1st Cir. – Page 2 – immigrationcourtside.com

🤯 BORDER: THE “ADULTS IN THE ROOM” DON’T WORK FOR THE USG OR TEXAS: Dedicated Volunteers Left To “Pick Up The Pieces” Of Human Carnage From GOP Racism & Biden Administration’s Lack Of Courage, Competence, Creativity, & Resolve! — Failed Political Leadership On Migration On Both Sides Of The Border & Uncritical Reporting From Most Media Are A Big Part Of The Problem!

Melissa Del Bosque
Border Reporter
PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com

From The Border Chronicle:

From Education to Everything Else

Felicia Rangel-Samporano and Victor Cavazos founded The Sidewalk School, then a migrant shelter in Mexico. Now they also provide tech-support for a flawed U.S. immigration app.

MELISSA DEL BOSQUE

MAR 14

. . . .

Since opening, the school has also expanded to the neighboring Mexican border city of Reynosa. Because life in the migrant camps is transitory, The Sidewalk School’s teachers came and went, sometimes within weeks, said Rangel-Samponaro. They decided it would be easier to hire educators from Mexican border communities instead. Residents also understand better how to navigate the complicated dynamics at play in cities like Matamoros and Reynosa, which are riven by cartel-related crime—most recently, the kidnapping of four U.S. citizens in Matamoros, two of whom were shot and killed by cartel gunmen.

The Sidewalk School teaches based on the U.S. school calendar. In February they celebrated Black History Month, for example, she said. They focus on reading, writing, drawing, and play activities. Classes are typically held from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. They currently have 10 people on staff in Matamoros and Reynosa. “We need even more staff,” Rangel-Samponaro said. “In both cities.”

Frontline Responders

As elected leaders in both Mexico and the United States fail to acknowledge the seismic shift in global displacement due to climate change, Covid-19, and other factors, migrant camps continue to appear up and down the Mexican border.

Border residents have been frontline responders, adapting to the most pressing needs in the camps, one of which is housing. Recently, The Sidewalk School joined the church group Kaleo International to build a shelter in Reynosa. The shelter houses mostly Haitian and African migrants, who are some of the most vulnerable since they are routinely targeted for kidnapping and persecution in Mexico.

But one of the biggest surprises, said Rangel-Samponaro, is that they now serve as tech support for the CBP One app, which was rolled out in January by the U.S. government for migrants to apply for asylum, as an exemption to Title 42. The app has been plagued with errors. And humanitarian groups have complained that the app, which requires that each person upload a selfie to begin the asylum process, often won’t accept photos of darker-skinned applicants.

Currently, there are thousands of Haitians in both Reynosa and Matamoros, as well as other darker-skinned asylum seekers, who are stuck because they can’t get the app to accept their photos. (The manual on the app, which Sidewalk School employees consult daily is 73 -pages long).

I visited Reynosa and The Sidewalk School in late February and spoke with several Haitian families who had tried to use the CBP One app.

Upgrade to paid

I was quickly surrounded by frustrated parents who said they’d been trying for weeks to make the app work. Living in makeshift shelters made of tarps and cardboard and having little to no access to the internet, parents were waking up at 3:00 a.m. in the morning to find a place with an internet connection, then registering, and trying to take and upload their photo before 8:00 a.m., when the app began accepting daily applications.

“I have an appointment,” one father told me. “But the app won’t accept the photos of my children, so I can’t get appointments for them.”

The app often timed out, crashed, or gave error messages, they said. “It’s a disaster,” one man said, after I asked him to sum up his experience trying to use the app.

“People don’t like hearing it, much less acknowledging what is happening to Black asylum seekers,” Rangel-Samponaro said. “They are stuck inside these encampments for months compared to people of Latin descent, who are at the camps for maybe two weeks or a month.”

I spoke with at least 10 different Haitian families, and they all told me that they’d been living in the migrant camp in Reynosa for at least five months.

“We don’t have enough food,” a Haitian boy told me in Spanish, who said he was 11 years old. “And I have this rash on my face.” He pointed to his cheek. Open sewers and trash littered the area around the camps. And the families, who said they couldn’t work and were struggling to buy food, said they were growing desperate.

Felicia Rangel-Samporano visiting a migrant camp in Reynosa with mostly Haitian and Venezuelan asylum seekers. (Photo: Melissa del Bosque)

So desperate that families were considering splitting up. Rangel-Samponaro said there had been anguished meetings with parents who were considering sending their children across as unaccompanied minors. If the parents could get appointments through the app, they would reclaim their children once they arrived in the United States. At least that’s what they hoped.

Recently, The Sidewalk School brought in an immigration attorney to explain to parents how difficult it can be to find a child once they have been designated as unaccompanied in the U.S. immigration system. Children are held by CBP, then transferred to a shelter run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement somewhere in the country. “We’ve explained to them that it’s unlikely that they will cross, and their child will be there waiting for them,” she said.

And once people are accepted by the app for an appointment, they are extensively vetted through a series of law enforcement databases, and some are turned back, she said. “Just because you’ve got an appointment doesn’t mean they’re going to let you in to the United States.”

Rangel-Samponaro, like many others who provide humanitarian services in Mexico, is in frequent contact with CBP about problems with the app. In early March, she said, the agency updated the app so that it only requires one member of the family to submit a photo. But there are still not enough appointments for every member of the family, she said, so families are still splitting up and sending their children across as unaccompanied minors.

The Border Chronicle requested a response from CBP about the app. Tammy Melvin, a CBP press officer, replied in an email that the agency “continues to make improvements to the app based on stakeholder feedback.”

She said that “appointments will only be shown if enough slots for each member in the profile is available.”

And Melvin added in the email that they’ve not seen any issues linked to ethnicity. “CBP One is not conducting facial recognition that compares photos submitted in the application against any other reference system to identify someone,” She wrote. “CBP is not seeing any issues with the capture of the liveness photos due to ethnicity.”

Share

Rangel-Samponaro and others disagree. “We’ve invited the app developers to Reynosa and Matamoros to see the problems we’re having firsthand, but they’ve declined to visit,” she said.

Meanwhile, the hardships keep growing for asylum seekers. Recently, the Biden Administration announced, beginning in May after Title 42 is lifted, that asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they enter, rather than at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Rangel-Samponaro said The Sidewalk School is doing everything it can to help, as even more people will likely be stuck in limbo after the policy change in May. They’re providing educational programs, running a shelter, and now providing tech support, and helping people navigate the U.S. government’s glitch-filled app. “I struggle to categorize everything that we do now,” she said.

Just one of the many error messages encountered while using the CBP One app that Rangel-Samponaro and others try to troubleshoot for asylum seekers. [The “error messages” are all too real! The CBP denial that there is a problem is surreal!]

The first two years were rough going, she said, and she and Cavazos spent their own money to keep The Sidewalk School afloat. Now they’re receiving some grants and donations. But it’s always a struggle, she said. “We need more volunteers, more funding,” she said. “Because the need never stops.”

For volunteer opportunities and to learn more about The Sidewalk School click here.

************

Read Melissa’s full article at the link.

How’s this for “contrast?” Felicia Rangel-Samporano and Victor Cavazos, private citizens, gave up comfortable lives in the U.S. and invested their own time and money in addressing the needs of children and families essentially “tashed” by lawless inhumane policies of both the Trump and Biden Administrations. Meanwhile, racist, cowardly, bullying Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is leading a clearly unconstitutional effort to deny children in Texas U.S. the public education to which they are entitled under Supreme Court precedent. Have to ask what’s wrong with a state that puts a horrible person like Abbott, who doesn’t even govern very well in emergencies or other areas, in charge? They also enabled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), another bullying, lawless, coward who is basically the “bottom of the barrel!”

What the major networks and “mainstream”nmedia aren’t telling you:

“[E]lected leaders in both Mexico and the United States fail to acknowledge the seismic shift in global displacement due to climate change, Covid-19, and other factors;”
“Same old, same old” deterrence and officially-sanctioned cruelty, even in large, expensive, wasteful doses will NOT “solve” refugee flows;
The U.S. “system,” such as it is, systematically mistreats Black asylum seekers;
“CBP One” is defective technology that should never have been put into operation without testing and approval from the humanitarians actually working in the camps in Mexico;
So bad is CBP One that it is encouraging family separation;
The “requirement” that every family member obtain a separate appointment through CBP One is totally insane;
Even when asylum applicants get an appointment, it’s still a “crap shoot” because the Administration functions in a lawless, opaque, and arbitrary fashion without the necessary legal and practical expertise and safeguards in place;
The very idea that Mexico is a “safe” place to send non-Mexicans rejected at the border, under the totally irrational and illegal “presumption of denial” proposed by the Administration, is beyond preposterous;
The Biden Administration has failed to heed the advice of experts who have actually worked on the border and who have constructive ideas for making the law work.

I’m not just getting the above from this article. I have recently had a chance to hear from individuals actually providing legal and humanitarian services at the border who basically said that the situation there is “beyond FUBAR” and that the Administration officials “crafting” border policies are out of touch with reality and not up to their jobs! In some cases, they are just paying no attention to the law or the advice of those who actually understand the system, both in and out of Government.

That seems exactly what we voted out of office when the Trump kakistocracy was removed. Why, then, does Biden think that ignorance, bias, cruelty, and incompetence on human rights and racial justice is now a “winner?” Why is he aligning himself and his Administration with GOP nativist zealots like Abbott, Paxton, DeSantis, Trump, and Miller, rather than with folks like Rangel-Samporano and Cavazos who actually represent the humane, practical, problem-solving values that the Dems ran on in 2020?🤯

With human lives at stake every day, one would think that our Government’s massive violations of human rights and cavalier dismissal of legal rights recognized for more than four decades, would be of great interest to the so-called “mainstream media” and that all Democrats would be demanding changes in human rights/immigration leadership (obviously, Mayorkas & Garland are the wrong folks) and a competent, legal, humane approach from the Biden Administration. But, unfortunately, you would be wrong! Dead wrong, in some cases! ☠️⚰️

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-18-23

🏴‍☠️ AMERICAN OUTLAWS: THE CONTINUING SAGA OF EOIR’S FLAWED DECADE-LONG QUEST TO DENY PROTECTION TO HONDURAN WOMAN — LATEST CHAPTER: BIA Rebuked By 1st Cir. For Not Complying With Court Order!

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA1 on Evidence…Round 2! – Aguilar-Escoto II

Aguilar-Escoto II

“For the second time, petitioner Irma Aguilar-Escoto, a native and citizen of Honduras, asks us to vacate the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or the “Board”) rejection of her claim for withholding of removal. When this case was last before us, we vacated the BIA’s prior order and instructed the Board to consider the potentially significant documentary evidence submitted in support of Aguilar’s claim. See Aguilar-Escoto v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 334, 335 (1st Cir. 2017). Today, we conclude that the BIA again failed to properly consider significant documentary evidence. Consequently, we vacate the Board’s removal order and remand for further proceedings.”

[Hats off to Kenyon C. Hall, with whom Jack W. Pirozzolo, Sidley Austin, LLP, Charles G. Roth, National Immigrant Justice Center, and Carlos E. Estrada were on brief, for petitioner!]

*******************

This case is a microcosm of everything that’s wrong about EOIR, a “captive,” denial-biased “court” system operating within the DOJ, an enforcement agency within the Executive Branch, over three different Administrations — two Dem and one GOP! But, there is more to this story!

THE REST OF THE STORY:

In 2013, this respondent appeared before an IJ and presented a well-documented claim for withholding of removal to Honduras based on domestic violence. Among the respondent’s documentation were a psychological report, three police reports, a medical report from Honduras, a protection order from a Honduran court, the respondent’s declaration, and affidavits from family members. In the first flawed decision, in 2014, the IJ denied the claim.

