"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.
“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Black Mauritanians and other asylum seekers of color find that the scales of justice are systemically weighted against them when on trial for their lives in AG Garland’s “courts!” Public RealmDanae King Faith & Values & Immigration Reporter Columbus Dispatch
“This data further confirms concerns raised about implicit racial and other bias in credibility determinations in US asylum adjudications,” the report states.
The report notes that Black asylum seekers face different treatment in the immigration system than others, including longer than average detention times, trouble finding accurate and adequate interpreters, different treatment in court, lack of access to counsel, purposefully rushed proceedings, biased judges, wrongful denial of asylum and more.
Lynn Tramonte has seen all those scenarios happen in Ohio.
“In immigration court, it’s almost like you’re guilty until proven innocent and they would rather err on the side of deporting a refugee who was tortured than granting asylum to someone who might be lying,” said Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, a group of Ohio immigrants and citizens who work to protect the dignity and rights of all through activism.
Nemecek has also seen judges and government attorneys “team up on (immigrants) and ask all kinds of questions and find them not credible.”
From 2002 to 2022, 713 Mauritanians went before immigration judges in Cleveland, and 443 were denied asylum. Another 28 had another form of relief, such as withholding of removal, and 242 were granted asylum, according to TRAC.
Tramonte wishes judges would do more research on the nations where asylum seekers are coming from.
“They have zero knowledge of documents from other countries or even what it’s like to be tortured,” she said.
A spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) disputed those claims.
. . . .
***********************
Read Danae’s full article at the link!
“Courtside” and others have been raising these issues for a long time! Yet, Garland has neither spoken out nor taken action to “clean up” courts that every expert would say are “broken” and need major changes, including better-qualified judges who have true expertise in asylum and human rights!
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke is totally “MIA” on this serious issue and on the racially-driven travesties in DOJ’s “wholly-owned” court system, in immigration detention centers, and at the Southern Border! Associate AG Vanita Gupta, once a civil rights icon, has “vaporized” on perhaps the biggest, potentially solvable, civil rights/racial justice issue facing America! What’s happening here?
I spent years doing Mauritanian asylum cases on the EOIR Ohio Docket (and, to a lesser extent, in the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court). Most were clear grants of asylum! Few were appealed by ICE! Almost none were reversed by the BIA! I doubt that conditions have improved materially since then.
Unfortunately, mistreatment of Black Mauritanian asylum seekers by EOIR is nothing new. It has a long and disreputable history going back decades.
In the late 1990’s, my now Round Table colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg and I frequently dissented from wrong-headed denials of Mauritanian asylum claims by our BIA colleagues. See, e.g., Matter of M-D-, 23 I&N Dec. 1180, 1185, 1189 (Schmidt, Chairman, Rosenberg, Board Member dissenting), rev’d sub nom, Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000). There, the Circuit, in a decision written by Chief Judge Walker, agreed with many of the points raised by Judge Rosenberg and me in our respective dissents: “[T]he BIA failed to: (1) rule explicitly on the credibility of Diallo’s testimony; (2) explain why it was reasonable in this case to expect additional corroboration; or (3) assess the sufficiency of Diallo’s explanations for the absence of corroborating evidence.”
Judge Rosenberg and I were later “rewarded” by AG John Ashcroft by being “purged” from the BIA, along with a minority of other colleagues who had the temerity to stand up for the legal and human rights of migrants! Folks at EOIR “got the message” that standing up for immigrants’ rights and due process could be “career threatening!”
That, in turn, unleashed a crescendo of sloppy, anti-migrant, dehumanizing decisions emanating from EOIR. Things got so bad so fast that subsequent Bush II AGs Gonzalez and Mukasey were finally forced, under extreme pressure from the Article IIIs, to intervene and put a stop to the most glaring abuses.
But, in fact, the EOIR system never recovered from that debacle. From then on, the BIA has been largely a “captain may I rubber stamp” (credit “Sir Jeffrey” Chase) for DHS Enforcement and each Administration’s political agenda. It’s been a continuous downward spiral, with subsequent AGs either actively encouraging abuses of asylum seekers and other migrants or being “willfully indifferent” to the ongoing legal and human rights disasters on their watches.
It’s interesting how when the “powers that be” ignore abuses, they don’t go away. They just fester and get worse. Garland’s “what me worry” stewardship over EOIR is a classic example.
As for EOIR’s claim that they are providing IJs with “robust” asylum training, in the words of my friend, Kansas City attorney (and former Arlington intern) Andrea Martinez, “I call BS!” The proof is in the results!
My friend and Round Table colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase puts it more elegantly:
In stating that the program is “robust” (i.e. fine as is), who among EOIR’s upper-level leadership is enough of an expert in the topic to make that determination? There are actually recent IJ hires with a great deal of expertise in asylum and CAT, but to my knowledge, they are not the ones creating or presenting the trainings.
EOIR’s asylum and CAT training remains insufficient, and the evidence of this can be found in the deluge of Circuit Court reversals, or even from simply reviewing hearing transcripts. Just compare the USCIS Asylum Officer training program with EOIR’s IJ training materials. A particular problem is the failure to properly train new IJs in the case law of the specific circuit in which they sit. Immigration Judges are largely left to their own devices to learn the law properly.
Another example of superior asylum training available “on the market” is that developed by Professor Michele Pistone (a true asylum expert who has taught and inspired generations of attorneys now serving in and out of government) at VIISTA Villanova. I am sure that EOIR could have arranged with Professor Pistone to create a “world class” asylum training program for both new and experienced IJs. Indeed, she would have been a logical choice for Garland to have recruited for a senior position at EOIR.
The talent to fix EOIR exists on the open market. However, EOIR can’t be fixed with the senior management team Garland has put, or in some cases left, in place.
In the meantime, the stunningly poor quality, blatant racial insensitivity, and inept judicial administration Garland tolerates at EOIR will continue to be a millstone around the neck of American Justice and the Democratic Party. To what depths Garland will drag both remains to be seen.
Garland’s dysfunctional and systemically biased Immigration “Courts” are a millstone around the neck for American Justice and Dems! Creative Commons license
Finally, where are progressive human and civil rights stalwarts like Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ) on this issue? Why haven’t they demanded some accountability from Garland? And, whatever happened to our first African-American Veep Kamala Harris? Does she still exist? What’s more important than racial justice in “life or death courts” wholly controlled by her Dem Administration?
“The DOJ issues a hollow statement condemning FGM. But, when it comes to building on a 27-yr-old precedent to help gender-based refugees, they have been largely indifferent to suffering and the dire need for protection.” PHOTO: Creative Commons 4.0
Dan Kowalski from LexisNexis Immigration Community sent in this recent asylum victory from the Denver Immigration Court:
Hats off to Judge Burgie and Attorney Alexandra Katsiaficas for showing how effective advocacy and good judging can save lives and “move” cases at the “retail level” of EOIR.
This decision is comprehensive, straightforward, understandable, and logical. This is exactly the type of precedent that the BIA should be (but isn’t) issuing and enforcing on a consistent, nationwide basis! Why isn’t EOIR getting the job done under Garland?
While Judge Burgie didn’t cite Matter of A-R-C-G- on asylum based on domestic violence, she did cite a number of my “favorite precedents” from the long-gone but not totally forgotten “Schmidt-Board:” Matter of Kasinga, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, Matter of D-V-, and Matter of S-P-, as well as the BIA’s oft-cited but seldom followed “seminal” asylum case Matter of Acosta, which was the starting point for Kasinga and other favorable asylum precedents of the past.
Judge Burgie also cited and followed favorable 10th Circuit precedent. She got the “unwilling or unable to protect,” “internal relocation,” and “nexus” issues correct. She used the regulatory presumption based on past persecution effectively. Significantly, she also included a correct additional analysis of why this case, and others like it, should be granted based on “egregious past persecution” (“Chen grant”) even in the absence of a current well-founded-fear. Most of these cases should be “easy grants” preferably at the Asylum Office, but if not, at EOIR.
Instead, some IJs and many BIA panels “invent” reasons to deny that mock asylum law and distort the reality of conditions for women in the Northern Traingle and elsewhere!
I recently commented elsewhere on the irony of Garland’s DOJ issuing a “pro forma declaration” endorsing “Zero Tolerance for FGM Day,” while doing such a poor overall job of actually protecting those who have suffered that and other forms of gender based persecution. Action over hollow rhetoric, please!
Seems to me EOIR didn’t do a very good job of “building on the saving potential” of Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), my “landmark” opinion finding that FGM could be a basis for granting asylum. Indeed, after the “Ashcroft purge” removed those of us BIA judges committed to protecting refugees suffering from gender based persecution, the BIA intentionally misconstrued Kasinga and shamefully tried to limit it.
So transparently horrible was this effort that one of Ashcroft’s Bush II successors, AG Mukasey, hardly a voice for progressive jurisprudence and women’s human rights, finally had to intervene to put a stop to the BIA’s deadly nonsense. See Matter of A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008). This was only after after blistering criticism of the “post-purge” BIA’s disingenuous approach by some of Judge Mukasey’s “former Article III superiors” on the Second Circuit.SeeBah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The BIA refers, in passing, to the act of female genital mutilation as “reprehensible,” . . . but its entirely dismissive treatment of such claims in these cases belies any sentiment to that effect.” Straub, Circuit Judge concurring).
Judge Staub’s criticism of the BIA’s shallow and disingenuous treatment of too many asylum claims, particularly those based on gender persecution, remains just as true today under Garland as it was then. “Throwaway lines” — basically “boilerplate” —disingenuously expressing sympathy, but then misconstruing facts and law to deny life-saving protection, are no substitute for competent, fair judging at EOIR!
More than a quarter-century after Kasinga, I still don’t see much commitment at DOJ/EOIR to consistently protecting women from gender-based persecution. That being said, some IJs, particularly (but not only) those with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers, like Judge Burgie, are doing a good job of applying Cardoza, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, D-V-, O-Z-&I-Z-, the regulatory presumption, expert testimony, and an honest reading of country conditions to grant desperately-needed protection in gender-based cases. The BIA, not so much.
Also, while issuing this statement, DOJ is “sitting on” gender based regulations, promised by President Biden on “day 1” to be delivered by the Fall of 2021! Reportedly, there is considerable “Miller Lite” restrictionist opposition within the Administration to treating protection claims for gender-based refugees fairly, generously, and consistently. See, e.g., https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-asylum-limits-us-mexico-border-arrivals/.
Kind of makes me wonder what, if anything, Dems REALLY stand for when the chips are down, human lives are at stake, and courageous, informed, bold leadership is required! GOP White Nationalist nativist bullies are only too happy to express their disdain for the rights and contempt for the humanity of all vulnerable refugees. They specifically target women.
But, when it comes to standing up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, most of them already written into our laws, Dems often “hide underneath the table.” That’s particularly true of this Administration’s incredibly poor and spineless approach to asylum at the Southern Border and their failure to address the asylum disaster at EOIR.
And, it’s not that Biden’s morally and legally vapid approach to asylum seekers has won any support from the right, progressives, or independents. Almost everyone is suing or threatening to sue the Administration about some aspect of their hapless, mushy, often self-contradictory handling of asylum. It’s a traditional, perhaps endemic, problem that once elected, Dems have a hard time distinguishing friends from foes. At least on immigration, they spend far too much time catering to the views and bogus criticisms of the latter while ignoring the informed views and experiences of the former.
Judge Burgie is a Barr appointee, but has a diverse background that includes not only service as an EOIR JLC and fraud and abuse prevention counsel, but also time representing and advocating for refugees and asylum seekers. Her asylum grant rate has gone up steadily over three years on the bench and currently stands at approximately 75%, well within the range I’d expect from a competent, expertIJ handling a non-detained docket.
That’s about 2X the national average grant rate of 37.5%. And, the latter is “up” from its artificially suppressed rate under Trump! Better EOIR judges at the “grass roots level” can make a difference and save lives even in the absence of leadership from Falls Church and “Main Justice!”
As this case confirms, there is “substantial judicial potential” on the the EOIR bench, most of it at the trial level. That’s particularly true of some of Garland’s most recent appointments who are widely-recognized and universally-respected asylum experts — “practical scholars” if you will.
But, EOIR still has not reached the “critical mass” of outstanding jurists necessary to “turn this broken system around” in the absence of leadership, positive examples, and operational reforms “from the top!”
That’s why I advocate for “change from below as the way to go” to save some lives and institutionalize fair judging and best practices at EOIR. So, NDPA heroes, keep those applications flowing forupcoming vacancies on the Immigration Bench, at all levels. I want YOU to bring justice to the broken “retail level” of our legal system! See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/12/-i-want-you-to-be-a-u-s-immigration-judge/.
