"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“The BIA reviews de novo the IJ’s determination of “questions of law, discretion, and judgment,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), including whether an alien’s prior offense is a “particularly serious crime.” It is unclear whether the BIA undertook that de novo review here, because it applied a “presumption” that Petitioner’s conviction was a particularly serious crime and required him to “rebut” this presumption. But for those offenses that are not defined by the statute itself as “per se a particularly serious crime,” the BIA’s precedent establishes “a multi-factor test to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a crime is particularly serious.” Bare, 975 F.3d at 961. Moreover, we have rejected the view that there is any subset of such cases that is exempt from this multi-factor analysis “based solely on the elements of the offense.” Blandino-Medina, 712 F.3d at 1348. The BIA’s application of a rebuttable presumption is difficult to square with these precedents, and the Government concedes in its brief that the BIA’s application of such a presumption “appears erroneous.” The BIA committed an error of law, and abused its discretion, in failing to apply the correct legal standards in assessing whether Petitioner’s offense was a “particularly serious crime.” We therefore remand to the BIA to consider Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal under the correct standards.”
[Hats off to Nancy Alexander, Kari E. Hong, Boston College Law School, Newton, Massachusetts; Elisa Steglich, Attorney; Simon Lu and Jill Applegate, Supervised Law Student; University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas; for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association!]
Nancy Alexander ESQUIRE
**************************
Congrats to Nancy, Kari, and the rest of their team!
Even OIL couldn’t defend the BIA’s shoddy work here!
Know what builds unnecessary backlog fast?
“Over-denial”
Lack of positive guidance
Sloppy work
Assembly line justice
Remands
Lack of practical expertise and “big picture” perspective.
So, why hasn’t Garland replaced his “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” at the BIA with real “practical expert judges” — NDPA all-stars 🌟 like Kari Hong and Nancy Alexander! Judges like Kari and Nancy would “get ‘em right” in the first place and insure that Immigration Judges do the same!
Why is his system struggling and failing when the top-flight judicial talent to fix it is out there in the “real world?”
With human lives and the future of our democracy at stake, why is inferior work product and poor judging acceptable in Garland’s Immigration Court system?
How is “make it up as you go along justice” Due Process in Garland’s Courts?
Why isn’t Garland being held accountable for the “parody of justice” that plays out every day in his dysfunctional “courts?”
A family in Tijuana who wanted to request asylum and advocacy groups including Innovation Law Lab sought to intervene in the lawsuit. They argued that a court order keeping Title 42 in place should only apply to states involved with the suit. Summerhays denied their request.
Alicia Duran Raymundo, her partner and their 6-year-old daughter fled El Salvador after gang members threatened to torture and kill them. She said in a news release from her lawyers last week that they wanted to live with extended family in California while pursuing asylum, but instead joined the thousands of migrants living in Mexican border towns while they wait for the U.S. to reopen its doors.
“We’ve tried many times to ask for asylum but they just tell us the border is closed,” Duran said.
Seeking asylum is a legal right guaranteed under federal and international law, regardless of how someone arrived on U.S. soil. Some of those turned away are fleeing persecution, while others pushed out by turmoil in their home countries seek jobs and security.
Though migrants can’t seek asylum under Title 42, they can still be screened under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. But those screenings are more difficult to pass.
Lee Gelernt Deputy Director ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Program PHOTO: ACLU
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s immigrant rights project, noted that regardless of Friday’s decision, a prior ruling in Washington, D.C., District Court taking effect Monday prevents Title 42 from applying to families who face persecution or torture if they are expelled. Gelernt is lead attorney in that case.
“Hypocritically, the states that brought this lawsuit seemingly care about COVID restrictions only when they involve asylum seekers,” he said. “The lawsuit is a naked attempt to misuse a public health law to end protections for those fleeing danger.”
. . . .
Migrants have been removed from the U.S. nearly 2 million times since Title 42 was first used in March 2020, in some cases to dangerous situations in which they’ve been tortured or raped.
. . . .
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Policy Counsel American Immigration Council Photo: Twitter
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, predicted that Title 42 is likely to stay in place until at least next year.
Summerhays’ decision signals that while the Biden administration can establish a policy under emergency conditions, terminating it requires a rulemaking comment period that could take six months to a year.
Louisiana and the other states are not arguing that the policy can never end, Reichlin-Melnick said, but they’re imposing judicial roadblocks to delay it. The CDC is likely to try to end the policy again while satisfying the judge’s demands, he said.
In the meantime, he said, “we’re going to see an ever higher number of repeat crossings. Look at the border and tell me Title 42 works.”
**********************
The case is Louisiana v. CDC, WD LA, 05-20–22. Here’s a link to the opinion:
Of course Title 42 doesn’t work! But, it’s never been about a “working” border asylum policy. NO, it’s always been about cruelty fueled by nativist racism!
This from my good friend and Alexandria neighbor Professor Alberto Benitez over at GW Law:
The attached article from the Washington Post reads like the affidavits we prepare and file in support of our clients’ asylum applications. Please read to the end. All respect to Sra. Alvarado, Sr. Osorio, and all the survivors, may the victims rest in peace, and thanks to Ms. Schneider and Mr. Langille.
Kevin Sieff Latin America Correspondent Washington PostNick Miroff Reporter, Washington Post
From the above article by Kevin Sieff & Nick Miroff @ WashPost:
*********************************
Obviously, what’s described elsewhere in the article is really “top notch” law enforcement work from DHS. It also illustrates one of my “continuing themes” of “effective interdisciplinary cooperation in immigration cases.”
The irony is that DHS now spends too much of its law enforcement time trying to “chase down the victims of persecution” and deny them their rights to apply for asylum and their opportunity have their cases fairly evaluated and adjudicated.
What if, if rather than yielding to disgusting political grandstanding by GOP nativists and, sadly, some misguided Dems, who want to misuse Title 42 to end asylum law, the Administration stood up for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers for fair and orderly processing and determination of their claims for protection? What if refugees were encouraged to apply at legal ports of entry and at points outside the U.S. Wouldn’t that leave more time for “real” law enforcement at DHS — at the border and everywhere else?
Interestingly, during the Trump regime, some ICE Special Agents came to the same conclusion. They unsuccessfully “lobbied” then DHS Secretary Nielsen for separation from the “gonzo civil enforcement” that ICE then was carrying out — concentrating on “terrorizing” local ethnic communities. Not surprisingly, this made local enforcement in many areas reluctant to cooperate with ICE on real law enforcement priorities — like that described in this case.
As this article suggests, there has been a real “mixed message” in DHS and DOJ in handling of asylum claims from the Northern Triangle. One arm acknowledges and prosecutes massive acts of persecution that are actually war crimes. Another arm, aided by bad judging at EOIR and poor leadership at DOJ, disingenuously denies that such persecutions took place — sometimes mischaracterizing it as “random violence” — and that violence amounting to persecution on account of a “protected ground,” particularly violence directed at women and children, remains widespread in Latin America today.