The respondent appealed to the BIA. In another flawed decision, entered in 2016, the BIA denied the appeal. In doing so, the BIA denied an asylum claim that the respondent did not make and ignored key documentary evidence that went to the heart of the respondent’s claim. This suggests that the BIA merely slapped a “form denial” on the case which reflected neither the nature of the case below nor the actual record before them. Immigration practitioners say this type of performance is all too common in the dystopian world of EOIR.

Consequently, the respondent, represented pro bono by NDPA stalwart Carlos E. Estrada, a solo practitioner, sought review in the First Circuit. That petition succeeded! In 2017, the First Circuit vacated the BIA’s erroneous decision and directed the BIA to redo the case, this time considering the material, independent evidence of persecution that the BIA had previously ignored.

At this point, the respondent and her attorney had every reason to believe that their ordeal was over and that justice, and potentially life-saving protection, was “just around the corner.” But, alas, those hopes were dashed!

The BIA botched it again! In 2018, in what appeared to be one of the BIA’s “standard any reason to deny” opinions, the BIA purported to “affirm” the 2014 flawed decision of the IJ. In doing so, “the BIA erred by failing to follow this Court’s [1st Circuit’s] instruction to independently consider on remand the documentary evidence and to determine whether that evidence sufficed to establish past persecution.” Basically a “polite description” of “contempt of court” by the BIA.

Among the problems, the BIA failed to mention or evaluate one of the police reports that went directly to the basis for the BIA’s denial. Indeed, in a rather brutal example example of just how un-seriously the BIA took the court’s order, they erroneously stated that there were only two police reports. Actually, the record contained THREE such reports — since 2013!

Faced with the need for yet a second trip to the First Circuit, pro bono solo practitioner Carlos Estrada was “stretched to his pro bono limits.” Fortunately, the amazing pro bono lawyers at Sidley Austin LLP and National Immigrant Justice Center (“NIJC”) heeded the call and assisted Estrada and his client in their second petition for review.

With help from this “team of experts,” for the second time, the respondent “bested” EOIR and DOJ in the Circuit! While conceding that the BIA had errored in not complying with the court order, OIL, now under the direction of Dem A.G. Merrick Garland, advanced specious “alternative reasons” for upholding the BIA’s second flawed decision. These were emphatically rejected by the First Circuit! That court also noted that the (supposedly “expert”) BIA had applied the wrong legal standard in the case!

A rational person might think that after nearly a decade, this “charade of justice” would finally end, and the respondent would get her long-delayed, thrice-erroneously-denied relief. But, that’s not the way this dysfunctional and disreputable system works (or, in too many cases, doesn’t).

The First Circuit “remanded” the case to EOIR a second time, thus giving the BIA a totally undeserved THIRD CHANCE to improperly deny relief. Who knows if they will, or when they might get around to acting.

But, within Garland’s dystopian system, which lacks quality control, doesn’t require recognized expertise in human rights from its “judges,” and tolerates a BIA dominated by Trump-appointed appellate judges known for their records of hostility to asylum and related forms of protection from persecution and/or torture, a result favorable to the respondent, within her lifetime, is far from guaranteed.

As Attorney Carlos Estrada summed it up to me, “I just couldn’t do it [the second petition for review] pro bono by myself. I’m a solo practitioner. Such a waste of time and effort.”

Indeed, Garland’s failure to institute even minimal standards of due process, fundamental fairness, impartiality, expertise in his EOIR “court” system is unfairly stretching scarce pro bono resources beyond the limits, as well as denying timely, often life-saving or life-determining justice to individuals.

In a fair, functional, professional system, Estrada, Sidley Austin, and NIJC could be helping others in dire need of pro bono assistance. The respondent could have been enjoying for the last decade a “durable” grant of protection from persecution instead of having her life “up in the air” because of defective decision-making at EOIR and ill-advised “defenses” by OIL. The system could be adjudicating new cases and claims, instead of doing the same cases over and over, for a decade, at three levels of our justice system, without getting them right.

If you wonder why Garland’s broken EOIR is running an astounding 2.1 million case backlog, it’s NOT primarily because of the actions of respondents and their lawyers, if any! It has much to do with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” in “full swing” under Garland, incredibly poor judicial administration by DOJ/EOIR, poor judging by too many incumbents who lack the necessary expertise and demonstrated commitment to due process and fundamental fairness, poor administrative and judicial practices, inadequate training, and a toxic “culture of denial and disrespect for immigrants’ rights” that has been festering for years!

Do YOU think that sagas like this represent a proper approach to “justice in America at the retail level.” I don’t! But, incidents like this occur on a daily basis at EOIR, even if most escape the public spotlight!

“Out of sight, out of mind!” But, sadly, not so for the individuals whose lives are damaged by this system and their long-suffering attorneys, whose plights continue to be studiously ignored by Garland and his lieutenants. (Has Garland EVER offered to meet with the private, pro bono bar to find out what really is happening in “his” courts and how he might fix it? Not to my knowledge!)

Hats way off to Carlos E. Estrada, Esquire; Kenyon C. Hall, Jack W. Pirozzolo, and the rest of the folks at Sidley Austin, LLP (I note that Sidley generously has provided outstanding pro bono briefing assistance to our “Round Table” in the past); and Charles G. Roth and his team at the National Immigrant Justice Center for this favorable outcome and for insuring that justice is done. Garland and the Dems might not care about justice for persons in the U.S. who happen to be migrants, but YOU do! That, my friends, makes all the difference in human lives and in our nation’s as yet unfulfilled promise of “equal justice for all.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-10-23

☠️🤮🤯 HOW CAN JUDGES WHO DON’T KNOW WHAT TORTURE IS FAIRLY PREDICT ITS FUTURE PROBABILITY? — THEY CAN’T! — 1st Cir. “Outs” EOIR’s CAT Denial Conveyor Belt!

Hernandez-Martinez v. Garland, 1st Cir.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1448P-01A.pdf

. . . .

In March 2014, Hernandez-Martinez was on his way to work when two men approached him, demanding money and threatening to kill him if he did not pay. Hernandez-Martinez did not know who the men were. The men told him that they knew where he lived and would harm him or his wife if he did not comply. They also instructed him not to go to the police.

Hernandez-Martinez went to the police later that day. Two police officers told Hernandez-Martinez not to be afraid because they would “take matters into their own hands,” and they offered to drive him home. Instead, they delivered him to the men who had threatened him earlier. The men hit Hernandez-Martinez in the face, cut his waist with a knife, burned his right foot with motorcycle exhaust, dragged him, repeated their threats, and beat him senseless. The police appeared to know his assailants and laughed while the men were assaulting him. Hernandez-Martinez recovered consciousness in a hospital, where he stayed for three or four days. When he had sufficiently recovered, he promptly fled to the United States to join his wife and then four- or five- year-old son, who had already made the journey.

. . . .

The IJ’s reasons are not at all clear. She more or less simply stated the elements of a CAT claim and asserted that Hernandez-Martinez did not establish those elements without specifying which elements were found wanting, or why.2 In addressing the asylum claim, the IJ did comment on the severity of harm inflicted on Hernandez-Martinez, stating that the abuse he suffered did not “rise above the level of unpleasantness, harassment, and even basic suffering.” We agree with the government that were this a supportable description of the harm inflicted, it would not support a CAT claim. We disagree, though, that the facts found support such a description. More to the point, as a matter of law we reject the implicit claim that the harm visited upon Hernandez-Martinez was not severe enough to qualify as torture.

. . . .

****************************

It’s actually pretty hard to get a “rise to the level of torture” case wrong as a matter of law! But three levels of Garland’s DOJ managed to pull it off!

EOIR’s “holdover Ashcroft/Sessions/Barr era” deny every CAT claim approach seems to be running into problems in the “real” Federal Courts. Nothing that competent BIA Appellate Judges couldn’t solve. But, don’t hold your breath!

This absurdist CAT “adjudication” and its beyond absurd, unethical defense by OIL (“doesn’t even rise to the level of persecution,“ citing inapposite cases, gimmie a break) falls below minimum legal and professional standards in every conceivable way: at the IJ, the BIA (“summary affirmance”), and OIL!

That nearing the halfway point of the Biden Administration there is no Senate-confirmed Assistant AG running the all-important Civil Division, which supervises OIL, shows just how grossly deficient and indolent Dems’ approach to “justice at Justice” has been — both within the Biden Administration and in the Senate.

This stunningly defective, shallow, basically non-existent “analysis” by this IJ shows an out of control system where judges feel free to enter defective deportation orders in life or death cases without much thought and without fearing any accountability from the BIA. The latter obviously is an “any reason to deny” assembly line where clearly unacceptable performance by IJs is “rubber stamped” so long as the result is “deny and deport!”

What’s happening at Garland’s EOIR is analogous to a patient going into the hospital for knee replacement, getting a lobotomy by mistake, and dying to boot. Yet, the “hospital administrator “ shrugs it off as just “business as usual,” a “minor mistake” — “good enough for surgery” and lets the team of quacks keep operating and killing folks!

Gosh, even lesser legal luminaries like Gonzalez and Mukasey finally “got” that EOIR was totally out of control and off the wall in the aftermath of Ashcroft’s “due process purge” and mal-administration. They actually took some “corrective action,” even if largely ineffectual and mostly cosmetic.

It’s also no accident that a disproportionate amount of EOIR’s bad judging and docket mismanagement is inflicted on migrants of color, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti, and their representatives. Much as the Biden Administration tries to ignore it, there is a clear connection between institutionalized xenophobia and racial bias in our immigration system and the problematic state of racial justice elsewhere in the U.S.

Contrast the truly abysmal, unacceptable performance by the EOIR judges and OIL attorneys in this case with the outstanding performance of Judge Brea Burgie and private attorney Alexandra Katsiaficas in the asylum grant from Denver I highlighted yesterday. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/06/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%a7%91%f0%9f%8f%bb%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%a9%f0%9f%92%bc-modeling-eoirs-potential-in-denver-judge-brea-c-burgie-attorne/.

Obviously, there is expert judicial talent on the EOIR bench and in the private sector that could be recruited and elevated to fuel a “due process, great judging, and best practices renaissance” in this dysfunctional, inherently unfair, and grotesquely mal-administered system! But, equal justice and minimal professional standards at EOIR can’t wait! Lives are going down the drain, and wasteful corrections and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” further cripple this already “rock bottom” system every day.

Garland must finally “swap out the deadwood and under-performers” at the BIA and senior management at EOIR HQ in Falls Church. He needs to bring in the available, proven talent from both Government and the private sector to lead and guide his mockery of a court system back to at least a minimal level of competence, professionalism, and accountability.

It’s well within Garland’s authority to “end this disreputable, deadly ‘clown show’ at EOIR!” Dems both inside and outside Government should be demanding reforms and accountability!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-07-23

🏴‍☠️ BREAKING: SCOFFLAW ALERT: LACKING COMPETENCE & ABILITY TO FAIRLY ADMINISTER REFUGEE & ASYLUM LAWS, LIKE TRUMP BEFORE HIM, BIDEN PROPOSES NEW “GIMMICKS” TO REWRITE LAW BY FIAT RATHER THAN LEGISLATION! — Expanded Use Of “Emergency Parole” To Replace Law’s Existing Refugee & Asylum Programs Appears Illegal!

Biden Border Message — “Border Message”
By Steve Sack
Reproduced under license

Biden’s new immigration plan would restrict illegal border crossings

The measures are likely to draw legal challenges. They would expand rapid expulsion for illegal border crossers but allow more migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela.

Read in The Washington Post: https://apple.news/ARS8hkdNCShagYwOQlpmHkA

BY CLEVE R. WOOTSON JR., NICK MIROFF AND MARIA SACCHETTI report for WashPost, January 5, 2023 11:22 AM

President Biden on Thursday will announce new immigration restrictions, including the expansion of programs to remove people quickly without letting them seek asylum, in an attempt to address one of his administration’s most politically vulnerable issues at a time when the nation’s attention is focused on Republican disarray in the U.S. House.