“Little Shop of Horrors:” Another human life devoured by the “due process eating plant” hidden away in the bowels of the BIA! PHOTO: Little Shop of Horrors at Grafton High School 14.jpg, Creative Commons License
Faiza Sayed Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the Safe Harbor Project Brooklyn Law School PHOTO: Brooklyn Law Website
ABSTRACT—Each year, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)—the Justice Department’s appellate immigration agency that reviews decisions of immigration judges and decides the fate of thousands of noncitizens—issues about thirty published, precedential decisions. At present, these are the only decisions out of approximately 30,000 each year, that are readily available to the public and provide detailed reasoning for their conclusions. This is because most of the BIA’s decision-making happens on what this Article terms the “immigration shadow docket”—the tens of thousands of other decisions the BIA issues each year that are unpublished and nonprecedential. These shadow docket decisions are generally authored by a single BIA member and consist overwhelmingly of brief orders and summary affirmances. This Article demonstrates the harms of shadow docket decision- making, including the creation of “secret law” that is accessible to the government but largely inaccessible to the public. Moreover, this shadow docket produces inconsistent outcomes where one noncitizen’s removal order is affirmed while another noncitizen’s removal order is reversed—even though the deciding legal issues were identical. A 2022 settlement provides the public greater access to some unpublished BIA decisions, but it ultimately falls far short of remedying the transparency and accessibility concerns raised by the immigration shadow docket.
The BIA’s use of nonprecedential, unpublished decisions to dispose of virtually all cases also presents serious concerns for the development of immigration law. Because the BIA is the final arbiter of most immigration cases, it has a responsibility to provide guidance as to the meaning of our complicated immigration laws and to ensure uniformity in the application of immigration law across the nation. By publishing only 0.001% of its decisions each year, the BIA has all but abandoned that duty. This dereliction likely contributes to well-documented disparities in the application of immigration law by immigration adjudicators and the inefficiency of the immigration system that leaves noncitizens in protracted states of limbo and prolonged detention. This Article advances principles for reforms to increase transparency and fairness at the BIA, improve the quality, accuracy and
893
N O RT H WE S T E RN U N I V E RS I T Y L A W RE V I E W
political accountability of its decisions, and ensure justice for the nearly two million noncitizens currently in our immigration court system.
AUTHOR—Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. I am thankful to Matthew Boaz, Richard Boswell, Jason Cade, Stacy Caplow, Pooja Dadhania, Elizabeth Isaacs, Kit Johnson, Anil Kalhan, Elizabeth Keyes, Catherine Kim, Shirley Lin, Medha Makhlouf, Hiroshi Motomura, Prianka Nair, Vijay Raghavan, Philip Schrag, Andrew Schoenholtz, Sarah Sherman- Stokes, Maria Termini, Irene Ten-Cate, and S. Lisa Washington for thoughtful conversations and comments on drafts. This Article benefitted from feedback at the New Voices in Immigration Law Panel at the 2022 AALS Annual Meeting, the 2021 Clinical Law Review Writers’ Workshop at NYU, and the junior faculty workshop at Brooklyn Law School. I am grateful to Benjamin Winograd and Bryan Johnson for helpful conversations about the Board, unpublished decisions, and FOIA, and to David A. Schnitzer and Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran for discussions about the Andrews and Uddin cases. Thank you to Emily Ingraham for outstanding research assistance and to the editors of the Northwestern University Law Review for excellent editorial assistance. Financial support for this Article was provided by the Brooklyn Law School Dean’s Summer Research Stipend Program.
**********************
Professor Sayed has written an “instant classic” that should be a staple for future historians assessing the legal career and impact of Merrick Garland and how the Democratic Party has failed humanity time again on immigrant justice when the stakes were high and the solutions achievable!
Here’s my “favorite” part:
In 1999, Attorney General Janet Reno attempted to deal with the BIA’s rapidly increasing backlog of appeals by implementing “streamlining rules” that made several changes to the way the Board operated.41 Most importantly, certain single permanent Board members were now permitted to affirm an IJ’s decision on their own and without issuing an opinion.42 The Chairman of the BIA was authorized both to designate certain Board members with the authority to grant such affirmances and to designate certain categories of cases as appropriate for such affirmances.43 Finally, Attorney General Reno increased the size of the Board to twenty-three members.44 Evaluations of the reforms found that they “appear to have been successful in reducing much of the BIA’s backlog” and “there was no indication of ‘an adverse effect on non-citizens.’”45
Despite the documented success of Attorney General Reno’s reforms, in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced controversial plans to further streamline the BIA’s decision-making.46 These rules “fundamentally changed the nature of the BIA’s review function and radically changed the composition of the Board.”47 To support the reforms, Ashcroft cited not only the backlog but also “heightened national security concerns stemming from September 11.”48 The reforms included making single-member decisions the norm for the overwhelming majority of cases and three-member panel decisions rare, making summary affirmances common, and reducing the size of the Board from twenty-three members to eleven.49 A subsequent study found that Attorney General Ashcroft removed those Board members with the highest percentages of rulings in favor of noncitizens.50 As a result of the reforms, outcomes at the BIA became significantly less favorable to noncitizens,51 and the federal circuit courts received an unprecedented surge of immigration appeals.52
In the wake of harsh criticism of immigration adjudications by federal circuit courts, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the DOJ to conduct a comprehensive review of the immigration courts and the Board in 2006. Based on this review, Attorney General Gonzalez announced additional reforms “to improve the performance and quality of work” of IJs and Board members.53 The most significant change was the introduction of performance evaluations, which include an assessment of whether the Board member adjudicates appeals within a certain time frame after assignment.54 Scholars have explained that “the performance evaluations give an incentive to affirm rather than reverse IJs by emphasizing productivity, and because immigrants file the overwhelming number of appeals with the BIA . . . the incentive to affirm means outcomes that favor the government.”55
The Trump Administration once again transformed Board membership. Board members whose appointments predated the Trump Administration were reassigned after refusing buyout offers,56 and the Administration expanded the Board to add new members.57 Most of the new Board members appointed under the Trump Administration had previously served as IJs,
where they had some of the highest asylum denial rates in the country.58
Garland has failed to replace the asylum denying judges who were “packed” onto the BIA during the Trump era with qualified real judges who are experts in asylum law, unswervingly committed to due process, and able to set proper precedents and enforce best judicial practices. That’s a key reason for the “prima facie arbitrary and capricious inconsistencies’ in EOIR asylum grant rates — 0% to 100% — a rather large range!
The latter read like a compendium of legally and factually questionable “how to deny asylum and get away with it” instructions. Absent is any hint of the properly fair and generous treatment of asylum seekers required by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and once echoed in BIA precedents like Mogharrabi, Kasinga, Chen, Toboso-Alfonso, A-R-C-G-, and O-Z- & I-Z- .
Some well-reasoned grants that could be widely applied to recurring situations are also buried on the “shadow docket.” At the same time, as cogently described by Professor Sayed, cases with almost identical facts that resulted in denial are also hidden there. This system is simply NOT functioning in a fair, reasonable, and legally sound manner. Not even close! Yet, Garland has not brought in competent expert judicial administrators and managers at EOIR who recognize the problems and would make solving them, rather than aggravating them, “priority one!” Why?
Contrast that with the enlightened movement among American Law Schools to promote immigration “practical scholars” and clinicians to administrative positions in recognition of their inspirational leadership and superior “real life” problem-solving skills! It’s as if Garland and the rest of Biden’s inept immigration bureaucracy operate in a “parallel universe” where immigration, human rights, and racial justice don’t exist!
Not surprisingly, some of the BIA’s best and most useful guidance on asylum came before the “Ashcroft purge.” But, they still remain “good law” that Immigration Judges can use, despite the “any reason to deny” culture reflected by today’s “Trump holdover” BIA. Curiously, this negative asylum “culture” is tolerated and enabled by Garland, even though it directly contradicts promises made by Biden and other Dem politicos during the 2020 campaign! Why?
The Obama Administration also did not act to undo the damaging changes made during the Bush Administration. Thus, the ambivalent attitude of Dem Administrations toward justice for immigrants and building a fair, functional BIA has much to do with the current dysfunctional, unfair, and horribly administered mess at EOIR!
I was one of those BIA judges removed during the “Ashcroft purge,” essentially for “doing my job,” ruling fairly, and upholding the rule of law.Notably, many of the views of the “purged” judges were eventually reflected in Court of Appeals, and even a Supreme Court, reversals of the BIA.
Once “exiled” to the Arlington Immigration Court, except where bound by contrary BIA precedent, I ruled the same way that I had in many of the cases coming before me at the BIA. Guess what? I was seldom reversed by my former colleagues! I used to quip that “I finally got the ‘deference’ that I never got as Chair or a BIA judge.”
ICE appealed relatively few asylum and/or withholding grants; surprisingly often, their “closing summary” actually echoed what likely would have been in my final oral opinion, had it been been necessary to issue one. A number of BIA reversals by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during my Arlington tenure made points that I, and/or my ”purged colleagues,” had raised in vain during my time on the BIA. A few even involved poorly-reasoned attempts by the BIA to reverse some of my decisions granting relief!
And, oh yes, there were the gross inconsistencies in unpublished “panel” decisions. Once, an Arlington colleague and I came down with opposite conclusions on whether a particular Virginia crime, on which there was then no BIA precedent, involved “moral turpitude.” Within a week of each other, we both received an answer from different BIA panels. We BOTH were reversed! As we joked at lunch, the only consistent rationale from the BIA was that “the IJ was wrong!”
The current BIA is a continuing blot on American justice, The same information and resources available to Professor Sayed in writing this article were available to Garland. How come she “gets” it and he (and his lieutenants) don’t? Why didn’t Garland hire Professor Sayed and a team of other experts like her to straighten out and rejuvenate EOIR?
And, let’s not forget that the increased public access to the “shadow docket,” even if still inadequate, is NOT the result of EOIR wanting to provide more transparency or any enlightened reforms stemming from Garland. No, it required aggressive litigation by the New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”) against EOIR to force even these improvements!
Does the public REALLY have to sue to get basic services and information that a properly functioning USG agency should already be providing? Merrick Garland seems to think so! How is this the “good government,” promised but not delivered by Biden in the critical areas of immigration, human rights, and racial justice?
Vulnerable asylum seekers and others whose lives depend on a just, professional, expert EOIR deserve better! Much, much better! The inexplicable and disastrous failure and refusal of Garland and the Biden Administration to deliver on the promise of due process and equal justice at EOIR will likely haunt the Democratic Party and our nation well into the future. As my friend Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow would say, “It didn’t have to be this way!”
One of the biblical injunctions sometimes cited by Michael Gerson, who died Thursday at the age of 58 after a long battle with cancer, comes from the New Testament book of Colossians: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”
That advice works not only for Christian believers such as he was, but also in the sometimes brutal political world in which he made his mark. He was a presidential speechwriter whose own words were, indeed, singularly seasoned and notably full of grace. For the past 15 years, he enriched the pages of this newspaper as a columnist for the Opinions section.
But civility, as Mike also noted, does not preclude tough-mindedness. Nor should it be mistaken for a lack of principles or perspective. His own were rooted in the faith that fueled and defined his involvement with politics, and he was scorching in his assessment of his fellow evangelicals when theirs took what he saw as a more cynical turn. In a September essay, he wrote these supposedly conservative Christians “have broadly chosen the company of Trump supporters who deny any role for character in politics and define any useful villainy as virtue. In the place of integrity, the Trump movement has elevated a warped kind of authenticity — the authenticity of unfiltered abuse, imperious ignorance, untamed egotism and reflexive bigotry.”
“This,” Mike wrote, “is inconsistent with Christianity by any orthodox measure.”
Mike and I were colleagues and friends whose paths crossed pretty regularly. One place we spent time together was at semiannual conferences in Florida known as the Faith Angle Forum, where people gather to discuss religion and politics.
It was during one of those meetings in 2014 that, for the first and only time, I saw Mike get angry — really angry.
Follow Karen Tumulty’s opinions
Follow
Add
I was seated next to him for a session on religious conflict and the future of the Middle East, in which one of the speakers was Elliott Abrams, a fellow George W. Bush White House veteran who had served as deputy national security adviser for Middle East policy.
“It used to annoy me enormously when President Bush, for whom I was working, would say Islam is a religion of peace,” Abrams said, “because the real response to that is ‘Where is your theology degree from?’ ”
As Abrams continued along those lines — at one point claiming the “average American” was justified in thinking “this is crap … because all these people who are doing beheadings are Muslims” — I could feel Mike grow tense in the chair next to me. He waited his turn to be called upon, and then he confronted his former colleague.
“We praise Islam, and every president from now on will praise Islam on religious holidays because there are millions of peaceful citizens who hold this view,” Mike said. “It’s also a theologically sophisticated view, as opposed to what you’re arguing … every tradition, religious tradition, has forces of tribalism and violence in its history, background, of theology, and every religious tradition has resources of respect for the other.”
He added: “That is a great American tradition that we’ve done with every religious tradition that comes to the United States, included them as part of a national enterprise and praised them for their strongly held religious views and emphasized those portions that are most compatible with those ideals.”
As deep as his own Christian religious beliefs were, Mike was tolerant, accepting, even admiring of those who prayed differently. And while he was by and large a social conservative, Mike knew that not every question involving faith and truth could be resolved along the bright battle lines of the culture wars, or literally be set in scripture.
He celebrated gay pride month and argued that our scientific understanding of the genetic basis of sexual orientation has come a long way since the Apostle Paul’s time. But he also believed that religious institutions, including schools and charities, should have leeway to shape their own standards.
And Mike was open about the times in his life when he had his own doubts about what God had in mind for him. In 2019, he spoke frankly and publicly about being hospitalized for depression, delivering a powerful sermon at the National Cathedral and then a column for The Post.