Protection Delayed is Protection Denied:i Factsheet on Title 42 Expulsions, Haitian Asylum Seekers in Tijuana, and the U.S. Government’s Ongoing Evasion of Duty
April 7, 2022
An estimated 10,000 Black migrants, predominantly asylum seekers from Haiti, currently reside in Tijuana where they face discrimination and violence.ii Since the imposition of Title 42, the United States has refused to permit nearly all individuals their legal right to seek asylum and has instead conducted mass expulsions.iii Title 42 has had a particularly devastating impact on Haitians, who have been expelled en masse without being screened for their fear of harm in Haiti despite “obligations under both domestic and international law that prohibit return of individuals to persecution and torture.”iv
Most Haitians arrive in Mexico following a dangerous overland route from Brazil or Chile; these countries took in Haitian nationals in the wake of Haiti’s devastating magnitude 7.0 earthquake in 2010.v The aftermath of the 2010 earthquake remains significant: it claimed between 200,000- 300,000 lives, left over a million people homeless, and set in motion a decade of political instability, impunity, and violence.vi
In July 2021, Haitian President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated.vii In August 2021, another magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck the country.viii A devastating tropical storm followed just two days later. The destruction from the powerful natural disasters overlayed onto the political power vacuum, exacerbating the already dire conditions. 4.3 million Haitians are experiencing acute food insecurity, fuel shortages and blackouts are the norm, and 1.5 million Haitians have been affected by gang violence.ix Complicity between state officials and criminal gangs has been documented, including incidents where “perpetrators raped and tortured residents based on political associations.”x According to Human Rights Watch, “the justice system can barely operate in a context of security and institutional breakdowns” and thus people in Haiti “face a high risk of violence and have no effective access to protection or justice.”xi
The United States recognized the dangers posed to people if they are returned to Haiti and granted an 18-month Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to prevent deportations of any Haitian people already present in the country before July 29, 2021.xii Despite this limited protection, over 20,000 people have been returned to Haiti during the first year of the Biden administration.xiii Many of those expelled had been in a makeshift encampment in Del Rio, Texas in September 2021, where they were denied access to sufficient food, water, and medical care.xiv Many were also subjected to physical violence and intimidation. The last several months have seen expulsions occur unabated with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducting “near daily flights to Haiti.”xv Additional flights of adults and families with babies and young children are scheduled for April. The majority of these returns occur under Title 42, denying individuals the chance to apply for asylum, even if they requested it and face dangers which would qualify them for protection.xvi
1
The information in this factsheet was compiled from interviews conducted from March 7-11, 2022, by a delegation from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law’s Hastings-to-Haiti Partnership (HHP) organization in collaboration with the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), the Haitian Bridge Alliance (HBA), and the École Supérieure Catholique de Droit de Jérémie (ESCDROJ). The delegation interviewed 123 Haitians across six different shelters in Tijuana. Interviewees were asked about why they left Haiti and what they have experienced as Black Kreyol-speakers traveling through Mexico and other Latin American countries.
There is a common misconception that Haitians are “economic migrants” and not refugees entitled to protection. But the stories revealed in these interviews belie such assertions. Haitians face imminent threats to their physical safety, and even death, should they be returned to the country—and face further dangers in Mexico—and they should have the opportunity to claim their legal right to asylum and reunify with family members in the United States.xvii Each day that the Title 42 policy remains in effect, it places Haitians directly in harm’s way.
But, given the extraordinarily poor performance of the Biden Administration on racial justice issues relating to asylum at the border, I’m afraid that the preparation to make the asylum system function in a fair and orderly manner come May 23 is going to fall largely to NGOs and advocates.
Of particularly disturbing note is the Garland DOJ’s total failure to intervene to stop the blatant and illegal racism at our border and to vindicate the rule of law! Indeed, Garland’s failure to reorganize EOIR and hire competent, expert administrators and judges to take charge of his broken, backlogged, and biased asylum system is likely to be a “stone around the neck of justice” as we move forward.
But, expecting the Biden Administration to stand up for racial justice for Haitians and other non-White asylum seekers at the border unfortunately appears to be wishful thinking.
What DHS SHOULD have said about reinstitution of our legal asylum system at the border:
“The Department of Homeland Security works to secure and manage our borders while building, maintaining, and improving a fair and orderly immigration system. That includes a fair and timely system for granting asylum or other forms of refuge from persecution or torture to qualified applicants. Insuring legal protection for refugees is a critical part of DHS’s mission of administering and enforcing the laws.
Violence, political upheaval, war, genocide, religious intolerance, racism, food insecurity, poverty, femicide, child abuse, environmental disasters, rampant corruption, and prospects of starvation in several areas around the world are driving unprecedented levels of migration to our Southwest Border. The devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which involved the temporary suspension of our system for legal immigration, including admission of asylees and other refugees, has only exacerbated these challenges. A number of sources, including human smuggling organizations, peddle misinformation about entering the United States or coming to our borders.
With the restoration of our legal immigration system on the horizon, only two groups of foreign nationals will generally qualify for admission at our borders: first, those in possession of visas or equivalent documents usually issued by U.S. consular officers abroad; and second, those who can establish that they qualify for asylum or other forms of legal protection from return to persecution and/or torture.
Under our laws, asylum can only be granted to those reasonably fearing harm because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Other foreign nationals facing harm not amounting to “torture” in their home countries will not be eligible for admission under our laws. Those who apply or are apprehended at or near the border and cannot show a “credible fear” of harm because of one of the foregoing grounds will be summarily removed from our country.
In short, if you do not have a valid visa or a bona fide claim for asylum or other legal protection, you should not make the journey to the U.S. border. You will be apprehended and summarily returned to your home country in accordance with our laws.
DHS is implementing a comprehensive strategy to address a potential increase in the number of border encounters. That strategy includes:
Acquiring and deploying many more trained Asylum Officers to legal ports of entry to promptly decide “credible fear” cases for asylum seekers;
Delivering a more efficient, fair, and timely asylum process by allowing Asylum Officers to grant credible, well-documented claims at the border;
Working with NGOs, legal aid groups, and local governments to provide legal counseling and representation to those seeking asylum;
Working with NGOs, religious organizations, and other social services entities in the U.S. to assist in orderly resettlement of those granted asylum or whose cases cannot be timely processed at the border;
Processing and removing those who do not have valid claims; and
Working with the UNHCR, NGOs, and other countries globally to manage migration and address root causes.
With the restoration of a fair and timely asylum and protection processing system at our legal ports of entry, all asylum applicants should apply in an orderly fashion only at those ports. That will be the safest, most efficient way of applying, offer the greatest opportunities for legal representation, and increase the chances of timely, legal admission into the United States for those who are qualified.
Those who attempt to avoid legal processing at ports of entry by unauthorized entry may well find their lives endangered by unscrupulous smugglers. Additionally, those who attempt to avoid the legal process available at ports of entry might subject themselves to detention, additional grounds for removal, bars on future reentry, and criminal prosecution. With the return of full legal immigration and improved asylum processing to ports of entry, DHS will be able to devote more enforcement resources to locating and apprehending those attempting irregular entry into the U.S. DHS will also target human smuggling operations.
There is broad agreement that our immigration system is fundamentally broken. The Biden-Harris Administration continues to call on Congress to pass legislation that holistically addresses the root causes of migration, fixes the immigration system, and strengthens legal pathways.”
FACT SHEET: DHS Preparations for a Potential Increase in Migration
Release Date: March 30, 2022
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) works to secure and manage our borders while building a fair and orderly immigration system. The CDC has announced that, on May 23, 2022, its Title 42 public health Order will be terminated. As a result, beginning on May 23, 2022, DHS will no longer process families and single adults for expulsion pursuant to Title 42. Instead, DHS will process them for removal under Title 8. Until May 23, 2022, the CDC’s Title 42 Order remains in place, and DHS will continue to process families and single adults pursuant to the Order.
Under Title 8, those who attempt to enter the United States without authorization, and who are unable to establish a legal basis to remain in the United States (such as a valid asylum claim), are subject to additional long-term consequences beyond removal from the United States, including bars to future immigration benefits.
DHS is implementing a comprehensive strategy to address a potential increase in the number of border encounters.
The strategy includes: 1) Acquiring and deploying resources to address increased volumes; 2) Delivering a more efficient and fair immigration process; 3) Processing and removing those who do not have valid claims; and 4) Working with other countries in the Western Hemisphere to manage migration and address root causes.
Violence, food insecurity, poverty, and lack of economic opportunity in several countries in the Western Hemisphere are driving unprecedented levels of migration to our Southwest Border. The devastating economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the region has only exacerbated these challenges. Human smuggling organizations peddle misinformation that the border is open. DHS is implementing a comprehensive strategy to address a potential increase in the number of border encounters.
There is broad agreement that our immigration system is fundamentally broken. The Biden-Harris Administration continues to call on Congress to pass legislation that holistically addresses the root causes of migration, fixes the immigration system, and strengthens legal pathways.
1. Acquiring and deploying resources to address increased volumes.
Developed an integrated and scalable plan to activate and mobilize resources.