The measures will expand Biden’s use of “parole” authority to allow 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela to come to the United States each month, as long as a U.S. sponsor applies for them first. But those who attempt to migrate through the region without authorization will risk rapid expulsion to Mexico, as the administration plans to expand its use of the pandemic-era Title 42 public health policy. Mexico has agreed to take back 30,000 border-crossers from those nations each month, U.S. officials told reporters during a briefing Thursday morning.

The measures, which are likely to draw legal challenges from immigration advocacy groups,”will expand and expedite legal pathways for orderly migration and result in new consequences for those who fail to use those legal pathways,” the White House announced.

Biden, who has said he will seek reelection in 2024, is contending with the political and operational fallout of two consecutive years of record numbers of migrants taken into custody at the Mexican border, in part because of his more welcoming policies.

Before taking office, Biden said he wanted an orderly system, not “2 million people on our border.” The number of border apprehensions jumped to 1.7 million during his first year in the White House, however, and soared to nearly 2.4 million in his second year. Biden campaigned on the promise that his administration’s immigration system would be “safe, orderly and humane”; his pivot toward amped up enforcement suggests the White House sees immigration as a 2024 liability.

The administration’s solution is legally thorny and will likely anger immigration advocates and even some Democrats — and will probably do little to silence Biden’s Republican critics.

. . . .

************************

Read the complete story at the link:

Biden’s plan effectively imposes arbitrary geographic and ideological restrictions on those seeking protection — something that Congress specifically intended to eliminate when enacting the Refugee Act of 1980;
Biden’s plan leaves out asylum seekers and refugees from the Northern Triangle, some of those most in need of protection;
It imposes arbitrary and illegal numerical limits on those who might otherwise seek asylum;
It continues the illegal and expanded use of Title 42 as a border enforcement mechanism having nothing whatsoever to do with public health — a position that the Administration itself has refuted in Federal Court all the way up to the Supremes;
It leaves those “paroled” in limbo with no clear path to legalization in the U.S., other than perhaps eventually applying for asylum in overloaded and often biased system with a backlog of many years;
Any future path to legal status for these parolees would require legislation agreed to by the GOP — not likely to happen — thus making these individuals “bargaining chips” for nativists seeking further restrictions on legal immigration and the right of asylum;
The “mass use” of parole at a rate of 30,000/month appears a direct violation of section 212(d)(5) of the INA, as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, which specifically intended to end the “mass use” of parole as a substitute for admitting refugees under the legal framework set up by the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended.

Here’s a “spot on” comment by Margaret Cargioli from the Post article:

Margaret Cargioli, a lawyer with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center said the program was effectively screening out migrants who lack U.S. connections or money to buy airplane tickets. She said Title 42 was “put in place by a racist and xenophobic administration” bent on stopping immigration, not protecting public health.

“It really does go against the nature of … ‘My life is in danger. I need to get out,’ ” she said at a Dec. 29 news conference. “And that is what the essence of an asylum seeker is.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-05-23

🤯 ❓QUESTION OF THE DAY: “Biden says he wants to dismantle Title 42,” writes Catherine Rampell @ WashPost, “so why has he expanded it?”

By Catherine Rampell

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/29/title42-migrant-asylum-biden-solutions/

The Biden administration has long been saying that it wants to get rid of Title 42.

Why, then, has it been expanding use of this policy?

“Title 42” is shorthand for what is effectively an abuse of a public health authority to circumvent U.S. asylum laws. Beginning in March 2020, the Trump administration used an obscure public health statute to automatically expel migrants without allowing them to first apply for asylum, as is their right under U.S. law and international treaty;PresidentDonald Trump’s pretext was that these immigrants might spread covid-19.

Apparently, Trump considered covid a liberal media hoax except when useful for punishing foreigners.

Human rights advocates and public health experts alike criticized the policy as probably both illegal and lacking a credible epidemiological purpose. Whatever its intentions, it didn’t reduce stress at the border; instead, it increased attempted border crossings, as many people expelled without consequence or due process turned right around and tried again to enter the United States.

That is, if they weren’t kidnapped, tortured, raped or otherwise violently attacked first. This happened in more than 10,000 cases of expelled migrants, as documented by Human Rights First.

As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden pledged to restore the integrity of the asylum system. He promised that anyone qualifying for an asylum claim would “be admitted to the country through an orderly process.” As president, though, Biden dragged his feet in terminating Title 42. He finally agreed to end the program this past spring. But termination has since been delayed by complicated court rulings, which Biden officials seem to have fought only half-heartedly.

This week, the Supreme Court determined that Title 42 must remain in place at least until the court decides a related issue (probably in the coming months). Given the Biden administration’s claims of wanting to end Title 42, the president should theoretically be mad about the delay.

Instead, Biden officials seem to have seized the opportunity to make yet more immigrant groups subject to automatic expulsions. “The administration has taken the position in court that they can no longer justify keeping Title 42 in place, given the lack of any public health justification,” said Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging the expulsion policy. “If you look at the administration’s actions, however, it’s clear they’re fine with Title 42 remaining in place.”

. . . .

Americans often complain that immigrants should come here “the right way,” but for many migrants, showing up at the border unannounced and turning themselves in is the only legal pathway available. If given options to come here that don’t require paying gangs and crossing deserts, people would gladly take them — which would in turn alleviate stress at the border.

To its credit, the Biden administration has taken baby steps on that last recommendation.

Its Uniting for Ukraine program, for instance, has vetted and “paroled in” more than 82,000 Ukrainians and their immediate relatives abroad, which has discouraged Ukrainians from showing up en masse at our southern border (as had been the case early in the war). A similar but much more restrictive program was created for Venezuelans, whose numbers are capped at 24,000; a parallel program is reportedly in the works for Cubans, Nicaraguans and Haitians.

But again, these additional legal pathways can be created while still upholding the ability to apply for asylum at our borders. That’s what U.S. law requires — and what Biden has, repeatedly, promised to do.

***********************

Read Catherine’s full article at the link. “If you look at the administration’s actions, however, it’s clear they’re fine with Title 42 remaining in place.” So true! So outrageous!

Contrary to much of the blather from both parties, refugee and asylum laws are an integral part of our LEGAL immigration system — one that is now being grossly misapplied and under-utilized!

Creating additional legal avenues for immigration by legislation is by no means inconsistent with maintaining robust, well-functioning refugee and asylum programs!

There are lots and lots of improvements that the Biden Administration could and should have made to the legal refugee and asylum programs that already exist under the law! Indeed, I suggest that many of the bogus “gimmicks” and counterproductive, wasteful, unfair “deterrents” devised and implemented by the Biden Administration, including expanded use of Title 42, were in direct or indirect response to Garland’s failed Immigration Courts. Because they are backlogged, inefficient, and dysfunctional, bureaucrats and politicos dream up ways to evade them (as opposed to fixing them so they work)!

It’s all wrong! There are “tons” of cases rotting in Garland’s ever-expanding EOIR backlog that could be granted or otherwise disposed of with relative ease and without stomping on anyone’s due process rights! There are ways of providing proper notice, better scheduling, and a new system for initial adjudications of non-LPR cancellation cases that do NOT require legislation; just better leadership and personnel at DOJ, DHS, and the White House!

The lack of scholarly, progressive, due process oriented precedents and implementation of best judicial practices by the BIA cripples justice in both the Immigration Courts and the USCIS Asylum Offices, even extending to the Refugee Program and other forms of USCIS adjudication of benefits.

For example, the ridiculous, largely self-created, backlogs in USCIS work authorizations is at least partially fueled by never ending backlogs in Immigration Court. Also, bad judicial decisions at EOIR create large amounts of unnecessary litigation in the Article III Courts and promote inconsistencies by allowing too many important issues, including proper application of some of the BIA’s own precedents favorable to respondents, to be resolved by the Circuits.

The system is a godawful mess! Yet, Dems in Congress didn’t even consider pressing for long-overdue Article I legislation, already introduced by Chair Lofgren, as part of their “lame duck push.” Thus, a key part of the immigration and justice systems continues to flounder and fail in Garland’s DOJ!

The need for so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” does not in any way minimize the responsibility of the Biden Administration for failing to reform the leadership and bureaucracies at DOJ and DHS to produce fairer, more efficient, expert, professional results!

Some cowardly Dem politicos and many Biden officials “run” from the immigration issue; yet, addressing and fixing the parts they control, like EOIR, could well have given them success to tout during the mid-term campaign.

And, as many experts suggest, it might also have helped address labor shortages, inflation and improved the economy. Rather than just “holding off disaster,” by acting more boldly on immigration the Dems might even have maintained and expanded their political control by demonstrating both the competence to solve immigration problems, even without comprehensive legislation, and the benefits of a fair, efficient, functional immigration system to America as a whole.

With the GOP taking over the House, expect many Dems to continue bellyaching that “nothing can be done about immigration.” It’s not like they did much of anything when they controlled both Houses!

There are still things that can be done to make the system fairer, more efficient, and more responsive to the common needs of America. Progressives should not let Dem “naysayers” off the hook!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-31-22

☠️ GARLAND’S QUASI-JUDICIAL TORTURE CHAMBERS — FROM COAST TO COAST, EOIR APPLIES WRONG LEGAL STANDARDS, IGNORES EVIDENCE IN EFFORT TO ILLEGALLY SEND PEOPLE TO TORTURE!

Star Chamber Justice — If he survives Garland’s EOIR, this guy faces more torture if wrongfully removed to torture elsewhere. “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports on H.H. v. Garland, a case in which the Round Table filed an amicus brief in behalf of the respondent. Many thanks to our friends Adam Gershenson, Zachary Sisko, Marc Suskin, Valeria M. Pelet del Toro, Samantha Kirby, and Cooley LLP on the brief for amici curiae Former Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

H.H. V. Garland

For the reasons detailed above, we conclude that the BIA erred by: (1) applying the incorrect standard of review to uphold the IJ’s denial of CAT relief as to Honduras, in a misguided effort to accommodate the IJ’s error of law in requiring a showing of willful acceptance rather than willful blindness; (2) improperly failing to address H.H.’s argument that he would likely be tortured by or at the instigation of Honduran officials; and (3) failing to meaningfully address H.H.’s argument that MS-13 members may act under color of law.21 Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision insofar as it denied H.H. deferral of removal to Honduras, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

************************************

Meanwhile, Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigraton Community reports on another CAT rebuke from the 9th Circuit.

CA9 on CAT, Guatemala: De Leon Lopez v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/21/20-71529.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-cat-guatemala-de-leon-lopez-v-garland#

“Risvin Valdemar De Leon Lopez (“De Leon”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. We conclude: (1) the record in this case compels the conclusion that two of De Leon’s attackers were police officers during a July 2011 incident; (2) De Leon showed acquiescence on the part of the Guatemalan government with respect to that incident because government officials— namely, the two police officers—directly participated in the incident; and (3) the record indicates that the IJ and BIA’s conclusion that De Leon is not likely to be subjected to torture with government acquiescence if returned to Guatemala disregards several important circumstances pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of future torture. In light of these errors, we grant the petition and remand for the agency to reconsider De Leon’s application for relief.”

[Hats off to Karla Kraus!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

*********************

Almost every time I “feature” the ongoing legal and operational disaster @ EOIR, Garland furnishes me with concrete examples. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/10/22/%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%e2%9a%b0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%92%80garlands-star-chambers-slow-violence-on-people-of-color%f0%9f%a5%b5-bias-bad-law-bungling-bureaucracy/

These are two “doozies” from last Friday!