A few days earlier, Mike and I had lunch. The speechwriter who had written so many words for others told me he was nervous about baring himself so publicly, and he asked if I would read a draft. He also confided that he had been living in a shadow where, at times, he wondered whether those who meant the most to him would be better off — unburdened — if he weren’t around.
In his sermon, he put it this way: “I suspect that there are people here today — and I include myself — who are stalked by sadness, or stalked by cancer, or stalked by anger. We are afraid of the mortality that is knit into our bones. We experience unearned suffering, or give unreturned love, or cry useless tears. And many of us eventually grow weary of ourselves — tired of our own sour company.”
Mike combined his lived faith with his gift for expression to offer a hand to others — showing that they are not alone in the dark. “Even when strength fails, there is perseverance,” he said in his sermon. “And even when perseverance fails, there is hope. And even when hope fails, there is love. And love never fails.”
Now, his unearned suffering has ended, and those he touched, including many who never met him in person, will so deeply miss Michael Gerson’s company. His grace was a blessing, and we need it more than ever.
*********************
Go the above link for pictures and a selective compendium of Mike’s writings.
Mike was a voice for what modern American conservatism could and should have been: “a conservatism of the common good that argues that we need to orient our policies towards people that might not even vote for us.”
I enjoyed reading Mike’s thoughtful, well-expressed, views in the WashPost, even when I disagreed with him. In particular, I agreed with his call-out of “false Christians:” Evangelicals who aligned themselves with the most un-Christian President in history and his vile “secular theology” of hate, lies, racism, selfishness, cruelty, and degradation of humanity.
“Make the record” to fight the ignorant nonsense and grotesque misconstruction of the asylum law and country conditions by the Third Circuit & far, far too many Federal Judges & Bureaucrats with this authoritative report authored by Natalie Gonnella-Platts, Jenny Villatoro, and Laura Collins of the George W. Bush Institute:
No Justice: Gender-based Violence and Migration in Central America
Gender-based violence affects one in three women worldwide, making it an urgent and important policy challenge. Violence against women and girls is often excluded from conversations on the nexus of Central American migration, regional development, and domestic immigration reform.
Key Excerpts:
. . . .
Though there has been increasing focus from US and international influencers on the levels of violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (known as the Northern Triangle) and its impact on migration, an adequate response to the gendered differences in the ways violence is perpetrated remains limited and at times nonexistent.
This needs to change, especially since gender-based violence within the Northern Triangle constitutes a daily threat to women and girls—one that has been significantly worsened by corruption, weak institutions, and a culture of impunity toward perpetrators. At individual and community levels, gender-based violence drives women and girls to be displaced internally, migrate to the United States, or a somber third path—death either by femicide or suicide. At national levels, it seriously inhibits security, opportunity, and development.
As circumstances at the southern border of the United States demonstrate, gender-based violence has a direct influence on migration flows across the region and is deeply tangled with cyclical challenges of inequity and poverty. For those who choose to seek assistance or flee their communities, high rates of revictimization and bias further obstruct access to justice and safety.
Until policies and programs respond to the serious violations of agency and human rights perpetuated against women and girls (and within systems and society at large), instability in and migration from the Northern Triangle only stand to grow.
As the United States and the international community consider a comprehensive plan on Central America and immigration reform, proposed strategies must anchor the status and safety of women and girls at the center of solutions.
. . . .
In Guatemala, teenage girls face a substantial risk of being “disappeared,” with 8 out of every 10,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 17 reported missing each year.7
. . . .
Guatemala: In Guatemala, about 8 of every 1,000 women and girls were the victim of violence in 2020. Thirty women were murdered on average each month last year, or almost one per day, the lowest rate in the last 10 years. Reported rape cases averaged 14 per day.17 One of the most extreme and recognizable forms of gender-based violence is sex slavery. According to a report by the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and UNICEF: “A combination of gangs, crime families, and drug trafficking organizations run sex trafficking rings in Guatemala that may involve some 48,500 victims.”18
Women in Indigenous and rural communities may have it even worse. For example, Indigenous women in Guatemala face multiple layers of discrimination, including a history of repression and genocide.
During the genocidal Guatemalan civil war that lasted from 1960 to 1996, state sanctioned mass rape during massacres was used to repress the Indigenous populations—with offenses committed publicly and bodies often left on display with the intent to instill terror in the Mayan communities.19 Truth commissions state that more than 100,000 Indigenous women were raped and forced into sex slavery.20
State-sanctioned and state-accepted gendered violence may have contributed to a culture that tolerates violence against women. Guatemalans were the most accepting of gender-based violence in a 2014 survey of Latin American countries by Vanderbilt University, while El Salvador came in second.21
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the risk of violence to women and girls in the Northern Triangle, as it has in every region
of the world. Exploited by gangs and others, lock-downs have forced those most at risk for violence to shelter in proximity to their abusers. All three countries within the region have reported sizable increases in intrafamily violence since the start of the pandemic. El Salvador has also seen a notable increase in intrafamily femicide.
. . . .
Coupled with the trauma already experienced by survivors, each of these factors contributes to a lack of trust in institutions, high levels of impunity for perpetrators, and a vicious cycle of repeat violence against women and girls.
Faced with this dire reality, women and girls often have three choices: (1) report and face disbelief, (2) stay and risk additional violence, or (3) flee.
. . . .
Women and girls undertake this risky journey with no guarantee of legal protection in the United States. But they come because the horrors they face at home are so much worse.
It’s important to remember that seeking asylum
is often the only legal means that migrants who qualify have of entering the United States. Although requesting asylum is legal, the path to asylum is not
safe. An understanding of legal rights and access to services—including health, trauma, and legal support—also remain out of reach for many female migrants, furthering cycles of exploitation.
Current US refugee and asylum law does not recognize gender-based violence as its own category warranting protection. According to the American Bar Association, US protections for victims of gender-based violence are built upon 20 years of advocacy and sometimes favorable legal opinions.54 These protections are tenuous, with any presidential administration able to roll back the decisions made under its predecessor. Attorney General Merrick Garland recently reinstated prior precedent for gen- der-based violence asylum requests and announced that the Department of Justice would pursue a formal rule.55 But even this could be reversed in the future.
Until legislation enshrines gender-based violence as a condition warranting humanitarian protection, the United States will continue to turn away women and girls who merit refuge.
. . . .
The Northern Triangle, Mexico, and the United States are at a crossroads. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras can either take advantage of a young population of prime working age by promoting pol- icies that create a safe, stable environment where women and girls can fully participate, or they can continue on a path that is leading to substantial lev- els of gender-based violence, instability, migration, and economic stagnation.
As research continuously demonstrates, when empowered, active, and engaged, women and girls are a critical catalyst for security and prosperity. Countries with higher levels of gender equity are more peaceful and stable overall.66 Gender equality can provide better outcomes for children, increased labor productivity, lower poverty rates, and reduced levels of violence.67
In seeking to secure a brighter future across the Western Hemisphere, immigration and develop- ment policies must include solutions to address gender inequity and gender-based violence. As current circumstances at the southern border of the United States demonstrate, stability and prosperity are not possible without them.
*****************
Debi Sanders ESQ “Warrior Queen” of the NDPA PHOTO: law.uva.edu
Many thanks to my good friend and “founding mother of the NDPA,” Deb Sanders for bringing this to my attention.
The Bush Institute has done some great “practical scholarship” on gender-based asylum, exposing many of the lies and misinformation upon which Government policies have been based, particularly GOP nativist policies and the overtly misogynistic attack on migrant women of color by the Trump regime.
And let’s not forget that Ms. Chavez-Chilil is actually one of the lucky ones! She got a chance to make her claim and was awarded life-saving protection by an Immigration Judge under the CAT, albeit protection that leaves her unnecessarily and perpetually “in limbo” — ineligible to fully join our society and maximize her own human potential for everyone’s benefit.
By contrast, thousands of women and girls (also men and boys) are insanely, illegally, and immorally “orbited” back to danger zones without any opportunity to even make a claim and without any legitimate process whatsoever, let alone due process!
Why this is important:
Compelling documentation and cogent arguments will win individual cases and save lives;
We can build case law precedent for gender-based asylum grants;
We must make a clear historical record of which jurists and bureaucrats stood up for the rule of law and the humanity of refugee women and which of them purposely have aligned themselves with the “dark side of history.” See, e.g., Chief Justice Roger Taney.
Why is the Biden Administration mindlessly and immorally attempting to “deter” legal asylum seekers from seeking to save their own lives? What’s the excuse for treating a moral and legal requirement under domestic and international law as a “bogus political strategy option” rather than the legal obligation it is? Why was the DOJ “pushing” a legally wrong, corrupt, factually wrong position before the Third Circuit? Where’s the expertise? The backbone? The moral courage? The accountability?
Torture? What torture? It’s merely “enhanced fact-finding!”
Public realm“They all want to voluntarily waive further hearings and take final orders!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The phrase appears in multiple 9/11 volumes, usually uttered by top officials adamant that they were going to get things done, laws and rules be damned. Anti-terrorism efforts were always “lawyered to death” during the Clinton administration, Tenet complains in “Bush at War,” Bob Woodward’s 2002 book on the debates among the president and his national security team. In an interview with Woodward, Bush drops the phrase amid the machospeak — “dead or alive,” “bring ’em on” and the like — that became typical of his anti-terrorism rhetoric. “I had to show the American people the resolve of a commander in chief that was going to do whatever it took to win,” Bush explains. “No yielding. No equivocation. No, you know, lawyering this thing to death.” In “Against All Enemies,” Clarke recalls the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush snapped at an official who suggested that international law looked askance at military force as a tool of revenge. “I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass,” the president retorted.
The message was unmistakable: The law is an obstacle to effective counterterrorism. Worrying about procedural niceties is passe in a 9/11 world, an annoying impediment to the essential work of ass-kicking.
Except, they did lawyer this thing to death. Instead of disregarding the law, the Bush administration enlisted it. “Beginning almost immediately after September 11, 2001, [Vice President Dick] Cheney saw to it that some of the sharpest and best-trained lawyers in the country, working in secret in the White House and the United States Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the government’s power in waging war on terror,” Jane Mayer writes in “The Dark Side,” her relentless 2008 compilation of the arguments and machinations of government lawyers after the attacks. Through public declarations and secret memos, the administration sought to remove limits on the president’s conduct of warfare and to deny terrorism suspects the protections of the Geneva Conventions by redefining them as unlawful enemy combatants. Nothing, Mayer argues of the latter effort, “more directly cleared the way for torture than this.”
To comprehend what our government can justify in the name of national security, consider the torture memos themselves, authored by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 to green-light CIA interrogation methods for terrorism suspects. Tactics such as cramped confinement, sleep deprivation and waterboarding were rebranded as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” legally and linguistically contorted to avoid the label of torture. Though the techniques could be cruel and inhuman, the OLC acknowledged in an August 2002 memo, they would constitute torture only if they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or death, and if the individual inflicting such pain really really meant to do so: “Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent.” It’s quite the sleight of hand, with torture moving from the body of the interrogated to the mind of the interrogator.
After devoting dozens of pages to the metaphysics of specific intent, the true meaning of “prolonged” mental harm or “imminent” death, and the elasticity of the Convention Against Torture, the memo concludes that none of it actually matters. Even if a particular interrogation method would cross some legal line, the relevant statute would be considered unconstitutional because it “impermissibly encroached” on the commander in chief’s authority to conduct warfare. Almost nowhere in these memos does the Justice Department curtail the power of the CIA to do as it pleases.
In fact, the OLC lawyers rely on assurances from the CIA itself to endorse such powers. In a second memo from August 2002, the lawyers ruminate on the use of cramped confinement boxes. “We have no information from the medical experts you have consulted that the limited duration for which the individual is kept in the boxes causes any substantial physical pain,” the memo states. Waterboarding likewise gets a pass. “You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm,” the memo states. “Based on your research . . . you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard.”
You have informed us. Experts you have consulted. Based on your research. You do not anticipate. Such hand-washing words appear throughout the memos. The Justice Department relies on information provided by the CIA to reach its conclusions; the CIA then has the cover of the Justice Department to proceed with its interrogations. It’s a perfect circle of trust.
Yet the logic is itself tortured. In a May 2005 memo, the lawyers conclude that because no single technique inflicts “severe” pain amounting to torture, their combined use “would not be expected” to reach that level, either. As though embarrassed at such illogic, the memo attaches a triple-negative footnote: “We are not suggesting that combinations or repetitions of acts that do not individually cause severe physical pain could not result in severe physical pain.” Well, then, what exactly are you suggesting? Even when the OLC in 2004 officially withdrew its August 2002 memo following a public outcry and declared torture “abhorrent,” the lawyers added a footnote to the new memo assuring that they had reviewed the prior opinions on the treatment of detainees and “do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.”
In these documents, lawyers enable lawlessness. Another May 2005 memo concludes that, because the Convention Against Torture applies only to actions occurring under U.S. jurisdiction, the CIA’s creation of detention sites in other countries renders the convention “inapplicable.” Similarly, because the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is meant to protect people convicted of crimes, it should not apply to terrorism detainees — because they have not been officially convicted of anything. The lack of due process conveniently eliminates constitutional protections. In his introduction to “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable,” David Cole describes the documents as “bad-faith lawyering,” which might be generous. It is another kind of lawyering to death, one in which the rule of law that the 9/11 Commission urged us to abide by becomes the victim.