DHS initiated a Southwest Border contingency planning effort last fall. Last month, the Secretary designated a Senior Coordinating Official and established the Southwest Border Coordination Center (SBCC) to coordinate planning, operations, engagement, and interagency support.
Ready to surge personnel and resources to the Southwest Border.
DHS has moved officers, agents, and DHS Volunteer Force personnel to rapidly decompress points along the border and more efficiently process migrants.
Increasing CBP temporary holding capacity to process high volumes of individuals in a humane manner.
CBP has mobilized resources to rapidly stand up, expand, and/or reinforce Central Processing Centers in order to provide more efficient end-to-end processing for migrants encountered at the Southwest Border. Additionally, more ICE staff will be deployed to the border to facilitate processing.
Utilized appropriated resources to improve border processing
In its FY22 appropriations bill, Congress provided an additional $1.45 billion for a potential Southwest Border surge, including $1.06 billion for CBP soft-sided facilities, medical care, transportation, and personnel costs; $239.7 million for ICE for processing capacity, transportation, and personnel costs; and $150 million for FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter Program at the Southwest Border. Earlier this week, President Biden submitted to Congress its FY23 Budget, which would fund the hiring of 300 new Border Patrol Agents and 300 new Border Patrol Processing Coordinators.
While the 2022 appropriation exceeded the request and represents a historic funding level for DHS, the appropriation would not be sufficient to fund the potential resource requirements associated with the current increase in migrant flows. DHS will fund operational requirements by prudently executing its appropriations; reprioritizing and reallocating existing funding through reprogrammings and transfers; requesting support from other Federal agencies; and finally, by engaging with Congress on any potential need for supplemental appropriations, as necessary.
Implementing COVID mitigation measures
The health and safety of the DHS workforce, communities, and migrants themselves is a top priority. CBP provides PPE to migrants who cannot be expelled under the CDC’s Title 42 order or are awaiting processing from the moment they are taken into custody, and migrants are required to keep masks on at all times. CBP also works with appropriate agencies that facilitate testing, isolation, and quarantine of migrants.
DHS has also been providing the COVID-19 vaccines to noncitizens in ICE custody since summer 2021. Beginning March 28, 2022, DHS expanded those efforts to cover migrants in CBP custody, so as to further safeguard public health and ensure the safety of border communities, the workforce, and migrants. These efforts will be ramped up over the next two months, to cover the majority of noncitizens taken into CBP custody.
In addition, DHS is putting in place decompression plans to protect against the kind of overcrowding that facilitates the spread of COVID-19.
2. Delivering a more efficient and fair immigration process.
Issued rule to expedite asylum claims.
On March 24, 2022, DHS and the Department of Justice issued a rule to improve and expedite processing of asylum claims made by recently arriving noncitizens, which provides for the expeditious granting of relief to those who have valid claims for asylum and prompt removal of those whose claims are denied. Once implemented at scale in the coming months, the rule will transform how cases are processed at the border. In President Biden’s Fiscal Year 2023 Budget to Congress, he makes good on the promise of this rule by investing $375 million to hire the personnel needed to quickly process asylum claims.
A Dedicated Docket process for more efficient immigration hearings.
In partnership with the Department of Justice, DHS established a new, more efficient process called the Dedicated Docket to conduct speedier and fair immigration proceedings for families who arrive between ports of entry at the Southwest Border. As a result, the length of time it takes for many of these cases to reach a final disposition has decreased from years to months.
Increased efforts to dismantle transnational criminal organizations that exploit vulnerable migrants
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Department of State, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice launched a counter-network targeting operation focused on transnational criminal organizations affiliated with the smuggling of migrants.
This Operation targets criminal networks that profit from a broad range of illicit activities, such as human smuggling, by using targeted enforcement actions against them, including by denying access to travel and freezing bank accounts.
3. Processing and removing those who do not have valid claims.
Continuing to process migrants in accordance with the laws of the United States, including expeditiously removing those who do not have valid claims to remain in the United States.
Individuals who cross the border without legal authorization will be placed into removal proceedings and, if unable to establish a legal basis to remain in the United States, expeditiously removed. Those who attempt to enter the United States without authorization, and without a valid asylum claim, are subject to additional long-term consequences beyond removal from the United States, including bars to future immigration benefits.
Bringing targeted prosecutions of smugglers, repeat offenders, and those who seek to evade law enforcement.
In close coordination with the Department of Justice, DHS will refer border-related criminal activity to DOJ for prosecution where warranted, including that of smugglers, repeat offenders, and migrants who seek to evade U.S. Customs and Border Protection. U.S. Customs and Border Protection also continues to enforce its Repeat Offender initiative to target recidivism. Any single adult apprehended along the Southwest Border a second time, after having previously been apprehended and removed under Title 8, is referred for criminal prosecution. This initiative has improved DHS’s ability to escalate consequences and conserve processing resources.
4. Working with other countries in the Western Hemisphere to manage migration and address root causes.
Working closely with source and transit countries in the region to deter migration.
The Administration is working with source and transit countries in the region to facilitate the quick return of individuals who previously resided in those countries, as well as stem migration at its source. DHS, in coordination with the Department of State, has regular discussions with partner countries in the Hemisphere on migration related matters and continues to engage with foreign governments to improve cooperation with countries that systematically refuse or delay the repatriation of their nationals.
Signed Migration Arrangement with Costa Rica to address irregular migration.
On March 15, 2022, Secretary Mayorkas traveled to Costa Rica where he joined President Alvarado in announcing a bilateral Migration Arrangement, outlining our shared commitment to both manage migrant flows as well as to promote economic growth in the region. DHS and the Department of State are currently engaged with other countries in the region to advance similar objectives.
Continuing close partnership with the Government of Mexico on migration-related issues.
The Biden-Harris Administration continues to maintain a close partnership between with the Government of Mexico to stem irregular migration, creating viable legal pathways, fostering legitimate trade and travel, and combating the shared dangers of transnational crime. In March, Secretary Mayorkas made his fourth official visit to Mexico City where he and President Andrés Manuel López Obrador committed to the promotion of lawful trade and travel and a regional approach to migration management.
As a sometimes law professor, “What if” is a question I can’t avoid!
The DHS “Fact Sheet” reads like an unprepared agency, planning to be overwhelmed by forces allegedly beyond their control, and looking for ways to shift the anticipated political fallout by blaming others: Congress, smugglers, foreign countries, COVID-19, the Trump Administration, and, in a particularly “low blow” the victims themselves — asylum seekers and other desperate migrants.
Let’s keep in mind that legitimate “refugees” have been largely “shut out” of our legal system for the past several years. Thus, many were left with little or no choice but to seek “do it yourself” refugee within our large “extralegal immigration subsystem.” Often they resort to smugglers and put themselves at increased risk after finding our borders closed to those orderly seeking protection under our laws. We have watched it unfold, and largely ignored the unsavory consequences of our own actions.
I’m certainly not the only one to see “planned disaster” for the Biden Administration on the horizon. Check out today’s WashPost lead editorial:
However, what if, with 51 days to go, advocates and NGOs could “flip the script” on “programmed failure” and make the asylum system at our border function fairly and efficiently, in spite of itself?
What if the “anticipated narrative” of an out of control border never came to pass? What if the U.S. could actually make the rule of law a reality at the border? What if reopening legal ports of entry for asylum seekers, thereby eliminating the pressure for “do it yourself refuge,” actually helped the Border Patrol concentrate on smugglers and those without any legal claim to remain here?
That might involve getting an “army” of volunteers to the border to:
Convince asylum seekers to trust the new system and apply in an orderly fashion only at ports of entry;
Work with the DHS to insure that any processing lists are established and controlled by legitimate authorities;
Leverage the potential for more rapid asylum grants by Asylum Officers by representing applicants and assisting them in documenting and presenting their claims in formats that will facilitate more AO grants;
Represent those improperly denied by the AO before the Immigration Courts and use effective, “practical scholarship,” expert advocacy, and compelling documentation to force due process and fundamental fairness into an Immigration Court system and a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals historically biased against asylum seekers at our borders;
Counsel those prima facie unqualified for asylum and those rejected after applying on possible alternatives outside the U.S.;
Work with authorities, local communities, and NGOs to provide viable resettlement opportunities for those granted asylum and safe, secure, and non-intrusive temporary living conditionson both sides of the border for those awaiting legal processing;
Advocate to the DHS for establishment of robust, realistic, generous, credible refugee programs for Latin America, Haiti, and elsewhere to reduce pressure on the border asylum system. A “viable alternative” to appearing at the border for refugees is what’s glaringly missing from both our past and current approaches.