These aren’t “minor bureaucratic matters,” no matter how much Garland and his “clueless crew” over @ DOJ might want to treat them that way and hope they will go away! They won’t! Not if the thousands of us involved in the due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice for all movement have anything to say about it (e.g., the “NDPA”)!

And we will continue to speak out against the parody of justice @ Garland’s EOIR! It’s a disingenuous and disgraceful performance by a Democratic Administration that will have “down the line” consequences!

While the Trump Administration admittedly left EOIR in complete shambles, that doesn’t excuse the Biden Administration’s failure to fix it. It’s not “rocket science!” But, there is no way that the “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland has chosen to run and staff EOIR (many inexplicably “held over” from the Sessions/Barr debacle) can fix it!

These are literally life and death cases in which Garland’s “faux expert” BIA “pretzels” the law, misconstrues facts, and “selectively reads” records to reach wrong results that deny protection and decree deportation! How is this acceptable performance from any tribunal, let alone one that is supposed to insure justice for those whose lives are on the line? How is this acceptable performance from a Democratic Administration that claimed fealty to human rights and racial justice, but takes neither seriously when it comes to EOIR?

There are plenty of “practical scholar experts” out here in the non-governmental sectors who would make much better appellate and trial judges, and administrators, than many of those Garland is inflicting on migrants and their attorneys.

What’s wrong with the Biden Administration? What’s “right” about failed justice @ Justice?”

The poor performance of Garland as the “steward” of the Immigration Courts at EOIR is a threat to humanity, democracy, and a colossal waste of judicial and litigation resources at all levels of our justice system!

Alfred E. Neumann — Maybe Merrick Garland SHOULD worry about running “America’s worst courts” and inflicting life-threatening injustice on his fellow humans!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-23-22

🏴‍☠️“ANY REASON TO DENY”🤮 — GARLAND BIA’S BIASED, ANTI-ASYLUM JURISPRUDENCE CONTINUES TO GARNER PUSHBACK FROM ARTICLE III’s — Dem AG Needs To Pay Attention To Assault On Democracy, Rule Of Law Taking Place In HIS Dysfunctional “Courts!” — Garland Reportedly Plans More Backlog-Building, Due-Process-Denying “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”)!

“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Public Realm

Here are about a week’s worth of reports from Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community on the continuing disintegration of justice in “Garland’s Courts:”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-credibility-cat-njoka-v-garland

CA3 on Credibility, CAT: Njoka v. Garland

Njoka v. Garland (unpub.)

“[W]e conclude that the Board erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of CAT protection. The Board’s sole justification for that affirmance was the adverse credibility finding. The Board suggested that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, an adverse credibility finding defeats a claim for CAT protection. See Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019). But under the law of this circuit, an adverse credibility finding is “not determinative” of a claim for CAT protection.1 Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 279, 288 (4th Cir. 2022); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 371 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because there is no subjective component for granting relief under the CAT, the adverse credibility determination on which the IJ relied to deny [the petitioner’s] asylum claim would not necessarily defeat her CAT claim.”). The Board was thus obliged to also consider Njoka’s independent evidence in the context of his claim for CAT protection.2 See Camara, 378 F.3d at 371-72. Because the Board did not fulfill that duty, we will grant the petition for review in part and remand for the Board to do so.”

[Hats off to Rajan O. Dhungana!]

************************

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-interpol-red-notice-cat-gonzalez-castillo-v-garland

CA9 on INTERPOL Red Notice, CAT: Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland

Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland

“Petitioner Oscar Gonzalez-Castillo was found to be ineligible for withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) because there were “serious reasons to believe that [he] committed a serious nonpolitical crime” in his home country of El Salvador. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii). The government only presented one piece of evidence supporting application of the serious nonpolitical crime bar, however. It was an INTERPOL Red Notice, described at greater length below. The Red Notice accused Gonzalez-Castillo of committing “strikes” on behalf of the gang MS13, allegedly committed on a date when Gonzalez-Castillo was in the United States rather than in El Salvador, based on the date of entry found by the IJ. We conclude that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s finding, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), that Gonzalez-Castillo is ineligible for withholding of removal based on the serious nonpolitical crime bar. This court has long interpreted “serious reasons to believe,” the standard set by the statute for the serious nonpolitical crime bar, as equivalent to probable cause. In this case, the INTERPOL Red Notice cannot, by itself, establish probable cause. The allocation of the burden of proof in immigration proceedings does not change this outcome. We accordingly grant Gonzalez-Castillo’s petition for review in part and remand to the agency to consider whether Gonzalez-Castillo is eligible for withholding of removal. We also grant the petition as to his claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), because the record reflects that the agency failed to consider all of Gonzalez-Castillo’s testimony and statements about the harms he suffered in El Salvador at the hands of state actors, so we remand for more complete consideration of the CAT claim. We are not persuaded, however, by arguments in the petition for review challenging the evaluation of evidence that was discussed or by the argument that that the IJ failed sufficiently to develop the record. We dismiss the petition in part as to his claim for asylum, because the arguments Gonzalez-Castillo raises on appeal with respect to the one-year bar for asylum relief were not exhausted before the BIA.”

[Hats off to Amalia Wille (argued) and Judah Lakin, Attorneys; Nicole Conrad and Joya Manjur, Certified Law Students; University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, California; for Petitioner, and John P. Elwood, Kaitlin Konkel, and Sean A. Mirski, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Fair Trials Americas!]

****************************

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-credibility-changed-conditions-sikhs-in-india—singh-v-garland

CA9 on Credibility, Changed Conditions (Sikhs in India) – Singh v. Garland

Singh v. Garland

“We have held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may rely on a prior adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen if that earlier finding factually undercuts the petitioner’s new argument. Greenwood v. Garland, 36 F.4th 1232, 1234 (9th Cir. 2022). But that does not mean the BIA can deny a motion to reopen just because that motion touches upon the same claim or subject matter as the previous adverse credibility finding. Here, Rupinder Singh submitted new evidence about religious persecution independent of the prior adverse finding. The BIA thus erred in holding that the earlier adverse credibility finding barred Singh’s motion to reopen. The BIA also erroneously concluded that Singh failed to show that the conditions for Sikhs in India changed qualitatively since his last hearing. Clear evidence shows the contrary. We thus grant the petition and remand.”

[Hats off to Garish Sarin!]

***************************

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-abuse-of-discretion-rivera-medrano-v-garland

CA1 on Abuse of Discretion: Rivera-Medrano v. Garland

Rivera-Medrano v. Garland

“Karen Elizabeth Rivera-Medrano, a citizen and native of El Salvador, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of her request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)–1208.18, and denying her motion to remand this case to the immigration judge (“IJ”) based on newly obtained evidence. We conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to remand. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate, and remand for further proceedings. … The BIA’s oversight is particularly significant here, where the credibility determination rested considerably on minor inconsistencies in what the IJ concluded was an otherwise credible presentation.”

[Hats off to SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and Henry Klementowicz!]

*******************************

President Biden is correct that Trump and his MAGA GOP are the biggest threat to American democracy. But, “Dred Scottification,” systemic denial of due process, and racial injustice still running rampant in Immigration “Courts” under a Democratic Administration is right up there as an existential threat!

Additionally, I’ve been getting reports this week from practitioners in various locations that EOIR is embarking on yet another mindless, ill-informed round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — guaranteed to increase backlogs, decrease effective representation, and spew out more unprofessional and unjust results.

Once more, this inane initiative appears to have been undertaken with neither advance input from, nor sufficient notice to, those most affected — respondents and their attorneys! Same old, same old! This must stop!

Enough, already! Why aren’t all the “movers and shakers” of American law lined up in front of Garland’s Office demanding that he end the assault on our Constitution, common sense, good government, and human decency that unfolds every day in the disgracefully dysfunctional parody of a “court” system that is his sole responsibility!

The bar and NGO communities have to fight Garland’s assault on due process and good government with every available tool!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

00-02-22

😰IMMIGRATION 101: SUMMER GRADES POSTED: GARLAND, BIA, & OIL GET “F’s” FROM 1ST (FRENTESCU TEST) & 3RD (CATEGORICAL TEST) CIRS! — Meanwhile, NDPA Litigators Get “A+’s”

Dunce Cap — With lives on the line, the BIA’s performance leaves something to be desired.
PHOTO: Creative Commons

From Dor v. Garland, 1st Cir.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1694P-01A.pdf

Given our familiarity with the record at this point, we are prompted to note that it is not at all apparent to us how an application of the Frentescu factors to Dor’s case would lead to a particularly-serious-crime determination. For instance, consider again the June 1 incident — the BIA relied on a police officer’s assessment that Dor had a “large amount” of marijuana on him, but this on-the-scene appraisal by an officer is largely irrelevant to an immigration-law-driven determination that a crime is particularly serious pursuant to the guiding statutes, especially when the actual amount (25 grams, a small amount) is available. See Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. at 703; Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 194 n.7. Consider, too, that while the BIA identified the type of sentence imposed as a Frentescu factor but never mentioned (or weighed) Dor’s sentences, we observe that

– 23 –

Dor received lenient sentences with respect to both offenses (a two-year probation and a one-year suspended sentence that never went into effect since Dor completed a violation-free probation period).

As to Dor’s involvement in trafficking as part of the calculus here, based on the amount in question, and again on the face of this record, this characterization seems ambitious. The May 20 offense officers observed Dor sell “20 bucks[‘ worth]” of marijuana to another individual; the June 1 incident revealed Dor had in his possession a digital scale, a large amount of U.S. currency, and 25 grams of marijuana.

Bottom line: The BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion is devoid of any actual application of the Frentescu factors, and even if we considered it a solid application of the law to Dor’s case, we still do not have a sufficiently rational explanation of the BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion as to Dor’s minor marijuana offenses, and a rational explanation is necessary to ensure Dor was appropriately precluded from obtaining the humanitarian relief he seeks.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :

Edward Crane, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, Shaiba Rather, Lena Melillo, and Katie Quigley, Law Student Advocates, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, were on brief, for petitioner.

*************************

From Vurimindi v. AG, 3rd Cir.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191848p.pdf

In sum, the Government has identified no evidence that supports divisibility. The statute, the case law, and the available state court documents all support the opposite conclusion.11 Because Pennsylvania’s stalking statute is indivisible as to intent, we apply the categorical approach. And under the categorical approach, Section 2709.1(a)(1), which sweeps more broadly than its generic counterpart in the INA, is not a categorical match. Vurimindi’s offense of conviction therefore does not qualify as a removable offense.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to DLA Piper’s:

Courtney Gilligan Saleski

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/s/saleski-courtney-gilligan/

and

Rachel A.H. Horton

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/h/horton-rachel/

************************

Interestingly, the BIA’s defective decision in Dor involved improper reliance on police reports. This comes just as a new NIJC report shows how improper reliance by EOIR on police reports means that “racism and inequities in the criminal legal system and policing carry over into the immigration system.” https://default.salsalabs.org/T59538212-844f-4d6d-ade1-0428b5eef400/e9c83407-de3b-4bcf-a318-704cbcd599a2.

The Dor case also presents a familiarly outrageous characteristic of American immigration policy — still going strong in the era of Biden, Harris, and Garland — “Dred Scottification” — that is systemic injustice — directed at Black Haitian refugees. Indeed, Dor is lucky to be in the “system” at all — no matter how biased and poorly functioning. Following in the footsteps of the overtly racist and xenophobic Trump Administration, under Biden more than 25,000 potential Haitian refugees have been arbitrarily returned under Title 42 with no process at all — not even the “veneer of due process” provided by EOIR! See https://www.wola.org/2022/05/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-title-42-ruling-family-self-separations-more-drownings-haiti-expulsion-flights/.

The cases described above have been pending for three and six years, respectively. EOIR presents the worst of both worlds: lengthy delays and backlogs without due process and careful expert consideration of the issues involved. Injustice at a high cost, in more ways than one!

