views.51 These allegations are particularly troublesome given the influx in the number of IJs resigning and reports that experienced IJs are “being squeezed out of the system for political reasons.”52
Telephonic Interpreters
Stated Policy Goal: EOIR requested additional funding to support additional IJs on staff and to
improve efficiency.53
Reality: EOIR failed to budget for needed in-person interpreters54 resulting in the use of telephonic interpreters for most hearings, which raises concerns about hearing delays and potential communication issues.55
In April of 2017, an EOIR-commissioned report revealed that 31 percent of court staff reported that telephonic interpreters caused a meaningful delay in their ability to proceed with their daily responsibilities.56 With more than 85 percent of respondents in immigration court relying on use of an interpreter, EOIR’s decision to replace in-person interpreters with telephonic interpreters will undoubtedly make court room procedures less efficient.57 In addition, similar to many of the technological concerns cited with use of VTC, communication issues related to use of remote interpreters can jeopardize an immigrant’s right to a fair day in court. For example, it is impossible for telephonic interpreters to catch non-verbal cues that may determine the meaning of the speech.
III. Conclusion
The immigration court system is charged with ensuring that individuals appearing before the court receives a fair hearing and full review of their case consistent with the rule of law and fundamental due process. Instead of employing policies that propel the court toward these goals, the administration’s plan relies on policies that compromise due process. IJs responsible for adjudicating removal cases are being pressured to render decisions at a break-neck pace. By some accounts “morale has never, ever been lower” among IJs and their staff.58 Moreover, since the introduction of EOIR’s plan, the number of cases pending in the immigration courts has increased 25 percent (from 655,932 on 9/31/17 to 821,726 on 12/31/18). This number does not even account for the 35-day partial government shutdown that cancelled approximately 60,000 hearings while DHS continued carrying out enforcement actions.59 Congress must conduct rigorous oversight into the administration’s policies that have eroded the court’s ability to ensure that decisions are rendered fairly, consistent with the law and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. But oversight is not enough. In order protect and advance America’s core values of fairness and equality, the immigration court must be restructured outside of the control of DOJ, in the form of an independent Article I court.60
900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000
0
792,738 821,726
655,932 521,416
460,021 430,095
356,246
PENDING IMMIGRATION CASES
EOIR Pending Cases
5
Pending cases equals removal, deportation, exclusion, asylum-only, and AILA Doc. No. w1it9hh0o2ld1in9g0o0nl.y. (Po
Source: Department of Justice
sted 2/21/19)
1 For more information, contact AILA Senior Policy Counsel Laura Lynch at (202) 507-7627 or llynch@aila.org.
2 *An earlier version of this policy brief, dated February 19, 2019, incorrectly stated that the memo was signed on October 17, 2017. This typo has been corrected. FOIA Response, see pg. 9.
3 On December 5, 2017, EOIR publicly issued a backgrounder for the EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan. U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017.
4 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, (Dec. 31, 2018). The over 820,000 cases does not account for the 35-day partial government shutdown that cancelled approximately 60,000 immigration court hearings while at the same time, DHS continued carrying out enforcement actions, Associated Press, Partial shutdown delayed 60,000 immigration court hearings, Feb. 8, 2019.
5 U.S. Department of Justice, Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, Dec. 31, 2018.
6 FOIA Response, see pg. 6.
7 Jason Boyd, The Hill, “8,000 new ways the Trump administration is undermining immigration court independence,” Aug. 19, 2018.
8 ABA Commission on Immigration, Reforming the Immigration System, Proposals to Promote the Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases (2010).
9 FOIA Response, see pg. 6. See also U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017.
10 FOIA Response, see pg. 6.
11 Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
12 Id.
13 NAIJ Letter to then-Attorney General Sessions, Jan. 30, 2018.
14 AILA and The American Immigration Council FOIA Response, Booz Allen Hamilton Report on Immigration Courts, Apr. 6, 2017, pg. 26, [hereinafter “Booz Allen Report”].
15 Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
16 Id.
17 ICE Provides Guidance to OPLA Attorneys on Administrative Closure Following Matter of Castro Tum, June 15, 2018.
18 Hamed Aleaziz, Buzzfeed News, “The Trump Administration is Seeking to Restart Thousands of Closed Deportation Cases,” Aug. 15, 2018.
19 Congressional Letter Requesting Information Regarding Initiative to Recalendar Administratively Closed Cases, Sept. 13, 2018.
20 FOIA Response, see pg. 5.
21 Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018.
22 FOIA Response, see pg. 5.
23 Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, NAIJ, May 2, 2018.
24 FOIA Response, pg. 5. See also Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018; See also Imposing Quotas on Immigration Judges will Exacerbate the Case Backlog at Immigration Courts, NAIJ, Jan. 31, 2018. See also Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, NAIJ, May 2, 2018.
25 See Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018.
26 C-SPAN, Federal Immigration Court System, Sept. 21, 2018. (“[t]his past week or so, they [EOIR] unveiled what’s called the IJ dashboard…this mechanism on your computer every morning that looks like a speedometer on a car… The goal is for you to be green but of course you see all of these reds in front of you and there is a lot of anxiety attached to that.” NAIJ President, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor).
27 Ani Ucar, Vice News, “Leaked Report Shows the Utter Dysfunction of Baltimore’s Immigration Court,” Oct. 3, 2018.
28 AILA and the American Immigration Council Statement, DOJ Strips Immigration Courts of Independence, Apr. 3, 2018. See also NAIJ, Threat to Due Process and Judicial Independence Caused by Performance Quotas on Immigration Judges (October 2017).
29 INA §240(b)(4)(B) requires that a respondent be given a “reasonable opportunity” to examine and present evidence.
6
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)
30 Association of Pro Bono Counsel (APBCo), Letter to Congress IJ Quotas, Oct. 26, 2017.
31 Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court (2016).
32 U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017, pg. 2.
33 FOIA Response, pg. 8.
34 FOIA Response, pgs. 7-8.
35 U.S. Department of Justice, Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 17-01: Continuances, July 31, 2017. 36 Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018).
37 GAO Report, 17-438, Immigration Courts, Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges, (June 2017).
38 Sen. Mazie Hirono, Written Questions for the Record, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Apr. 18, 2018.
39 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
40 Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
41 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Immigration Court Listings, Feb. 2019.
42 Katie Shepherd, American Immigration Council, The Judicial Black Sites the Government Created to Speed Up Deportations, Jan. 7, 2019.
43 AILA Comments on ACUS Immigration Removal Adjudications Report, May 3, 2012; ABA Letter to ACUS, Feb. 17, 2012.
44 Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
45 An EOIR commissioned report suggested limiting use of VTC to procedural matters only because it is difficult for judges to analyze eye contact, nonverbal forms of communication, and body language over VTC. Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
46 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
47 Priscilla Alvarez, The Atlantic, Jeff Sessions is Quietly Transforming the Nation’s Immigration Courts, Oct. 17, 2018.
48 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Adjudication Statistic, IJ Hiring, (Jan. 2019).
49 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Announces Largest Ever Immigration Judge Investiture, Sept. 28, 2018; Document Obtained via FOIA by Human Rights First, Memorandum for the Attorney General, Immigration Judge Hiring Process, Apr. 4, 2017.
50 Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System, Hearing Before Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. 5 (2018) (A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, NAIJ), See also Questions for the Record.
51 Senate and House Democrats Request IG Investigation of Illegal Hiring Allegations at DOJ, May 8, 2018. Problematic hiring practices are not new for this agency. Over a decade ago, the IG and the Office of Professional Responsibility revealed that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales utilized political and ideological considerations in the hiring of IJ and BIA candidates. U.S Department of Justice IG Report, (2008).
52 Hamed Aleaziz, BuzzFeed News, Being an Immigration Judge Was Their Dream. Under Trump, It Became Untenable, Feb. 13, 2019.
53 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
54 NAIJ Letter to Senators, Government Shutdown, Jan. 9, 2019.
55 Id.
56 Booz Allen Report, pg. 25.
57 Laura Abel, Brennan Center For Justice, Language Access in Immigration Courts, (2010).
58 Hamed Aleaziz, Buzzfeed News, “The Trump Administration is Seeking to Restart Thousands of Closed Deportation Cases,” Aug. 15, 2018.
59 Associated Press, Partial shutdown delayed 60,000 immigration court hearings, Feb. 8, 2019.
60 AILA Statement, The Need for an Independent Immigration Court Grows More Urgent as DOJ Imposes Quotas on Immigration Judges, Oct. 1, 2018. See also the NAIJ letter that joins AILA, the ABA, the Federal Bar Association, the American Adjudicature Society, and numerous other organizations endorsing the concept of an Article I immigration court. NAIJ Letter, Endorses Proposal for Article I Court, Mar. 15, 2018.
7
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)
The Trump administration’s controversial plan to shrink the ballooning backlog of immigration cases by pushing judges to hear more cases has failed, according to the latest data, with the average wait for an immigration hearing now more than two years.
Since October 2017, when the Justice Department approved a plan aimed at reducing the backlog in immigration court, the pending caseload has grown by more than 26%, from 655,932 cases to just shy of 830,000, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Access Records Clearinghouse, which tracks data from immigration courts.
Even that figure likely understates the backlog because it doesn’t include the impact of the 35-day government shutdown in December and January. Because the system’s roughly 400 immigration judges were furloughed during the shutdown, some 60,000 hearings were canceled. Thousands were rescheduled, adding to the already long wait times.
The administration “has not only failed to reduce the backlog, but has eroded the court’s ability to ensure due process” by pressuring judges to rule “at a breakneck pace” on whether an immigrant should be removed from the United States, the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. — a nonprofit organization of more than 15,000 immigration attorneys and law professors — said in a statement.
When the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, which administers immigration courts, released its plan, officials described it as a “comprehensive strategy for significantly reducing the caseload by 2020,” according to a partially redacted copy of an October 2017 memo obtained by the immigration lawyers group through a Freedom of Information Act request.
“The size of EOIR’s pending caseload will not reverse itself overnight,” the memo said, but by fully implementing the strategy, the office can “realistically expect not only a reversal of the growth of the caseload, but a significant reduction in it.”
Instead, the average wait has grown by a month from January alone, to 746 days — ironically extending the stay of thousands of migrants whom the administration might want to deport from the United States. The Justice Department declined to immediately comment on the growth of the backlog.
The number of pending immigration cases has risen dramatically in recent years, doubling from less than 300,000 in 2011 to 650,000 by December 2017, the end of Trump’s first year in office, according to the Justice Department.
The Trump administration has blamed the ballooning backlog on President Obama’s immigration policies, saying that “policy changes in recent years have slowed down the adjudication of existing cases and incentivized further illegal immigration that led to new cases.”
Administration officials have pointed to Obama’s effort to focus deportation on immigrants with serious criminal records and protecting certain immigrants known as Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children as examples of policies that have provided incentives for illegal border crossings.
The administration’s plan to reverse the backlog included a number of controversial steps.