Can change really come from below and outside the struggling DHS and EOIR systems? Frankly, I don’t know. But, we’re going to find out in the next several months! We can’t change history, but, perhaps, we can rewrite the future!
Two recent news items illustrate the rampant racism at work in the Biden Administration’sIllegal use of the Title 42 charade to eliminate the rule of law at the border:
#VICENews#NewsInitially Rejected by the US, Russians Are Secretly Hustled Over the Border:
Racism runs rampant in immigration enforcement and policy;
Backlogs continue to grow and fester across the immigration system;
Immigration Courts remain dysfunctional, inept, and biased toward DHS Enforcement; and
There is no accountability for anything.
Maybe Trump did win that second term, at least as far as Garland’s DOJ is concerned!
After more than a year of not getting the job done, politicos and some border legislators of both parties are debating whether to continue to violate the law, the Constitution, and human rights of asylum seekers of color because Garland and Mayorkas have failed to get a legal asylum system in place at the border — despite having a number of “blueprints” on how it could successfully be done.
Clearly, there is NO public health justification whatsoever for the continued Title 42 farce — it has become an obvious pretext for violating the law because some politicos think it’s convenient and expedient to do so. Those like Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke who are supposed to stand up for equal justice, racial justice, the rule of law, and protections for the most vulnerable among us have “taken a dive!”
Waves of migration through Mexico and Central America, and people who go missing, will increase in 2022 due to high levels of violence in the region, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said.
Battle-scarred ghost town bears mute witness to Mexico’s drug wars
“In many countries, violence is wreaking more and more havoc, and that’s why there are more and more migrants,” ICRC representative Jordi Raich told Reuters in an interview Wednesday. “And it’s not a situation that is going to improve or slow down, not even in the years to come.“
Immigration authorities in Mexico detained 307,679 migrants in 2021, a 68% increase compared with 182,940 detentions in 2019, according to government data.
Shelters in Mexico were completely overwhelmed last year, filled with frustrated migrants unable to continue their journey to the United States, Raich said.
Many migrants get “stuck” along Mexico’s southern or northern borders, Raich said, where they face “enormous economic constraints” and are able to find only basic services.
The administration of Joe Biden has faced record numbers of migrants arriving at the southern border and has implored Mexico and Central American countries to do more to stem the wave.
Disappearances in the region have not slowed either, the Red Cross said in a report released Thursday. Mexico recently surpassed 100,000 people reported missing in the country.
In El Salvador, 488 missing person cases remain unsolved, and in Guatemala, the number of missing women rose to six a day, the Red Cross report said.
Raich said it will be difficult to respond to the root causes of migration immediately. A joint effort among countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras is necessary, he added.
“Migration is not going to stop,” Raich said. “If you try to prevent it or strictly regulate it, people start to pile up at the borders, which is happening in Mexico and other countries.”
Meanwhile, the Biden administration on Thursday rolled out a sweeping new regulation that aims to speed up asylum processing and deportations at the US-Mexico border, amid a record number of migrants seeking to enter the US.
The announcement of the new rule came as US officials are debating whether to end a separate Covid-era policy that has blocked most asylum claims at the border. The asylum overhaul could provide a faster way to process border crossers if the Covid order is ended.
. . . .
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Cruelty, walls, detention, family separation, border militarization, expedited hearings — they aren’t going to stop human migration.We will be able to increase border deaths, expand the scope of “black market migration,” increase our “underground population,” and enrich human smugglers. Good policy?
Meanwhile, it’s obvious that the “disingenuous internal debate” on Title 42 has nothing whatsoever to do with public health and everything to do with whether continued illegal and immoral suspension of asylum protections at the border will prove politically advantageous to the Biden Administration. It won’t! It might, however, cost Dems support among progressives.
There is, of course, no known medical evidence that “single males” present a greater COVID threat than families! Indeed, there is no known medical evidence to suggest that any potential asylum applicant is a threat to the health and safety of the US.
The whole thing is a deadly farce! Why aren’t Hill Dems calling for oversight of Garland’s sitting by and watching while the law and ethics are pulverized around him? Or worse yet, what about his Department’s defense of abrogation of our laws? Believe it or not, we actually have asylum and protection laws on the books, duly enacted by Congress, although you’d never know it from Garland’s feckless performance!
Meanwhile, WashPost and other so-called “mainstream media” continue to hype stories about increased border pressure. So, continuing to violate asylum law is a viable alternative “strategy?” Give me a break! How is violating the law going to stop folks from fleeing deadly conditions in their home countries? It won’t, as the ICRC points out above!
What it will do, as also pointed out above, is kill more asylum seekers, subject them to rape, torture and other harm, enrich smugglers, and increase the extralegal population in the U.S.!
Blaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
It also will increase those waiting in vain at the Southern Border for the reopening of a legal asylum system that has abandoned them! In the words of one expert:
“The conditions are squalid,” said Blaine Bookey, the legal director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who led a team interviewing dozens of families waiting in Tijuana for the federal government to lift Title 42. “There is real lack of access to sanitation, medical care, adequate food, all of the real basic fundamental necessities.”
. . . .
“There have been some exceptions made for Ukrainians, which we’re happy to see, but the policy should be ended for everyone,” Bookey said. “There was never a public health justification, and there certainly isn’t now.” (WashPost, supra).
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) babbles nativist nonsense:
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said at a committee hearing last week that the influx has “completely derailed” efforts to discuss improving legal immigration to the United States, which he said states such as Texas need to staff hospitals and fill jobs. Border states such as Texas and Arizona are bracing for higher numbers of unauthorized immigrants in coming weeks, he said.
“Rather than deter would-be migrants with weak asylum claims from taking the dangerous journey to the southwest border, the administration has rolled out the welcome mat and created new incentives to illegally immigrate to the United States,” he said at the March 15 hearing before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, citizenship and border safety.
To my knowledge, neither Cornyn nor any of his other GOP nativist buddies have ever adjudicated an asylum application. Nor have they represented asylum seekers before the Asylum Office or in our broken Immigration Courts. So, how would that have any idea whether certain asylum claims are “weak” or not? They wouldn‘t!
Moreover, we haven’t had a functioning asylum system at our Southern Border for years. So, how would anyone know how many of the claims are “weak?” They wouldn’t?
Remarkably, apparently unknown to Cornyn and his scofflaw buddies, we actually have laws to deal with his concerns. When the legal system is “open for business” — which it isn’t now — those claiming asylum at the border are subject to “summary exclusion” by DHS officers. Their claims are then expeditiously reviewed by Asylum Officers for a “credible fear” of asylum. Those who don’t establish credible fear, subject only to cursory review by an Immigration Judge, can be immediately removed by DHS.
Historically, when the system was at least nominally functional, those “passing” credible fear have been turned over to the now dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Under Trump, these “parodies of courts” were “weaponized” into “asylum killing grounds.”
Sessions and Barr packed their non-independent “captive courts” with “judges” perceived to be “enforcement oriented” and “anti-asylum” — willing to skew the law and facts as necessary to deny and deport. This mess is “led” by an appellate body, the BIA, which contains some of the most notorious members of the “Asylum Deniers’ Club” — folks who got their appellate jobs under Barr specifically because as Immigraton Judges they denied almost every asylum case that came before them! In other words, even when there was some semblance of a legal asylum system, it was redesigned under Trump to be systemically unfair to asylum seekers, particularly women and applicants of color. For sure, racism and misogyny played into this unseemly scenario.