Years later, the Senate Intelligence Committee would investigate the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation program. Its massive report — the executive summary of which appeared as a 549-page book in 2014 — found that torture did not produce useful intelligence, that the interrogations were more brutal than the CIA let on, that the Justice Department did not independently verify the CIA’s information, and that the spy agency impeded oversight by Congress and the CIA inspector general. It explains that the CIA purported to oversee itself and, no surprise, that it deemed its interrogations effective and necessary, no matter the results. (If a detainee provided information, it meant the program worked; if he did not, it meant stricter applications of the techniques were needed; if still no information was forthcoming, the program had succeeded in proving he had none to give.)
“The CIA’s effectiveness representations were almost entirely inaccurate,” the Senate report concluded. It is one of the few lies of the war on terror unmasked by an official government investigation and public report, but just one of the many documented in the 9/11 literature.
. . . ,.
****************************
Sound painfully familiar? It should, to those of us “DOJ vets” who lived through this period. The use of the “third person,” “double and triple negatives,” “weasel words” like “you have given us to understand that,” “decision by committee” where a memo is routed through so many layers of bureaucracy that the original author or authors don’t even appear on its face — are all “devices” to diffuse and obscure responsibility and avoid clear accountability for controversial(and too often wrong) decisions!
During our time at the BIA, my fellow U.W. Badger, Judge Mike Heilman and I were often at odds on the law, particularly when it came to asylum. Anybody who doubts this should read Mike’s remarkable and famous (or infamous) “rabbi dissent” in Matter of H-, 21 I&N Dec. 337, 349 (BIA 1996) (Heilman, Board Member, dissenting). Nevertheless, one thing we agreed upon was requiring any decisions written for us to use the first person to reflect whose decision it actually was!
“Lawyers enable lawlessness.” How true! In 2002, DOJ lawyers (hand-chosen by the politicos) “tanked” and enabled, even encouraged, gross law violations by the CIA.
Fast forward to 2018. Then, White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions exhorted his wholly-owned “judges” at EOIR not to treat DHS enforcement as a party before the court, but rather as a worthy “partner” in combatting the largely-fabricated “scourge” of illegal immigration (that actually, as we can now see, was propping up Trump’s economy). Is it surprising that precedent decisions by Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr favored DHS nearly 100% of the time and the BIA thereafter issued almost no precedents where the individual prevailed (not that there were many of those following “the Ashcroft purge,” even before Sessions)?
Asylum grant rates in Immigration Court tumbled precipitously, while both the trial, and particularly appellate, levels at EOIR were “packed” with judges whose main qualification appeared to be an expectation that they would churn out large numbers of removal orders without much analysis or consideration of the factors favoring the individual. Misogyny and anti-asylum, anti-private-lawyer attitudes (those “dirty lawyers”) were encouraged by Sessions as part the “culture” at EOIR, sometimes visibly rewarded by “elevation” to the BIA.
Interestingly, at the same time in 2002 that the group of DOJ attorneys was furiously working in secret to justify torture, in clear violation of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), another group in the DOJ, the BIA, was struggling to make the CAT work in “real world” litigated cases. A number of us dissented from the majority of our BIA colleagues’ wrong-headed and rather transparent attempt to “neuter” CAT protection from the outset. Unlike the “secret lawyers” at the DOJ, our work was public and had consequences not only for the humans involved, but for those of us who had the audacity to stand up for their rights under domestic and international law!
Here’s an excerpt from my long-forgotten dissenting opinion in Matter of J-E-, 22 I&N Dec. 291, 314-15 (BIA 2002) (Schmidt, Board Member, dissenting):
The majority concludes that the extreme mistreatment likely to befall this respondent in Haiti is not “torture,” but merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The majority further concludes that conduct defined as “torture” occurs in the Haitian detention system, but is not “likely” for this respondent. In short, the majority goes to great lengths to avoid applying the Convention Against Torture to this respondent.
We are in the early stages of the very difficult and thankless task of construing the Convention. Only time will tell whether the majority’s narrow reading of the torture definition and its highly technical approach to the standard of proof will be the long-term benchmarks for our country’s implementation of this international treaty.
Although I am certainly bound to follow and apply the majority’s constructions in all future cases, I do not believe that the majority adequately carries out the language or the purposes of the Convention and the implementing regulations. Therefore, I fear that we are failing to comply with our international obligations.
I conclude that the respondent is more likely than not to face officially sanctioned torture if returned to Haiti. Therefore, I would grant his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and the implementing regulations. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.
Within a year of that decision, my dissenting colleagues and I were among those “purged” from the BIA by Ashcroft because of our views. I’d argue that EOIR has continued to go straight downhill since then, and is now in total free fall! Surely, any “facade” of quasi-judicial independence at the BIA has long-since crumbled. Yet, AG Garland pretends there is no problem. Garland’s apparent belief that this is still Judge Bell’s or Ben Civiletti’s or even Ed Levi’s DOJ is simply, demonstrably, wrong.
Today’s DOJ has been part and parcel of a highly inappropriate “weaponization” of the law and “Dred Scottification” directed against individual civil rights, migrants, voters, women, people of color, and a host of “others” who were on the far right “hit list” of the Trump kakistocracy. Nowhere has that been more evident than at the dysfunctional and institutionally biased EOIR. The problems plaguing American justice today have increased since 9-11. They will continue to fester and grow unless and until Garland faces reality and makes progressive leadership and judicial changes at EOIR to addresses the toxic culture of complicity and abusive use of the law to degrade individual and human rights. And, some real accountability at the rest of the badly-damaged DOJ should not be far behind.
Here’s the ugly truth about what two Administrations and some really bad Federal Judges have done to our vulnerable fellow humans seeking legal refuge at our borders:
I refer to this as the “harsh reality that the nativist Ted Cruz ‘let ‘em enjoy the beaches in Cancun’ crowd doesn’t get!”
And, here’s the truth about migrants helping our nation thrive and who are a key component of our hopes for the future. Progressives and their allies must double down and act upon these truths to combat the type of ridiculous, dangerous, anti- American nativist lies and myths that were driving some of the misinformed callers, also pushed by the “insurrectionist wing” of the GOP:
Significantly, this article came from the George W. Bush Institute, hardly a “left wing think tank.”
“Geoffrey’s 40 minutes” shows that there is, indeed, an imminent threat to American democracy, leadership, and future prosperity out there. But, it definitely does not come from migrants! A nation where about 98% of the population came from immigrant lineage can’t afford to turn our backs on today’s immigrants.
“Hey Judge Garland! Why not put some REAL judges who can ‘play this game’ into your lineup? What’s with the ‘minor league roster’ left over from the guys who couldn’t shoot straight?” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
Here’s the full decision in Brathwaite v. Garland:
Petitioner Aldwin Junior Brathwaite petitions for review of an order of removability, entered by the Honorable Joy A. Merriman, U.S. Immigration Judge (“IJ”), on June 11, 2019, and approved by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on December 11, 2019. Because the BIA’s decision is premised on an unreasonable construction of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PANEL: CALABRESI, RAGGI, AND CHIN, Circuit Judges.
OPINON BY: Judge Calabresi
******************************
Man, even with all the ridiculous “built in tilt” favoring Executive interpretations in Chevron, the BIA still blew it! Normally, in their attempt not to burden their comfortable lives with difficult questions of law, the Article III’s will find that any minimally rational interpretation of an ambiguous provision is “good enough for Government work” under Chevron. But, the BIA couldn’t even clear that “low hurdle!” Simply amazing!
Particularly so when you think that one of the (bogus) justifications often given for “Chevrontask avoidance” by the Article IIIs is the “superior expertise” of the Executive adjudicators, clearly a mirage in the case of the BIA and EOIR! At least over the past four years, the primary “expertise” for being selected for an EOIR judgeship has been past government experience, preferably in prosecution, a willingness to check the “deny box,” and ability to crank out the required minimum number of final orders of removal without thinking too much, rocking the boat, or, heaven forbid, actually vindicating the rights of migrants over the wishes of “The Partners” at DHS Enforcement! What a total sham that Garland is now presiding over!
Two years of litigation to “get back to ground zero!” And, you wonder why Garland’s Immigration Courts continue to careen out of control and generate backlog faster than they do positive legal guidance and best practices?
At core, courts are about problem solving, and judges are supposed to be “expert practical problem solvers.” Try to unearth those essential qualities in the disgracefully flawed “judicial” hiring practices at EOIR since 2000!
I note that no “outside expert” has been appointed to the BIA since before the 2000 election. Those few who were there in 2000 were rapidly “purged” by Ashcroft, sending the strong message that “expertise and independent voting” will be “career limiting and threatening” at the BIA.
That was followed by thoroughly rotten “jurisprudence” from the BIA that actually provoked widespread outrage among the Article IIIs at the time. The outcry became so loud, that finally even the Bush II Administration had to “tone down” the anti-immigrant rhetoric and abusive treatement of migrants and their attorneys in Immigration Court that Ashcroft’s “purge” engendered and encouraged. Of course, in doing so, DOJ officials disingenuously blamed the Immigration Judges rather than the “perps” in their own ranks who had declared “open season” on migrants’ rights and human dignity.
Not surprisingly, bad, biased hiring practices, which have intentionally excluded and grossly undervalued the most promising expert problem solvers from outside government bureaucracy, have produced a dysfunctional morass at EOIR. The lack of that basic recognition, even from a recently retired Federal Appellate Judge who should know better, is destroying the foundations of our justice system! Enough already! We need, American Justice needs, progressive reforms at EOIR! NOW, not sometime off in the indefinite future!
Yup, there might be problems with an appellate board that almost always tries to skew things against individual applicants. Rushing to crank out those final orders of removal and pushing already overwhelmed IJ’s to “just pedal faster” might not be a very good “strategy.” And, the lack of professional training, competent judicial administration, expert guidance from the BIA, and unwillingness to implement best practices further deteriorates the Immigration Courts every single day.
While fundamental improvements in personnel and administration at EOIR are well within Garland’s reach, he seems relatively uninterested in taking the bold, courageous actions necessary to restore due process. So, litigating his ludicrously broken, unfair, and dysfunctional system to a standstill, while supporting legislation to get an independent court, appear to be progressive advocates’ only viable options at this point.
This issue is likely to end up in the Supremes. In the meantime, however, there should be lots of backlog-building remands in the Second Circuit. And, who knows whether the BIA will get it right this time around. Even after court remands, their record isn’t particularly encouraging.
The BIA probably will have to wait for OIL, their political handlers at DOJ, and DHS enforcement to “signal” what the “preferred result for litigating purposes” is before venturing forth on another precedent. Does this sound like “fair and impartial adjudication” under Matthews v. Eldridge? No way! So why is EOIR continuing to operate as a “Constitution free zone” under Garland?
It’s past time for Garland to pull the plug and give progressive experts a chance to rescue his dysfunctional court system and save many of the individuals caught up in this never-ending due process nightmare! When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?
Much to the shock, consternation, frustration, puzzlement, and horror of progressive advocates who helped him replace Billy Barr as AG, it’s been three continuous months of “Amateur Night @ EOIR” under Judge Garland! Predictably, many Article IIIs haven‘t been enthralled with this performance! How many cases will be remanded from the Article IIIs and how much more backlog will be unnecessarily generated before Garland wakes up and pays attention? PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Gender Violence continues to to be endemic in Latin America! Yet, shockingly, its victims, refugee women of color, can expect little protection in Garland’s Immigration Courts still applying Jeff Sessions’s inaccurate, misogynistic precedent in Matter of A-B- and continuing to be staffed by too many “judges” selected or promoted by the Trump Administration because of their perceived willingness to support anti-asylum policies targeting many women of color! Recently Garland outraged progressives by appointing 17 “Miller/Barr Holdovers” to powerful, life or death, Immigration Judge positions while eschewing better-qualified progressive experts from the private sector who could bring diversity and gender and racial justice to his dysfunctional Immigration “Courts!” PHOTO: UNHCR website
Migrant women carry children in the rain at an intake area after turning themselves in upon crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, late Tuesday, May 11, 2021, in La Joya, Texas. The U.S. government continues to report large numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border with an increase in adult crossers. But families and unaccompanied children are still arriving in dramatic numbers despite the weather changing in the Rio Grande Valley registering hotter days and nights. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)(Gregory Bull)Natalie Gonnella-Platts Director, Women’s Initiative George W. Bush Institute PHOTO: Bush InstituteJenny Villatoro Associate, George W. Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative PHOTO: George W. Bush Institute
By Natalie Gonnella-Platts and Jenny Villatoro In the Dallas Morning News:
When U.S. Border Patrol found him in the Texas desert, 10-year-old Wilton was crying, “they abandoned me.” Exhausted and alone, his image went viral — a poignant visual of the struggle faced by thousands seeking safety.
But Wilton’s story actually began in Nicaragua when his mother, Meylin, wasn’t able to get legal protection from an abusive partner. Mother and son fled to the United States, seeking asylum, but were expelled under a public health rule and sent to Mexico, where they were kidnapped, according to an account in El Pais. Meylin’s brother in Miami could pay only half the ransom — enough for Wilton alone to be released.