One move restricted the ability of immigration judges to schedule and set priorities for their cases under a process known as “administrative closure.” That change compelled judges to reopen thousands of cases that had been deemed low priority and had been closed. Within three months of the memo, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had moved to reschedule 8,000 cases, prompting concern from lawmakers, according to the immigration lawyers association. Potentially, as many as 350,000 cases ultimately could be added back onto the court dockets.
The administration’s plan also tied immigration judges’ individual performance reviews to the number of cases they complete, calling for them to finish 700 removal cases in the next year.
In contrast to regular courts, immigration judges are not independent; they’re part of the Justice Department. Because of that, the attorney general is both the chief prosecutor in immigration cases and the ultimate boss of the judges, who are classified as government attorneys.
The National Assn. of Immigration Judges, as well as the immigration lawyers association and other groups, have long called for Congress to end what they see as a built-in conflict of interest and create an immigration court separate from the Justice Department.
“As long as we continue to allow the court to be used as a law enforcement tool,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, “you’re going to get these kinds of backlogs and inefficiencies.”
Any speedup that may have resulted from the imposition of quotas on the judges has been overtaken by the administration’s stepped-up enforcement efforts, which have pushed thousands of new cases into the system.
Stepped-up enforcement without a corresponding increase in judicial resources provides the main reason the backlog has gone up so dramatically, said Stephen Legomsky, Homeland Security’s chief counsel for immigration from 2011 to 2013.
“Immediately upon taking office, President Trump essentially advised Border Patrol agents and ICE officers that they were to begin removal proceedings against anyone they encountered that they suspected of being undocumented, without sufficiently increasing resources for immigration judges,” Legomsky said.
Under previous administrations, “the thinking was, ‘Let’s not spend our limited resources on people who are about to get legal status,’” he said, “Taking that discretion away dramatically increased the caseload.”
Some officials warned that could happen when the effort to curtail the backlog began.
“Any burst of case initiation,” by Homeland Security “could seriously compromise” the Justice Department’s “ability to address its caseload and greatly exacerbate the current state of the backlog,” the acting director of the immigration review office wrote in the October memo to Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein.
The quota effort could also prevent attorneys from providing representation to immigrants, according to the Assn. of Pro Bono Counsel, which represents lawyers who handle cases free of charge for the poor.
Whether immigrants have legal representation makes a huge difference in the outcome of cases: Between October 2000 and November 2018, about 82% of people in immigration court without attorneys were either ordered deported or gave up on their cases and left the country voluntarily, while only 31% of those with lawyers were deported or left.
The administration has succeeded in speeding the hiring of new immigration judges by 74%. The number of immigration judges has grown from 338 when the plan was introduced to 414 by the end of 2018.
Lawmakers have raised concerns that some of those new hires have been politically motivated. In May, House Democrats requested an investigation by the Justice Department Inspector General’s office into allegations that candidates have been chosen or rejected for perceived ideological views.
“The current administration has taken advantage of the court’s structural flaws,” the immigration lawyers association wrote, “introducing numerous policies … that dramatically reshape federal immigration law and undermine due process in immigration court proceedings.”
***********************************************
My Takeaways:
The DOJ politicos made the already bad situation immeasurably worse;
At no time did any of those supposedly “in charge” seriously consider taking measures that could have promoted Due Process and fundamental fairness in a troubled system whose sole function was to insure and protect these Constitutional requirements;
Sessions was warned about the severe adverse consequences of eliminating “administrative closure” by EOIR, but went ahead with his preconceived “White Nationalist” agenda, based on bias, not law;
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on this monstrosity, is no “hero” just because he stood up to Trump on the Mueller investigation; he’s just another “go along to get along,” like the rest of the Trump DOJ political appointees (with the possible exception of FBI Director Chris Wray);
No sitting judge, indeed no real “stakeholder,” was consulted about these “designed to fail” measures;
The placement of what purports to be a “court system” dedicated to Due Process within the Justice Department is preposterous;
Congress, which created this parody of justice, and the Article III Courts who have failed to “just say no” to all removal orders produced in this “Due Process Free Zone” must share the blame for allowing this Constitutionally untenable situation to continue;
Once again, the victims of the Trump Administration’s “malicious incompetence” are being punished while the “perpetrators” suffer few, if any, consequences.
PWS
02-21-19
******************************
UPDATE: Molly’s article was the “front page lead” in today’s print edition of the LATimes.
Gotta give the crew at DOJ/EOIR HQ credit for screwing this up so royally that it’s now off the “back pages” and into the headlines where it belongs. You couldn’t buy publicity like this!
First EOIR Director David “No News Is Good News” Milhollan must be rolling over in his grave right now. And his “General Counsel/Chief Flackie,” my friend and former BIA Appellate Judge Gerald S. “No Comment/We Don’t Track That Statistic” Hurwitz must be watching all of this with amusement and bemusement from his retirement perch. Just goes to support the “Milhollan/Hurwitz Doctrine” that “only bad things can happen once they know you exist.”
Hundreds of people overflow onto the sidewalk in a line snaking around the block outside a U.S. immigration office with numerous courtrooms Thursday, Jan. 31, 2019, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
(CNN)More than 1,000 immigrants showed up at courts across the United States on Thursday for hearings they’d been told were scheduled but didn’t exist, a lawyers’ group said, as the Justice Department struggles with an overloaded immigration court system and the effects of the recently ended partial government shutdown.
Immigration attorneys reported that lines wrapped around the court building in San Francisco, a line stretched for blocks to get into the court in Los Angeles and hundreds of people waited outside the court in Newark, New Jersey.
Thursday’s problems are the latest example of US immigration authorities issuing a large number of inaccurate notices ordering immigrants to appear at hearings that, it later turns out, had never been scheduled.
Lawyers first told CNN last year that they’d observed a wave of what they call “fake dates” pop up. For instance, lawyers reported examples of notices to appear issued for nonexistent dates, such as September 31, and for times of day when courts aren’t open, such as midnight.
“The immigration courts have reached a new crisis point,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The group said it tracked over 1,000 people showing up in courts Thursday with inaccurate hearing notices.
In Los Angeles, immigrants who had “fake dates” were given paperwork acknowledging they’d appeared at the immigration court, according to attorney Jonathan Vallejo, who provided this redacted copy of one such form.
‘I’m afraid and nervous’
Inside a packed waiting room at the Arlington Immigration Court on Thursday, confused immigrants clutching paperwork asked lawyers for help. Some said they’d driven hours to get to court and had awakened at 3:30 a.m. to arrive on time.
“I’m left with a question mark. I’m wondering, ‘Why?'” said Bigail Alfaro, 39, who’s seeking asylum with her two children. “I’m afraid and nervous.”
As she prepared to head into court for a scheduled hearing, immigration attorney Eileen Blessinger found herself fielding questions and asking court officials to stamp paperwork to provide proof that immigrants had shown up.
“What happened?” one woman asked her.
“You don’t have court, because they made a mistake,” Blessinger said.
At an immigration court in Atlanta, a crowd of around 40 people were turned away, almost one by one, by a Spanish-speaking court employee telling people with notices that their hearings had been “postponed.”
Among those showing up for court were parents with small children, some dressed only with hooded sweatshirts and covering themselves with blankets, with the temperature in Atlanta in the mid-20s.
“They told us they would send us another citation by mail,” said a man named Jose who asked to be identified only by his first name. “But who knows when? And the hard part is they don’t let us know with enough time, enough time to prepare ourselves.”
In Los Angeles, immigration attorney Jonathan Vallejo said he saw 30-40 people ushered into a room where they were told they didn’t have hearings and given forms acknowledging they’d appeared at the court.
Problems were also seen in Dallas, Miami and San Diego, Lynch said.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the division of the Justice Department that runs the immigration courts, said the weather and government shutdown were partially to blame.
The office “was unable to proceed with hearings for some respondents who believed they had hearings scheduled,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “In some cases, the cases had been rescheduled to another date, but the lapse in appropriations prevented the immigration courts from issuing new hearing notices far enough in advance of the prior hearing date.”
An ongoing problem
President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the nation’s immigration system, specifically taking issue with the practice of releasing immigrants while they await their court dates. To remedy that, his administration has sought to hire more immigration judges in the hopes of unclogging the court.
But that has not happened — there are 409 immigration judges nationwide but nearly 80 vacancies — and the number of cases continues to grow.
For years, the number of pending cases has been slowly creeping up, as more are added to the docket than can be addressed at any given time. There are more than 800,000 cases pending, according to the Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions also created a quota system that requires judges to clear at least 700 cases a year in order to receive “satisfactory” performance evaluations. Between 2011 and 2016, judges completed 678 cases a year on average.
Judge Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, described judges in Los Angeles coming back this week to boxes filled to the rim with mail that had piled up over the course of the 35-day partial government shutdown.
“What this does is it adds greater delay to the cases. We were shortchanged five or four weeks of time,” Tabaddor told CNN. “Not only were we not able to hear cases that were previously cases that were scheduled, but it’s going to take time to regroup.”
Immigration attorneys say the instances of mistakenly scheduled hearings unfairly burden immigrants and create more pressure on a system that’s already suffering from a crushing backlog.
“Imagine the stress of facing potential deportation,” North Carolina immigration attorney Jeremy McKinney said on Twitter. “You’re told show up in court or be ordered deported in your absence. You drive hundreds of miles & wait in line only to be told the court date was not real. ‘Sorry for the minor logistical errors.’ “
Atlanta immigration attorney Rachel Effron Sharma says this is an example of a notice a client received, ordering the client to report to an immigration court at a time when the court was closed.
The US Supreme Court ruled in June that notices to appear — the charging documents that immigration authorities issue to send someone to immigration court who’s accused of being in the United States illegally — must specify the time and place of proceedings in order to be valid.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea said officials have been working to comply with the court’s requirements for notices to appear, but the lapse in funding during the partial government shutdown had delayed those administrative efforts.
“All appropriate parties are working together to solve this issue going forward,” she said.
In its statement Thursday, the Executive Office for Immigration Review said it had issued policy guidance in December and modified its system so the Department of Homeland Security and its components can directly schedule hearings.
The agency said it “does not expect any further recurrence of this type of situation.”
One woman pulled her daughter out of school to make it to the courthouse on Montgomery Street. Another caught a ride from Fresno. A teenage girl and her ailing mother waited for hours, clutching documents that summoned the mother to Immigration Court Jan. 31.
But none of them got what they came for and expected: a hearing before a judge.
Dozens of people reported Thursday to hearings previously scheduled by the Department of Homeland Security at the federal San Francisco Immigration Court, only to find the appointments didn’t exist.
Unlimited Digital Access for 99¢
Read more articles like this by subscribing to the San Francisco Chronicle
Immigration attorneys described similar scenes in Chicago, Atlanta, Virginia, Miami and Texas, where long lines snaked around courthouses for hours.
Federal officials said Thursday’s problems resulted from the government shutdown delaying the process of rescheduling the hearings.