Remarkably, Garland has chosen to maintain this dysfunctional, biased, and broken system largely in the form it existed and with almost all of the same unqualified or questionably qualified “judges” he inherited from Session and Barr!
Our broken asylum system can’t and won’t be fixed without dealing head-on with the overarching problem — systemic anti-asylum bias, poor quality decision-making, grotesque inconsistencies, and beyond incompetent administration of our Immigraton Courts by the DOJ!
Remarkably, Garland’s proposed solution is yet another “designed to fail” gimmick — expedite cases in his broken and biased, anti-asylum system! So the solution to a defective court system, infected with anti-asylum bias and poorly qualified judges turning out defective decisions is to make it “go faster!” The new regulations also fail to deal with the huge due process issue of lack of competent representation in the asylum system, particularly the Immigration Courts. Come on man!
We don’t need over 500 pages of new regulations and sophomoric, alternate universe “time limits” for an agency that can’t even find its files! What we need is for Garland to do the job he was hired to do more than a year ago! That’s “clean house” at the Immigration Courts, bring in competent, fair judges who have experience in Immigration Court and are legitimate, well-recognized asylum experts — starting with a new BIA (save for their one qualified Appellate Immigration Judge Andrea Saenz, a Garland appointee).
Get expert judges, intellectual leaders, and competent judicial administrators into the broken Immigration Court system to provide coherent, practical asylum legal guidance and work with advocates, the Asylum Office, and DHS to get a functional and fair legal asylum system in place and operating smoothly and efficiently at the border. It should already be in place by now. That it isn’t, is entirely “on Garland!”
Then, with experts who actually are committed to fairly and impartially applying asylum law in place, we’ll see, for the first time, how many of the asylum claims are valid and how many aren’t! And, while we’re at it, we might find that many of the “legal” immigrants Texas and the rest of America needs are right there at our borders — just waiting for our legal system to do justice and admit them. Asylum seekers are seeking legal immigration! It the USG that’s acting “illegally” here!
Trump Judge Mark T. Pittman has a very explicit vision of the future for brown-skinned children seeking protection from “White Nationalist Nation.” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
ThreadOpen appSee new TweetsConversationAaron Reichlin-Melnick@ReichlinMelnick🚨Absolute madness. The same day the DC Circuit rules that families can’t be expelled under Title 42 to places they will be persecuted, a federal judge in Texas just overruled the CDC and ordered the Biden administration to expel unaccompanied children. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182.100.0_1.pdf…
. . . .
*************************
Read the rest of Aaron’s feed at the link.
Although the DC Circuit basically confirmed that the evidence produced by plaintiffs showed illegal returns to death and that there was little, if any, support for the draconian Title 42 exclusion order, the relief granted was unacceptably narrow. The order merely directed the Administration to cease returning individuals to countries where they would be persecuted or tortured.
That order is weak because:
It doesn’t specify any particular fair procedure that must be followed by DHS in determining who faces persecution or torture. That appears to leave open the possibility of DHS employing bogus “summary determinations by enforcement agents” rather than using Asylum Officers and having cases referred to Immigration Courts.
There are no limits on the Government’s ability to detain individuals and/or return them to other countries.
The standard for so-called “withholding of removal” to persecution is “more likely than not” as opposed to the more generous “well-founded fear” or “reasonable possibility” standard for asylum (although individuals should be able to invoke the regulatory “presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution).
Even if granted, withholding of removal does not provide individuals with “durable legal status” nor does it allow them to access the asylum system, from which they apparently would remain barred under Title 42.
Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas is a Trump appointee with strong ties to the Federalist Society and a very loose grasp on domestic and international laws and procedures for protecting children.
It’s interesting, if disheartening, to compare the “overt wishy-washiness” of the DC Circuit Judges who were timidly, “sort of” trying to protect at least some minimal legal and human rights with the “in your face,” overtly anti-immigrant, arrogant tone and ridiculous self-assuredness with which activist righty District Judge Mark Pittman advanced his absurdist notion that the White Nationalist agenda of “protecting” America from the “non-threat” of brown-skinned children merited his simultaneous assumption of the roles of President, Secretary of DHS, Attorney General, and for a good measure, Congress.
Obviously, the “judicial restraint,” supposedly a hallmark of modern conservatism, was just a “smoke screen” for the GOP’s activist anti-social, anti-immigrant, racially charged agenda. That’s not news to many of us, although it seems to have gone “over the head” of many in the Biden Administration and many Dems on the Hill.
It shows once again why “Team Garland’s” indolent, often uninformed, and floundering approach to immigrant justice under law is being steamrolled by Trump holdovers and crusading right-wing Federal Judges. And, you wonder why Dems can’t figure out what they stand for and what their “line in the sand” is!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Garland and other weak-kneed Biden officials can’t decide how much of the leftover “Miller Lite” anti-asylum, anti-humanitarian, anti-due-process policy they want to retain and defend and how much effort, if any, they want to put into re-establishing human rights and the rule of law.
One observation: After more than one-year in office, the Biden Administration is no closer to having an orderly, functional, due-process-oriented asylum system in place and ready for the border than they were on January 20, 2021! The expert Asylum Officers and qualified Immigration Judges who are necessary to operate such a system are still few and far between, and the program to facilitate legal assistance for those seeking legal protection at the border is all but non-existent.
One Year In: The Biden Administration and Asylum Policy
Developments in Fourth Circuit Case Law
Increasing Access to Pro Bono Counsel in Underserved Areas: Virginia as a Case Study
Working Across Disciplines: Best Practices for Attorneys and Mental Health Professionals in Asylum Seeker Evaluations
Country Conditions: From Page to Practice
CLE Credit and DOJ Accredited Representative Certifications
This event has been approved for 6.5 credit hours of CLE credit from Virginia and North Carolina. Attorneys seeking CLE credit must purchase tickets indicating that CLE credit is provided (indicated by “CLE” listed by the ticket type).
Attorneys from other jurisdictions who are not seeking CLE credit from Virginia or North Carolina are welcome to attend.
DOJ Accredited Representative certifications will be provided to those who register as DOJ Accredited Representatives seeking certification.
Zoom Webinar Information
Zoom information for the event will be sent to the email address used to register. For security reasons, we do not post the Zoom link information. All Zoom registration information will be provided in a separate email closer to the date of the event.
Lips Sewn Shut Public Realm — Biden’s continuation of Trump’s cruel and illegal abrogation of asylum laws at the border, inappropriately defended by Garland’s DOJ, drives desperate people to do desperate things.
Nicole Narea Immigration Reporter Vox.com — Her clear and cogent analysis stands in sharp contrast to the Biden Administration’s often muddled, incoherent, and self-contradictory policies on human rights and racial justice on America.
Migrants stranded in southern Mexico because of US and Mexican border policies are taking increasingly drastic measures to draw attention to their plight. On Tuesday, a dozen migrants staged a protest in which they sewed their lips together and went on a hunger strike.
They are among the thousands staying in what has become known as an “open-air prison” in the city of Tapachula on Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala. Migrants there have struggled to access food and shelter, and have reported being preyed on by government officials.
Facing pressure to find ways to limit the number of migrants requesting entry to the United States, Mexican immigration authorities will not permit the migrants to leave the city unless they have some form of legal immigration status allowing them to move freely through the country, such as asylum. Hundreds tried to escape last month, but were intercepted and detained by Mexican immigration authorities.
. . . .
The US could share the load by resuming processing of migrants at its own borders and allowing them to pursue claims to humanitarian protection, as is their legal right. Instead, it has offloaded its immigration responsibilities onto its neighbor.
****************
As usual, Nicole provides timely, astute, accessible analysis of complex problems. I highly recommend her complete article at the link above.
The Attorney General is supposed to stand up for the rule of law, human rights, and to “just say no” to defending illegal and improper policies. As many of us pointed out during the scofflaw tenures of Sessions and Barr, the AG’s fealty is supposed to be to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, which include treaties that we have ratified and incorporated into our laws. As human rights and legal rights continue to be ignored, deflected, and degraded at our borders and in Immigration “Courts” that don’t operate as “courts” at all in any commonly understood meaning of the term, where is Garland?