After trips to three levels of our broken immigration justice system, countless hours of legal time, and untold trauma and uncertainty for the individuals subjected to this dysfunctional system, these cases remain far from final resolutions. Now they go back into Garland’s incredible nearly two million case backlog!

Sometimes, the BIA uses this as an opportunity to invent a new “bogus theory of denial.” Other times, the files get lost or reassigned. In other words, they are subject to EOIR’s “specialty:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

Garland doesn’t lose any sleep over it because: 1) not his life on hold, 2) not his time and money being wasted, and 3) he isn’t paying attention! This is unacceptable public service! Plain and simple! And, there appear to be few, if any, real consequences for anybody except the individuals whose lives and futures are at stake and their (often pro bono) lawyers!

How completely “out of touch” is Garland? He has put bogus, “Mickey Mouse” time limits on new asylum adjudications. Doing incompetent and biased adjudications faster isn’t going to solve the problem. It will actually make backlogs worse and more importantly, increase the number of defective asylum denials — already at beyond unacceptable levels.

You can’t fix a broken system by making it “pedal faster!” Why, after all these years, Garland doesn’t understand that “fundamental rule of Goverment bureaucracy” is totally beyond me!

The obvious solution: Put emphasis on getting these cases right at the first instance. That means “canning” the “anti-immigrant default and assembly line process” and getting expert IJs willing to rule in favor of individuals where appropriate and a revamped BIA of expert judges willing to issue precedents favorable to individuals and insure that IJs properly follow them. It also means a BIA who will follow precedent even where it doesn’t produce a “DHS Enforcement-friendly result.”

Additionally, “lose” OIL’s often-dilatory or quasi-frivolous arguments designed to cover up EOIR failures and block justice! (HINT: The Assistant AG, Civil, one of the key sub-cabinet positions at DOJ, and OIL’s “boss,” remains unfilled approaching the halfway point of the Biden Administration.) This system is broken from top to bottom, including the litigation “strategy” that attempts to shield unfair and legally incorrect EOIR decisions from critical substantive review by Article III judges independent from the Executive.

Yes, Garland recently has “pruned” some of the deadwood at EOIR and brought in a few widely-respected expert “real judges.” That’s some progress.

But, he’s barely scratched the surface of the anti-immigrant culture, “haste makes waste” atmosphere, and shoddy decision making at EOIR and the poorly conceived litigation strategies at OIL! In particular, the dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy glaringly lacks inspired progressive due-process-committed, human-rights-focused, racial-justice-sensitive leadership willing to stand up for individual rights against Government overreach and abuses!

Of course, the “real” solution is to get the Immigration Courts out of DOJ and into an independent Article I structure. But, unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen tomorrow.

In the meantime, there is plenty that Garland could be doing to improve due process and professionalism and to “pave the way” for the eventual transition to Article I. The more dysfunctional Garland makes his system the more difficult and rocky that transition will be.

Garland isn’t getting the job done! Everyone who cares about the future of our nation and the rule of law should be asking why and demanding better from Garland and his “asleep at the switch” lieutenants!

High-powered lawyers like Courtney Saleski, National Co-Chair of DLA’s White Collar Practice, who successfully litigated Vurimindi in the 3rd Circuit have some “juice.” They need to team up with the ABA, FBA, AILA, ACLU, Human Rights First, NIJC, the NAACP, Catholic Conference, HIAS, and other human rights and civil rights groups and “camp on Garland’s doorstep” until he “pulls the plug” on his dysfunctional, unprofessional EOIR and brings in due-process-focused competence! How many resources and human lives can our nation afford to waste on Garland’s EOIR disgrace?

Alfred E. Neumann

Individuals whose lives are subject to systemic injustice and their hard-working, often pro bono, attorneys might “dissent” from Garland’s dilatory approach to long overdue due process reforms and key personnel changes in his stunningly dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

🛡⚔️THE ROUND TABLE RIDES AGAIN! — INJECTING A DOSE OF REALITY INTO 1ST CIR. LITIGATION — No, “Briefing Completed” Doesn’t Mean That A BIA Decision Is Imminent — With An 80K+ Appellate Backlog, No Leadership, No Coherent Plan, Many Appellate Judges “Programmed To View Only Removals With Urgency,” & “Priorities” That Change On Political Whim, It’s A Grave Mistake To View EOIR “Through The Lens Of A ‘Normal’ Court System!” 🤯

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

“Sir Jeffrey Chase forwards our Round Table’s latest effort to promote reality, reasonableness, and due process in EOIR’s dysfunctional world:

Amici curiae are 38 former immigration judges (““IJs””) and members of the 2

Board of Immigration Appeals (““BIA””).2
Amici have dedicated their careers to improving the fairness and efficiency of

the United States immigration system, and have an interest in this case based on their combined centuries of experience administering the immigration laws of the United States. Amici collectively have presided over thousands of removal proceedings and thousands of bond hearings in connection with those proceedings, and have adjudicated numerous appeals to the BIA.

In denying Anderson Alphonse’’s (““Mr. Alphonse”” or ““Petitioner””) petition for writ of habeas corpus, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Saylor, J.), relied in part on the premise that it was ““readily foreseeable that proceedings will conclude in the near future”” because Mr. Alphonse’’s appeal to the BIA was ““fully briefed.”” This premise—at best aspirational when made in January 2022—has proven erroneous: nearly six months later, Mr. Alphonse’’s BIA appeal remains undecided. This is, regrettably, unsurprising given the surging caseload in the immigration courts, which now exceeds 1.8 million

1
1Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any

party, and no person or entity other than Amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

2
2 See the appendix for a complete list of signatories.

1

Case: 22-1151 Document: 00117894678 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/05/2022 Entry ID: 6505717

pending cases. This crushing backlog—adding significantly to the backlog facing the BIA—-iis extremely relevant to the question of when a removal proceeding is likely to conclude. In fact, it might be the most important factor in this equation. Yet this factor is absent from the First Circuit’’s current analytical framework, opening the door to erroneous suppositions and conclusions based on a cursory review of a removal proceeding’’s posture, such as the one made by the District Court here.

Thus, Amici write to respectfully urge the Court to reassess the impact the backlog of cases facing the immigration courts may have on the ability of courts to accurately forecast when removal proceedings will conclude. Given their extensive experience with the immigration courts and BIA appeal process, Amici are uniquely positioned to provide insight into this narrow, but critical, issue.

The case is Alphonse v. Moniz, currently pending in the 1st Cir. Here’s a complete copy of our brief:

Round Table – Alphonse (1st Cir) FILED Amicus Brief – 7.5.22

***************************

Many thanks to our wonderful pro bono counsel Matthew Levitt and Evan Piercy at MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.

Although BIA decisions, particularly in non-detained cases, might take many months or even years to decide, the appellant is given only a relatively short period of time to file a brief — 21 days. A single 21 day extension may be requested and is usually granted, although it is common for the appellant not to be notified that the extension has been granted until after the extension period has expired.

Requests for additional or longer extensions are rarely granted. Motions to accept late-filed briefs, even those only a day or two tardy, are often denied. On the other hand, failure to file a timely brief after requesting a briefing schedule is a potential ground for summary dismissal of an appeal regardless of the merits! 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E).

These rigid procedures might give the false impression that the EOIR system is driven by a sense of urgency in dispensing justice. Additionally, BIA and AG decisions often disingenuously pontificate about the supposedly “critical importance” of finality in immigration decisions. It’s all BS!

As you might note, the only “urgency” at EOIR is the potentially severe consequences imposed on the appealing party, usually the migrant. One the “compressed briefing” is complete, there is no particular assurance that the appeal will be decided on the merits for months, years — or ever! Additionally, the BIA can sometimes make dismissal of an appeal easier by ignoring an untimely brief or even by summarily dismissing an appeal for failure to file a brief without dealing with the merits.

Moreover, the hopelessness of the 1.82 million case EOIR backlog and the “assembly line justice” encouraged by EOIR’s “political masters” at DOJ results in a sloppy, “haste makes waste” approach to “justice.” This, in turn, means wrongful removals or unnecessary “remands” from Circuit Courts.

But, not to worry — there is neither penalty nor accountability for the BIA’s poor performance. Wrongly deported individuals are “out of sight, out of mind” — assuming they are even still alive.

Moreover, court remands actually give the BIA unlimited opportunities to correct their sloppy and unprofessional work, often with the benefit of a more thoughtful analysis from the Circuit Court. Not that such beneficial treatment by the Circuit necessarily means the BIA will get it right on remand. The BIA has been known to get “chewed out” by Circuit Courts for ignoring or “blowing off” their mandates.

“Red flags” 🚩 should be popping up all over the Falls Church horizon — so big that even the often “asleep at the wheel” immigration policy folks at the Biden Administration can see them! But, don’t hold your breath! Our Round Table, however, will continue “speaking truth to power” and revealing the real, awful due process mess at EOIR.

The respondent in this case is ably represented by Associate Dean Mary Holper of Boston College Law and her Immigration Clinic. In a way, this is a classic illustration of why Garland has been unable to fix EOIR. Dean Holper is an accomplished, universally-respected litigator, teacher, writer, practical scholar, and administrator. She is exactly the type of NDPA All-Star/Expert whom Garland should have recruited on “Day 1,” brought in, and empowered to fix EOIR and reinstate and realize its due process mission. Instead, Garland’s EOIR continues to flail and fail while the talent who could fix it are lined up in court against him!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-18-22

🏴‍☠️“ANY REASON TO DENY ASYLUM” BIA HITS ROUGH SLEDDING FROM COAST TO COAST — 1st Cir. (Bogus Adverse Credibility) & 9th Cir. (Ludicrous “Not Persecution” Finding) — But, EOIR’s “Asylum Denial Assembly Line” Wins Love From Trumpy 9th Cir. Judge!

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-persecution-nicaragua-flores-molina-v-garland-2-1

CA9 on Persecution, Nicaragua: Flores Molina v. Garland (2-1)

Flores Molina v. Garland

“Petitioner Mario Rajib Flores Molina (“Flores Molina”) participated in demonstrations against the ruling regime in his native Nicaragua, where he witnessed the murder of his friend and fellow protester by police and paramilitary members. Thereafter, he was publicly marked as a terrorist, threatened with torture and death by government operatives, and forced to flee his home. Flores Molina, however, was tracked down at his hideaway by armed paramilitary members, and was forced to flee for his life a second time. Flores Molina still was not safe. He was discovered, yet again, assaulted, and threatened with death by a government-aligned group. Flores Molina ultimately fled a third time— from Nicaragua altogether—out of fear for his safety. He eventually presented himself to authorities at the United States border and sought asylum and other relief. When Flores Molina sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) determined that his past experiences in Nicaragua did not rise to the level of persecution. They also determined that Flores Molina did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ and BIA denied all forms of relief and ordered Flores Molina’s removal to Nicaragua. Flores Molina petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his appeal of the IJ’s decision, as well as of the BIA’s subsequent denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. Because the record compels a finding that Flores Molina’s past experiences constitute persecution and because the BIA erred in its analysis of the other issues, we grant the first petition and remand for further proceedings. Accordingly, we dismiss the second petition as moot.

[Hats off to Mary-Christine Sungaila (argued) and Joshua R. Ostrer, Buchalter APC, Irvine, California; Paula M. Mitchell, Attorney; Tina Kuang (argued) and Natalie Kalbakian (argued), Certified Law Students, Loyola Law School!]

*******************************

EOIR’s deadly, incorrect approach to sending refugees back to face persecution is legally incorrect, factually erroneous, and morally bankrupt. But, it does have one huge fan. Recently appointed Trump Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke:

In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress codified the highly deferential substantial evidence test and established what should be our court’s guiding star in the review of immigration decisions: that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” INA § 242(b)(4)(B) (codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added)). Congress later amended the INA by passing the REAL ID Act, further reining in our role and discretion as a reviewing court and stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain immigration claims. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1698 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Over time, however, this court’s decisions have chipped away at these statutory standards—broadening the scope and standard of our review far beyond the limited and deferential posture that Congress unmistakably set out in the INA. See id.