Although Meylin was ultimately released and reunited with her son, the tale that led to Wilton’s arrival at the border as an unaccompanied minor isn’t unique. It illustrates the fact that gender-based violence, revictimization and lack of justice affect children, families and communities thousands of miles away. It also highlights the importance of a safe and legal pathway into the United States for survivors of gender-based violence and other asylum-seekers. For many, arriving at the U.S. border seeking asylum is the only legal pathway available.
Immigration reform in the United States is essential to assuring that we have a secure and efficient border, a system flexible enough to handle changes in migrant flows, and the capacity to treat each migrant with dignity. But more needs to be done in the migrants’ home countries, too, so that they are not forced to flee for their safety in the first place.
Any comprehensive plan on Central America and immigration reform should address gender inequity and gender-based violence.
They are not siloed issues to acknowledge only when horrific stories of femicide and human trafficking force us to pay attention. Rather, they are deeply entangled with broader challenges of corruption and poverty. Proposed solutions shouldn’t overlook the impact of gender-based violence on migrant flows, economic development, education and health.
Fourteen of the 25 most dangerous places for women are in the Western Hemisphere, including countries within Central America. Patriarchy and gang violence subject women and girls to abhorrent actions of abuse and control.
Honduras and El Salvador saw some of the highest incidences of femicide within Latin America in 2019, at rates of 6.2 and 3.3 per 100,000, respectively. In Guatemala, adolescent girls are at a high risk of being “disappeared,” with 8 out of every 10,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 17 reported missing each year.
COVID 19-related lockdowns are being exploited by gangs looking to strengthen control: El Salvador alone has seen a 70% increase in gender-based violence since the beginning of the pandemic. And lockdowns have forced vulnerable individuals to stay in close proximity to their perpetrators. Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador reported an increase in intrafamily violence, with El Salvador reporting an increase in intrafamily femicides as well.
Justice systems and access to services need to be strengthened to ensure adequate protection for all under the law. Legal protections often are inhibited by weak institutions, corruption and a culture of impunity toward perpetrators.
According to a 2017 national survey, two-thirds of Salvadoran women over the age of 15 have experienced violence, but only 6% have ever reported it. While laws against child marriage exist across the region, in some countries about 1 in 3 young women are in a union before age 18. Post-trauma support and efforts that inform Central American women of their rights and agency are critical interventions that could help women like Meylin.
Females have been disproportionately affected by the devastating impact of hurricanes Eta and Iota, but the status of women and girls is chronically overlooked in response efforts, exacerbating the risk of violence.
Women and girls must be seen and heard. Greater focus on gender and age-disaggregated data collection and in tracking the effectiveness and efficiency of legal systems is crucial. And women and their lived experiences need to be more fully represented at all leadership levels.
Finally, direct outreach to local communities should be a priority for U.S. government and private sector-led programs. This includes resource and capacity support for advocates and organizations that serve as lifelines for those affected by violence, often at great personal risk. Engagement with men and boys is equally imperative.
How can anyone be expected to thrive when her day-to-day priority is simply to survive? The United States needs to recognize that gender-based violence and gender inequity drive migration.
Immigration reform must include strategies to address the root causes of migration from Central America in effective and lasting ways to prevent situations like Wilton’s and Meylin’s. Women and girls must be front and center in these solutions.
Natalie Gonnella-Platts serves as the director of the Women’s Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute.
Jenny Villatoro is an associate for the George W. Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative.
**************************
“Deterrents” and illegally abusing asylum seekers DON’T WORK! It’s not that difficult a concept. Indeed, these misguided attempts at deterrence have been failing consistently under Administrations of both parties for the past four decades. One would think that an “enlightened nation” would try a different approach rather than simply repeating the costly failures of the past in various forms.
What we need are functioning refugee and asylum systems, led and staffed by progressive experts, operating from INSIDE Government, that will grant status to qualified refugee women in a fair and timely manner and set favorable precedents even while separately addressing the endemic problems in the “refugee-sending countries.” Of course, it will result in more legal immigration of refugees and asylum seekers to the U.S. That’s a good thing for both us and those individuals, not something to be feared or unlawfully and dishonestly “deterred!”
With stagnating population growth, we should welcome and facilitate legal immigration of courageous, talented, dedicated refugee women from all countries and their children through the refugee, asylum, and a much more robust legal immigration system!
Debi Sanders ESQ “Warrior Queen” of the NDPA PHOTO: law.uva.edu
Thanks to NDPA warrior-queen Debi Sanders for sending in this item. This report should be great evidence for those litigating to halt the Garland misogyny mess at EOIR and, sadly, to some extent in U.S. Courts of Appeals that have chosen to sweep both reality of what’s happening in the Northern Triangle and the patent unconstitutionality of a system governed by bogus precedents entered or promoted by AG’s affiliated with DHS Enforcement who also packed and reshaped the immigration “judiciary” in the image of nativist restrictionists! However, compelling as it is, the report only adds to the existing body of documentation of the dishonest approach by Administrations of both parties to Latin American asylum claims, particularly those of women and children.
For Pete’s sake, first and second year law students know that the EOIR travesty is unconstitutional! Why are life-tenured Article III Judges covering it up? Hopefully, history will take note of their mal-performance on the bench! These guys are life-tenured! So, what’s their excuse for not upholding the Constitution against clear Congressional and Executive abuses?
Hard for me to say this. But, former President George W. Bush is doing more for human rights, gender rights, civil rights, and immigrants rights’ than Garland or anyone else at the Biden DOJ! At least he speaks out publicly for the humanity and contributions of migrants and for their fair and generous treatment, which is more than any member of the Biden Administration has done as they continue to mistake softening the rhetoric with taking firm action to reverse White Nationalist policies and replace them with readily achievable progressive ones.
030114-O-0000D-001.President George W. Bush. Photo by Eric Draper, White House. “Why is this guy willing to speak up for immigrants’ rights . . . .
Meanwhile, despite pleas from nearly every expert, progressive, human rights, immigrants’ rights, and gender rights group in the U.S., Garland continues to allow Sessions’s wrong, toxic, and misogynistic decision in Matter of A-B – to remain in place and threaten the lives of female refugees while ignoring the misogynistic, anti-asylum, culture inculcated by Sessions and Barr at EOIR that continues to flourish and daily dish out abuse to migrants and their representatives without meaningful consequences.
“ . . . while this guy continues to apply misogynistic precedents, eschew progressive experts, recycle failed ‘Aimless Docket Reshuffling’ gimmicks, and allow the Trump-era anti-asylum culture to continue to flourish at EOIR and DOJ?” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
What, indeed, is someone like AAG Vanita Gupta doing with herself at Garland’s anti-progressive, and anti-due-process mess at DOJ? Why are folks like her and Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke there in the first place if they aren’t going to stand up to Garland’s tone-deaf, inept approach to gender rights, human rights, and racial justice @ EOIR? How, on earth, do you lead a “Civil Rights Division” while turning a blind eye to grotesque violations of civil and human rights going on daily in your “Boss’s” wholly owned “court” system that functions like no “real court” in America? What’s DAG Lisa Monaco doing presiding over a gender disaster at EOIR? It’s straight out of “Jim Crow!”
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American Racism, still right at home at Garland’s EOIR!“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — “Do Garland, Monaco, Gupta, & Clarke work in ‘sound-proofed offices’ where they can’t hear our tortured screams and moans? What’s wrong with those guys? We’re suffering and dying while they are fiddling and diddling!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
And, I wouldn’t say that Vice President Harris is looking very good either, as she “swallows the whistle” on notorious scofflaw human rights violations that she was well aware of from her time in the Senate! Doesn’t anyone in the Biden Administration have the backbone to speak up for human rights, human decency, and restoring the rule of law? Is it REALLY our position that following the Constitution, our statutory laws, and the international treaties to which we are party is beyond the capabilities of the U.S. Government? If so, what, may I ask, is the difference between us an any third world dictatorship where laws have no meaning?
Vice President Kamala D. Harris. “Our first African-American, AAPI, child of immigrants VEEP seems curiously deaf and indifferent to the gross abuses being heaped on migrants and women of color at EOIR and at our Souther Border! What’s her excuse for turning her back on the progressive, human rights, gender equality groups that helped put her in office. Why is she remaining silent as Garland continues to appoint Billy Barr’s hand-selected non-progressive, non-diverse Immigration Judges to a life-determining “judiciary” that the Biden Administration wholly controls? How can you create a progressive, diverse, Article III Judiciary that will promote racial equity when you’re unwilling to apply those values and selection criteria to a huge judiciary that you actually control? What message are you sending to ‘next generation progressive attorneys of color’ when you allow Garland to ignore them in favor of lesser qualified candidates? Why aren’t you out there actively recruiting more attorneys of color and other underrepresented groups for the Immigration Judiciary rather than allowing Garland to use same-old, same old bogus “USA Jobs Phantom recruitments?” Lots of unanswered questions here! Vice President of the United States (Official Senate Photo)
I can’t figure it out! But, I do know that Garland’s lousy stewardship at EOIR, failure to speak out for fundamental fairness, usher in progressive changes, and restore due process @ EOIR has reached “crisis proportions” affecting our entire justice system and threatening democracy!
Hopefully, progressive advocacy, human rights, and civil rights groups will keep up the pressure and demands for long, long, long overdue and readily achievable changes at EOIR: in leadership, precedents, culture, and administration of justice! (Get this: Garland just created yet another bogus “Dedicated Docket” without a functional e-filing system to make it work! That’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling 101,” as anyone who has actually had to deal with the mess in his Immigration Courts could tell him. But, he’s apparently not interested!) Right now, it’s an unmitigated “disaster zone” continuing to spiral downward!
There is a direct link between the “Dred Scottification of the other” that Garland countenances at EOIR and the overall failure of our justice system to deal effectively with institutionalized racism! The U.S. has a long, disreputable history of treating women and persons of color as “non persons” under the Constitution. Much of it traces to our immigration laws where “the others” are routinely dehumanized, stereotyped, demonized, and abused by those who falsely claim to be furthering the “rule of law!” We will NOT achieve racial justice for all in America until we deal with the festering wounds intentionally inflicted on women, children, and people of color in our immigration system, at EOIR, and illegally continuing at our borders!
By choice, Garland now “owns” the misogynistic, anti-due-process, anti-asylum disaster @ EOIR. Make him deal with it in a constructive way!
🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! Garland’s continued tolerance of misogyny and the anti-due-process, anti-asylum culture at EOIR, NEVER! Stop Garland’s continuing misogynistic nonsense before more refugee women and people of color needlessly die! What’s it going to take finally to get some “real justice @ Justice?”
Honorable Joan Churchill Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member Round Table of Retired JudgesDebi Sanders ESQ “Warrior Queen” of the NDPA PHOTO: law.uva.edu030114-O-0000D-001.President George W. Bush. Photo by Eric Draper, White House.
**************************
Thanks to my long-time friends Joan and Debi for showing how our asylum system and the rest of our legal immigration system could and should work for the greatness of our nation. It also demonstrates the critical importance of pro bono representation in Immigration Court.
How wonderful that President Bush selected this as one of his examples of how immigrants ARE America! And, how different from the White Nationalist, racist, xenophobic myths that his GOP has made a vile staple of their despicable attempt to overturn our democracy and our cherished institutions. I have little doubt that if President Bush were in politics today the GOP would ride him out of the party like others who have spoken truth to his party’s horrible, Anti-American leaders!
With better leadership and independent expert Immigration Judges, our Immigration Courts could once again be a source of pride for our nation and our legal system rather than a deadly, unmitigated, self-created national disaster that undermines our national values while actively harming and dehumanizing those we should be protecting and welcoming.
CELEBRATING WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH WITH THE BOYS FROM THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT!
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
PANEL: SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Arnold
Because you have to “see it to believe it” that these three guys actually graduated from law school and got promoted to the Federal Judiciary, the opinion is set forth in full here:
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 20-2248 ___________________________
Yeemy Guatemala-Pineda
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States1
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________
Submitted: February 17, 2021 Filed: March 26, 2021 ____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
After Yeemy Guatemala-Pineda entered the United States unlawfully, she applied for asylum so she wouldn’t have to return to her home country of El Salvador.
1Merrick B. Garland is serving as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).
She feared that if she returned there gangs would persecute her because of her religious activities. After a winding course of immigration proceedings that began more than ten years ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals ultimately denied her request for asylum. We deny the petition for review since we think substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision.
Guatemala-Pineda, whom we will call Pineda as her real name is Yeemy Michael Pineda, attempted to enter the United States in 2010 at age 22 but was apprehended by immigration authorities and charged with being inadmissible as an alien without proper documentation. See U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). She conceded that the charge was true but applied for asylum, which protects, among others, refugees present in the United States who are unable or unwilling to return to their home country because they have a well-founded fear that others will persecute them on account of their religion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A). Pineda testified before an immigration judge that she was a practicing Christian who had participated in a church project of door-to-door evangelization that specifically targeted gang members. She related that a handful of gang members had at one time “cornered” and “grabbed” her during a church function and tried to recruit her to their gang, explicitly telling her that they did not want to see her working with the church. Though they also threatened to “take [her] by force” and find her wherever she went, they did not otherwise physically harm her.