But attorneys representing immigrants called the court dates fake, and said Immigration and Customs Enforcement is sending immigrants notices to appear — charging documents instructing people accused of being in the country illegally to come to court — with court dates it knows are not real.
“Every city in every jurisdiction is doing this, obviously knowing that there really won’t be court on that date,” said Christable Lee, an immigration attorney in San Francisco. “These immigrants are standing with their kids outside with no direction. They’re afraid to stand outside on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse because there could be other immigration authorities there. It’s a really harrowing situation.”
A similar situation occurred in several cities nationwide Oct. 31 when dozens of people showed up for court hearings that didn’t exist. Since then, some have reported court dates scheduled on weekends or late at night.
In a prepared statement, ICE denied giving immigrants a fake court date, saying, “Due to the recent partial lapse in government appropriations, the administrative process to resolve this issue was delayed, resulting in an expected overflow of individuals with Notices to Appear listing immigration proceedings on January 31.”
Meanwhile, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees all immigration courts, said it was “unable to proceed” with hearings for some people who “believed they had hearings scheduled” Thursday.
“In some cases, the cases had been rescheduled to another date, but the lapse in appropriations prevented the immigration courts from issuing new hearing notices far enough in advance of the prior hearing date,” the agency said in a statement. “In other cases, EOIR did not receive the Notice to Appear (NTA) in a timely manner. Immigration proceedings do not commence until the Department of Homeland Security has filed an NTA with an immigration court.”
Attorneys with the American Immigration Lawyers Association said they’ve received more than 1,000 reports of immigrants who had notices to appear in court containing fake dates, though they said it’s extremely difficult to track.
Mothers with small children, families and confused couples clutching manila folders crowded the sidewalk in San Francisco Thursday while others filled nearby coffee shops and restaurants after being told to come back a different day. The news was particularly troubling for immigrants who traveled several hours to get to the courthouse, many relying on relatives and friends for rides.
More than a dozen people waiting outside the courthouse declined to be interviewed but told The Chronicle that staff informed them court wasn’t in session Thursday. Some people who showed up in the morning were asked to come back later in the day, though it’s unclear what happened once they returned.
***************************************
As I’ve reported before on “Courtside,” contrary to the myths promoted by Trump, DOJ, and DHS, migrants generally appear for court when they get valid notice with real hearing dates and actually have the system explained to them (usually by an attorney); ironically, it’s often EOIR (“the lovable donkey”) that “Fails to Appear” (“FTA”) with an assist from their “partners in crime” over at ICE.
Would a “real court” let the “cops” run roughshod over them and their dockets as EOIR permits ICE to do? Would a “real President” shut down the Immigration Courts over a wall that will have NO, I repeat NO, “immediate impact” on migration while forcing tens of thousands of “ready to try removal cases” to the end of dockets that already stretch out four or more years in some locations?
Part of the problem is the continuing failure since the Clinton Administration of the DOJ to implement the statutory contempt of court authority granted to the Immigration Judges by Congress approximately two decades ago! A few contempt of court orders directed at ICE Agents and the ICE Chief Counsel who are failing to control their so-called “clients,” or perhaps at Secretary Nielsen herself, would bring these absurd, illegal, time-wasting practices that actually hurt real human beings and sow chaos in our justice system to a screeching halt!
That’s why an independent Article I Immigration Court is an essential priority in fixing our immigration system, including the procedures both for granting asylum and other relief promptly, fairly, and in accordance with due process, and issuing removal orders for those who don’t qualify. The current system does neither, for reasons largely beyond the control of the Immigration Judges (although some judges at both the trial and appellate level bear responsibility for failing to carry out in a fair and unbiased manner, consistent with due process, the generous, humanitarian statutes for the granting of asylum and implementing the legal mandates for other forms of protection from persecution and torture. That’s why a transparent, merit-based selection and reappointment system, with provision for public input is essential to an Article I system).
News from the “Journalism Carousel:” Star immigration reporter Priscilla Alvarez has moved to CNN from her prior birth over at The Atlantic. Congrats to Priscilla and to CNN!
The result: Morale is at a “historic low,” said Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and a Los Angeles-based immigration herself, in an interview with CBS News.
The immigration court docket is split into two categories: Hearings for immigrants who have been detained represent about 5 to 10 percent of the docket. These cases have been uninterrupted during the shutdown and have been overseen by approximately 100 judges who aren’t getting paid.
But the vast majority of the immigration court docket is made up of immigrants who have been released but being monitored, or “non-detained” cases. Those cases case been postponed during the showdown. Judges who oversee these cases are completely barred from working, even on their own time to get ahead on administrative issues.
“I’ve been using the words ‘unprecedented’ and ‘surreal,’ and yet it keeps becoming more unprecedented and more surreal,” said Tabaddor. “It’s so unfortunate that we’ve reached this level of dysfunction.”
Adding to the low morale is a the massive backlog of cases, which has risen by nearly 50 percent since President Trump took office. As of November 30 the backlog stood at just over 800,000 cases, but if the shutdown continues through February it could break one million.
Worse still for the judges is a new quota system announced in October by the Department of Justice. It said that all judges would be required to complete 700 immigration cases in the following year; if they fall behind, their job security could be on the line.
“It’s so disconnected from reality,” said Tabaddor. “Those cases just can’t be completed in the timeframe that the administration is demanding. Frankly, it’s laughable.”
Given that many judges haven’t been able to work for more than a month, will the quota be waived? DOJ hasn’t given any guidance, said Tabaddor.
“It’s not like if you miss a day of work, they work just goes away,” Tabaddor said. “Everyone knows that they minute the shutdown is over, what awaits them is 10 times worse than what they left behind.”
“Judges jobs are on the line if they don’t meet these arbitrary number,” Tabaddor said. “People are very concerned.”
A call and email to the Department of Justice were not returned, but the agency’s website said that press inquiries may not be returned because of the government shutdown.
Currently, most non-detained judges have four to five thousand hearings scheduled through 2021 and in some cases 2022, Tabaddor said, noting that “every single day on their calendar is booked.” Immigrants who had hearings originally scheduled during the shutdown will most likely be forced to wait years before they’re able to get in front of a judge.
Forcing judges to rush through their quotas could have a devastating impact on immigration hearings, said Kate Voigt, the associate director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. When forced to choose between their own job security and a through understanding of an individual’s case, many judges have gone with the former, pushing through cases without giving immigrants their due process, Voigt said.
The Department of Justice has “increased pressures on judges to churn out cases at lightning speeds, at the expense of due process and case-by-case determinations,” Voigt said in an email to CBS News.
In Charlotte, North Carolina some judges have refused to hear testimony from female asylum seekers from Central America, citing an now-overturned policy statement from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions that removed domestic and gang violence from admissible asylum criteria, said Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney who serves clients in North Carolina and South Carolina, in an interview with CBS News. In one asylum hearing McKinney had last year prior to the government shutdown, Judge Barry Pettino refused to let his client testify, instead denying her asylum case outright because it dealt with gender-based violence, according to McKinney.
“My client didn’t think she was going to win her case, but she certainly didn’t think we were going to be in and out in 45 minutes,” McKinney said. “If the asylum seeker never gets to take the stand under oath, never gets to tell their story, that’s a fundamental due process problem right there.”
****************************
In the words of the distinguished Judge Tabaddor, “surreal!” Why is it “OK” to have a court operating in the “Twilight Zone” making life or death decisions? How would you like YOUR life or YOUR loved one’s life to be determined by this dysfunctional mess?
Simply shameful! Also completely unnecessary. Trump and the DOJ are totally unqualified to run any court, let alone one with life or death authority. Congress is paralyzed. If the Article IIIs don’t step in, take this over, and require the restoration of at least rudimentary Due Process, there might not be any removals in the future!
How will they “reopen” this mess even when the “Trump shutdown” ends? Why won’t most of the overworked, underpaid, under appreciated, stressed out Court Clerks who keep this (unautomated, paper heavy) “Rube Goldberg Contraption” afloat, and who live paycheck to paycheck, have found new jobs where they are fairly paid and appreciated? Why won’t all the retirement-eligible judges head for the exits where life is better, the paychecks keep coming, and you can actively fight the Trump idiocy?
President Trump’s recent action to limit asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border is just his latest attempt to scare Americans about asylum seekers, undercutting long-standing principles of decency and humanity.
And like most of what Trump says about immigrants, the rationale the administration is using to keep out asylum seekers is based on myths and deliberate obfuscations.
Trump may not like it, but seeking asylum from persecution is a core human right. This right was recognized by the world and enshrined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has also been recognized by the United States and enshrined in our own domestic laws. Specifically, anyone “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival . . .), irrespective of [their] status, may apply for asylum.” The Trump administration’s order will curtail this fundamental right and inevitably prompt strong legal challenges and protracted, resource-intensive litigation in our courts.
Immigration lawyers like us know the truth about the people whom Trump calls an “invasion.” These asylum-seeking families, most fleeing horrific violence in Central America, where their own governments cannot protect them, are doing what is most human — trying to survive and protect their children.
We are asylum attorneys, but like many of our asylum-seeking clients, we are also mothers — of children ages 1 and 4, and one of us is nine months pregnant. Like most parents, we would do anything to keep our children safe. This is, indeed, the primary reason mothers decide to flee, sometimes pregnant, sometimes with small children, and take what they know and understand is the dangerous journey north — because they determine that is their best option for safety. This very human act of seeking protection for one’s children should be met with humanity, not hate-driven policies.
And the idea of an invasion isn’t the only false claim the administration is making to justify its new policy.
The administration seems to assume that those seeking asylum between ports of entry are less worthy, genuine or credible than those who seek entry at the border. In reality, there are totally valid reasons people enter between ports of entry — first and foremost, the U.S. government has a track record of unlawfully turning away asylum seekers from ports of entry.
The administration assumes that asylum seekers from Central America will be safe in Mexico. Trump said in his speech earlier this month that Mexico had offered asylum to members of a large refugee caravan traveling from Central America, and that if they did not accept it, they must not be genuine asylum seekers.
Trump gets two facts wrong here. First, the United States does not have a “safe third country agreement” with Mexico (as we do have in place with Canada), which would make it a requirement for any asylum seeker who set foot on Mexican soil to seek asylum in Mexico first or be barred from pursuing asylum in the United States.
And second, the reason we don’t have such an agreement with Mexico is because Mexico is not capable of providing adequate protection for many migrants. For example, last year, the University of the District of Columbia law school’s immigration clinic handled the case of a Honduran woman who fled severe harm and targeting by a powerful transnational gang and was then attacked by Los Zetas in Mexico as she traveled with her two young children to the United States. She dutifully sought asylum in Mexico, only to be told by Mexican officials that they could not protect her from the Zetas or the gang who had targeted her in Honduras. They advised her to continue to the United States to seek meaningful protection. She was granted asylum.
The Trump administration’s rule and proclamation are grounded in rhetoric about the need to cut down on government resources devoted to asylum seekers at the southern border. However, the changes are unlikely to save government resources; while they will bar individuals who enter between ports of entry from gaining asylum, making them eligible only for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), withholding and CAT still require a court hearing, which will continue to be delayed given the backlog of now more than 1 million cases in our immigration courts.
Moreover, granting withholding or CAT relief, as opposed to asylum, will add to the creation of a permanent underclass of refugees. These refugees will be barred from a path to permanent residence, family reunification and full inclusion as members of our society. Instead, they will live in limbo.
For example, take one of the UDC law school clinic’s clients from last year. Her persecutor kidnapped her at age 17 and then kept her in a hut for six months, raping her repeatedly. After six months, he said she was his wife and warned that if she left him, he would kill her younger siblings. For the next 20 years, she endured horrific abuse at his hands, eventually escaping and making it to the United States on her third attempt. She was barred from asylum because of her unsuccessful prior attempts to enter but eventually granted withholding of removal. While she works hard legally as a nanny in the D.C. metro area, she has no right to ever sponsor her children for immigration; nor can she leave the United States without losing her status. She will live in permanent limbo and never see her children again. This rule will create the same situation for many more people like her.
This move is just the latest in a string of efforts by the Trump administration to dehumanize asylum seekers, to create an “us vs. them” mentality. The fearmongering has already contributed to the massacre of 11 Jewish Americans at a synagogue in Pittsburgh because the suspect allegedly believed the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and all Jews were assisting the “invasion” of America.
But it is not “us vs. them.” We are all human. We all breathe the same air. We all want to be free. And above all else, we want our children to be safe. We implore the Trump administration and our fellow Americans to recognize our common humanity and start treating asylum seekers like fellow human beings, rather than demons to blame, criminals to punish and monsters to detain and fear. It is our common humanity that should guide our policy. Only then can the United States begin to return to its position of moral leadership.
************************************************
The problem is that the Trump Administration doesn’t recognize a “common humanity.” Only its own, self-interested, White Nationalist, exclusive agenda. So, there’s no “core of decency” to which one might appeal.
What if we had a different “leader?” One who paid attention to facts, respected experts, sought different views, possessed values and human compassion, and, most of all, sought to solve problems rather than using lies, slander, and slurs to dehumanize individuals and promote an essentially racist agenda!
The Immigration Crisis Jeff Sessions Leaves Behind
Assessing the ousted attorney general’s legacy on President Trump’s favorite issue.
But anyone who was following Sessions’ actions on immigration had no doubt that he was working hard. Before he was forced to resign on Wednesday, Sessions was exceptionally aggressive as attorney general, using his authority to steer the immigration courts, restrict access for migrants to the asylum system and deploy the federal courts for immigration enforcement purposes.
Under American law, the attorney general has broad powers over the immigration courts, which reside in the Justice Department not in the independent federal judiciary. Sessions, who made immigration a signature issue during his two decades as a Republican senator from Alabama, exercised those powers to rule from on high over the immigration system.
While Trump complained about Sessions, on immigration he was an unerringly loyal soldier, vigorously executing the president’s restrictionist policies.
Sessions made it his mission to reverse what he regarded as a failure to enforce order in the system by President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress, despite plunging numbers of illegal border crossings and record deportations under the previous administration.
Join the community that keeps criminal justice on the front page.
A primary goal he declared was to speed the work of the immigration courts in order to reduce huge case backlogs. But according to a report this week by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, the backlogs increased during his tenure by 49 percent, reaching an all-time record of more than 768,000 cases. That tally doesn’t include more than 330,000 suspended cases, which justice officials restored to the active caseload.
“I’ve never seen an attorney general who was so active in the immigration sphere and in a negative direction,” said Daniel Kowalski, the editor of Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, a widely-used reference for lawyers. Kowalski said he’s been practicing immigration law for 33 years.
Here are some of Sessions’ measures that shaped the crisis the next attorney general will inherit:
He imposed case quotas on immigration judges, which went into effect Oct. 1, demanding they complete at least 700 cases a year. With compliance becoming part of a judge’s performance evaluation, the immigration judges’ association has said the quotas impinge on due process.
He made frequent use of the attorney general’s authority to decide cases if he doesn’t like opinions coming from the immigration courts. Sessions used that authority to constrain judges’ decision-making. He made it more difficult for them to grant continuances to give lawyers time to prepare, and he limited judges’ options to close cases where they concluded deportation was not warranted, as a way to lighten overloaded court dockets.
Sessions discouraged immigration judges from allowing prosecutors to exercise their discretion to set aside deportations for immigrants with families or other positive reasons to remain in the United States.
In a policy known as zero tolerance, in April Sessions ordered federal prosecutors along the southwest border to bring charges in federal court against migrants caught crossing the border, for the crime of illegal entry. The policy resulted in parents being separated from their children, in episodes last summer that drew outrage until Trump ordered the separations to stop. But the prosecutions continue for illegal crossers who aren’t parents with children, swelling federal dockets and making it harder for prosecutors to pursue other border crimes, like narcotics and human trafficking, weapons offenses and money-laundering. In September, according to TRAC, 88 percent of the prosecutions in the Southern District of Texas were for an illegal entry misdemeanor; 65 percent of the cases in the Southern District of California were for the same minor crime.
Zero tolerance at the border
Under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, federal prosecutors in five border districts significantly ramped up the number of misdemeanor cases they filed against migrants crossing illegally this year, particularly in south Texas.
Sessions took the position that a program initiated by Obama, which gave protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who came here as children, was an overreach of executive authority. He declined to defend the program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and praised Trump’s decision last year to cancel it. After federal courts allowed the program to continue, the Justice Department fought to bypass the appeals courts and get a hearing before the Supreme Court for its efforts to terminate the program.
Even though his relations with Trump soured early in his tenure, Sessions maintained a line of communication to the White House through Stephen Miller, a senior adviser. Miller was a senior staff member for Sessions in the Senate, and the two share similar views and goals for clamping down on immigration.
Lawyers and advocates say Sessions’ actions have politicized immigration court proceedings. “He stripped the judges of the authority to ensure due process and demonstrated how susceptible the courts are to the whim of politics,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, based in Chicago.
Advocates for immigration reform said a new attorney general should restore the flexibility of immigration judges to manage their own dockets to find efficient ways to reduce their caseloads. But they said Sessions’ tenure provided new arguments for Congress to move the immigration courts out of the Justice Department to the federal judiciary.
Gregory Chen, director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said, “The aggressive nature of his actions infringing on the independence of the courts has made the need for a new court system even more urgent.”
Go to Julia’s article at the above link to get the accompanying graphics and pictures.
The Immigration Court backlog reported by TRAC now is over 1.1 MILLION cases, with no end in sight. More disturbingly, there is no coherent plan for addressing these cases in anything approaching a rational manner, nor is there a plan for restoring some semblance of due process and functionality to the Immigration Courts. Like most Trump/Sessions initiatives, it’s “we’ll create the problem, make it much worse, then hinder the efforts of others to fix it.”
Three “no-brainers ” that Sessions wouldn’t do:
Working with the private bar, NGOs, states, and localities to make legal representation available to everyone in Immigration Court who wants it;
Letting U.S. Immigration Judges control their own dockets and make independent decisions, free from political interference; and
Removing hundreds of thousands of older cases of individuals eligible to apply for “Cancellation of Removal For Non-Lawful Permanent Residents” from the Immigration Courts’ active dockets and having them adjudicated by USCIS in the first instance.
Of course an independent Article I Immigration Court is an absolute necessity. But, that will take legislation. In the meantime, the foregoing three administrative steps would pave the way for an orderly transition to Article I status while promoting Due Process, fairness, and efficiency in the system.
But, I wouldn’t count on anyone in the “Current Kakistocracy” doing the right thing or actually implementing “good government.” If the Article IIIs don’t put an end to this travesty, it will continue to get worse and pull them down into the muck until we get “regime change.”
Ironically, Trump isn’t the only one who “hasn’t had an Attorney General over the past two years.” The majority of Americans haven’t had one either; while he might be on the verge of getting “his” Attorney General, the rest of us can only look forward to more pain and misery!
(CNN)Lines snaked around the block outside immigration courts across the United States on Wednesday. But many people standing in them later learned they had no reason to be there.
More than 100 immigrants showed up to court carrying paperwork ordering them to appear before a judge, only to find out that their court dates hadn’t actually been scheduled, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). And as a result, uncharacteristically long lines were reported outside at least 10 immigration courts, the association said.
Lawyers told CNN it’s part of a troubling trend that shows how dysfunctional the system has become and how chaotic the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement can be.
“From a humanitarian point of view, it’s sickening what you’re seeing happening here, because they’re toying with these individuals’ lives in many cases. … This is widespread, it’s national and it’s outrageous,” said Jeremy McKinney, AILA’s treasurer and an immigration attorney in North Carolina.
Attorneys say the practice began after the US Supreme Court ruled in June that notices to appear — the charging documents that immigration authorities issue to send someone to immigration court who’s accused of being in the United States illegally — must specify the time and place of proceedings in order to be valid.
Since then, immigration lawyers across the country have reported that officials are increasingly issuing such notices with so-called “fake dates,” ordering immigrants to appear at hearings that, it later turns out, were never scheduled in immigration courts.
In recent months, lawyers have reported examples of notices issued for nonexistent dates, such as September 31st, and for times of day when courts aren’t open, such as midnight.
Atlanta immigration attorney Rachel Effron Sharma says this is an example of a notice a client received, ordering the client to report to an immigration court at a time when the court was closed.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Daniel Hetlage said in a statement that initial dates on notices issued by his agency and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are “based on guidance on upcoming docket dates from local EOIR, an agency within the US Department of Justice responsible for administering the immigration courts.”
EOIR, Hetlage said, “is responsible for setting and re-setting appearances dates upon receipt of Notices to Appear filed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcements and other components of the US Department of Homeland Security.”
A spokeswoman for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Notices issued for dates that don’t exist, times when court is closed
On Wednesday, reports of the so-called “fake date” practice were far more widespread, and attorneys reported seeing larger numbers of people affected than previously, said Laura Lynch, AILA’s senior policy counsel.
Attorneys observed long lines at courts in Baltimore, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Phoenix and San Diego. Immigrants with “fake dates” were also seen at courts Wednesday in Las Vegas and Denver, Lynch said, but lines there weren’t as long.
In this screengrab from a handout video provided by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, people are seen lining up outside the Atlanta Immigration Court on October 31.
“The line was around the corner,” said Jorge Gavilanes, an immigration attorney in Atlanta who witnessed the crowds gathering Wednesday. “Security was unprepared for this. The court was unprepared for this. They were scrambling to check every single one of these cases to see if these cases have been already filed with this court.”
This isn’t the first time such situations have been reported.
The Dallas Morning News documented the practice occurring in court there in September.
It may sound like a small bureaucratic glitch, Lynch said, but such mix-ups can take a significant toll on immigrants’ lives.
“Clients are driving like eight hours and taking off of work in order to appear at these hearings, only to find out that it’s not the actual correct hearing date. The impact is their jobs, it’s their life, and also just the anxiety,” she said.
Attorney: ‘People were obviously fearful’
Sometimes, lawyers say they’re able to confirm with courts beforehand that certain noticed hearing dates aren’t accurate, but then struggle to convince their clients not to show up in court anyway.
“They’re so anxious to cooperate. They don’t want any problems with ICE or with the authorities,” says Rachel Effron Sharma, an immigration attorney in Atlanta who tried to explain the situation to clients this week. “They got a letter telling them to go that day. They didn’t understand how it would be possible that there would be a date that was just made up.”
Gavilanes said he’s found himself in a similar predicament, trying to reassure clients who know that if they don’t show up for a scheduled court hearing, the consequences could be severe.
“People were obviously fearful that if they miss their hearing, they were going to get deported in their absence, and they didn’t want to take that chance,” he said. “They’d rather show up at the court and have them tell them go home instead of not showing up and worry(ing) about it.”
On Wednesday, Gavilanes said he fielded questions from numerous immigrants who were baffled by the situation.
“I don’t think people really understand why this is happening,” he said.
CNN’s Angela Barajas and Bilal Vaughn contributed to this report.
**********************************************
Thank you, Catherine, for helping to expose the corrupt administration of the Immigration Courts and DHS Enforcement under Trump, Sessions, & Nielsen!
Not only are individuals being denied due process, but taxpayer money is literally being poured down the drain when cases have to be reset by the courts, rather than being rationally and correctly set in the first place. Since the Immigration Courts have been so incompetently managed that they are virtually an “automation free zone” every mistake has to be corrected manually by already overwhelmed Court Clerks who already are struggling to keep up with all of Sessions’s other “Gonzo priorities.”
The whole process is what I call “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” or (“ADR”). While ADR certainly was practiced by both the Bush II and Obama Administrations, Sessions has taken ADR to new heights of dysfunction, irrationality, and intentional cruelty. The Government and the Immigration Courts actually exist to serve the public interest (including, of course, the interest of the people summoned before them), not to satisfy the outlier restrictionist agenda that Jeff Sessions failed to enact during his many wasted years in Congress.
With competent, professional, independent, non-political Administration, by folks who understand the system and are willing to work with the public and the lawyers, the money could be spent creating a system that would actually be fair, just, and efficient — no, not tomorrow or the next day, but certainly in the foreseeable future.
But, as long as folks like Sessions are in charge, “Good Government” has no chance whatsoever! And, that’s bad for all of us!
Many thanks to my good friend Laura Lynch over at AILA National for passing this item along.
Beginning today – October 1, 2018 – Attorney General Sessions is requiring all immigration judges to meet performance-based case completion quotas, which means the judges are forced to complete a certain number of cases or face discipline. This astounding move has been called “death knell for judicial independence” by the National Association of Immigration Judges, and means judges will compelled to rush through these often life-or-death cases.
The imposition of quotas is just the latest in a series of policy changes implemented in the past year that undermine judicial independence, threaten due process, and prevent people from getting a fair day in court. Because immigration courts are housed under the Department of Justice, the very same law enforcement agency that is charged with prosecuting immigration cases in federal courts, the Attorney General has authority over both the prosecutors and judges in immigration cases. Attorney General Sessions has wielded this considerable power to not only impose quotas, but also pluck no less than six cases from the judges to decide himself, to reassign judges away from particular cases, and to implement policies that emphasize quantity over quality.
In the face of this unprecedented attack on our judiciary, more than 1,000 AILA members are submitting a letter to Attorney General Sessions asking that he support the creation of an independent, Article I court system that can ensure due process and fundamental fairness. Justice demands nothing less.
Letter from over 1,000 AILA members calling for independent immigration courts
Talking Points
Sample Letter to the Editor
Tweetstorm
AILA will be hosting a Tweetstorm on Monday, October 1, 2018, from 1:00 – 3:00 pm (ET) to speak out against the implementation of the quotas on immigration judges.
Participate in AILA’s #ProtectDueProcess & #JudicialIndependence Tweetstorm Monday, October 1, 2018, from 1:00 – 3:00pm (ET) by:
Using the sample tweets below and accompanying graphics.
Creating your own tweets using the hashtags #ProtectDueProcess or #JudicialIndependence; or
SAMPLE TWEETS – DO NOT USE UNTIL MONDAY TWEETSTORM
The only benchmark for #immigration judges should be to #ProtectDueProcess. Imposing case competition quotas does just the opposite. Read @AILANational’s policy brief: http://ow.ly/zQD230lZ5uD
A judge’s decision can carry life-or-death consequences. This is why we must #ProtectDueProcess in our immigration court system. Read @HispanicCaucus’ letter to #DOJ: http://ow.ly/5VEH30lZ5xG
More than 120 #immigration law scholars and professors denounced #DOJ’s plan to impose case completion quotas to measure #immigration judges’ performance out of concern that it would undermine #JudicialIndependence in immigration courts. http://ow.ly/lKt130m0mwR
For months, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been interfering with #JudicialIndependence and undermining #DueProcess in #immigration courts. @MotherJones explains: http://ow.ly/NSf130lZ7La
With the case completion quotas in effect, #immigration judges will need to finish cases quickly to receive satisfactory performance reviews, forcing them to choose between job security or justice. #ProtectDueProcess http://ow.ly/NSf130lZ7La via @MotherJones
Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of #Immigration Judges, explains why NAIJ is speaking out against recent policy changes that undermine #JudicialIndependence: “We are essentially then prosecutors in a judge’s robe.” https://lat.ms/2xGkWUm
AG Sessions went ahead and imposed case completion quotas without input from the very people they will affect: #immigration judges! That is no way to uphold #JudicialIndependence and integrity. Read more: http://ow.ly/VbSj30lZgwf
Members of the law community, including the National Association of Immigration Judges, are advocating for an #immigration court system that is independent of #DOJ, as AG Sessions undermines #JudicialIndependence. http://ow.ly/eFhQ30lZ9l9
In addressing 44 newly-hired immigration judges earlier this week, their new boss, Jeff Sessions, demonstrated not only his usual level of bias (to a group charged with acting as impartial adjudicators), but a very strange grasp of how our legal system works.
Sessions told the new class of judges that lawyers “work every day – like water seeping through an earthen dam – to get around the plain words of the INA to advance their clients’ interest. Theirs is not the duty to uphold the integrity of the Act.”
Later in his remarks, Sessions opined that “when we depart from the law and create nebulous legal standards out of a sense of sympathy for the personal circumstances of a respondent in our immigration courts, we do violence to the rule of law and constitutional fabric that bind this great nation.”
To me, the above remarks evince a complete misunderstanding of how our legal system works.
In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Katzenbach v. McClung, a landmark civil rights case. In order to find that the federal Civil Rights Act applied to a local, family-owned barbecue restaurant in Alabama, DOJ attorneys persuaded the Supreme Court that there was federal jurisdiction under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause because of segregation’s impact on interstate commerce. I’m no Constitutional law expert, but I’m not sure that when its authors afforded Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” that this is what they had in mind. Was creatively interpreting the Commerce Clause in order to end segregation “like water seeping through an earthen dam” to get around the clear words of the Constitution? Did ending segregation constitute, in Sessions’s opinion, doing violence to the rule of law out of a sense of sympathy for the black victims of Alabama’s racist policies?
Every positive legal development is the result of an attorney advancing a creative legal argument, often motivated by a sense of sympathy for unfair treatment of a class of individuals in need of protection. Many landmark decisions have resulted from such attorneys offering the court an unorthodox but legally sound solution to a sympathetic injustice. This is actually how the legal system is supposed to operate. Our laws are made by Congress, and not the Executive branch. When Congress drafts these laws, they and their staffers are well aware of the existence of lawyers and judges and their ability to interpret the statutory language.
Had Congress not wanted our asylum laws to be flexible, allowing them to be interpreted in myriad ways to respond to changing types of persecution carried out by different types of actors, it could have said so. When the courts found that victims of China’s coercive family planning policies did not qualify for asylum, Congress responded by amending the statutory definition of “refugee” to cover such harm. In the four years following the BIA’s conclusion that victims of domestic violence qualified for asylum, Congress notably did not enact legislation barring such grants. To the contrary, after Jeff Sessions issued his decision with the intent of preventing such grants, a Republican-led Congressional committee unanimously passed a measure barring funding for government efforts to carry out Sessions’ decision, a clear rebuke by the legislative branch of Sessions’s view that such claims are illegitimate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-led-house-committee-rebuffs-trump-administration-on-immigrant-asylum-claim-policy/2018/07/26/3c52ed52-911a-11e8-9b0d-749fb254bc3d_story.html?utm_term=.809760180e2a.
Interestingly, Sessions finds it perfectly acceptable to use unorthodox interpretations of the law when it serves his own interests. For example, he argues that he is upholding “religious liberty” in defending the right of bigots to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals. https://www.advocate.com/politics/2018/7/30/sessions-launches-new-lgbt-assault-religious-liberty-task-force. The conclusion drawn from this inconsistency is that Sessions does not oppose creative interpretations of the law; he rather believes that the only proper interpretation of the law is his.
One of the problems with this approach is that Sessions doesn’t actually know anything about the law of asylum. And yet he somehow feels entitled to belittle the analysis of the leading asylum experts in academia, the private bar, USCIS, ICE, and EOIR, all of whom have repeatedly found victims of domestic violence to satisfy all of the legal criteria for asylum. In its 1985 decision in Matter of Acosta, (a case that Sessions cited favorably in his controversial decision), the BIA noted that the ground of “particular social group” was added to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees (which is the basis for our asylum laws) “as an afterthought.” The BIA further noted that “it has been suggested that the notion of ‘social group’ was considered to be of broader application than the combined notions of racial, ethnic, and religious groups and that in order to stop a possible gap in the coverage of the U.N. Convention, this ground was added to the definition of refugee.” (The full decision in Acosta can be read here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/14/2986.pdf).
As a young attorney, I learned (from the late, great asylum scholar Arthur Helton) that at the last moment, the Swedish plenipotentiary to the 1951 Convention pointed out that there were victims of Hitler and Stalin in need of protection who did not fall under the other four Convention grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. A fifth, catch-all ground was therefore proposed to serve as a “safety net” in such cases. In other words, the reason the particular social group category was created and is a part of our laws was because the Convention’s drafters, perhaps “like water seeping through an earthen dam,” created an intentionally nebulous legal standard out of a sense of sympathy for victims of injustice. The ground was therefore created to be used for the exact purpose decried by Sessions.
Because of the strength of such legal authority, Sessions’s decision in Matter of A-B-, in spite of dicta to the contrary, actually still allows for the granting of domestic violence and gang violence-based asylum claims. The decision criticized the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G- for reaching its conclusion without explaining its reasoning in adequate detail. However, where the record is properly developed, a legally solid analysis can be shown to support granting such claims even under the standards cited by Sessions.
This is what makes Sessions comments to the new class of immigration judges so disturbing. Having appointed judges whom his Justice Department has found qualified, he should now leave it to them to exercise their expertise and independent judgment to interpret the law and determine who qualifies for asylum. But in declaring such cases to lack validity, belittling private attorneys innovative arguments, and equating the granting of such claims to doing violence to the rule of law, Sessions aims to undermine right from the start the judicial independence of the only judges he controls. EOIR’s management has demonstrated that it has no intention of pushing back; instead, it asks how high Sessions wants the judges to jump.
Knowing this, how likely is one of the 44 new judges to grant asylum to a victim of domestic violence who has clearly met all of the legal criteria? New immigration judges are subject to a two-year probationary period. It’s clear that a grant of such cases under any circumstances will be viewed unfavorably by Sessions. In a highly publicized case, EOIR’s management criticized a judge in Philadelphia whose efforts at preserving due process they bizarrely interpreted as an act of disobedience towards Sessions, and removed the case in question and more than 80 cases like it from the judge’s docket.
So if a new judge, who may have a family to support, and a mortgage and college tuition to pay, is forced to choose between applying the law in a reasoned fashion and possibly suffering criticism and loss of livelihood, or holding his or her nose and adhering to Sessions’s views, what will the likely choice be?
Sessions concluded his remarks by claiming that the American people “have spoken in our laws and they have spoken in our elections.” As to the latter, Americans voted against Trump’s immigration policies by a margin of 2.8 million votes. As to the former, Congress has passed laws which have been universally interpreted by DHS, EOIR, and all leading asylum scholars as allowing victims of domestic violence to be granted asylum based on their membership in a particular social group. It is time for this administration to honor the rule of law and to restore judicial independence to such determinations.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
A union representing the country’s 350 immigration judges slammed Attorney General Jeff Sessions for comments he made that suggested they were sidestepping the law and showing too much sympathy when handling certain cases.
“When we depart from the law and create nebulous legal standards out of a sense of sympathy for the personal circumstances of a respondent in our immigration courts, we do violence to the rule of law and constitutional fabric that bind this great nation,” Sessions said Monday in a speech to newly hired judges. “Your job is to apply the law – even in tough cases.”
Immigration judges, who work for the Department of Justice and are expected to follow guidelines laid out by the attorney general, said they believe Sessions was politicizing migrant cases.
“The reality is that it is a political statement which does not articulate a legal concept that judges are required to be aware of and follow,” Dana Marks, a spokeswoman for the National Association of Immigration Judges and an immigration judge in San Francisco, told BuzzFeed News. “It did appear to be a one-sided argument made by a prosecutor.”
Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, added that “we cannot possibly be put in this bind of being accountable to someone who is so clearly committed to the prosecutorial role.”
Sessions, an ideological ally of President Trump on immigration, has established additional restrictions on the types of cases that qualify for asylum and when certain cases can be suspended. He was involved in the White House’s controversial “zero tolerance” policy that led to family separations at the U.S.-Mexico border.
AARON REICHLIN-MELNICK of the American Immigration Council reports on Immigration Impact:
Rather than encourage the new class of 44 immigration judges to be fair and impartial adjudicators in his Monday morning speech, Attorney General Jeff Sessions advocated for a deeply flawed immigration court system and directed judges to carry out the Trump administration’s punitive, anti-immigration agenda.
While many would have taken the opportunity to reinforce principles of due process and fairness to new judges, Sessions instead emphasized that judges must follow his commands and encouraged judges to ignore “sympathy” when applying the law to noncitizens in their courtrooms. He also renewed his criticisms of immigration lawyers and the noncitizens who access immigration courts each day in order to apply for immigration relief.
Throughout his speech, Sessions framed the role of immigration judges as enforcers of the law, not as neutral adjudicators in an adversarial system. He declared that the work of the new judges would “send a clear message to the world that the lawless practices of the past are over” and railed against “the problem of illegal immigration.”
Rather than be a place where individuals ask for immigration relief and impartial judges weigh the merits of each case, Sessions seemed to argue for the courts to be turned into a deportation mill. Judges would then spearhead the fight against illegal immigration.
Despite the Attorney General’s authority to establish performance standards and create new precedent for judges to follow, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows judges to independently make decisions on individual immigrants’ cases.
Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the union representing immigration judges, reacted to Sessions’ remarks, calling them “troubling and problematic” and accused Sessions of not “appreciat[ing] the distinction” between judges and prosecutors. “We are not one and the same as them.”
Sessions also renewed his attacks on immigration lawyers, first articulated in a 2017 speech (for which he was widely condemned) when he accused “dirty immigration lawyers” of encouraging undocumented immigrants to “make false claims of asylum [by] providing them with the magic words needed” to claim asylum.
Monday’s speech returned to a similar theme, with Sessions claiming that “good lawyers … work every day—like water seeping through an earthen dam—to get around the plain words of the INA to advance their clients’ interests. Theirs is not the duty to uphold the integrity of the Act.”
In response to this new attack, the American Immigration Lawyers Association issued a press release accusing Sessions of expressing “disdain for lawyers who take a solemn oath to uphold the law” and showing “a complete disregard for the role of independent judges in overseeing our adversarial system.”
Sessions’ ongoing assault on judicial impartiality threatens to undermine the ability of judges to make decisions based only on the facts and law in front of them.
In addition, by attacking immigration lawyers, who every day play a vital role in ensuring that noncitizens have a fair day in court, Sessions continues to demonstrate that he has little interest in fairness or justice when it comes to immigrants. Our immigration courts should reflect our American values of fairness, compassion, and due process, rather than a rejection of them.
JEFF SESSIONS DEMANDS IMMIGRATION JUDGES SHOW NO SYMPATHY, SAYS IT DOES ‘VIOLENCE TO THE RULE OF LAW
BY
As the Trump administration continued to struggle to reunite hundreds of migrant children separated from their parents resulting from the president’s “zero-tolerance” policy, Attorney General Jeff Sessions told dozens of incoming immigration judges Monday to show no sympathy for those who appear before them in court.
“When we depart from the law and create nebulous legal standards out of a sense of sympathy for the personal circumstances of a respondent in our immigration courts, we do violence to the rule of law and constitutional fabric that bind this great nation,” Sessions said. “Your job is to apply the law—even in tough cases.”
Sessions, the most powerful attorney in the country as head of the Justice Department, was speaking to 44 new immigration judges in Falls Church, Virginia.
He also took aim at lawyers who represent immigrants who were caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, suggesting they try to misconstrue immigration law “like water seeping through an earthen dam.” He told the judges it was their responsibility to “restore the rule of law” to the system.
. . . .
Read the rest of Ramsey’s article at the above link.
There is a simple term for justice not tempered by mercy, compassion, and sympathy: INJUSTICE. Indeed, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which includes the essential Due Process Clause, was specifically intended to protect the populace against Executive overreach of the kind that England imposed on the Colonies prior to the Revolution. That’s exactly what we’re seeing under Jeff Sessions!
As most Immigration Judges recognize, Session’s overt White Nationalism, racial bias, and absurd claims that he is “restoring the rule of law” (when in fact he is doing the exact opposite) are totally out of control.
It’s time for a “Due Process intervention” by the Article III Courts. Sessions and the DOJ must be stripped of their untenable and unconstitutional control over the Immigration Courts. Appoint a “Special Master” — someone like retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy — to run the Immigration Court System and restore Due Process and fairness until Congress does its job and creates an independent U.S. Immigration court outside the Executive Branch.
The problems aren’t going away under the Trump Administration. And, if the Article III Judiciary doesn’t act it will find itself crushed under thousands of defective removal orders that Sessions is urging the Immigration Judges to turn out without Due Process or the “fair and impartial” adjudication that it guarantees. The Article IIIs can run, but they can’t hide from this Constitutional crisis!
Sessions’s remarks are also an insult to all of the many current and former U.S Immigration Judges who, unlike Jeff Sessions, have been deciding “tough cases” for years, within the law, but with sympathy, understanding, humanity, and compassion which are also essential qualities for fair judging under our Constitutional system that Sessions neither understands nor respects. No wonder his own party judged him unqualified for an Article III judgeship years ago. He hasn’t changed a bit.
As many as 1,000 parents separated from their children are getting a second chance to stay in the US
In a huge reversal, the Trump administration is giving families another chance to claim asylum — and even some parents who’ve already been deported might be eligible.
A Honduran father and his 6-year-old son worship during Sunday mass on September 9, 2018, in Oakland, California. They fled their country seeking asylum in the US.Mario Tama/Getty Images
The Trump administration has just agreed to give parents who were separated from their children at the US-Mexico border earlier this year a second chance to make asylum claims in the US.
The Department of Justice has negotiated an agreement that covers three lawsuits filed against the government over the family-separation policy. Parents in the US who’d been ordered deported would get another chance to pass an interview demonstrating a “credible fear” of persecution — the first step in the asylum process.
If either the parent or the child passes the screening interview, families will be allowed to apply for asylum together. Some parents who don’t pass will be allowed to remain with their children in the US while the children’s cases are adjudicated.
And in some cases, the government is even willing to consider reopening cases for parents who were already deported from the US.
The agreement covers three lawsuits: Ms. L v. ICE, which forced the government to reunite separated families this summer; M- M- M- v. ICE, brought on behalf of children separated from parents; and Dora v. Sessions, a lawsuit from parents who had failed their initial asylum screenings because they were distraught after weeks of separation from their children.
If the agreement is approved by the federal judges overseeing the three lawsuits, it will result in a second chance for hundreds of parents. Muslim Advocates and the Legal Aid Justice Center, who represented the plaintiffs in Dora v. Sessions, believe it could give “well over 1,000” parents another chance at an asylum claim. And for many families, it will eliminate (or at least defer) the impossible choice between giving up a child’s legal case, and separating the family again by keeping the child in the US while the parent is deported.
Separating families made it much harder for parents to seek asylum
Under the Trump administration’s family separation policy, a parent who wanted to seek asylum in the US had one chance: to pass a “credible fear” screening interview with an asylum office.
If a parent passed the credible fear screening, he or she was given a chance to seek asylum before an immigration judge; if the parent failed, he or she could appeal the decision to an immigration judge, with much worse odds. Losing the appeal, or agreeing to drop the case, led to an order of deportation.
Generally, most asylum seekers pass their credible fear screenings. But evidence suggests that parents who were separated from their children often failed their interviews. Parents were often so consumed by grief over their separation from their children that they weren’t able to answer asylum officers’ questions fully and effectively, according to the lawsuit filed in Dora v. Sessions.
“Explaining the basis for an asylum claim is very difficult under the best of circumstances,” said one source familiar with the interview process but not professionally authorized to speak on the record. “When someone is a) detained, b) almost certainly unrepresented, and c) beside herself with fear and desperation because of having had her child taken from her,” the source continued, “it is almost impossible.”
By the time nearly 2,000 parents and children were reunited in July (thanks to Judge Dana Sabraw’s rulings in the Ms. L case ordering family reunification), the overwhelming majority of parents had already lost their cases and been ordered deported. But their children — who’d been placed on a separate legal track as “unaccompanied alien children” after being separated from their parents — often still had ongoing cases and a real chance of winning some form of legal status in the US.
So upon being reunited, hundreds of families were faced with the choice between returning to their home country together (and facing possible peril or persecution), and keeping the child in the US in hopes of winning asylum or another form of legal status — and separating the family anew. (Some parents alleged they weren’t even given this chance, and were coerced into withdrawing their children’s legal claims — and forcibly reseparated without warning if they refused to comply.)
None of this would have happened if families hadn’t been separated to begin with. Under normal circumstances, if either a parent or a child passed an asylum interview, the government would allow them both to file asylum claims. And obviously, parents who weren’t traumatized by family separation might have had a better chance with their interviews. But simply reuniting the family didn’t solve the problem.
The government is agreeing to give reunited families the same chance they’d had if they’d never been separated
Here is what the agreement proposed by the government would actually do, if approved:
Parents who passed their initial “credible fear” interviews for asylum will be allowed to continue; this agreement doesn’t change those cases.
Parents who had lost their cases and been ordered deported will be given a full review to reassess whether or not they have a credible fear of persecution. This review will include a second interview for “additional fact-gathering” — during which a lawyer can be present (or can dial in by phone). Parents will be allowed to do this even if they didn’t ask for a credible fear interview when they were first arrested.
Parents who fail their credible fear screenings will be allowed to remain in the US and apply for asylum if their child passes his or her credible fear screening. The reverse is also true: If a child fails her asylum screening but the parent passes his, both parent and child will be allowed to apply for asylum. This is the way things normally work when families are apprehended together; by instituting it now, the government is essentially wiping away the legal side effects of family separation.
Parents who aren’t eligible for a credible fear interview because they had been deported before and were returning will still be allowed to avoid deportation if they meet a higher standard (“reasonable fear”) and qualify for something called “withholding of removal.” Even if they fail that standard, they will be allowed to stay in the US while their children are going through their asylum cases.
Parents who have already been deported will not have their cases automatically reviewed by the government. However, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits will have 30 days to present evidence to the government that particular parents should be allowed to return, and the government will consider those requests. (The agreement doesn’t make it clear whether deported parents will have their own cases reopened, or whether they will solely be allowed to return to stay with their children while the children’s legal cases are ongoing.)
If the agreement is approved, it will officially send the legal fight over family separation into its endgame phase. While hundreds of parents and children remain separated, the legal fight over reunification is largely about who’s responsible for carrying out various parts of the government’s reunification plan; the new agreement would set a similar plan up for the legal due process of parents and children making claims to stay in the US.
It would almost certainly run into similar implementation obstacles to the reunification plan, but it would set expectations that the government would provide this process by default, rather than moving forward with deportation.
The Trump administration is never going to wholly be able to erase the consequences of its decision to separate families as a matter of course. But it is now agreeing to give up the legal advantages that it accrued by separating parents’ and children’s cases — and forcing parents to go through interviews with life-or-death stakes without knowing when or whether they’d ever see their children again.
**************************************
I’ve been saying it over and over again. Why not just do it right, provide full Due Process, and follow the law?
Not only are the policies being promoted by Sessions, Trump, and the rest of the GOP White Nationalists unconstitutional, illegal, vile, and immoral, they are totally wasteful of limited Government resources (particularly in a time of GOP-fueled budget deficits) and unnecessarily tie up the Federal Courts. Contrary to Jeff Sessions’s false narratives, no court system anywhere has unlimited time for all the nonsense that the Government could potentially pursue. When common sense and sane prosecutorial discretion lose out, they whole system suffers.
Think what might have happened if, instead of wasting time and money on illegal family separation, unnecessary criminal prosecutions, and bending protection law out of shape, the Government had done the right thing and spent the money:
Working with NGOs and legal aid groups to release folks in locations where they could get legal assistance, virtually guaranteeing their appearance in Immigration Court;
Agreeing to grant the many domestic violence and other types of gang-related cases that could have been granted after proper preparation and documentation under a proper application of the law (before Sessions messed it up);
Taking all of the cases of long-term law-abiding residents off overloaded Immigration Court dockets so that the real contested asylum cases could be given priority without denying anyone Due Process or moving everything else back through “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”).
Any “bad guys,” or “true economic migrants” could have been given full hearings, denied, and removed. But, totally contrary to Sessions’s racist blather, most of the folks arriving are actually legitimate refugees. They could have been granted status and allowed to go out and work and study to make America better. I’ve found few individuals (including many native-born US citizens) more grateful and willing to work hard and contribute than those granted asylum.
The money spent on wasteful litigation and needless, cruel and inhuman, detention could instead have been used;
to establish a viable overseas refugee screening program in the Northern Triangle;
working with other countries to share resettlement responsibilities;
and trying to correct the situations in the Northern Triangle which gave rise to the refugee flows in the first place.
Sadly, this is hardly the first, and probably by no means the last, time that the US Government has been forced to reprocess large numbers of asylum seekers because of a failure to follow Due Process and do the right thing in the first place. Just check out the history of the ABC v. Thornburgh litigation and settlement (a case I was involved in during my time in the “Legacy INS” General Counsel’s Office).
Indeed, the Trump scofflaws are “doubling down” on every failed policy fo the past. They actually are at it again with their bone-headed proposal to thumb their collective noses at Judge Dolly Gee and withdraw from the Flores settlement and set up a “Kiddie Gulag” by regulation. Good luck with that. The Trump Scofflaws are already wasting your taxpayer money on more “tent cities in the Kiddie Gulag” that they almost certainly will be enjoined from using at some point. Then, cooler heads will prevail and we’ll undoubtedly have a “Flores II” settlement.
Also, compare the real role of immigration lawyers in enforcing the law and holding Goverment scofflaws like Sessions and Nielsen accountable with the totally bogus picture painted by Sessions in his false, unethical, and highly inappropriate speech to US Immigration Judges this week. Truth is exactly the opposite of nearly everything that Jeff Sessions says.
Our country can’t afford the scofflaw conduct, inhumanity, immorality, and wastefulness of Trump, Sessions, Miller and their racist White Nationalist cabal. Vote for regime change this Fall!
Over the past few months, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has faced fierce criticism for his role in the Trump administration’s family separation policy. But while the White House continues to deal with the fallout from tearing kids away from their parents at the border, Sessions has been busy orchestrating another, much quieter attack on the country’s immigration system.
Tensions have been simmering for months between the attorney general and the hundreds of judges overseeing immigration courts, but they reached a new high in July. The flashpoint was the case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan man who was scheduled to appear in a Philadelphia immigration court, but had repeatedly failed to turn up. The judge, Steven Morley, wanted to determine whether Castro-Tum had received adequate notice, and rescheduled a hearing for late July. But instead of waiting for that appointment, the Justice Department sent a new judge from Virginia to take over the case. Judge Deepali Nadkarni subsequently ordered Castro-Tum deported.
The move sparked immediate outcry: The National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing about 350 immigration judges, filed a formal grievance, and 15 retired immigration judges released a public statement condemning the action. “Such interference with judicial independence is unacceptable,” they wrote.
This was just the latest of many accusations that Sessions and his Justice Department were interfering with judicial independence in immigration courts. Since the beginning of the year, the attorney general has severely limited judges’ ability to manage their cases, increased pressure on judges to close cases quickly, and dramatically reshaped how America determines who it will shelter. While Sessions isn’t the first attorney general to exercise these powers, immigration advocates say he’s using his authority in unprecedented ways and as a result severely limiting due process rights for migrants.
Unlike most courts, immigration courts are housed within the executive branch, meaning immigration judges are actually DOJ employees. Sessions is therefore ultimately in charge of hiring judges, evaluating their performance, and even firing them. He can also refer cases to himself and overrule previous judges’ decisions, setting precedents that effectively reshape immigration law.In a little more than six months, Sessions has issued four consequential decisions on immigration cases he referred to himself, in some instances overturning decades of legal precedent. Attorneys general under the Obama administration used that power only four times over eight years.
“We’re seeing Attorney General Sessions take advantage of the structural flaws of the immigration court system,” says Laura Lynch, the senior policy counsel at AILA, which has joined the judges’ union in asking Congress to make the immigration courts independent of the Justice Department.
Sessions’ changes have been “extremely demoralizing,” says Dana Leigh Marks, president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “I’ve been in the field for 40 years, and I have never seen morale among immigration judges so low.”
Here are the biggest ways Sessions is attacking the immigration courts:
It’s now much more difficult to apply for asylum
In June, Sessions overturned a decision granting asylum to a Salvadoran woman, known in court documents as A-B-, who had escaped an abusive husband. He used the case as an opportunity to declare that migrants can’t generally be given asylum based on claims of domestic abuse or gang violence—a catastrophic blow to the tens of thousands of Central American migrants fleeing these dangers.
Sessions’ decision, though, doesn’t just affect how judges can rule. US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that helps process asylum cases, interpreted his decision to mean that survivors of domestic and gang violence usually won’t pass their initial “credible fear” interviews after they cross the border—a first step that determines whether asylum seekers are even allowed to make their case before a judge. As Mother Jones’ Noah Lanard has reported, immigration lawyers say they’ve seen “overwhelming” numbers of migrants denied at the credible fear interview stage since Sessions’ decision.
In a statement, a group of former immigration judges described this decision as “an affront to the rule of law,” pointing out that it challenges longstanding protections for survivors of gender-based violence. “Women and children will die as a result of these policies,” Michelle Brané, the director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission, toldMother Jones when the decision was first announced.
A group of asylum seekers is now suing Sessions in federal court, arguing that this new policy violates due process rights and contradicts existing immigration law. They say that the policy’s sweeping generalizations ignore the requirement that each case be heard on its own merits.
Making matters even more complicated, in another decision earlier this year, Sessions vacated a 2014 precedent that guaranteed asylum applicants have the right to a full hearing before a judge can decide on their case. “The implications of [the new decision] are tremendous,” says Karen Musalo, director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of Law and one of the lawyers representing A-B- and the asylum seekers suing Sessions. “It’s basically saying that a judge can decide a case on the papers alone, and not allow an individual the right to present their case in front of that judge.”
Judges have less control over their case loads …
This summer wasn’t the first time Castro-Tum’s case drew national attention. Judge Morley had “administratively closed” the case back in 2016—a common step that judges have used to set aside thousands of cases, oftentimes when immigrants had no criminal background or had been in the US for many years and had family ties. Though the cases weren’t technically closed, they were put on hold and typically never re-opened, usually so judges could focus on higher-priority cases.
Earlier this year, Sessions re-opened Castro-Tum’s case by referring it to himself, and used it to severely restrict when judges could use administrative closure. That sent the case back to Morley, which is how the DOJ ended up replacing the judge and sparking widespread outrage.
The judges union has said that administrative closure is an important and necessary tool for judges to manage their caseloads, and removing it would result in an “enormous increase” in a court backlog that’s already piling up with almost 750,000 cases. Sessions’ decision also noted that cases which had previously been administratively closed, such as Castro-Tum’s, could now be re-opened, potentially adding thousands more cases to the backlog and creating further uncertainty for the defendants.
… and will have to move through them more quickly
In a somewhat related move, in April, Sessions and the Justice Department announced new performance metrics for judges. According to a DOJ memo, judges would now need to complete at least 700 cases a year, as well as close cases within a certain time period, in order to receive a satisfactory performance review. If they fail to receive satisfactory marks, judges could potentially lose their jobs or be relocated. According to the memo, judges currently complete on average 678 cases a year. The new measures will go into effect October 1.
The judges’ union, legal scholars, and other associations have strongly criticized the move, noting that case quotas would place enormous pressure on judges to quickly complete cases and affect their ability to fully hear cases—likely leading to more deportations.
“A tough asylum case takes about three to four hours to complete, but they’re pushing judges to schedule three or four cases a day, which is probably twice as many as most judges could do and do a good job on…It’s basically inviting people to cut corners,” says Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who has been a vocal critic of the Trump administration. “[Sessions] is dumbing down the judges and treating them like assembly-line workers whose only job is to stamp out final orders of removal.”
It’s harder for them to reschedule cases
On August 16, Sessions limited the ability for judges to issue continuances, which they did to postpone or reschedule removal cases, often when a defendant was waiting for a visa or another kind of immigration benefit and needed time to resolve their pending applications. Sessions has determined judges can now only issue continuances under a “good cause” standard, such as when an immigrant is likely to succeed in their attempt to stay in the US, either by winning an asylum hearing or receiving a visa.
Several retired immigration judges sent a letter to Sessions the next day, calling his decision on continuances a “blow to judicial independence.” They noted that some judges may receive from 10 to 15 requests for continuances a day—and would now need to spend time writing decisions on them, in addition to hearing their cases. “Immigration Judges should be treated as judges, and should be afforded the independent judgment that their position requires, including the basic power to control and prioritize their own case dockets,” the retired judges wrote. Advocates have also expressed concerns that immigrants could now be deported while waiting for another immigration benefit that would have given them legal status.
And as more judges retire, Sessions gets to staff up
Marks, of the judges union, notes there’s been a “tsunami” of retirements over the past two years. “Members of the association are telling us [that] they are leaving at the earliest possible opportunity or choosing to leave now because of the actions of the current administration,” she says. “They do not feel supported. They do not feel that they are free to make the decisions they need to make.”
Given the retirements, Sessions will have the ability to reshape the courts even further: Since January 2017, the DOJ has sworn in 82new immigration judges, and plans to hire at least 75 more this fall. Sessions has also worked to cut down the time it takes to hire judges.
What’s more, the Justice Department has faced allegations of politicized hiring. In April, House Democrats sent a letter to Sessions expressing concern that the DOJ had blocked several judges’ appointments for ideological reasons. The DOJ said in a statement to CNN that it “does not discriminate potential hires on the basis of political affiliation.”
Finally, while the DOJ has a long history of hiring judges with immigration enforcement backgrounds, the judges union has expressed concern that the DOJ may now be “over-emphasizing litigation experience” in its hiring practices, and “created even more skewed appointment practices that largely have favored individuals with law enforcement experience over individuals with more varied and diverse backgrounds.” As of last year, a little over 40 percent of immigration judges previously worked at the Department of Homeland Security.
Schmidt, the retired immigration judge, says he’s worried that even more new judges will come from prosecutorial backgrounds. “Who would really want to work for Sessions, given his record, his public statements?” he asks.
Under Sessions, he says, the immigration court “has become a deportation railway.”
Sent from my iPad
**********************
Great article, bringing together “all of the threads” of Sessions’s White Nationalist destruction of the U.S. Immigration Courts and his vicious racially-motivated attack on refugees from the Northern Triangle, particularly abused women and children.
For many years, “Gonzo Apocalypto” was a GOP “back bencher” in the Senate. His White Nationalist, restrictionist agenda was too much even for his GOP colleagues. His views were quite properly marginalized.
Suddenly, Trump runs for President on an overtly racist, White Nationalist, xenophobic platform. That’s music to Gonzo’s ears and he becomes the earliest Senate supporter.
Wonder of wonders, Trump wins, makes Sessions clone Stephen Miller his top immigration adviser, and appoints Gonzo as AG. His eyes light up. Suddenly, he’s free to dismember the entire Immigration Court, sack it’s Due Process vision, and attack migrants and refugees of color, particularly women, children, and families in ways that are both life threatening and permanently damaging.
He also gets a chance to dismantle civil rights protections, promote homophobia, disenfranchise minority voters, favor far right Evangelical Christianity, fill up prisons with the poor, black, and Hispanic, encourage police brutality against minorities, screw criminal defendants, disregard facts, harm refugees, and, icing on the cake, protect and promote hate speech. It’s a “dream come true” for a 21st century racist demagogue.
That Trump has mindlessly attacked his most faithfully effective racist, White Nationalist Cabinet Member says more about Trump than it does Sessions. Sessions is going to continue socking it to immigrants and minorities for just as long as he can. The further back into the era of Jim Crow that he can push America, the happier he’ll be when he goes on to his next position as a legal analyst for Breitbart or Fox.
Until then, there will be much more unnecessary pain, suffering, degradation, and even death on tap for migrants and their families.
Join the New Due Process Army — stand up against Session’s White Nationalist Agenda!
WASHINGTON, DC – On August 16, the Attorney General of the United States issued a precedent-setting decision, Matter of L-A-B-R, that limits the discretion of immigration judges to grant continuances. By restricting the court’s use of a vital docketing tool, the decision further erodes judicial independence and will pressure judges to deny more continuances at the expense of due process.
AILA President Anastasia Tonello responded, “With yesterday’s decision, the Attorney General has tightened the vise on immigration judges even further by interfering with an important case management tool that judges use to ensure cases are resolved fairly and justly. Every day, people who are eligible for relief must come before the immigration court and request a continuance until U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is able to make a decision. People who are eligible for permanent residence based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, or for protection as cooperating victims of a serious crime, may be deported unjustly if the judge is blocked from granting them a continuance. Justice cannot be dispensed on an assembly line, but Matter of L-A-B-R- seeks to do just that by pressuring judges to deny continuances and move cases rapidly through the system without due regard for potential relief.”
AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson stated, “While playing the role of both prosecutor and judge, the Attorney General continues to perpetuate the false narrative that immigrants are to blame for the long-standing inefficiencies that plague the immigration court system while rewriting our nation’s immigration laws. This decision is especially troubling because it will penalize people for something they simply cannot control: the notoriously lengthy USCIS processing times. Matter of L-A-B-R- is yet another reason why Congress must pass legislation establishing the immigration court as an Article I court separate from the Justice Department. Until Congress acts, the Attorney General will continue to encroach upon the independence of the courts, forcing judges to order people removed without a fair process. Congress must stop the administration from turning immigration courts into yet another enforcement agency.”
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 18081736.
**********************************
Where and when will the “deconstruction” of Constitutional Due Process End?
The union for the nation’s immigration judges is fighting a government decision to strip a Philadelphia judge of his authority over 87 cases, arguing that the move sidelines judicial independence as President Trump seeks to ramp up deportations.
Immigration judges work under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, though they have independent authority to determine whether the thousands of undocumented immigrants who come before them every year can remain in the United States through asylum or some other form of relief.
In a labor grievance filed this week, the National Association of Immigration Judges says the office undercut that authority when it removed Judge Steven A. Morley from overseeing juvenile cases that he had either continued or placed on temporary hold amid questions over whether federal prosecutors had adequately notified the subjects to appear in court.
The Justice Department said in a statement Thursday that “there is reason to believe” Morley violated federal law and department policy in those cases, but it did not offer any specifics. The statement said an investigation is ongoing.
Trump alarmed immigration judges in June by tweeting that anyone caught at the border, presumably including those seeking asylum, should be deported without a trial.
“When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came,” the president wrote.
In its grievance, the judges’ union focused on a case involving Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan national who arrived in 2014 as a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor.
Castro-Tum’s current whereabouts are unknown, and he had not responded to recent court summonses. Morley temporarily closed his case in 2016, ordering the Justice Department to ensure that Castro-Tum was receiving the notices. He did the same with other similar cases.
Prosecutors appealed Morley’s decision, and the case eventually came to the attention of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who chose to review it in January.
Sessions concluded that Morley was wrong to close Castro-Tum’s case and ordered it resolved within two weeks.
Amiena Khan, a New York-based immigration judge who is the union’s vice president, said the intervention further raised suspicions that the administration is looking to circumvent the judicial process and move to deport people faster amid a backlog of some 600,000 cases.
“This is another transparent way, surprisingly transparent in this instance, for the agency to come in and re-create the ideology of this whole process more towards a law enforcement ideology,” Khan said.
The system “is based on our ability to look at the facts and adjudicate the claim before us to our best ability and then render a decision,” Khan said. “Not being told by someone else how to rule.”
The union, which represents 350 judges, argues that Morely should get his caseload back. It is asking the Justice Department to assure all immigration judges that their independent authority won’t be undermined.
Immigrant advocates say the dispute highlights a fundamental flaw in immigration courts, where the judges work under the same department that is tasked with prosecuting cases. Several legal groups have renewed a push for federal legislation to overhaul the system so judges can operate more independently, either through a different branch of the Justice Department or as a separate tribunal court.
“We’re very concerned the immigration judges are simply being turned into law enforcement officers,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which launched a national campaign this month to lobby members of Congress to support such legislation.
************************************
When he isn’t busy praising hate groups, covering for police violence against the African-American community, disenfranchising minority voters, promoting the establishment of religion, using bogus stats to fabricate a connection between immigrants and violent crime, abusing brown-skinned children, forcing transgender kids to pee in their pants, thumbing his nose at Federal Judges and their orders, briefing his attorneys on how to mislead courts, mounting unconstitutional attacks on cities, ignoring environmental laws, dissing Dreamers, shilling for racist legislation, deconstructing our refugee, asylum, and legal immigration systems, filling court dockets with minor misdemeanants to the exclusion of felons, imposing deportation quotas, shafting brown-skinned refugee victims of domestic violence, huddling with fellow neo-Nazi Stephen Miller, blocking migrants from getting abortions, or hiding under his desk from Trump, one of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s favorite pastimes is interfering with the independence of U.S. Immigration Judges while purposely jacking up the backlog in the U.S. Immigration Courts.
It remains to be seen whether our country can survive this one-man Constitutional wrecking crew and his reign of indecency and intellectual dishonesty.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61379839/1030619212.jpg.0.jpg)