To properly apply our deferential standard of review, we are supposed to scour the record to answer a single question: could any reasonable adjudicator have agreed with the agency’s result, or does the record as a whole compel a different conclusion? See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (explaining that substantial evidence review requires that we review “the record considered as a whole” and reverse the agency only if no reasonable factfinder could agree with its conclusion); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing Elias-Zacarias as “the touchstone” and “definitive statement of ‘substantial evidence’ in the context of . . . factual determinations in asylum cases”). On its face, this is an exceptionally deferential standard of review. But there’s more.

“Scour the record” to defeat asylum claims that should have been granted below, huh? That clearly defective, biased, one-sided approach is “due process and fundamental fairness” for a “person” under our Constitution? Or maybe asylum seekers of color aren’t “persons” to VanDyke and his righty cronies? That’s how VanDyke would like the Constitution applied if his life were at stake?

He’d like to use legal mumbo-jumbo to allow refugees to have their lives ended or threatened by non-expert decision makers making it up as the go along to deny meritorious claims. Under his “standard of review,” judicial review would be no review at all. Just scour the record for any obscure reason to deny asylum or, failing that, just make one up. Doesn’t matter as long as the individual loses and gets removed! That’s pretty much what too many EOIR judges and BIA “panels” (which can be a single judge) are already doing. Why add another layer of intellectual dishonesty, moral corruption, and absence of judicial ethics to the mess?

Mr. Flores-Molina is not buy any means the only one subjected to Judge VanDyke’s loony right-wing legal nonsense. You can “meet” the judge right here:

https://newrepublic.com/article/165169/lawrence-vandyke-judge-ninth-circuit-appeals-trump-bonkers-opinions

“The Rude Trump Judge Who’s Writing the Most Bonkers Opinions in America.”

One might legitimately ask why already vulnerable asylum seekers and their courageous lawyers are being subjected to such judicial abuse at all levels of our system. Why doesn’t Garland just appoint “real, expert, fair EOIR Judges” who will do the right thing at the “retail level” without having to enter the “appellate circus” 🤡 that Trump and the GOP have created?

**************************************************

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-credibility-reyes-pujols-v-garland

CA1 on Credibility: Reyes Pujols v. Garland

Reyes Pujols v. Garland

“[T]he BIA upheld an adverse credibility determination that the IJ reached in part based on an inconsistency in Reyes’s story that simply was not an inconsistency. Nor can we say that absent the adverse credibility finding, Reyes’s CAT claim would necessarily fail. We therefore must vacate the BIA’s ruling affirming the IJ’s denial of that claim. … Reyes’s petition for review is granted, the ruling of the BIA is vacated, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Ethan Horowitz!]

***********************

REALITY CHECK:

Here’s a key sentence from the preamble to the L.A. Declaration on Migration and Protection:

We are committed to protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced and stateless persons regardless of their migratory status.

So I’d like to know how the following fit within our solemn commitment to “protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers?”

Falsely finding that systematic assaults, death threats, being driven from your home, and being tracked down after fleeing, carried out by a Nicaraguan Government so repressive that it wasn’t even invited to the L.A. Conference, do not constitute persecution; and
Inventing a bogus inconsistency in an asylum seeker’s testimony and using it to wrongfully deny asylum.

Clearly they don’t! And, this kind of official misconduct goes on somewhere at EOIR on both levels every day! Just ask any experienced asylum practitioner! So, why hasn’t Garland replaced the EOIR judges who are not qualified to be deciding asylum claims with readily available expert talent?

Asylum seekers face systematically unfair treatment by “judges” who serve at Garland’s pleasure. Many of those judges, particularly at the BIA, were appointed or “elevated” by Garland’s openly xenophobic, virulently anti-asylum predecessors during the Trump regime. Yet, inexplicably, they continue to inflict bad decisions and sloppy, legally defective, morally vapid work on the most vulnerable? Why?

What if we had an expert, due-process-oriented Immigration Court that uniformly interpreted asylum law correctly and actually granted much-needed and well-deserved protection? What if asylum seekers didn’t have to enter the “Circuit Court crap shoot” — or deal with bad “no review is judicial review” judges like Judge VanDyke — to get life-saving justice? What if the rule of law and human rights were honored and advanced in Immigration Court rather than being mocked and disparaged? What if Immigration Courts modeled good judicial behavior instead of operating as a shockingly dysfunctional parody of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices?

Wouldn’t it be better for everyone?

Perhaps there is some modest movement in the right direction. I’ve received reports from at least two Immigration Courts that unqualified Trump-era appointees have been removed over over the past week. That’s a start! But, it will take lots more “removals or reassignments” and a complete “redo” of the mal-functioning BIA to get due process, expertise, fundamental fairness, and best (as opposed to worst) judicial practices back on track at EOIR!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-16-22

🙁“CAT-ASTROPHE” — GARLAND’S EOIR FLUNKS “CAT 101” — Coast-to-Coast Failures in 9th and 1st Cir Show A “Judiciary” With Life or Death ☠️ Authority Lacking In Basic Legal Skills & Competence!🤮

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

An immigration judge ordered a gay Nigerian man deported over a minor discrepancy. The Ninth Circuit just reversed in a fiery ruling https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/An-immigration-judge-ordered-a-gay-Nigerian-man-17151459.php

When a local security brigade in Nigeria learned Peter Udo and his boyfriend were seen having sex in a hotel room, they seized and beat the couple for six hours and later told Udo he should be put to death.

Udo’s mother used her family savings to enable him to flee the country and he wound up in California, where an immigration judge rejected his plea for asylum and ordered him deported because his description of the events gave a false name for the hotel where he had been captured. That order has now been firmly rejected by a federal appeals court.

The judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the deportation order, failed to give any “reasoned consideration” to the evidence Udo presented, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday in a ruling requiring the board to review his claim that he would be tortured if returned to Nigeria.

That evidence included an “excommunication notice,” signed by leaders of the community’s Council of Traditional Rulers, notifying Udo and his family that anyone engaging in homosexual acts is “subjected to public execution” and that his mother and five other relatives were no longer considered citizens of the community.

“Remarkably, the (Board of Immigration Appeals) did not reference the excommunication notice at all” in its ruling that would have returned Udo to Nigeria, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said in the appeals court’s 3-0 decision, which included a copy of the notice.

Udo’s lawyer, David Casarrubias, said the ruling was a victory for asylum seekers.

“The opinion stands for the proposition that although Congress may enact laws that make it harder for asylum seekers to prevail as a result of minor discrepancies in their applications, there are other international laws like the Convention Against Torture that still have teeth,” Casarrubias said.

. . . . .

**********************

Read the rest of Bob’s article at the link.

*******************************

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1296P-01A.pdf

. . . .

The government does again urge us to construe the BIA as having merely affirmed a finding that it attributed to the IJ

10 For this reason, we need not resolve whether, as Ali contends, the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) by failing to consider all relevant evidence through the way the IJ treated the evidence from Harper in her testimony and March 2020 declaration that bears on Ali’s “security forces”-related ground for CAT-based deferral of removal.

– 30 –

regarding whether it was “more likely than not” that Ali would be subject to abuse severe enough to constitute torture rather than a finding that it attributed to the IJ regarding the limited severity of the abuse that Ali had shown that he was likely to suffer. But, as we explained in connection with Ali’s challenge to the BIA’s “other private actors”-related ruling, the IJ did not make that finding either. And, in any event, as we have noted, that is a strained reading of the BIA’s opinion, given that the opinion expressly quotes only from the portion of the relevant regulations that purports to define how severe abuse must be to constitute torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . .”), rather than a regulation concerning how “likely” it must be that the noncitizen will be subjected to abuse that is severe enough to constitute torture, see, e.g., id. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), (4).11

Finally, the government contends that we still must affirm the BIA’s ruling because, although Harper described violence, “she did not describe the injuries to the Somalis she

11 To the extent that the government means to argue here, too, that the BIA itself considered the Harper evidence in question because of the portion of the BIA’s opinion in which the BIA states, “after considering the risk of torture from all sources in the aggregate,” we cannot agree. That statement concerns only what the BIA determined that the IJ considered in making the finding about the severity of the abuse that Ali would face that the BIA attributed to the IJ. But, as we have explained, the IJ made no such finding.

– 31 –

witnessed being beaten or kicked . . . such that the agency could reasonably conclude she provided insufficient detail to show that such abuse by Somali security forces rose to the level of torture or that Ali was at risk that it likely would rise to the level of torture.” But, the IJ did not find that Ali had failed to meet his burden to show that he would likely be tortured by security forces in Somalia on any such basis. Rather, the IJ rejected his “security forces”-related ground for requesting deferral of removal pursuant to the CAT solely because the IJ found that “Harper indicated that the main motivation” of the security forces who “mean to do the respondent harm” is “they are either too busy to protect themselves and therefore they cannot protect other people” or to “harass people based on cultural differences,” such that they would not be acting “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” in visiting any abuse on Ali.

. . . .

*******************************

These are complicated cases. Indeed, the 1st Circuit spent 33 pages analyzing this particular case.

By contrast, a supposedly (but, clearly not) “expert” BIA appears to have taken about 5 minutes to “rubber stamp” the clearly defective denials prepared by staff attorneys in these life or death matters! How is this due process or fundamental fairness? No way!

If this were a law school exam, rather than a life or death “court” case, the BIA’s effort probably would have received a “D-“ or an “F.” Yet, Garland finds this ridiculously deficient level of performance acceptable where “only” the rule of law, constitutional due process, and human lives are at stake!

One might expect this from a GOP AG. But, is this really what human rights advocates and progressives elected Biden to churn out?

I say “No.” This is NOT acceptable performance by the BIA! Nor is it acceptable professional performance by Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the other members of the “Clueless Crew” supposedly in charge of the DOJ!

⚖️Due process for migrants is due process for all in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-22

⚖️THE GIBSON REPORT — 03-21-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney, NIJC — BIA Suffers Beat-Downs In 11th (Burglary) & 1st (Credibility, CAT) Cirs, While Shernette G. Noyes Gets Rare Win For Immigrant In BIA Theft Precedent, Matter of C. MORGAN, 28 I&N Dec. 508 (BIA 2022)!

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The content of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

PRACTICE ALERTS

NEWS

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

RESOURCES

EVENTS

PRACTICE ALERTS

USCIS Preparing to Resume Public Services on June 4

Secretary Mayorkas Designates Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status

CBP General Notice Regarding Electronic Form I-94s Instead of Paper at Land Ports of Entry

DHS To End COVID-19 Temporary Policy for Allowing Expired Identity Documents for Employment Verification

NEWS

One-Third of New Immigration Court Cases Are Children; One in Eight Are 0-4 Years of Age

TRAC: The largest segment where age was recorded, some 32,691, were children from zero to four years of age. This represents 12 percent of cases received this fiscal year, or a little less than one out of every eight.

DHS withdraws Trump-era rule that expanded quick deportations

Reuters: DHS in a notice published in the Federal Register said the “expedited removal” process is best focused on people who recently entered the U.S. and remain in close proximity to the border, rather than those targeted by Trump’s sweeping 2019 expansion, who have been in the country longer and developed ties to their communities.

‘Travesty’: Immigration advocates accuse Biden administration of TPS double standard on immigrants of color

MSN: The administration’s announcement that it would provide “temporary protected status,” or TPS, for Afghans came weeks after the Department of Homeland Security granted the same protections for Ukrainians living in the United States. See also More than 44,000 Afghans tried for a fast track to the U.S. About 200 have gotten it; Russians are blocked at US border, Ukrainians are admitted.