After that incident Pineda stopped attending church, opting instead to participate in religious services at other people’s homes. During one of these home services, Pineda testified, gang members appeared outside and demanded that the group stop singing. She believed they were the same gang members who had threatened her before; they specifically called her by name and said they were “coming for” her. Two weeks later, at another home gathering, gang members again appeared outside, announced they were armed, and demanded that she come outside
-2-
or “they were going to get” her. The people inside threw themselves on the ground and waited about two hours until the gang members departed.
At that point, Pineda testified, she obtained a job selling clothes in San Salvador, which was about ninety minutes from her home. She explained that gang members did not bother or threaten her while at work, though one time she had to crouch down when she heard gunshots directed toward another person.
The immigration judge concluded that, even though Pineda had not demonstrated past persecution, she did have a well-founded fear of future persecution, and so granted her application for asylum. When the government appealed to the BIA, the BIA remanded the case to the immigration judge to consider, among other things, whether Pineda could reasonably relocate within El Salvador to avoid future persecution. On remand, Pineda testified that, if forced to return to El Salvador, she would return to her mother’s house because she had no other place to go. She noted that her entire family lives in the same city and that she could not relocate to another city as a single Christian woman. She also elaborated on her time working in San Salvador, explaining that she commuted alone and worked three to five days a week for a few months before leaving for the United States. Pineda also testified that, though she did not experience difficulties from gang members in San Salvador or while commuting, thieves did steal her paycheck three or four times and her cell phone twice, often while she was riding on a bus.
Pineda also presented testimony from an expert on Central American gangs. He testified that El Salvador is “the most violent country in the world for women” and that four things put Pineda “at not only high but very predictable risk” of harm should she return to El Salvador: her religious practices and activities, her past refusal to comply with gang demands, her flight from El Salvador to escape gang threats, and the ability of gangs to learn of her return. Further, he opined, Pineda would be at high risk anywhere in El Salvador because she is a young, single woman with no
-3-
protective family network, making “internal relocation a very, very difficult proposition.”
The immigration judge again granted Pineda’s request for asylum, concluding that she had carried her burden to show that internal relocation was unreasonable, as “[s]he is a young single woman returning to a country the size of Massachusetts where abuse and violence against women is one of the principal human rights problems.” The judge acknowledged that Pineda had worked in San Salvador for three months without interference from gangs but pointed out that during that time she had been robbed of her paycheck or cell phone at least five times and “did not proselytize in the streets.” In sum, there were simply no other parts of the country “that are any better than the area that gave rise to [Pineda’s] original claim.” On appeal, however, the BIA pointed out that Pineda was able to avoid gang persecution while working in San Salvador. It also noted that, even though Pineda was the victim of crimes during her commute, it was unclear whether she could have avoided these and similar crimes by moving to San Salvador instead of commuting from her hometown. The BIA therefore remanded for the immigration judge “to reconsider the overall reasonableness of any relocation by the respondent throughout El Salvador.”
On remand, Pineda’s case was assigned to a different immigration judge. The new judge concluded, after receiving additional arguments from the parties and what he termed “extensive country condition evidence,” that Pineda had failed to shoulder her burden to show that she could not relocate elsewhere in El Salvador since she was able to avoid gang persecution while working in San Salvador. The BIA upheld that determination.
In her petition for review from that holding, Pineda challenges the determination that she failed to show she could not safely relocate to another part of El Salvador. We review both the BIA’s decision and the immigration judge’s decision to the extent the BIA adopted the findings or reasoning of the immigration judge. See
-4-
Degbe v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir. 2018). We will uphold the decision so long as substantial evidence supports it. See Cinto-Velasquez v. Lynch, 817 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 2016). When applying that “extremely deferential” standard, we will not reverse “unless, after having reviewed the record as a whole, we determine that it would not be possible for a reasonable fact-finder to adopt the BIA’s position.” See Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir. 2004).
Since Pineda does not contend that she has shown past persecution, she must show she has a well-founded fear of future persecution to prevail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). But “[a]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Because Pineda has not demonstrated past persecution, and the gangs she fears are not government or government sponsored, she bears the burden to show that relocation would not be reasonable. See id. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). In these circumstances relocation is presumed to be reasonable. See id. § 1208.13(b)(3)(iii).
We hold that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pineda could relocate to another part of El Salvador if forced to return. We believe that a reasonable factfinder could give substantial weight to the lack of gang harassment Pineda suffered while working in San Salvador for a number of months. Even if gangs generally have significant reach throughout the country and are able to locate people like her quickly, as Pineda maintains, the fact that they did nothing to her for months as she worked in San Salvador is hard to overlook. And even though the first immigration judge to preside over Pineda’s proceedings found that internal relocation would not be reasonable, that does not necessarily mean that substantial evidence did not support the second immigration judge’s decision. It might just go to show that the reasonableness of relocation in this case is one on which reasonable people could disagree.
-5-
To bolster her case, Pineda emphasizes that she suffered other serious harm in San Salvador when she had paychecks and cell phones stolen from her. Pineda is right that, to prevail, she need not show that she suffered other serious harm on account of a protected ground, such as religion. See Hagi-Salad v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1044, 1048 n.5 (8th Cir. 2004). But that other harm must rise to “the severity of persecution” for her to carry the day. Id. “Persecution is an extreme concept,” involving things like death or the threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom. See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 380 (8th Cir. 2013). Pineda did not describe anything that occurred to her during her commutes to and from San Salvador or her employment there that approaches this high standard.
We therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination, considering that Pineda worked for months in San Salvador without trouble from gangs. Though we recognize that Pineda’s expert opined that she was at risk, we think the BIA did not unreasonably focus on there being no evidence that she was persecuted during the months she worked in San Salvador. We have upheld a decision on this kind of question based on less, as, for instance, where an asylum seeker had stayed in another part of a country without being harmed for five weeks. See Molina-Cabrera v. Sessions, 905 F.3d 1103, 1106 (8th Cir. 2018).
Though we sympathize with Pineda’s subjective fear of returning alone to a different part of El Salvador, we cannot say that the BIA’s relocation determination is unsupported by substantial evidence. Because we uphold this portion of the BIA’s decision, we do not consider whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the government of El Salvador was unwilling or unable to control the gangs that Pineda feared.
Petition denied.
______________________________
-6-
***************************
No, it’s not, as Judge Arnold disingenuously claims “something on which reasonable people could disagree.” No reasonable adjudicator qualified in asylum law and due process could reach this ridiculously wrong result!
Naturally, not understanding asylum law (why would that be a requirement for an Article III Judge, just because it’s probably the #1 and certainly most hotly contested topic in Federal Civil Litigation these days), Judge Arnold and his “boys club” out on the Great Plains fail to give this credible respondent “the benefit of the doubt” to which she is entitled under UNHCR guidance.
Indeed, as I used to tell my former BIA colleagues, usually to little avail before launching another dissent, “if reasonable people could differ, the result should be clear — the respondent wins because she gets ‘the benefit of the doubt.’” Sadly, even at a time when the BIA functioned at a much much higher level than it does today, it was the Immigration Judge and immigration enforcement who often in practice got the “benefit of the doubt” from many of my former colleagues, not the asylum applicant.
As my friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Legal Community summed up: “Proves the point that ‘the only true refugee is a dead refugee.’” Unlike the various BIA Judges and Circuit Judges involved in this deadly travesty, Dan actually understands asylum law, due process, and human values.
One might fairly ask the question of why “practical scholars” like Dan are on the “outside” and lesser talents are on the Federal Bench at all levels? The answer has much to do with why there is an “institutionalized racism crisis” in today’s American justice system. “Trial By Ordeal,” really isn’t that great a “look” for 21st Century American Justice! (Any more than is institutionalized racism and “The New Jim Crow”).
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Conveniently, this “gang of three” CJs showed little real understanding of 8 C.F.R. 208.13 as it existed at the time of the BIA’s second decision, which states:
adjudicators should consider, but are not limited to considering, whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties. Those factors may, or may not, be relevant, depending on all the circumstances of the case, and are not necessarily determinative of whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.
Just on the information regurgitated in their opinion, Ms. Guatemala-Pineda showed by expert witness testimony and by her own credible testimony and experiences that there is no “reasonably available relocation alternative” in El Salvador. There clearly is “ongoing civil strife” in El Salvador. And, anyone with even minimal knowledge of the country would know that (to put it charitably) the “administrative, economic, and judicial infrastructures” are somewhere in the zone between dysfunctional to non-existent. She also credibly pointed out why it would not be reasonable under the circumstances to require her to leave her mother’s home and move to San Salvador.
Forcing someone to commute to a job 90 minutes away, for 3-5 days per week work, in what is perhaps the most dangerous city in the country, during which she already suffered “three or four paycheck robberies and a cell phone robbery” in about three months — that’s a total of five robberies” in a relatively short span — is by no means a “reasonable internal relocation alternative” based on all relevant factors!
Additionally, that she felt unable to proselytize in accordance with her religious beliefs in San Salvador also indicates that relocation there is unreasonable. Freedom to carry out reasonable religious commitments without fear of harm is a fundamental human right.
Very interesting to compare how GOP Circuit Judges treated very clear interference with Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s ability to fulfill her religious beliefs in this case with how many GOP judges in the U.S. swoon over every minor interference with right wing religious beliefs — even those grounded in obvious bigotry — in the U.S. Here, by contrast, the GOP Circuit Judges fobbed off the interference with Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s evangelical activities — at one point she felt unable to worship publicly at her church — as of no particular concern.
Not to mention that Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s expert confirmed that:
El Salvador is “the most violent country in the world for women” and that four things put Pineda “at not only high but very predictable risk” of harm should she return to El Salvador: her religious practices and activities, her past refusal to comply with gang demands, her flight from El Salvador to escape gang threats, and the ability of gangs to learn of her return. Further, he opined, Pineda would be at high risk anywhere in El Salvador because she is a young, single woman with no protective family network, making “internal relocation a very, very difficult proposition.”
In plain terms, it’s only a matter of time before Ms. Guatemala-Pineda is persecuted, seriously harmed, or killed if returned to El Salvador. But, her life, as a woman of color, is obviously of little concern to the “gang of three.”
Let’s look at it another her way. Suppose we were tell Judges Smith, Arnold, and Staus that they had to relocate in a way that meant every third or fourth paycheck would be stolen and that they would be robbed of their cellphone every three months, with no recourse to a functioning police system. (Note that these dudes would be much better able to absorb such losses of income and expensive property than Ms. Guatemala-Pineda.) Or, that we were going to relocate their cushy ivory tower jobs to a place where they would be required to commute 90 minutes by public transportation every day. Or, that they might occasionally have to get down behind the bench to avoid rampant gunfire. Or, that they no longer could worship at their church of choice or openly engage in religious activities in their communities, but must limit themselves to “in-home worship” — not just during the pandemic, but permanently. Or, they had to live in a place where “GOP-Judiciacide” was at the highest level in the world and the police offered little or no protection, indeed were often involved themselves in abuse and killings of judges or turned a blind eye to the perpetrators.
Think our “tone-deaf group of guys in robes” would take a different view of “reasonable” if they put themselves in Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s place and it were happening to them? You betcha!
A few other things to note about this gross miscarriage of justice:
Two panel members were appointed by Bush II, one by Trump;
Ms. Guatemala-Pineda originally won her case before the Immigration Judge, who after hearing all the evidence and carefully considering relocation found that Ms. Pineda has shown that there was no “reasonably available relocation alternative” in El Salvador;
The BIA baselessly remanded the case on ICE’s appeal to a new IJ to get the “preferred result” — a denial of relief and potential death sentence for a woman of color (See, e.g., Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions & Matter of A-B-);
In a functioning system staffed by asylum experts, this case could easily have been granted at the Asylum Office rather than kicking around the dysfunctional EOIR system for a decade — two merits hearings before the IJ — two appeals to the BIA — and Circuit Court review — all to REACH A CLEARLY INCORRECT AND UNJUST RESULT THAT NO TRUE ASYLUM EXPERT I KNOW WOULD AGREE WITH!
And, we wonder why EOIR has more than doubled the number of IJs yet still almost tripled their uncontrolled backlog to a mind-boggling 1.3 million cases! Ten years to turn an easy asylum grant into a denial (yet other cases are rushed through to denial on an assembly line without any real deli]beration or analysis) might give us a hint of why the system is totally dysfunctional and completely unfair (not to mention patently unconstitutional)!
Since EOIR is known for its incompetent record keeping, I’m willing to bet that there are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of additional “lost in space” files, warehoused somewhere that are simply “off docket” and unaccounted for.
Cases like this aren’t “academic exercises” — the judicial attitude that “screams off the pages” of this gross miscarriage of justice. They have real life, potentially deadly consequences for real humans beings, the most vulnerable of human beings, like Ms. Guatemala-Pineda. She has the same right to live as do the Circuit Judges, the BIA Judges, and the second Immigration Judge who got her case wrong!
After a decade, this monstrosity is the best our “justice system” can offer? Gimme a break! I think I could choose any three students over at the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law who would run circles around the cavalier analysis of these three supposedly “senior jurists” in this case! Cases like this basically are indictments of our Article III system, not to mention the ongoing mockery of justice at EOIR.
The anti-asylum, anti-immigrant bias, incompetent adjudication, and systemic mis-management at EOIR are of monumental proportions! The gross inconsistencies, lack of overall immigration, human rights, sensitivity to racial justice, and “practical due process” expertise at the appellate level of the U.S. Courts and particularly at the Supremes is very disturbing and threatens the very existence and legitimacy of our legal system.
Judge Garland has the power to start fixing this, today! He must vacate all the bogus Trump-era anti-immigrant precedents; toss the entire BIA, and replace them with real judges who possess the required subject matter expertise and overriding commitment to due process and fundamental fairness; establish merit-selection criteria for Immigration Judges honoring experience representing asylum applicants in court, immigration knowledge, human rights expertise, commitment to due process for individuals under law, sensitivity to racial justice, and demonstrated practical problem solving experience.
Then, apply those criteria to new Immigration Judge selections as well as to retention decisions for all current Immigration Judges. And, for Pete’s sake, “can” the incompetent bureaucracy and get some real professionals in there who can run an independent court system — starting with a functioning nationwide e-filing system and some competent judicial training as well as assisting IJs in managing their own dockets rather than constantly interfering and trying to “micromanage” from Falls Church and the 5th Floor of the DOJ (a process known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” honed by the Trump kakistocracy @ DOJ).
When you’re done, Judge Garland, you’ll have: 1) many fewer bad decisions heading off the the Courts of Appeals; 2) a functioning Immigration Judiciary of experts who can help keep order and provide helpful expert guidance to the rest of the now out of control system; and 3) a great source of “battle trained and proven” well-qualified, progressive judicial talent who can change the trajectory of the now often moribund (yeah, even some of the younger Trump appointees are basically “brain dead,” so the term fits) and dilatory Article III Judiciary and who are also available to fill other high-level policy positions with competence, common sense, and humanity.
You’d also go down in history as a judge who got out of the ivory tower and actually solved pressing problems, implemented our Constitution, and built a better, fairer court system that made a difference in human lives and the future of our nation. Perhaps, even something like “thorough teamwork and innovation, built the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” That’s quite a legacy for future generations.
I can only hope Judge Garland finally pays attention to what’s happening across the river in Falls Church and takes immediate action to end the deadly and debilitating clown show 🤡🦹🏿♂️ @ EOIR. Otherwise, I fear he will find himself buried in immigration litigation and his tenure mired in the muck of responsibility for grotesque racial injustice and “running” the worst, most incompetent, unfair, and blatantly unconstitutional “court” system in America!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! Hey Hey, Ho Ho, The Deadly EOIR Clown Show ☠️🤡 Has Got to Go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Hey, maybe next year, we could all celebrate Women’s History Month with some decisions incorporating serious scholarship by progressive women judges that actually recognize, honor, and institutionalize relief from the unfair struggles faced by refugee women and people of color.
Meet the Press host Chuck Todd pulled no punches during an interview with staunch Trump ally Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) on Sunday morning.
After an explainer of Johnson’s and other officeholders’ planned attempt to subvert democracy by opposing the certification of the Electoral College vote for President-elect Joe Biden on Wednesday, the host laid into the Trump sycophant for pretending to try to fix a problem that the president and lawmakers, like Johnson, duped supporters into believing in the first place.
“You made an allegation that there was widespread fraud. You have failed to offer specific evidence of that widespread fraud. But you’re demanding an investigation on the grounds that there are allegations of widespread fraud,” the host said.
Todd continued, “So essentially, you’re the arsonist here. President Trump is the arsonist here. You’ve started this fire. And now you’re saying, ‘Woah, look at this. Oh my God. All these people believe what we told them,’ because you didn’t have the guts to tell the truth that this election was fair.”
The Republican senator responded as all Trump defenders do, by blaming the media.
. . . .
**************
Read the complete article at the link.
There is no excuse for Ron Johnson.
But, there is also no excuse for Chuck Todd giving this vile, dim-witted, total hack a forum for his lies, conspiracy theories, and “Putinesque” anti-American propaganda! Not like he hasn’t demonstrated his toadiness and dishonesty on MTP before!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleMe
FROM THE HEIGHTS OF KASINGA TO THE DEPTHS OF AMERICA’S DEADLY STAR CHAMBERS: Will The Biden Administration Tap The New Due Process Army To Fix EOIR & Save Our Nation?
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Courtside Exclusive
Nov. 12, 2020
I. INTRODUCTION — ABROGATION OF ASYLUM LAWS IN THE FACE OF EXECUTIVE LAWLESSNESS & RACIAL BIAS IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE
In Matter ofKasinga, I applied the generous well-founded fear standard for asylum established by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca to reach a favorable result for a female asylum applicant. It was based on a particular social group of women of the tribe who feared persecution in the form of female genital mutilation, or “FGM.” I sometimes think of this as the “high water mark” of asylum law at the BIA.
Since then, proper, generous application of asylum laws to serve their intended purpose of flexibly, fairly, and consistently extending protection to those facing persecution has been steadily declining. The Trump Administration essentially overruled Cardoza-Fonseca and abolished asylum law without legislative change.
Both Congress and the Court have failed to stand up to this egregious abuse of the law, constitutional due process, and simple human decency that presents a “clear and present danger” to our nation’s continued existence.
Indeed, the performance of the Court in the face of the Administration’s overt assault on asylum has been so woeful as to lead me to wonder whether any of the Justices, other than Justice Sonia Sotomayor, have actually read the Cardoza-Fonseca decision. Certainly, most of them have failed to consistently and courageously carry forth its spirit and to grapple with their legal and moral responsibility for letting a lawless Executive trample the constitutional and human rights, as well as the human dignity, of the most vulnerable among us.
How did we get to this utterly deplorable state of affairs and what can the Biden Administration do to save us? Will they act boldly and courageously or continue the tradition of ignoring abuses directed against asylum seekers and the deleterious effect it has on our society and the rule of law?
I guarantee that racial justice and harmony will continue to elude us as a nation unless and until we come to grips with the ongoing abuses in the Immigration Courts — “courts” that no longer function as such in any manner except the misleading name!
II. BACKGROUND
To understand what has happened since Kasinga, here’s some background. In U.S. asylum law, there generally has been an “inverse relationship” between geography and success. The further your home country is from the U.S., the more generous the treatment is likely to be.
Thus, folks like Kasinga from Togo, or those from Tibet, Ethiopia, China, or Eritrea, with relatively difficult access to our borders, tend to do relatively well. On the other hand, those from Mexico, Haiti, Central America, and South America, who have easier access to our borders, tend to be treated more restrictively.
This reaction has been driven by a hypothesis with limited empirical support, but which has been accepted in some form or another by all Administrations, regardless of party, since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. That is, the belief that human migration patterns are driven primarily by the policies and legal regimes in prosperous so-called “receiving countries” like the U.S.
Thus, generous and humane asylum policies will encourage unwanted flows of asylum seekers across international borders. And, of course, we all know that nothing threatens the national security of the world’s greatest nuclear superpower more than a caravan or flotilla of desperate, unarmed asylum seekers and their families trying to turn themselves in at the border or to the Border Patrol shortly after arrival.
Conversely, restrictive policies including rapid, unfair rejection, border turn-backs, mass detentions, criminal sanctions, family separation, denials of fair hearings, walls, border militarization, and hostile, often racially and religiously charged rhetoric, will cause asylum seekers to “stay put” thus deterring them and reducing the number of applications threatening our national security. In other words, encourage legitimate asylum seekers to “perish in place.” Often, these harsh policies are disingenuously characterized as being, at least partially, “for the benefit of asylum seekers” by discouraging them from undertaking dangerous journeys and paying human smugglers only to be summarily rejected upon arrival.
This “popular hypothesis” largely ignores the effect of conditions in refugee sending countries, including both geopolitical and environmental factors. For example, the current migration flow is affected by the practical difficulties of travel in the time of pandemic and by economic failures and cultural and political changes resulting from unabated climate change, not just by the legal restrictions that might be in place in the U.S. and other far-away countries.
It also factors out the “business narratives” of human smugglers designed to manipulate asylum seekers in ways that maximize profits under a variety of scenarios and to take maximum advantage of mindlessly predictable government “enforcement only” strategies.
Indeed, there is plenty of reason to believe that such policies serve largely to maximize smugglers’ profits, extort more money from desperate asylum seekers, but with little long-term effect on migration patterns. The short-term reduction in traffic, often hastily mischaracterized as “success” by the government, probably reflects in part “market adjustments” as smugglers raise their rates to cover the increased risks and revised planning caused by more of a particular kind of enforcement. That “prices some would-be migrants out of the market,” at least temporarily, and forces others to wait while they accumulate more money to pay smugglers.
It also likely increases the number of asylum seekers who die while attempting the journey. But, there is no real evidence that four decades of various “get tough” and “deterrence policies” — right up until the present — have had or will have a determinative long term effect on extralegal migration to the U.S. It may well, however, encourage more migrants to proceed to the interior of the country and take “do it yourself” refuge in the population, rather than turning themselves in at or near the border to a legal system that has been intentionally rigged against them.
Regardless of its empirically questionable basis, “deterrence theory” has become the primary driving force behind government asylum policies. Thus, the fear of large-scale, out of control “Southern border incursions” by asylum seekers has driven all U.S. Administrations to adopt relatively restrictive interpretations and applications of asylum law with respect to asylum seekers from Central America.
Starting with a so-called “Southern border crisis” in the summer of 2014, the Obama Administration took a number of steps intended to discourage Central American asylum seekers. These included: use of so-called “family detention;” denial of bond; accelerated processing of recently arrived children and adults with children; selecting Immigration Judges largely from the ranks of DHS prosecutors and other Government employees; keeping asylum experts off the BIA; taking outlandish court positions on detention and the right to counsel for unrepresented toddlers in Immigration Court; and dire public warnings as to the dangers of journeying to the U.S. and the likelihood of rejection upon arrival.
These efforts did little to stem the flow of asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle. However, they did result in a wave of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) at the Immigration Courts that accelerated the growth of backlogs and the deterioration of morale at EOIR. (Later, Sessions & Barr would “perfect the art of ADR” thereby astronomically increasing backlogs, even with many more judges on the bench, to something approaching 1.5 million known cases, with probably hundreds of thousands more buried in the “maliciously incompetently managed” EOIR (non)system).
Success for Central American asylum applicants thus remained problematic, with more than two of every three applications being rejected. Nevertheless, by 2016, largely through the heroic efforts of pro bono litigation groups, applicants from the so-called “Northern Triangle” – El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala – had achieved a respectable approval rate ranging from approximately 20% to 30%.
Many of these successful claims were based on “particular social groups” composed of battered women and/or children or family groups targeted by violent husbands or boyfriends, gangs, cartels, and other so-called “non-governmental actors” that the Northern Triangle governments clearly were “unwilling or unable to control.”
III. CROSSHAIRS
Upon the ascension of the Trump Administration in 2017, refugee and asylum policies became driven not only by “deterrence theory,” but also by racially, religiously, and politically motivated “institutionalized xenophobia.” The initial target was Muslims who were “zapped” by Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.” Although initially properly blocked as unconstitutional by lower Federal Courts, the Supreme Court eventually “greenlighted” a slightly watered-down version of the “Muslim ban.”
Next on the hit list were refugees and asylees of color. This put Central American asylum seekers, particularly women and children, directly in the crosshairs.
In something akin to “preliminary bombing,” then Attorney General Jeff Sessions launched a series of false and misleading narratives against asylum seekers and their lawyers directed at an audience consisting of Immigration Judges and BIA Members who worked at EOIR and thus were his subordinates.
Without evidence, Sessions characterized most asylum seekers as fraudulent or mala fide and blamed them as a primary cause for the population of 11 million or so undocumented individuals estimated to be residing in the U.S. He also accused “dirty immigration lawyers” of having “gamed” the asylum system, while charging “his” Immigration Judges with the responsibility of “assisting their partners” at DHS enforcement in stopping asylum fraud and discouraging asylum applications.
IV. THE ATTACK
While not directly tampering with the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, with Sessions leading the way, the Administration launched a three-pronged attack on asylum seekers.
First, using his power to review BIA precedents, Sessions reversed the prior precedent that had facilitated asylum grants for applicants who had suffered persecution in the form of domestic abuse. In doing so, he characterized them as “mere victims of crime” who should not be recognized as a “particular social group.” While not part of the holding, he also commented to Immigration Judges in his opinion that very few claimants should succeed in establishing asylum eligibility based on domestic violence.
He further imposed bogus “production quotas” on judges with an eye toward speeding up the “deportation railroad.” In other words, Immigration Judges who valued their jobs should start cranking out mass denials of such cases without wasting time on legal analysis or the actual facts.
Later, Sessions’s successor, Attorney General Bill Barr, overruled the BIA precedent recognizing “family” as a particular social group for asylum. He found that the vast majority of family units lacked the required “social distinction” to qualify.
For example, a few prominent families like the Rockefellers, Clintons, or Kardashians might be generally recognized by society. However, ordinary families like the Schmidts would be largely unknown beyond their own limited social circles. Therefore, we would lack the necessary “social distinction” within the larger society to be recognized as a particular social group.
Second, Sessions and Barr attacked the “nexus” requirement that persecution be “on account of” a particular social group or other protected ground. They found that most alleged acts of domestic violence or harm inflicted by abusive spouses, gangs and cartels were “mere criminal acts” or acts of “random violence” not motivated by the victim’s membership in any “particular social group” or any of the other so-called “protected grounds” for asylum. They signaled that Immigration Judges who found “no nexus” would find friendly BIA appellate judges anxious to uphold those findings and thereby retain their jobs.
Third, they launched an attack on the long-established “nongovernmental actor” doctrine. They found that normally, qualifying acts of persecution would have to be carried out by the government or its agents. For non-governmental actions to be attributed to that government, that government would basically have to be helpless to respond.
They found that the Northern Triangle governments officially opposed the criminal acts of gangs, cartels, and abusers and made at least some effort to control them. They deemed the fact that those governments are notoriously corrupt and ineffective in controlling violence to be largely beside the point. After all, they observed, no government including ours offers “perfect protection” to its citizens.
Any effort by the government to control the actor, no matter how predictably or intentionally ineffective or nominal, should be considered sufficient to show that the government was willing and able to protect against the harm. In other words, even the most minimal or nominal opposition should be considered “good enough for government work.”
V. THE UGLY RESULTS
Remarkably, notwithstanding this concerted effort to “zero out” asylum grants, some individuals, even from the Northern Triangle, still succeed. They usually are assisted by experienced pro bono counsel from major human rights NGOs or large law firms — essentially the “New Due Process Army” in action. These are the folks who have saved what is left of American justice and democracy. Often, they must seek review in the independent, Article III Federal Courts to ultimately prevail.
Some Article IIIs are up to the job; many aren’t, lacking both the expertise and the philosophical inclination to actually enforce the constitutional and statutory rights of asylum seekers — “the other,” often people of color. After all, wrongfully deported to death means “out of sight, out of mind.”
However, the Administration’s efforts have had a major impact. Systemwide, the number of asylum cases decided by the Immigration Courts has approximately tripled since 2016 – from approximately 20,000 to over 60,000, multiplying backlogs as other, often older, “ready to try” cases are shuffled off to the end of the dockets, often with little or no notice to the parties.
At the same time, asylum grant rates for the Northern Triangle have fallen to their lowest rate in many years 10% to 15%. Taken together, that means many more asylum denials for Northern Triangle applicants, a major erosion of the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, and a severe deterioration of due process protections in American law. Basically, it’s a collapse of our legal system and an affront to human dignity. The kinds of things you might expect in a “Banana Republic.”
VI. WILL BIDEN FIX EOIR OR REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
The intentional destruction of U.S. asylum law and the weaponization of EOIR in support of the White Nationalist agenda have undermined the entire U.S. justice system. It actively encourages both dehumanization (“Dred Scottification”) and institutionalized racism all the way up to a Supreme Court which has improperly enabled large portions of the unlawful and unconstitutional anti-migrant agenda.
The Biden Administration can reverse the festering due process and human rights disaster at EOIR. Unlike improving and reforming the Article III Judiciary, it doesn’t need Mitch McConnell’s input to do so.
Biden can appoint an Attorney General who will recognize the importance of putting immigration/human rights/due process experts in charge of EOIR. He can replace the current BIA with real appellate judges whose qualifications reflect an unswerving commitment to due process, expert application of asylum laws in the generous manner once envisioned by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca, implementing “best” practices, judicial efficiency, and judicial independence.
Biden can return human dignity to an improperly weaponized system designed to “Dred Scottify” the other. He can appoint better qualified Immigration Judges through a merit-based system that would encourage and give fair consideration to the many outstanding candidates who have devoted their professional lives to fighting for due process, fundamental fairness, and immigrants’ rights, courageously, throughout America’s darkest times!
That, in turn, will create the necessary conditions to institutionalize the EOIR reforms through the legislative creation of an independent, Article I Immigration Court that will be the “gemstone” of American justice rather than a national disgrace! One that will eventually fulfill the noble, now abandoned, “EOIR Vision” of “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
The Obama Administration shortsightedly choose to “freeze out” the true experts in the private advocacy, NGO, academic, clinical teaching, and pro bono communities. The results have been beyond disastrous.
In addition to killing, maiming, and otherwise harming humans entitled to our legal protection, EOIR’s unseemly demise over the past three Administrations has undermined the credibility of every aspect of our justice system all the way to the Supreme Court as well as destroying our international leadership role as a shining example and beacon of hope for others.
The talent in the private sector is out there! They are ready, willing, and very able to turn EOIR from a disaster zone to a model of due process, innovation, best practices, fair, efficient, and practical judging, and creative judicial administration. One that other parts of the U.S. judicial system could emulate.
Will the Biden Administration heed the call, act boldly, and put the “right team” in place to save EOIR? Or will they continue past Democratic Administrations’ short-sighted undervaluation of the importance of providing constitutionally required due process, equal justice, and fundamental fairness to all persons in the U.S. including asylum applicants and other migrants.
I’ve read a number of papers and proposals on how to “fix” immigration and refugee policies. None of them appears to recognize the overriding importance of making EOIR reform “job one.”
For once, why can’t Democrats “think like Republicans?” When John Ashcroft and Kris Kobach and later Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller set out to kneecap, politicize, and weaponize the U.S. justice system, what was their “starting point?” EOIR, of course!
The Obama Administration’s abject failure to effectively address and reverse the glaring mess at EOIR left by the “Ashcroft reforms” basically set the table for Sessions’s even more invidious plan to weaponize EOIR into a tool for xenophobia and White Nationalist nativism. The problems engendered by allowing the politicization and weaponization of EOIR have crippled the U.S. justice system far beyond immigration and asylum law.
Without a better EOIR, fully empowered to lead the way legally and insure and enforce compliance, all reforms, from DACA, to detention reform, to restoration of refugee and asylum systems will be less effective, more difficult, and less enduring than they should be. Equal justice for all and an end to institutionalized racism cannot be achieved without bold EOIR reform!
It would also take some of the pressure off the Article III Courts. Time and again they are called upon, with disturbingly varying degrees of both willingness and competence in the results, to correct the endless stream of basic legal errors, abuses of due process, and inane, obviously biased and counterproductive policies regularly flowing from EOIR and DOJ. Indeed, unnecessary litigation and frivolous, ethically questionable, often factually inaccurate or intentionally misleading positions advanced by the DOJ in immigration matters now clog virtually all levels of the Article III Federal Courts right up to the docket of the Supreme Court!
So far, what I haven’t seen is a recognition by anyone on the “Biden Team” that the experts in the private bar who have been the primary fighters in the trenches, almost singlehandedly responsible for preserving American justice and saving our democracy from the Trump onslaught, must be placed where they belong: in charge of the effort to rebuild EOIR and those who will be chosen to staff it!
Continue to ignore the New Due Process Army and their ability to right the listing American ship of state at peril! It’s long past time to unleash the “problem solvers” on government and give them the resources and support necessary to use practical scholarship, technology, best practices, and “Con Law/Human Rights 101” to solve the problems!
No “magic list,” stakeholders committees, or consensus-building groups can take the place of putting expert, empowered, practical problem solvers in charge of the machinery. We can’t win the game with the best, most talented, most knowledgeable, most courageous players forever sitting on the bench!
The future of our republic might well depend on whether the Biden-Harris Administration can get beyond the past and take the courageous, far-sighted actions necessary to let EOIR lead the way to a better future of all Americans! We can only hope that they finally see the light. Before it’s too late for all of us!
Due Process Forever! Complicity & Complacency, Never!
Paul Schmidt, who served as a board member and board chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals under the [Clinton] administration, said that Trump is not the first to manipulate the courts. In 2003, President George Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft removed board members whose views did not match the administration’s ideas for immigration. “You can track the downward trajectory of the immigration courts from Ashcroft,” he said. “We call it the purge. If you’re not with the program, your job could be on the line.… Ashcroft rejiggered the system so there’s no dissent.”
Schmidt said he “got bounced” because of his views, which makes him skeptical of the courts ever being independent in the current system. “How can you be a little bit independent?” he said. “It’s like being a little bit pregnant. You either are, or you aren’t.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Congrats to Marcia for recognizing that while the seeds of the current Immigration Court disaster originated in the Bush II Administration, they also grew steadily because of the Obama Administration’smismanagement and misuse of the Immigration Courts.
Given a rare chance to create a truly progressive, due-process-oriented judiciary, without any interference from Mitch McConnell and the GOP, the Obama group chose another path. They promoted “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR to meet improper political policy objectives. At the same time, they almost totally “shut out” the human rights, clinical, and immigration bars by appointing over 90% of Immigration Judges from Government backgrounds, overwhelmingly DHS prosecutors.
Notwithstanding a process that did not require Senate Confirmation, the Obama Administration politicos took a mind boggling average of two years to fill Immigration Court judicial vacancies! They also left an unconscionable number of unfilled positions on the table for White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions to fill!
Sure, it’s not “malicious incompetence” like the Trump regime. But, for asylum applicants and other migrants whose lives and due process rights are now going down the drain at an unprecedented accelerated rate, the difference might be negligible.
Dead is dead! Tortured is tortured! Missed opportunities to save lives are lives lost!
First, and foremost, Biden/Harris need to get elected. But, then they must escape the shadow of Obama’s immigration failures and do better for the many vulnerable and deserving folks whose lives are on the line.
Shouldn’t be that hard! The progressive legal talent is out there for a better Federal Judiciary from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes.
It just requires an Administration that takes due process, human rights, human dignity, and equal justice for all seriously and recognizes that in the end, “it all runs through immigration and asylum!” The failure to establish a sound, independent, institutionalized due process and equal justice foundation at the U.S. Immigration Courts, the “retail level” of our courts, now threatens to infect and topple the entire U.S. justice system! We need to end “Dred Scottification” before it eradicates all of our individual rights.
Richard A. Clarke served on the National Security Council for Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
President Trump has, often intentionally, damaged essential federal departments and agencies, driving from their ranks thousands of career civil servants who are global experts and national treasures. The country is seeing the results play out at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but such damage has happened across the federal bureaucracy.
No national institution has been more damaged than the Department of Homeland Security. The youngest of the federal departments, the DHS is among the largest by employee count, ranking just below the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs. It was created in 2003 by smashing together 17 agencies from five departments in an ill-conceived response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Its divisions and agencies are now largely leaderless, because the White House refuses to nominate senior managers to replace those who have left. Quick, who is the secretary of homeland security?
You get my point.
Trump has done far more damage to the DHS, however, than leaving it leaderless. He has branded it as the department that cages children, swoops innocent citizens off U.S. streets, sends warriors dressed for the apocalypse to deal with protests, hunts down hard-working people doing “essential jobs” to forcibly deport them, and harasses foreign students at leading universities. The DHS has become synonymous with unsympathetic government overreach, malevolence and dysfunction.
For the patriotic, underpaid Americans working hard in the agencies of the DHS, what Trump has done to their reputations is a tragedy. The department, however, was doomed from the start. When such an agency was proposed before the Sept. 11 attacks, I was working in the White House, where I coordinated many “homeland” issues for almost a decade under President Bill Clinton and, later, President George W. Bush. Blocking the creation of the DHS was one of the few things on which Vice President Dick Cheney and I agreed. We thought that such a department would be too large, too diverse in function and too difficult to integrate into a well-functioning institution.
Congressional leaders, however, wanted to “do something” after 9/11, and it became impossible for the Bush administration to maintain its opposition to the idea of a homeland security agency. Instead, the Bush administration embraced it and quickly merged a raft of agencies ripped from their home departments. The new department never really came together.
For more than a decade, reports from the Government Accountability Office, think tanks and congressional committees have documented the failures of the DHS to coalesce into an effective entity. Its image steadily declined and was not helped by the popular television series “Homeland,” which despite its name depicted a dark world of CIA intrigue, portraying missions and functions that the DHS never actually had.. Contrary to popular belief, Homeland Security has never been the government’s lead counterterrorism entity. The FBI, part of the Justice Department, leads counterterrorism efforts within the United States.
The next administration would be well advised not to try to make the existing DHS structure work, for it will end up as another presidential administration that has failed in that task. Instead, the department should be reimagined — perhaps as part of a Reinventing Government effort, the first of which was led by then-Vice President Al Gore — with more manageable and mission-consistent entities. It should also shed its Orwellian name.
Federal departments and agencies develop personalities and images from their mission, and they attract people who identify with those personas. These identities are almost immutable, but new organizational designs and branding can reinvigorate and redirect agencies. Breaking up the DHS could have positive results.
. . . .
************************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
You read it Courtside long ago: No mission, no leadership, no values, no discipline, no decency.DHS as currently constituted is a dysfunctional mess that America won’t miss.
Break it up, reassign the truly necessary functions, reduce the funding, and use the money saved by eliminating detention, grotesque mismanagement and maladministration, stupid walls, undisciplined and counterproductive, “civil” enforcement, and other demonstrably destructive functions for something more constructive. Yes, if you strip out the neo-Nazi wannabes, racists, and incompetents, there is some real talent there. Some of that talent passed through my courtroom in Arlington. Some of it is in the Asylum Office and at USCIS. There is some in the anti-smuggling and fraud detection programs. But, it’s totally wasted in the current corrupt dysfunctional configuration. Indeed, the totally toxic reputation of DHS under Trump actually hinders the useful functions.
This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!