Train Dennis Adams, Federal Highway Administration; levels adjustment applied by Hohum Public domain. — Garland’s Deportation Railway retains most of his predecessors’ engineers, conductors, and crew. It’s often slow, unreliable, erratic, and subject to arbitrary unannounced schedule changes. It continues to bypass “Due Processville” and “Fundamental Fairness City.”
Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 4th Cir., 02-16-22, published
PANEL: NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Niemeyer
DISSENT: Judge Motz
KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:
Under the current immigration statutes, DHS has good reason to require applicants for relief from removal to submit fingerprints and other biometrics. But before DHS does so, it must first comply with specified notice obligations. Where, as here, DHS fails to do so, I would not fault the applicant. As the Supreme Court explained in Niz-Chavez, “[i]f men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.” 141 S. Ct. at 1486.
I respectfully dissent.
*********************
The IJ and the BIA relied on a wrong BIA precedent. The 4th Circuit majority judges recognized its incorrectness, but took OIL’s invitation to fashion another rationale for denying this asylum applicant a hearing on the merits of her life or death claim. While the respondent was represented by counsel, the disputed “warnings” and dialogue relating to the missing biometrics were not translated into Spanish, the only language she understood.
While this case was pending, USCIS finally delivered the long and inexplicably delayed biometrics appointment letter to the respondent. But, that made no difference to a group of judges anxious to railroad her back to Honduras (one of the most dangerous and thoroughly corrupt countries in the hemisphere) without a meaningful chance to be heard.
Of all the Federal Judges who looked at this case over the years, only Judge Motz was interested in providing the respondent a due process hearing on her life-determining claim. The rest evidently were more fixated on creating reasons for NOT hearing her case. With the same amount of judicial and litigation effort, likely less, the respondent probably could have received a due process hearing on the merits of her claim. Additionally, there would have been consequences for the BIA’s defective “good enough for government work” precedent.
Of course, like Garland, none of the exalted judges involved in this disgraceful dereliction of duty have actually represented an asylum applicant in Immigration Court and had to deal with the confusing, convoluted, backlogged, and often notoriously screwed up DHS/EOIR biometrics process. See, e.g., “USCIS Biometrics Appointment Backlog,” https://www.stilt.com/blog/2021/02/biometrics-appointment-backlog/.
I suspect that folks contesting a parking ticket get more consideration in our system than this asylum applicant got from Garland’s unfair and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the OIL lawyers who defend these mis-handled cases. And, in the world of “refugee roulette,” where human lives are treated like lottery tickets, a different Circuit panel of judges might have joined Judge Motz in getting it right.
The problem starts with EOIR — tribunals that receive deference without earning it through expertise, quality scholarship, and prioritizing due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices. It’s aggravated and multiplied by Garland — an Attorney General indifferent to injustice and the trail of broken lives and dashed hopes left in its wake. And, it’s aided, abetted, and enabled by judges like the panel majority here, who can’t be troubled with the hard work of understanding the consequences of their dilatory approach and demanding fair, competent, and reasonable expert judging from EOIR.
As several of my colleagues have said about the broken, dysfunctional, unfair Immigration Court system, the haphazard review by some Circuit Courts, and the disturbing systemic lack of judicial courage when it comes to fairly applying the Due Process Clause of our Constitution to migrants of color: “The cruelty is the point.”
It’s also worthy of note that the failure of all the Federal Judges, save Judge Motz, to make any meaningful inquiry into the respondent’s clearly expressed fear of return to Honduras appears to violate mandatory requirements for withholding of removal under the INA and international conventions. Perhaps that’s not surprising as Federal Judges have allowed Garland, Mayorkas, and their predecessors to use the transparent pretext of “Title 42” to systemically violate the legal and human rights of refugees at our borders — every day!
It’s also worth putting into context the Biden Administration’s continuing pontification about the human rights of Ughyurs, Afghans, women, and other persecuted minorities, as well as their professed commitment to racial justice in the U.S., which has not been matched by actions. Indeed, the Biden Administration’s actual approach to human rights looks much more like “Miller Lite Time” than it does a courageous, competent, and fair reinstitution of the rule of law!
According to recent reports, many of the Ughyurs and Afghans who were fortunate enough to reach the U.S. and avoid arbitrary “turn backs” at our borders, are now mired in the endless, mindless Mayorkas/Garland bureaucracy that masquerades as an “asylum system” — subject to long waits, missing work authorizations, and sometimes arbitrary and secretive “denials” blasted by human rights advocates. In a functional system these would be the “low hanging fruit” that could rapidly be removed from limbo and given the ability to fully function in our society. But, not in the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” atmosphere fostered by Mayorkas and Garland.
What fun, sending Black Cameroonian refugees back to rape, torture, and possible death! We don’t need to know much asylum law or real country conditions here at EOIR. We make it up as we go along. And, Judge Garland just lets us keep on playing “refugee roulette,” our favorite game! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Nearly all of the deported people interviewed had fled Cameroon between 2017 and 2020 for reasons linked to the crisis in the Anglophone regions. Human Rights Watch research indicates that many had credible asylum claims, but due process concerns, fact-finding inaccuracies, and other issues contributed to unfair asylum decisions. Lack of impartiality by US immigration judges – who are part of the executive branch, not the independent judiciary – appeared to play a role. Nearly all of the deported Cameroonians interviewed – 35 of 41 – were assigned to judges with asylum denial rates 10 to 30 percentage points higher than the national average.
. . . .
*****************
The complete report gives a totally damning account of EOIR’s incompetence, ignorance of asylum law, poor decision making, “rigged” assignment of bad judges, and systemic bias directed against asylum seekers, primarily people of color. Although human rights conditions have continued to deteriorate in Cameroon, asylum grant rates have fluctuated dramatically depending on how the political winds at DOJ are blowing.
For example, judges denying asylum because of imaginary “improved conditions” in Cameroon falls within the realm of the absurd. No asylum expert would say that conditions have improved.
Yet, in a catastrophic ethical and legal failure, there is no BIA precedent “calling out” such grotesque errors and serving notice to the judges that it is unacceptable judicial conduct! There are hardly any recent BIA published precedents on granting asylum at all — prima facie evidence of the anti-asylum culture and institutional bias in favor of DHS Enforcement that Sessions and Barr actively cultivated and encouraged!
Even more outrageously, these same members of the “asylum deniers club” remain in their influential appellate positions under Garland! As inexplicable as it is inexcusable!
The HRF report details the wide range of dishonest devices used by EOIR to cut off valid asylum claims: bogus adverse credibility determinations; unreasonable corroboration requirements; claiming “no nexus” when the causal connection is obvious; failing to put the burden on the DHS in countrywide persecution involving the government or past persecution; bogus findings that the presence of relatives in the country negates persecution; ridiculous findings that severe harm doesn’t “rise to the level of persecution,” failure to listen to favorable evidence or rebuttal; ignoring the limitations on representation and inherent coercion involved in intentionally substandard and health threatening ICE detention, to name just some. While these corrupt methods of denying protection might be “business as usual” at EOIR “denial factories,” they have been condemned by human rights experts and many appellate courts. Yet Garland continues to act as if nothing were amiss in his “star chambers.”
This bench needs to be cleared of incompetence and anti-asylum bias and replaced with experts committed to due process and fair, impartial, and ethical applications of asylum principles. There was nothing stopping Sessions and Barr from “packing” the BIA and the trial courts with unqualified selections perceived to be willing and able to carry out their White Nationalist agenda! Likewise, there is nothing stopping Garland from “unpacking:” “cleaning house,” restoring competence, scholarly excellence, and “due process first” judging to his shattered system!
“It’s not rocket science, but ‘unpacking’ the Immigration Courts appears beyond Garland’s skill set!” “Unpacking” Photo by John Keogh Creative Commons License
All that’s missing are the will and the guts to get the job done! Perhaps that’s not unusual for yet another Dem Administration bumbling its way through immigration policy with no guiding principles, failing to connect the dots to racial justice, betraying promises to supporters, and leaving a trail of broken human lives and bodies of the innocent in its wake. But, it’s unacceptable! Totally!