Watchdog recommends relocation of detainees from ICE facility, citing unsanitary conditions and staff shortages
CBS: The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a damning report on Friday documenting unsanitary conditions, staff shortages and security lapses at ICE’s Torrance County Detention Center in New Mexico. The OIG found the conditions so unsafe that it took the highly unusual step of urging ICE to immediately remove all persons detained at the facility. ICE is refusing to comply with this recommendation and has contested the integrity of the OIG’s investigation.

US seeks regional approach to migration and asylum seekers

AP: Faced with the likelihood of eventually reopening its southern border to asylum seekers, the United States government is urging allies in Latin America to shore up immigration controls and expand their own asylum programs.

Notable opinions by high court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson

AP: In 2019, Jackson temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to expand fast-track deportations of people in the country illegally, no matter where they are arrested.

Profile of Sen. Dick Durbin

Politico: When it comes to immigration, Durbin said, “I don’t want to hear the word reconciliation,” referring to the budgetary rules that can allow for the Senate to sidestep a filibuster. “That holds up false hope. … The question is: is there anything we can do on the subject of immigration that can win 60 votes in the Senate? We’re going to test that.”

Immigrants with asylum put lives on hold over green card waits

RollCall: For green card applications filed by people with asylum, the wait ranges from 25 to 52 months, or more than four years, according to the USCIS website. See also Visa limbo for immigrants in U.S.; U.S. Work-Permit Backlog Is Costing Immigrants Their Jobs.

Powered by artificial intelligence, ‘autonomous’ border towers test Democrats’ support for surveillance technology

WaPo: The towers use thermal imaging, cameras and radar to feed an artificial intelligence system that can determine whether a moving object is an animal, vehicle or person, and beam its location coordinates to U.S. Border Patrol agents.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

BIA AMICUS INVITATION (VACATUR OF A CRIMINAL CONVICTION), Due Date: April 6, 2022

BIA: What factors should the Board weigh when considering an untimely motion to reopen that is premised on a vacatur of a criminal conviction?

Matter of C. MORGAN, 28 I&N Dec. 508 (BIA 2022).

BIA: Larceny in the third degree under section 53a-124(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes is not a theft offense aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2018), because it incorporates by reference a definition of “larceny” under section 53a-119 of the Connecticut General Statutes that is overbroad and indivisible with respect to the generic definition of a theft offense. Almeida v. Holder, 588 F.3d 778 (2d Cir. 2009), and Abimbola v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2004), not followed.

April argument calendar features cases on Trump-era asylum policy and praying football coach

SCOTUSblog: Biden v. Texas (April 26): Whether the Department of Homeland Security must continue to enforce the Migrant Protection Protocols, a policy begun by President Donald Trump that requires asylum seekers at the southern border to stay in Mexico while awaiting a hearing in U.S. immigration court.

Judge Revives Suits Over Denied Travel Ban Waivers

Law360: Foreigners locked out of the U.S. due to former President Donald Trump’s now-defunct travel bans will get a new chance to fight their case, after a California federal judge reopened two lawsuits over the policy on Tuesday.

CA5: HIV Status Not Enough To Halt Deportation

Law360: A recent HIV diagnosis alone does not put a Mexican national at greater risk of state-sanctioned violence if he’s returned home, the Fifth Circuit ruled Monday in a unanimous published opinion denying the man’s asylum bid.

Unpub. CA5 Credibility, CAT Remand: Thraiyappah V. Garland

LexisNexis: Because the BIA erred in concluding its affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination effectively disposed of Thraiyappah’s pattern-or-practice claim for CAT protection based on his Tamil ethnicity, we Grant the petition, Vacate in part and Remand to the BIA.

CA11: BIA Must Rethink Removal For Burglary Of Empty Dwelling

Law360: A man facing deportation from the U.S. for burglarizing an empty Florida property got another chance to challenge his removal after the Eleventh Circuit questioned a finding by immigration judges that his crime constituted “moral turpitude.”

ACLU Seeks ICE Docs To Check On Biden Reform Promise

Law360: The Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Wednesday seeking records it says will show whether the Biden administration followed through on a promise to reform immigration enforcement policies.

USCIS Releases Updated Information on Rosario Class Action

AILA: USCIS stated that following the February 7, 2022, court decision in Asylumworks v. Mayorkas, USCIS must process all initial EAD applications from asylum applicants within 30 days. Given certain conditions regarding Form I-765, some applicants may be considered Rosario class members.

DHS Notice Rescinding 2019 Expedited Removal Notice

AILA: Advance copy of DHS notice rescinding the July 23, 2019, notice Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, which expanded the application of expedited removal procedures. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 3/21/22 and will be effective on that date.

DHS Designates Afghanistan for TPS for 18 Months

AILA: Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas announced the designation of Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months. The designation will take effect upon publication of a forthcoming Federal Register notice, which will also include instructions for applying for TPS and an EAD.

AG Issues Memorandum on FOIA Guidelines

AILA: The Attorney General issued a memo to heads of executive departments and agencies with guidelines for the fair and effective administration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The memo includes guidelines for removing barriers to access and reducing FOIA request backlogs, among other things.

DOS Provides Guidance on Local Filing of Form I-130 Petitions

AILA: DOS states that U.S. citizens physically present overseas with their Afghan, Ethiopian, and Ukrainian immediate family members can request to locally file a Form I-130 petition at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate that processes immigrant visas. DOS specifies who citizens can file for.

DHS Extends Validity of Certain EADs Issued Under TPS for Somalia

AILA: DHS has automatically extended the validity of certain EADs with a Category Code of A12 or C19 issued under TPS for Somalia through September 12, 2022. Information on updating expiration dates and reverification is available.

ICE Issues Guidance on Protections for Noncitizen Victims of Crime

AILA: ICE issued directive 10036.2, which states that ICE personnel are generally prohibited from using or disclosing information protected by Section 1367 to anyone other than DHS or DOJ employees. This includes information on applicants for T & U visas, continued presence, or VAWA based benefits.

Third Extension of Effective Date of USCIS Temporary Final Rule on Interpreters at Asylum Interviews

AILA: USCIS temporary final rule extending the expiration date of the temporary final rule on interpreters at asylum interviews published at 85 FR 59655, which was set to expire on 3/16/22, through 3/16/23. (87 FR 14757, 3/16/22)

RESOURCES

AIC: New Biden Administration SIJS Policies Offer Crucial Protections for Immigrant Youth

AIC: Immigration and Customs Enforcement Issues Annual Report—What Does It Really Mean?

ICE: Standard Operating Procedures Detention Facility Termination of Agreement

ILRC: TPS and Asylum: Can I Apply for Both?

ILRC: Deferred Action and Work Permits for Young People with Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS)

MPI: Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States

MPI: The World Is Witnessing a Rapid Proliferation of Border Walls

EVENTS

NIJC EVENTS

4/12/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Of Domestic Violence (VAWA)

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

GENERAL EVENTS

3/21/22 International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

3/21/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

3/22/22-3/23/22 Hot Topics in Removal Defense and Asylum Law

3/23/22 Race, Citizenship, and Political Inequality

3/23/22 Intermediate Intensive VAWA Training

3/23/22 USCIS: Citizenship Promotion for Special Immigrant Juveniles, T and U Nonimmigrants, and VAWA Self- Petitioners Engagement

3/24/22 TPS, Adjustment, and Alternate Relief

3/29/22 What U Practitioners Should Know in 2022: Monitoring Developments in U Visa Practice

4/1/22 EOIR – Chicago Model Hearing Program

4/5/22 Intensive T Visa Declaration Workshop

4/6/22 Initial TPS Applications

4/7/22 Motions Before the Board of Immigration Appeals

4/12/22 Introduction to Bond Proceedings

4/12/22 Preparing Military Naturalization Applications: What You Need to Know

4/12/22-5/3/22 Webinar Series: Selected Issues in Inadmissibility

4/21/22 Monthly NIPNLG Removal Defense Webinar: Hot Topics in SIJS

4/27/22 U Visa RFEs

4/28/22 Motions to Reopen Removal Proceedings

5/3/22 The Family Visa Petition

5/4/22 California Pardons and Post-Conviction Relief

5/6/22-5/13/22 NITA-NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” Training

5/10/22 Asylum Claims for Young People

5/17/22 Advocating for Prosecutorial Discretion for Clients in Removal Proceedings

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

5/19/22 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Your Client’s I-360 Is Approved, Now What?

5/24/22 Obstacles to TPS Eligibility

6/7/22 Asylum and Employment Authorization

6/8/22 Naturalization for People with Disabilities

6/22/22 Introduction to Immigrant Visa Consular Processing

7/5/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

9/26/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the group page and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

******************

Many congrats to Attorney Shernette G. Noyes of Stratford, CT for doing the near impossible: Notching a well-deserved win for an immigrant in a “crimmigration” case before one of the toughest BIA panels this side of Dodge City!

Shernette G. Noyes ESQ
Noyes & Associates LLP
Stratford, CT
PHOTO: Noyes & Associates LLP

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-23-22

🤯👎🏽MORE CIRCUIT REJECTS FOR GARLAND & PRELOGAR — 1st & 3rd Cirs “Just Say No” To DOJ’s Ill-Advised Positions On “Theft Offense” & Derivative Citizenship! — It’s Part Of A Larger Leadership Failure @ Garland’s Broken DOJ!

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-categorical-approach-da-graca-v-garland

CA1 on Categorical Approach: Da Graca v. Garland

Da Graca v. Garland

“Aires Daniel Benros Da Graca petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) affirming his order of removal and denying his requests for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Because we find that a conviction under Rhode Island General Laws (“RIGL”) § 31-9-1 is not categorically a theft offense, we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings.”

[Hats off to Randy Olen and Robert F. Weber!]

******************

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-derivative-citizenship-victory-jaffal-v-director

CA3 Derivative Citizenship Victory: Jaffal v. Director

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203148p.pdf

“Appellant Imad Jaffal, born in Jordan, seeks a declaration that he is entitled to derivative U.S. citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a). That statute provides that “a child born outside the United States automatically acquires United States citizenship if, while the child is under the age of eighteen, the parent with legal custody of the child is naturalized while that child’s parents are legally separated.” Jaffal’s father was naturalized when Jaffal was seventeen years old, and Jaffal presented evidence to the District Court that he was in the sole legal custody of his father when his father was naturalized and his parents were separated. The District Court, however, declined to accept Jaffal’s evidence of his parents’ divorce. Because we conclude that was error, we will reverse the order of the District Court and remand the matter with instructions to issue a judgment declaring Jaffal to be a national of the United States.”

[Hats way off to Alexandra Tseitlin!]

****************************

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Torresen’s decision in Da Garcia v. Garland:

Despite this apparent disconnect between RIGL § 31-9-1 and the Board’s definition of theft offense, the Board in Da Graca’s case determined that to prove the statute’s overbreadth, the Petitioner was required to identify actual cases in which Rhode Island had enforced the statute against de minimis deprivations of ownership interests. Da Graca contests the Board’s imposition of an actual case requirement and argues that he “need not necessarily proffer specific examples of Rhode Island prosecutions in order to establish a ‘realistic probability’ that the state would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime.” We agree with Da Graca.

Essentially, Garland’s BIA “makes it up as it goes along” to reach a denial, then Prelogar’s DOJ attorneys defend the illegal result. Sounds like a really bad system, lacking accountability, expertise, common sense, and, sometimes, professional responsibility.

Lest you think that the legal nonsense being produced by Garland’s BIA and the USCIS is “below Prelogar’s radar screen” in her exulted position, that’s NOT true! Every adverse decision suffered by the USG must be reported to the SG’s Office with an analysis and recommendations from the agency’s attorneys, the litigators who handled the case, the appellate section of litigating division (here the Civil Division), and the SG’s staff. No appeal, petition for rehearing en banc, or petition for cert. can be filed without the express authorization of the SG’s Office.