Olukayode David Ojo, a native of Nigeria, seeks review of a September 27, 2019 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an April 15, 2019 decision of an immigration judge, which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See In re Olukayode David Ojo, No. A088-444-553 (B.I.A. Sept. 27, 2019), aff’g No. A088-444-553 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 15, 2019).
We grant Ojo’s petition for review and vacate the agency’s denial of Ojo’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection because those determinations were permeated with several legal and procedural errors. First, insofar as Ojo’s request for asylum was rejected as untimely, the agency applied the wrong legal standard to his claim of changed circumstances and the agency’s alternative discretionary determination failed to indicate the requisite examination of the totality of the circumstances. Second, with respect to Ojo’s application for withholding of removal, the agency erred when it incorrectly categorized his federal conviction for wire fraud and identity theft as “crimes against persons,” and concluded that they fell within the ambit of “particularly serious crimes” without evaluating the elements of the offenses as required under the agency’s own precedent. Finally, with respect to his CAT claim, the agency erred in concluding that Ojo lacked a reasonable fear of future persecution or torture in Nigeria due to his status as a criminal deportee without even addressing the declaration of his expert supporting his claim.
Accordingly, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JUDGE MENASHI dissents in a separate opinion.
*****************************
The majority opinion is 51 pages; Judge Menashi’s dissent another 35 pages. That’s 86 pages of Article III time trying to straighten out the BIA’s sloppy work and mis-application of basic legal concepts.
It would be in everyone’s best interests if Garland jettisoned his “Miller Lite holdover BIA” and replaced them with real appellate judges — experts in human rights and asylum law with reputations for careful practical, due-process-focused scholarship — Judges like his sole BIA appointment to date, Judge Andrea Saenz.
It’s painfully obvious that the out of control problems in immigration law will NOT be solved with the BIA currently in place. They lack the expertise, temperament, and background to get “the retail level of our justice system” back on track.
As this case, among others, illustrates, Garland’s failure to institute long overdue personnel and quality control reforms at EOIR is continuing to “bleed over” into the Article IIIs, occupying an increasing amount of their time. It also creates astounding inconsistencies among Circuits and among panels in the same Circuit. Garland’s “personal court system” is dysfunctional on multiple levels and is sowing more dysfunction throughout our justice system!
Garland and his lieutenants, including “above the fray” Solicitor General Liz Prelogar, also should take a look at the OIL “defense” in this case. It’s basically this:
“The respondent is a bad guy. So, it doesn’t matter if the BIA applies the wrong legal standards because they have discretion to deport any bad guy for any reason or even for the wrong reason. Even if the BIA didn’t do its job, you, Court of Appeals, should do it for them because, as we said, this is one bad dude who needs deporting. Did we mention that he’s a bad guy?”
The combined abysmal performance of EOIR and OIL, enhanced by the lack of leadership and engagement from Garland and his senior managers, is eroding the foundations of the U.S. legal system at an alarmingly rapid rate!
I will say that at least he thought about, analyzed, and explained his views in much greater detail than the so-called “subject matter experts” at the BIA.
The answer is to replace the ongoing “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡 with real expert judges, at both the trial and appellate levels, who will consistently get these right in the first (or second) instance. That would “move” dockets (without violating rights), reduce the burdens on the Article IIIs, and promote (rather than actively undermine) consistency. It would also produce a consistent body of judicial scholarship on due process, racial justice, and best judicial practices in immigration, human rights, and fundamental Constitutional law that would help guide and solve systemic problems in the overall Federal legal system.
Why not bring in the talent and creative problem solving to turn a disgraceful, deadly, resource-wasting failure into a model judiciary? It’s a question that Garland has yet to answer!
Under Trump, asylum seekers sent to Mexico were often confused and adrift, unsure how to find legal help or return for their U.S. court appointments. They were visible on the streets of Mexican border cities and were easy targets for criminal gangs.
Marysol Castro, an attorney with El Paso’s Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services who provides legal aid to asylum seekers in MPP, said the program’s return under Biden was a “relief” to some, “because otherwise if you go to the border you’re getting expelled” under Title 42.
Castro said new enrollees in MPP have court dates with fast-tracked hearings, unlike asylum seekers who were placed into the program under Trump and are still stuck in Mexico “with no hope.”
Mexican authorities say they received assurances from the Biden administration that migrants placed in MPP would have improved access to legal counsel. But despite the vastly lower numbers, there is still far more demand for pro bono legal services than nonprofit groups and charities can provide, Castro said.
More than two-thirds of MPP returns under Biden have been sent to Ciudad Juárez, where they are provided secure transportation through a State Department contract with the U.N. International Organization for Migration. The Mexican government houses them in a shelter set up in a converted warehouse in an industrial area of the city.
“The shelters are more restrictive,” said Victor Hugo Lopez, a Mexican official who helps oversee the program. “The migrants can request permits to go outside, but we try to keep them safe by keeping them inside.”
Dana Graber Ladek, the IOM chief of mission in Mexico, said her organization continues to oppose MPP on principle, even as it’s working with both governments to ameliorate conditions for those sent back.
“It still has a tremendous amount of negative impacts,” she said. “It’s not how asylum is supposed to work.”
Representation remains a problem, but also an opportunity, just as Nolan Rappaport said on The Hill! Fortunately, Professor Michele Pistone has been thinking in advance and has built a “scalable” program (VIISTA-Villanova) that already is turning out qualified grads who can become accredited representatives and could quickly be expanded. By coordinating scheduling of hearings with nationwide NGOs and pro bono groups and “leveraging” resources that might be available to get pro bono resources to the border without overtaxing them elsewhere with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” (“ADR”), the representation problem can be solved.
One good sign is that cases of those likely to be granted, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, have been prioritized which can help move dockets forward while reducing resource-wasting appeals and petitions for review. But, there is much more “low hanging fruit” here to be harvested, in my view:
Also prioritize many Haitian cases, domestic violence cases from Latin America, and family-based cases which, if represented and documented, should be relatively straightforward grants;
Replace the BIA with judges who are asylum experts and will issue the necessary positive guidance on granting asylum that will move dockets, promote consistency, and reduce appeals;
Why ignore the “waiting for Godot” cases left over from Trump’s intentionally “built to fail” program? Get them represented and scheduled for hearings;
End the failing and totally misguided “Dedicated Dockets” at EOIR. Instead, treat the MPP as the “Dedicated Docket;”
To keep backlog from further building, use ideas from the “Chen-Markowitz” plan to remove two “hopelessly aged” cases from the EOIR backlog docket for every MPP case “prioritized.” This could also free up some representation time. Go from ADRto “Rational Docket Management” (“RDM”), closely coordinated with the private bar and DHS!
Finally, keep in mind that directly contrary to the babbling of Paxton and other ignorant GOP White Nationalists, the purpose of asylum law is protection, not rejection! And, the generous standard of proof for asylum, recognized by the Supremes 35years ago, combined with existing regulatory presumptions of future persecution based on past persecution should, if honestly and expertly applied, favor asylum applicants (even if that hasn’t been true in practice). The U.S. legal system is supposed to be about guaranteeing due process fundamental fairness, and achieving justice, not to serve as a “deterrent,” “punishment,” or “enforcement tool.”
In the case of MPP, everyone in the program has already passed initial credible fear or reasonable fear screening!That means with well-qualified Immigration Judges possessing asylum expertise, new expert BIA judges, competent representation, and a focus on insuring justice by DHS Counsel, many, probably the majority of the MPP cases should be grants of asylum of other protection.
That will help clean out the camps, while addressing the serious “immigration deficit” that was engineered by Trump and Miller. It also allows refugees to become contributing members of our society, rather than rotting away and squandering their human potential in squalid camps in Mexico!
To date, most MPP cases havebeen denied with questionable due process, little obvious expertise, and a complete lack of positive, practical guidance by the BIA. This strongly suggests severe shortcomings and bias in the DHS/DOJ implementation of Remain in Mexico (“MPP”). But, it’s never too late to do better!
The Post article suggests that there have been some modest improvements in MPP under Biden. It’s time to take those to another level! The ideas and tools are out there. All that’s missing is the dynamic leadership, teamwork, and competent, creative., due-process-focused focused management.
The “Gauleiter”s” policies of “transportation” of legal asylum seekers to danger zones or death has, to a totally unacceptable extent, been adopted by the Biden Administration. America’s cowardly, immoral, illegal, and unethical treatment of these vulnerable individuals will haunt our nation for generations to come! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
Asylum grant rates have often been the focus of public attention and discussion. An implicit assumption is often made that if the immigrants’ asylum applications are denied that they have been unsuccessful in their quest to legally remain in the U.S. However, this may not always be the case. In addition to asylum, there are often other avenues for relief, and other types of decisions where the Immigration Court can determine that an individual should be allowed to legally remain in the U.S. This report breaks new ground in empirically documenting just how often asylum seekers’ quests to legally remain in the U.S. have been successful.
According to case-by-case records of the Immigration Courts, Immigration Judges completed close to one million cases (967,552) on which asylum applications had been filed during the last 21 years (October 2000 – September 2021). Of these, judges granted asylum to 249,413 or one-quarter (26%) of these cases.
However, only about half of asylum seekers were ordered deported. More specifically, just 42 percent received removal orders or their equivalent,[4] and an additional 8 percent received so-called voluntary departure orders. These orders require the asylum seekers to leave the country, but unlike removal orders voluntary departure orders do not penalize individuals further by legally barring them for a period of years from reentry should their circumstances change.
The remaining one-quarter (24%) of asylum seekers were granted other forms or relief or Immigration Judges closed their cases using other grounds which allowed asylum seekers to legally remain in the country.[5] When this proportion is added to asylum grant rates, half of asylum seekers in Immigration Court cases — about twice the individuals granted asylum — have been successful in their quest to legally remain in the United States at least for a period of time. See Figure 5.
Figure 5. Outcome of U.S. Asylum Applications, October 2000 – September 2021
Focusing on just Immigration Court asylum cases, however, does not take into consideration asylum seekers who have asylum granted by Asylum Officers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Those cases end there with the asylum grant. Only unsuccessful cases are forwarded to the Immigration Court for review afresh, and thus included in the Immigration Court’s records. These referrals of asylum denials by USCIS Asylum Officers are classified in the Court’s records as affirmative asylum cases,[6] to distinguish them from those that start with DHS seeking a removal order from the Immigration Court and the asylum claim being raised as a defense against removal.
Thus, a more complete picture of asylum seekers to the U.S. would add in the asylum grants by USCIS on these affirmative cases. Over the period since October 2000, the total number of asylum grants totals just under 600,000 cases – more than double the asylum grants by Immigration Judges alone.[7] Asylum Officers granted asylum in just over 350,000 cases, while Immigration Judges granted asylum in an additional close to 250,000 cases. See Tables 5a and 5b.
Asylum grants thus make up almost half (46%) of the outcomes on the total number of 1.3 million cases closed in which asylum applications were filed. An additional one in five (18%) were granted some other form of relief or otherwise allowed to legally remain in the U.S. Thus, almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum seekers in the 1.3 million cases which were resolved have been successful over the past two decades.
Figure 5 above presents a side-by-side comparison of asylum case outcomes when examining Immigration Court completions alone, and how outcome percentages shift once Asylum Officers’ asylum grants are combined with decisions made by Immigration Judges.
. . . .
Outcome on Asylum Cases
Number
Percent**
IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by IJ
249,413
26%
Other Relief, etc.
236,889
24%
Removal Order
403,252
42%
Voluntary Departure Order
77,998
8%
Total IJ Asylum Completions
967,552
100%
USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ
599,772
46%
Other Relief, etc by IJ
236,889
18%
Removal Order by IJ
403,252
31%
Voluntary Departure Order by IJ
77,998
6%
USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions
1,317,911
100%
. . . .
****************
Read the complete TRAC report, containing all the graphs and charts that I could not adequately reproduce, at the link.
Applying the 50% “granted protection of some type” rate in Immigration Court to the ever expanding backlog of 667,000 asylum cases in Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, that means that there are at least 333,000 asylum seekers who should be “out of Garland’s backlog” and legally living, working, and/or studying in the U.S., probably over 165,000 of whom should be on the way to green cards, citizenship, or already citizens in a functional system!
And, the TRAC-documented success rate has been achieved in a system that has been designed with bias to deter and discourage asylum seekers with mediocre, or even hostile, judges, a BIA that lacks asylum expertise and turns out incorrect restrictionist precedents, and administrative leadership that specializes in ineptitude, toadyism, and mindless “aimless docket reshuffling.”
Better problem-solving-focused judicial leadership at EOIR could come up with innovative ways of screening and getting the many aged, grantable cases of asylum seekers and other migrants (cancellation of removal, SIJS, and “stateside processing” come to mind) out of the Immigration Court backlog and into an alternative setting where relief could granted more efficiently. For the most part, there is no useful purpose to be served by keeping cases more than three years old on the Immigration Court docket.
The Immigration Courts must work largely in “real time” with real judges who can produce consistent, fair results on a predictable timetable. Big parts of that are increasing competent representation, providing better legal guidance on recognizing and promptly granting meritorious cases (that, significantly, would also guide the USCIS Asylum Office), and standing up to efforts by DHS Enforcement to overwhelm judicial resources and use Immigration Courts to “warehouse and babysit” the results of their own mismanagement and misdirection of resources.
There’s no chance that Garland (based on inept and disinterested performance to date, and his near total lack of awareness and urgency) and the crew, largely of Sessions/Barr holdovers, currently comprising his EOIR can pull it off. That’s a monumental problem for migrants and American justice generally!
Without an AG with the guts, determination, expertise, and vision to “clean house” at EOIR and DOJ, or alternatively, a Congress that takes this mess out of the DOJ and creates a real Article I Immigration Court system, backlogs, fundamental unfairness, and incompetence at EOIR will continue to drag down the American legal system.
Worthy of note: The TRAC stats confirm the generally held belief that those asylum seekers held in detention (the “New American Gulag” or “NAG”) are very significantly less likely to be granted relief than those appearing in a non-detained setting. But, what would be helpful, perhaps a task for “practical scholars” somewhere, would be to know “why.”
Is it because the cases simply are not a strong, because of criminal backgrounds or otherwise? Or, is it because of the chronic lack of representation, intentional coercion, and generally less sympathetic judges often present in detention settings? Or, as is likely, is it some combination of all these factors?
Also worthy of note: Three major non-detained courts, with approximately 31,000 pending asylum cases, had success rates significantly below (20% or more) the national average of 50%:
Houston (19%)
Atlanta (29%)
Harlingen (24%)
On the “flip side,” I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to see that the oft-criticized El Paso Immigration Court (non-detained) had a very respectable 48% success rate — a mere 2% off the national average! Interesting!
Also worthy of watching: Although based on a tiny, non-statistically-valid sampling (2% of filed asylum cases), Houston-Greenspoint had a 53% grant rate, compared with “Houston non-detained’s” measly 19%. If this trend continues — and it well might not, given the very small sample — it would certainly be worthy knowing the reasons for this great disparity.
In addition to “giving lie” to the bogus claims, advanced mostly by GOP nativists, but also by some Dems and officials in Dem Administrations, that most asylum seekers don’t have valid claims to remain, the exact opposite appears to be true! Keeping asylum seekers from getting fair and timely dispositions of their cases hurts them at least as much, probably more, than any legitimate Government interest.
Moreover, it strongly suggests that hundreds of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers with bona fide claims for protection have been illegally and immorally returned to danger or death without any semblance of due process under a combination of a bogus Title 42 rationale and an equally bogus “Remain in Mexico” travesty. It should also prompt some meaningful evaluation of the intellectual and moral failings of Administrations or both parties, poorly-qualified Article III judges, and legislators who have encouraged, enforced, or enabled these “crimes against humanity” — and the most vulnerable in humanity to boot!