So, Prelogar is well aware of the bad positions, unfairness, and poor work product DOJ attorneys are defending (sometimes with a lack of candor or misleading the courts) and their abuses of the time of the Article IIIs.

Even with the “real” (Article III) Federal Courts moving markedly to the right (following four years of Trump-McConnell appointments and eight years of lackadaisical performance by the Obama Administration), and rules that strongly favor the Government on judicial review, DOJ’s haphazard performance under Garland and Prelogar continues to earn a stream of avoidable “kickbacks” from the Article IIIs. The DOJ system is broken in many places — EOIR is just the most obvious, most pressing, and most easily addressed area of failure.

There is a tendency of immigration advocates, perhaps still hoping to curry favor with an Administration that largely ignores and despises them, to overemphasize the largely cosmetic and low impact “positive” changes made by the Biden Administration. See, e.g., https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/biden-at-the-one-year-mark-a-greater-change-in-direction-on-immigration-than-is-recognized;

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/01/biden-keeps-trump-immigration-policiesand-stephen-miller-is-loving-it.html

At the same time they acknowledge but downplay the existential crippling effects of Garland’s failure to bring progressive reforms to EOIR, his defense of disgraceful, immoral, and inhumane “Miller Lite” positions in Federal Court, his intentional indifference to human suffering and the complete breakdown of the rule of law at our borders, and his disdain for removing the Trump enablers, deadwood, and poor lawyers from DOJ — at all levels.

I have a radically different perspective on the future of meaningful progressive immigration reforms, based on my nearly 50 years of involvement with the system on both sides and at all levels — more than most folks.

There will be no meaningful, sustainable immigration reforms without a radically reformed, remade, Immigration Court system with a judiciary of due-process-oriented progressive experts who have the courage to “speak truth to power,” stand up for the legal, constitutional, and human right of the most vulnerable, and put integrity, humanity, and the best interests of our nation above career advancement, survival, or “ingratiation with the powers that be.” That’s NOT Garland’s DOJ — which remains largely the out of control, often ethically challenged morass that he inherited from his predecessors.

Let’s not forget that through intentional misuse of precedents, weaponization of EOIR, and White Nationalist litigation strategies, Jeff Sessions was able to largely disable the entire asylum system, including USCIS Asylum Offices, and shift USCIS Adjudications from service to “enforcement only,” in preparation for the “final eradication” of asylum and crippling of our entire legal immigration system by his crony and former subordinate, Stephen Miller. And, the folks who helped him do that and “went along to go along” with abuses are still largely on board and in key positions in Garland’s DOJ — actually operating with his apparent “stamp of approval.” Outrageous!

From a due process, human rights, progressive, good government, equal justice, racial equality standpoint, as well as from any aspect of moral leadership on fundamental values, Garland’s performance at DOJ has been unacceptable. Has Garland visited any of the camps in Mexico or gone to the “New American Gulag” to witness first-hand the human carnage for which he is responsible? Heck no! That’s a job for progressive experts whose input and advice he then shuns, ignores, and “tunes out!”

For progressive advocates to downplay the Biden Administration’s gross failures or “over-cheer” incremental progress that means little without fundamental reforms at EOIR and the DOJ only deepens the fecklessness of their own positions and furthers the disrespect and under-appreciation of their efforts, potential power, and value that has become an endemic feature of the Democratic Party.

The Biden Administration might talk a good game, particularly around election time; but, in reality, they are governing largely in fear of and like nativist Republicans — but getting no “political return” whatsoever for betraying their supposed values and their base (see, Catherine Rampell). Advocates reward and tolerate such disgraceful and intellectually dishonest conduct at their own peril!

Meanwhile, Suzanne Clark, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, certainly no “progressive shill,” speaks truth about the need for and our ability to accept more immigrants:

Allowing more immigrants into the US would help mitigate both soaring inflation and the current labor shortage, the CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce said.

“We need more workers,” Suzanne Clark told reporters Tuesday, per CNN. “We should welcome people who want to come here, go to school, and stay.”

“That is a place the government could be particularly helpful and we do believe it would be anti-inflationary,” she said, per CNN.

https://apple.news/AT8YmOLhiTOCuUFZijTLJCQ

Those immigrants are right in front of us: rotting in camps at the border, being returned to danger or death with no process — both as a result of Garland’s failure to re-establish our legal asylum system at the border — or languishing in Garland’s mushrooming 1.6 million Immigration Court backlog! It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to see that instead of wasting time, money, and resources on mindless “enforcement” intended to deter and discourage those who might help us by helping themselves, we should have set up fair and timely processing systems, staffed by experts, that would identify the many individuals at the border and already in the U.S. who can qualify to remain under fair and properly generous interpretations of asylum law, withholding, CAT, U & T visas, “stateside processing waivers,” cancellation of removal” (for those already here), TPS, and other possibilities.

This is just as much”law enforcement” and “maintaining the integrity of our system” as are the efforts to increase deportations, terrorize communities, or close borders to “deter” migrants (primarily those of color) that has been practiced to some degree by every Administration. It also makes sense, economically, practically, and ethically.

It starts with an Attorney General and DOJ with the courage and vision to end the “deterrence only” misconstruction of our laws and stand up for the legal and human rights of migrants, regardless of race, color, creed, or manner of entry. That’s not what Garland has been doing to date! Too bad, because there will be no resolution of immigration issues — nor will there be racial justice in America — without an AG who will stand up for the real rule of law rather than the parody of the law and justice purveyed by Miller and his White Nationalists and still being parroted and too often defended by Garland and his minions.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever.

PWS

01-21-22

☹️CREDIBILITY WOES CONTINUE IN 1ST CIR FOR GARLAND’S BIA!

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-remand-menjivar-bonilla-v-garland

CA1 Remand: Menjivar Bonilla v. Garland

Menjivar Bonilla v. Garland

“Jose Ernesto Menjivar Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for withholding of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) Section 241(b)(3) and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition in part and remand for further proceedings. … [B]ecause the IJ’s assessments of Bonilla’s credibility and the decision to require corroborating evidence were based in significant part on discrepancies with the 2012 Record, which we have determined to be unreliable, further factfinding is required. See Mboowa v. Lynch, 795 F.3d, 222, 229 (1st Cir. 2015) (finding remand warranted where a central aspect of the agency’s credibility assessment is flawed). Accordingly, we remand to the agency for further factfinding. Guta-Tolossa v. Holder, 674 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2011) (“Where a question is best resolved by the agency in the first instance, or is left primarily in the agency’s hands by statute, and the agency has failed to address that question, we generally must remand.”); see also Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2007) (“If, in the absence of a credibility finding by the IJ, a reviewing court determines that such a finding is necessary for effective review of the case, it may remand to the agency for further factfinding.”). Accordingly, we vacate the denials of withholding and relief under the CAT and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Rachel L.Rado!]

********************

Let’s see, an IJ gets it wrong, a “single member BIA panel” summarily affirms w/o opinion, and a three member panel of the First Circuit unanimously reverses in a published opinion!

Seems to be a “weak link in the chain” here!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-13-21

🌬🤯MORE BLOWBACK FOR GARLAND’S “COURTS” — Problems Emerge On Credibility (1st Cir., 10th Cir.), Agfel (9th Cir.)

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/en-banc-ca1-credibility-remand-diaz-ortiz-v-garland

En Banc CA1 Credibility Remand: Diaz Ortiz v. Garland

Diaz Ortiz v. Garland

“Cristian Josue Diaz Ortiz, a native of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s petition for relief rested on an adverse credibility determination that primarily drew its support from a “Gang Assessment Database.” Flaws in that database, including its reliance on an erratic point system built on unsubstantiated inferences, compel us to conclude that the credibility judgment — and, in turn, the rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s request for relief — is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for new immigration proceedings.”

[Hats way off to Kristin Beale, Ph.D., Ellen Scordino and Sameer Ahmed!]

********************

And here’s one sent in by Round Table leader and scholarly blogger Judge “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase:

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110629330.pdf0

Takwi v. Garland, 10th Cir., 01-10-22, published

Nkemchap Nelvis Takwi seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a removal order entered by an Immigration Judge (IJ) and denying his motion to remand. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we grant the petition for review. We remand this matter to the BIA because the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination, and the BIA did not afford Mr. Takwi the required rebuttable presumption of credibility.

Just for a good measure, the 9th Circuit also “busted” Garland’s BIA on an agfel issue:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-agfel-togonon-v-garland

CA9 on AgFel: Togonon v. Garland

Togonon v. Garland

“Petitioner Longinos Togonon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2013. In 2015, he was convicted of arson in violation of California Penal Code § 451(b) and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Togonon, alleging (as relevant for our purposes) that his arson offense qualifies as an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.”). The Immigration and Nationality Act defines the term “aggravated felony” to include “an offense described in” 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 451(b) is an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and that Togonon is therefore subject to removal from the United States. Reviewing that decision de novo, see Sandoval v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2017), we conclude that the BIA erred in so holding. We accordingly grant Togonon’s petition for review.”

[Hats off to pro bono publico appointed counsel Matthew N. Ball (argued), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, Colorado; Paul J. Collins, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, California; Andrew T. Brown and Matt Aiden Getz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California!]

*****************************

The First Circuit decision was 4-3. It appears that the respondent’s lawyers, experts, and the majority did the careful, critical analysis that the BIA failed to perform. Even the dissenters, who got it wrong, appear to have spent more time and thought on this issue than Garland’s BIA.

The Tenth Circuit decision highlights “Basic Asylum 101” failures by both the IJ and the BIA. It’s not that hard to make a specific credibility finding in every case. I did it in every contested asylum case I heard over 13 years on the bench. Nor is applying the presumption of credibility on appeal profound.

I’ll concede that the 9th Circuit agfel issue was more tricky. But, the BIA’s practice of almost always going with the most expansive, pro-DHS interpretations of the agfel definition to maximize deportation and minimize relief doesn’t help.

Go NDPA!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-12-22

From The Border Chronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA1 on Evidence…Round 2! – Aguilar-Escoto II

THE REST OF THE STORY:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hernandez-Martinez v. Garland, 1st Cir.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

By Catherine Rampell

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Meanwhile, Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigraton Community reports on another CAT rebuke from the 9th Circuit.

CA9 on CAT, Guatemala: De Leon Lopez v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here are about a week’s worth of reports from Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community on the continuing disintegration of justice in “Garland’s Courts:”

CA3 on Credibility, CAT: Njoka v. Garland

CA9 on INTERPOL Red Notice, CAT: Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland

CA9 on Credibility, Changed Conditions (Sikhs in India) – Singh v. Garland

CA1 on Abuse of Discretion: Rivera-Medrano v. Garland

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dor v. Garland, 1st Cir.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :

*************************

From Vurimindi v. AG, 3rd Cir.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to DLA Piper’s:

Courtney Gilligan Saleski

Rachel A.H. Horton

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Sir Jeffrey Chase forwards our Round Table’s latest effort to promote reality, reasonableness, and due process in EOIR’s dysfunctional world:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:

CA1 on Categorical Approach: Da Graca v. Garland

CA3 Derivative Citizenship Victory: Jaffal v. Director

🇺🇸Due Process Forever.

Related posts:

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

En Banc CA1 Credibility Remand: Diaz Ortiz v. Garland

And here’s one sent in by Round Table leader and scholarly blogger Judge “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase:

Takwi v. Garland, 10th Cir., 01-10-22, published

Just for a good measure, the 9th Circuit also “busted” Garland’s BIA on an agfel issue:

CA9 on AgFel: Togonon v. Garland

Go NDPA!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: