"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi all: The Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Wilkinson v. Garland, in which our group filed an amicus brief. The Court held that the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination in cancellation B cases (involving non-LPRs) is a mixed question of fact and law, and is thus reviewable by circuit courts on appeal. The Court thus reversed the Third Circuit’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction.
The decision was 6-3. Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion; Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, and Roberts and Alito wrote dissenting opinions.
Our amicus brief argued:
In amici’s experience, whether the facts of a particular case satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” eligibility criteria for cancellation is a mixed question of law and fact.
This decision will have a major impact on cancellation B cases, as the Board’s hardship determinations will now be subject to wide circuit court review.
This case makes a huge difference! Circuit review will ratchet up the pressure on the BIA to cut the “any reason to deny” BS 💩 and start doing a quality review in every case! If not, given the number of cancellation cases in the system, there are going to be lots more Circuit remands that will jack the backlog even higher!
As put by one “Round Tabler,” this will “impact the scholarship and often times lack of analytical rigor by the Board, knowing that it is no longer completely insulated from review of its hardship determinations.” You betcha!
And don’t ever underestimate the adverse impact on due process and justice that occurs when, knowing that its decisions are “immune” from judicial review, the BIA is “pushed by the political powers that be” to cut corners, “crank the numbers,” and “keep the removal assembly line moving!” That’s why political control over the BIA’s decision-making has such an outsized adverse impact on justice for immigrants and undermines the key constitutional due process principle of “fair and impartial justice for all.”
Merrick Garland doesn’t worry about injustice in his courts! But, YOU should PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
THIS WEEK IN “GARLANDING” — True Tales From The “Twilight Zone” Of American Justice!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
February17, 2024
garland ( gar’ land) v.t. [garlanded, garlanding] [dv. USAG Merrick Garland via Prof. Laurence Tribe] m. inflict injustice by one in charge, often through inattention, inaction, or dithering. (Ex 1. I pray the judge won’t garland my case. Ex 2. My client was garlanded and deported to death. Ex 3. They will be garlanding asylum applicants at the U.S. border.)
By all accounts, President Biden and his White House were outraged this week when they were garlanded by the “Hur report.” Ironically, three years of complaining by some of Biden’s core supporters who helped elect him in 2020 about being systematically “garlanded” at EOIR brought not so much as a raised eyebrow from the WH. Indeed, they might now be viewed as just a preview of Biden’s “Miller Lite” dissing of his supporters and human lives at the border with his inanely enthusiastic support of an attempted human rights “fire sale” by Senate Dems! Obviously, it’s quite a different story when things come full circle and the “chickens finally come home to roost.”
You might think that’s hard to top! But, you would be wrong! Let’s get started on this week’s trip around “the land where due process and fundamental fairness fear to tread!”
The project focused on pretrial hearings that can encompass pleadings, scheduling and other technical matters. The average observed hearing ran under four minutes, a rapid-fire pace to cover all of a hearing’s required steps.
Judges advised people of their rights in only 18% of the observed hearings. Most often, this involved reading rights to everyone in a group instead of individually.
Immigration courts are required to provide interpretation in the preferred language of the individual appearing at a hearing at no cost to the individual. The court frequently failed to provide Central American Indigenous language interpretation. This impacted roughly four out of five individuals who preferred to speak in a Central American Indigenous language.
In about one in five observed hearings, the individual was not represented by an attorney.
Of course, one might wonder why it is the responsibility of the ACLU to ferret out things that Garland should have discovered and corrected himself. But, no matter. Those poor souls whose lives and future are in the hands of the Omaha Immigration Court can expect to be garlanded.
2) Shenanigans in Chicago
Dan Kowalski reports:
IJs hide the ball; find the secret list or lose your case
Friends,
Immigration court practitioners in many cities now face a new hurdle: find, and adhere to, a secret list of IJ procedural preferences (requirements, actually)…posted, in one case, in the “pro bono room” of one court. NOT online anywhere. Oh, and it changes frequently, and without warning. See the attached sample from Chicago.
Practitioners have complained to EOIR, so let’s see what happens.
I have a funny feeling that PWS may have a thing or two to say about all this.
Indeed I do, my friend, indeed I do. This one hits “close to home.”
Back in 2006 my friend and Round Table colleague Judge John Gossart of Baltimore headed a group of IJs who took on the monumental task of writing the first Immigration Court Practice Manual (“ICPM”). Based on Judge Gossart’s own “local court rules and best judicial practices” developed over decades, the ICPM built on the success of the award- winning BIA Practice Manual, created and issued during my tenure as BIA Chair.
One of the key features of the ICPM is thatIt superseded and erased all then-existing “local rules.”
Those few of us IJs who did public education events — under the watchful eye of our HQ “handlers” — were encouraged to tout and promote the ICPM as the “definitive guide” to successful practice before the courts, which, of course I dutifully did as reflected in my speeches from those days. I believe we even had “Q&A” sessions with the local immigration bar to promote and explain the ICPM.
Now, after years of gross mismanagement under Trump and Biden, things have come full circle. The oft-conflicting, idiosyncratic, and frequently inaccessible or counterintuitive “local rules” that the ICPM was created to eliminate evidently have returned with a vengeance.
Meanwhile, the very substantial amount of time, resources, credibility, and effort that went into creating, distributing, and implementing the ICPM has been a colossal waste of taxpayer resources because the last two Administrations have failed in their duty to competently and professionally administer EOIR!
And let’s not leave out Congress! If ever there were a need for a new, independent, professional, expert Article I Court System it’s EOIR. Yet, although Dems have introduced bills, the GOP has expressed no interest in Article I, nor has it been a priority for Congressional leadership and the Administration. It wasn’t even “on the radar screen” during the failed Senate “debate” on the immigration system.
Both Chicago Immigration Court practitioners and those IJs, current and past, who devoted their professional time and energy to the ICPM have been garlanded.
3) ADR On Steroids In Virginia
A long-time DMV immigration lawyer told the “Courtside I-Team” this week:
I routinely have MCHs listed as “in person” that are actually by Webex (I had one today). I also have an Individual on Thursday listed as Webex, but I received an email at 4:00 PM today stating that this was an error, and it was actually in person. I replied that I could not attend in person, as I have too many other cases and family issues to rearrange my schedule at the last minute. We’ll see what happens, but all this is typical of an agency that could care less about applicants, practitioners or due process of law. Take care.
For decades, practitioners and experts had been begging DOJ and EOIR to enter the 21st century with automation. Dishearteningly, now that automation has belatedly arrived at EOIR, it’s being used to severely diminish customer service rather than improve it!
It seems that every whim, irrationality, inefficiency, and inconvenience that developed at EOIR over years has now been “automated” to maximize the trauma and stress inflicted on those appearing before these broken courts. As this example points out, that has led to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”) on steroids!”
And here’s why automated ADR is such a powerful tool! Some practitioners have told me that it allows EOIR to unilaterally schedule them to be in three or four different courts at the same time, with almost no notice. Then, it’s up to the lawyer to file individual“motions to reschedule” to clean up EOIR’s mess.
Sometimes they are granted, sometimes denied without any rationale. All of this leads to more work and case shuffling but, importantly, without ever getting to the merits of any case!
Meanwhile, the backlog grows exponentially and the stress levels on the private bar and the staff ratchet up.
There might be surer ways to destroy a court system, but none come immediately to mind. This is garlanding at its best!
4) Another “F” In “Immigration Law 101” From The 3rd Circuit
“[W]e conclude that the BIA, in deciding his CAT claim, failed to consider evidence favorable to Herrow. For that reason, we will remand his petition as it applies to that claim. … Herrow claims that the BIA and IJ erred in denying his CAT claim and in finding that (1) he is unlikely to face torture and (2) the Somali government would not acquiesce in such torture. Because the BIA and IJ ignored evidence favorable to Herrow, we will grant his petition in part and remand for a more comprehensive review of the evidence. … To establish a likelihood of future torture, the record must demonstrate an aggregate risk of torture to the noncitizen that exceeds fifty percent. In making this determination, the IJ must address what is likely to happen to the petitioner if removed, and whether “what is likely to happen amount[s] to the legal definition of torture.” In answering these questions here, the BIA and IJ found that Herrow did not demonstrate a likelihood of torture. We conclude, however, that this determination could not have been made if all the evidence presented by Herrow had been properly considered.”
Being wrongfully denied CAT is no small matter, particularly if the USG is threatening to send you to Somalia. Lets get a glimpse of what happens in Somalia, courtesy of the latest report from our State Department:
Government security forces, including NISA and the Puntland Intelligence Agency (PIA), detained boys and adult men in the same facility and threatened, beat, and forced them to confess to crimes, according to Human Rights Watch. There were reports of rape and sexual abuse by government agents, primarily members of the security forces. The Human Rights Center, a local nongovernmental organization (NGO), reported two Somaliland police officers, area commissioner Hassan Ismail and Mustafe Yusuf Dheere, raped Nimo Jama Hassan on June 4 in Caynabo (see sections 1.g. and 6).
Al-Shabaab imposed harsh treatment and punishment on persons in areas under its control (see section 1.g.).
Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of clan militias, some of which were government-affiliated, remained frequent. A strong and widespread culture of impunity continued, due mainly to clan protection of perpetrators and weak government capacity to hold the guilty to account.
You might think that would lead Garland and his subordinates to take extra care to get these cases right. But, you would be wrong. Dead wrong in many cases. “Good enough for government work” is the touchstone of garlanding.
By all accounts, Garland was a stellar student during his Harvard Law days. But, not so much some of his EOIR judges at the trial and appellate levels, particularly some of the “Sessions/Barr holdovers” who appear to have been appointed to the bench primarily because they were viewed as likely to deny protection without regard to law or facts. (I’ll concede that Barr and Sessions were wrong about some of their appointments who turned out, perhaps againstthe odds, to be fair judges.)
Far too many EOIR judges receive “Fs” from the Courts of Appeals on the basics of immigration and asylum law, even though most mistakes never get to the Article III Courts or manage to otherwise wend their way through the system, thereby endangering lives.
Mr. Herrow was garlanded, but survived (at least for now) thanks to the work of his lawyers and the Third Circuit.
Well, folks, that’s this week’s wrap from Gar-Land, “the land that justice forgot!” But, stay tuned to Courtside for future updates on garlanding and its victims!
What’s on the horizon: In March, a final report expected from AILA Ohio on systemic racism at EOIR! Should be a great read!
The outcry of those claiming the United States has an “open border” reminds me of the “everything must go” or “for a limited time only” advertisements. People come only to discover it’s a bait and switch. Let me be clear: Migrants are not risking their lives solely because they believe false claims that the border is open. The overwhelming majority are fleeing desperate situations in their home countries; however, the drumbeat of “open borders ending soon” lends an urgency to their plight. Apprehensions of migrants entering illegally in December 2023 are projected to be a record high of 302,000.
The irony is that many conservative members of Congress try to blame the Biden administration for the surge in migrants, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted the Constitution as giving Congress plenary power over immigration. Since the 19th century, this authority of Congress to control our national borders and determine whether a foreign national may enter or remain has been preeminent.
The executive branch is able to work only along the margins of immigration law through regulations and executive orders. When the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations tried to push these tools, the federal courts typically stopped them. Recent research by the Bipartisan Policy Center analyzing the border policies of the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations alongside apprehension data did not find clear-cut evidence that any particular executive branch action was more effective than another.
. . . .
As others and I have stated, the migration pressures at the U.S. southern border are not due to lack of enforcement of U.S. law; instead, these pressures result in part from laws written to address migration flows that differed sharply from the numbers of people we are dealing with today. Current law is based on the assumption that most migrants apprehended along the southern border are solo adults who can be turned back easily because they are motivated by economic reasons. Yet migrants today include many more families and children, people fleeing violence, people displaced by climate change, people leaving failed states, and people who are being persecuted — people who are afforded protections under U.S. law.
Regrettably, the House-passed border security legislation, as well as several of the other alternatives Congress is discussing, naively offers to tighten up the enforcement and narrow the categories of people who might be eligible to enter. Do they really think that raising the bar will deter people who are running for their lives? Such reforms portend an increase in the urgency of desperate people and ensuing chaos.
Immigration has always been a phenomenon that drives America’s success story, that undergirds our greatness. Time is overdue for us to reform our immigration laws — to create new pathways and update the old ones — to better reflect the national interest and our values. It will not be easy, as few critical issues are, but it is imperative that Congress gets to work.
Ruth E. Wasem is senior fellow at College of Public Affairs and Education, Cleveland State University. She has more than 30 years of experience in U.S. domestic policy, including immigration, employment, and social welfare policies.
************************
Read Ruth’s full article at the link! Also, congrats, Ruth, on your new appointment as Senior Fellow at the College of Public Affairs and Education, Cleveland State University!
As Ruth points out, the reason why all reputable studies show little if any relationship of forced migration to changing precedents and policies in “receiving nations,” is in the nature of forced migration. Forced migration is forced by combinations of conditions at or near the “sending” countries that operate largely without regard to unilateral actions in the U.S. or any other major receiving nation or group of nations.
At best, such futile unilateral actions have marginal, transitory effects, usually by forcing strategy adjustments and pricing changes within the world of human smuggling. But, like most markets, the human trafficking market eventually adjusts and the next, largely self-inflicted, “border crisis” ensues.
And thus, the cycle continues, with receiving nations investing more and more and doubling down on “proven to fail” cruelty and deterrence. Rather than acting rationally and responsibly — by listening to experts and those with experience managing refugee migrations — politicos falsely claim that the reason for their failed policies were that they weren’t draconian or expensive enough. But, throwing more money and personnel exclusively at enforcement and deterrence never works in a practical sense.
What it does do, however, is give certain moneyed groups a huge interest in uncontrolled border militarization. It also causes cynical politicos, largely but not exclusively on the right, to invest in sure to fail policies that will be a rallying point for White Nationalists without actual disrupting the supply of exploitable, disenfranchised, largely disposable “cheap labor” popular with many U.S. businesses and political contributors.
Ruth’s article states important truths about the border and migration echoed by expert after expert that are consistently, shamefully, and improperly being ignored by legislators and other politicos. For example, another leading “practical scholar,” Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr of Cornell Law recently “warned that detaining and quickly expelling migrants before asylum screenings would not solve the influx problem for cities like New York, which is grappling with a surge of migrants.” Read more: https://loom.ly/CLCoxqA.
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell Law
So cowardly and misguided is the GOP’s approach that they waste public funds on a disingenuous “show trip” to the Texas border, but lack the guts and human decency to meet with and listen to the folks actually affected by their toxic policies and proposals.
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com
As reported by Melissa del Bosque in The Border Chronicle (in her overall discouraging and depressing forecast of the deadly political shenanigans that will be rolled out by GOP nativists during the 2024 campaign):
MAGA extremists in the House of Representatives, holding emergency funding hostage for Ukraine, cut out early from Congress for Christmas vacation, but they were willing to shorten their holiday break to make an appearance in Eagle Pass, Texas, on January 3, setting the tone for the coming months leading up to the general election. House Republicans will begin holding hearings on border security in February and are planning to impeach DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
In Eagle Pass, House Speaker Mike Johnson, along with 60 other Republicans, held a press conference in front of coils of razor wire placed along the Rio Grande by Texas governor Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star. During the visit, Republicans declined to meet with local community leaders who had erected a public memorial in Eagle Pass for more than 700 people who had died trying to cross the border in 2023.
Expert organizations, like the Center for Migration Studies (“CMS”) with decades of experience studying what works and what doesn’t at the border have offered straightforward plans for “Managing the Border Without Sacrificing Human Rights,” only to have them arrogantly and insultingly ignored by Congress and the Biden Administration. See https://cmsny.org/statement-manage-border-without-sacrificing-human-rights/.
Michael Posner, Professor & Director, Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU Stern School of Business PHOTO: Linkedin
Long-time refugee expert/scholar Professor Michael Posner, writing in Forbes, also offers a far more nuanced and realistic approach to the b order that both parties are ignoring:
Rather than enacting the draconian measures Republicans are now proposing that will, in effect, deny everyone their right to seek asylum, the goal should be to strengthen the system so that the cases of genuine refugees are heard quickly, while those who don’t qualify are placed in deportation proceedings. The way forward is not to curtail everyone’s right to seek asylum, but to make the system both fairer and more efficient.
The idea that the constitutional right to due process and fundamental fairness and the right of refuge guaranteed by international agreements that we signed and long-standing domestic implementing laws are “negotiable” is simply outrageous and fundamentally un-American!
Meanwhile, Dems cower and run away from the border issue, apparently irrationally believing that ignoring it and ceding ground to the GOP will “make it go away” in 2024. News Flash: It won’t!
Sadly, while experts and advocates who actually understand the border and migration fruitlessly rally, demonstrate, write op-ed’s, and file research-backed reports in favor of protecting asylum rights, Senate Dems by most accounts are busy negotiating them away in response to GOP demands. See, e.g.,https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/10/senate-border-ukraine-negotiations/.
Ignoring the advice of experts and acting out of fear, myths, and bias seems to be the “order of the day” for both parties!🤯That’s a national problem that won’t be solved by ever more extreme and wasteful doses of cruelty, repression, and bogus “deterrence,” no matter how politically and financially profitable continued failure might be to some within our nation’s power structure.
On August 30, 2023, Judge Leo A. Finston of the Newark Immigration Court granted asylum to a Cravath pro bono client persecuted by gang members in El Salvador.
Cravath’s client overheard the murder of his neighbors by a Salvadoran gang and, fearing retaliation from the gang, subsequently refused to provide police with information. Even so, he was repeatedly attacked and continued to receive threats to “cooperate with the gang.” He fled El Salvador and arrived at the Texas border in December 2017, turning himself in to United States immigration officials and requesting asylum. He was detained, and Human Rights First represented him before the Immigration Court in Newark, New Jersey.
In September 2018, Judge Finston denied the application for asylum, finding that, while the man was credible and had suffered PTSD from the events in El Salvador, “complaining witnesses against major Salvadoran gangs” were not a “particular social group” for purposes of asylum, and there was not sufficient probability that he would be tortured upon his return to El Salvador. In March 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the initial appeal. Cravath became involved at this stage, briefing and arguing the appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 17, 2020, the Third Circuit issued a precedential opinion (see related news item here) granting the client’s petition for review, vacating the BIA’s removal order and remanding the case to the BIA for further proceedings. The Court held that “persons who publicly provide assistance against major Salvadoran gangs do constitute a particular social group” for purposes of asylum, and that the BIA erred in denying relief under the Convention Against Torture, finding that “it is clear to us, viewing the record as a whole, that [he] suffered torture”. The Court remanded the case to the BIA, and in December 2021, the BIA remanded the matter to the Newark Immigration Court for further proceedings.
By that time, Cravath’s client was living in hiding in El Salvador, and the Cravath team spent the next year and a half trying to secure his return for a new merits hearing, consistent with the Third Circuit’s opinion.
On July 20, 2023, at a Master Calendar Hearing before Judge Finston, the Cravath team argued the man had a meritorious case and constitutional due process and statutory rights to be present at his merits hearing, but the Department of Homeland Security took the position that it had no obligation to allow him to return. On August 30, 2023, the Cravath team appeared on the client’s behalf at a second Master Calendar Hearing, where Judge Finston found that, in light of the Third Circuit’s opinion and based on the record before him, it was clear the man qualified for asylum and no further proceedings were necessary.
The Cravath team was led by partner Wes Earnhardt and included associates Brian P. Golger and Ana C. Sewell.
******************
Many congrats to Cravath!
I told the BIA that witnesses were a PSG more than a decade ago! They wouldn’t listen, but the Fourth Circuit did! See Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F. 3d 171 (4th Cir. 2011). When will they ever learn?
With proper guidance from a competent BIA, this case should have been a “slam dunk grant” five years ago. This also illustrates the absurdity of those who disingenuously claim that asylum applicants can receive due process without competent representation! It also shows the legal and moral bankruptcy of “expedited docket gimmicks” that attempt to rush cases to denial and deportation without a realistic chance to get representation and prepare!
The U.S. asylum system would work much more fairly and efficiently with a BIA of recognized asylum experts! They are out here! Why hasn’t Garland reformed and reconstituted the BIA to get the job done?
Lives and the future of American law are at stake here!
It’s a huge deal! Dems must “lose” the arrogant “it’s only immigration” attitude that has prevented Dem Administrations from doing the correct, courageous (and smart) thing on immigration, human rights, social justice, and civil rights! Migrants’ rights are human rights are civil rights are everyone’s rights!
Judge Finston did the right thing on remand from the Circuit. I’d like to believe that with better guidance from the BIA he would have done it five years ago. The human impact of the abject failure of the BIA to provide positive leadership on GRANTING asylum in recurring situations is an incomprehensible drag on our justice system at many levels.
Better judges for a better America! And, it starts at the “retail level” with EOIR!
“Petitioner Srecko Pesikan argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in concluding that his 2018 Pennsylvania conviction for driving under the influence (“DUI”) of marijuana constituted an offense involving a “controlled substance,” as defined in the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), thereby rendering him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (“INA”). We agree and will grant his petition for review. … In sum, because the identity of the specific controlled substance is not an element of the Pennsylvania DUI statute, the state statute of conviction is indivisible and cannot serve as the basis for Pesikan’s removal under the INA. … For the foregoing reasons, we will grant Pesikan’s Petition for Review in case number 21-1262 and will reverse the order for removal.”
These are important cases with high stakes! They deserve expert analysis from expert judges.
Eliminating unnecessary Circuit reversals and remands like this would also help address the backlog-building, due-process-denying phenomenon of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR. Avoidable mistakes at the “retail level” are systemically costly to our justice system in more ways than one!
And, remember, that for every EOIR mistake that gets “caught” by the Article IIIs, dozens of these injustices probably go uncorrected! Circuit review is a luxury that isn’t available to most individuals who lose at the BIA level. Even here, Mr. Pesikan would have had no chance at the Circuit except for court-appointed pro bono counsel Stephen A. Fogdall and his team at Dillworth & Paxon, LLP, another luxury unavailable to litigants at the EOIR level.
Moreover, even when Circuit review does take place, the inappropriately deferential standards established by Congress allow (or even require) some Circuit panels to merely sweep glaring injustices under the rug without grappling with the overall constitutional implications of this shoddy, due–process-denying system. Why on earth would “deference” be given or review restricted over the “gang that can’t shoot straight” at EOIR?”
Would you give “deference” to these guys? Theatrical poster from Wikipedia
Mob chatter: “Hey, anyone here know what an ARCG is?” “No clue.” “Some kind of boat?” “Maybe we should ask Noah.” “Don’t bother. The only rule we follow around here is ‘When in doubt, throw ‘em out!’” “Isn’t that what the UN Handbook says, that ‘giving the benefit of the doubt’ means to ‘doubt that any benefit will ever be given?’” “Yup, sounds right to me!” “I don’t understand it. We’re overtly hostile to asylum seekers and their lawyers, we’ve tilted the playing field against them, yet they still come! Why?” “Detain, discourage, deny, deport, deter, that’s our mission!” “Where due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices go to die!” “Precedents? We only follow the ones unfavorable to respondents!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
From: Ted Murphy
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:09 AM
To: AILA Philadelphia List
Cc: Kaley Miller-Schaeffer
Subject: 3rd Circuit Precedent – PSG Honduras A-R-C-G-
Importance: High
Friends,
Please see the attached precedent decision from the 3rd Circuit today. While the first 16 pages of the 21 page decision focus on CIMT issues, the final 4 pages are worth reading on PSG similar to A-R-C-G- that the BIA ignored.
Here, on the other hand, the BIA did not adhere to
Matter of A-R-C-G-’s requirement to examine Avila’s PSG
within the context of the specific country conditions in
Honduras. The BIA rejected Avila’s PSG for lack of
particularity without considering evidence in the record about
“widespread and systemic violence” against Honduran women,
“inconsistent legislation implementation, gender
discrimination within the justice system, and lack of access to
services.”109 Evidence in the record, including that “[l]ess than
one in five cases of femicide are investigated,… and the
average rate of impunity for sexual violence and femicide is
approximately 95%,” may have been relevant in examining
whether Avila’s proposed PSG was cognizable.110 Just as the
cultural attitudes toward gender were relevant in Matter of A-
R-C-G-, evidence in the record as to the “machismo culture” in
Honduras may be relevant to assessing whether Avila has a
cognizable PSG.111
Moreover, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, DHS conceded that
the proposed group “married women in Guatemala who are
unable to leave their relationship” was sufficient for a PSG
asylum claim.112 Given the similarity between that social group
and “Honduran women in a domestic relationship where the
male believes that women are to live under male domination,”
we must remand for the BIA to provide clarification as to its
application of Matter of A-R-C-G-, and to determine whether
Avila’s proposed PSG is cognizable in light of the specific
country conditions
.
We must also remand for the BIA to consider whether
Avila demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of her PSG. The BIA determined that Avila’s PSG did
not “exist independently” of the harm alleged, as required
under Matter of M-E-V-G-113 and Matter of W-G-R-.114 Matter
of M-E-V-G- cites to this Court’s prior precedent in Lukwago
v. Ashcroft,115 which states that a PSG “must exist
independently of the persecution suffered by the applicant for
asylum.”116 However, Lukwago makes clear that in
determining whether a PSG exists independently of the
persecution suffered, the BIA must consider the PSG in the
context both of “past persecution” and a “well-founded fear of
persecution.”117 Here, the BIA did not consider whether Avila
had demonstrated that she had a well-founded fear of
persecution based on her past experiences of abuse and sexual
violence. Accordingly, we will remand for the BIA to consider,
in addition to whether Avila has suffered past persecution on
account of her PSG, whether she has demonstrated a well-
founded fear of future persecution.
In conclusion, on remand, the BIA should (1) clarify,
given the Government’s concession in Matter of A-R-C-G- that
the proposed group was sufficient for a PSG asylum claim, its
application of Matter of A-R-C-G- to the present case, and
consider Avila’s PSG in the context of evidence presented
about the country conditions in Honduras and (2) provide
guidance in applying both Matter of A-R-C-G- and Matter of
M-E-V-G- with respect to past persecution and a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of membership in a PSG
Case was argued by Attorney Kaley Miller-Schaeffer.
Once again, the BIA fails to follow its own precedent favorable to the respondent! Yet, in a Dem Administration they get away with mocking the rule of law in life or death cases, in a “court system” that the Dems “own.” Why?
WHO applies precedents and rules can be as important as the precedents and rules themselves! Failure to properly and uniformly apply legal rules that favor asylum seekers has become a chronic problem at EOIR. It’s one that Garland has yet to effectively and comprehensively address!
Many congrats to Kaley Miller-Schaefer and Murphy Law!
Kaley Miller-Schaefer ESQ Partner Murphy Law PHOTO: Linkedin
“On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (Agency No. A209-343-065). Immigration Judge: David Cheng. … As for Quinteros’s Convention Against Torture claim, our precedent requires the agency to follow certain steps. Yet neither the judge nor the Board did so. … Here, neither the immigration judge nor the Board followed our instructions. … Those procedural failures infected the agency’s decisions. Neither the immigration judge nor the Board considered a separate death threat and beatings that Quinteros got from gang members. In gauging the likelihood and severity of future harm, the agency should have considered the gang’s death threat too. See Herrera-Reyes v. Att’y Gen., 952 F.3d 101, 112 n.5 (3d Cir. 2020). So we will grant the petition as to Quinteros’s Convention Against Torture claim, vacate the Board’s order, and remand.”
Gee whiz, applying and following Circuit precedent seems like “Immigration Judging 101!” Yet two levels of supposedly “expert” EOIR judges blew it — badly! Fortunately, this respondent was represented by experienced Federal litigator Thomas E. Moseley, who is never afraid to go to the Article IIIs to correct EOIR’s errors.
But, most respondents aren’t so lucky. So, it’s likely that for every defective adjudication “outed” by a Circuit, multiple, potentially deadly or at least life changing, mistakes go uncorrected. Worse yet, some are even “institutionalized!” Seems like a “heck of a way to run the railway,” particularly for a former Article III Judge who was once nominated for the Supremes!
Unforced error after unforced error in life or death cases from Garland’s substandard “courts!” Would brain surgeons 🤯☠️ who kept on screwing up critical operations still be “on staff.” I doubt it! So, why aren’t “DOJ attorneys” carrying out quasi-judicial functions subject to some quality controls? In theory, that’s supposed to be the BIA’s function. But, the BIA has firmly established itself as “part of the problem, NOT the solution!”
Congrats to my long-time friend and former “Legacy INS” colleague Tom Moseley. As a former INS Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the SDNY (in the time of “Crazy Rudy”) during the “Inman/Schmidt Era” at INS General Counsel, Tom has also seen both sides of the system!
Former AG Jeff Sessions openly despised immigrants and their attorneys and encouraged “his judges” at EOIR to help out their “partners at DHS Enforcement.” That attitude lives on even under AG Merrick Garland! This caricature of Jeff Sessions was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Gage Skidmore’s Flickr’s photostream. DonkeyHotey Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0
AMICUS INVITATION (NOTICE TO APPEAR) DUE August 31, 2023
AUGUST 1, 2023
The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue(s):
ISSUE(S) PRESENTED:
Pursuant to Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022):
1. Should an Immigration Judge allow DHS to remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear?
2. To remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear, is either (1) issuing an I-261, or (2) amending the Notice to Appear, permitted by the regulations, and would either comport with the single document requirement emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)? If not, how can a non-compliant Notice to Appear be remedied?
Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a written request labeled “REQUEST TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE” pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix A (Directory), and Appendix E (Cover Pages) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.
Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider an amicus brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.
Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case, including the parties’ contact information, may be available. Please contact the Clerk’s Office at the below address for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.
Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 25 double-spaced pages.
Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by August 31, 2023. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief may not be entertained. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.
Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.
Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae) and Chapter 4.6(i) (Amicus Curiae Briefs) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.
Notice: A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae may only be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(d). A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.
Attribution: Where more than three attorneys or representatives sign an amicus brief or filing, the Board will name only the first three individuals in the published case. If you wish a different set of three names or have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.
Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:
To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:
Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041
Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.
*****************************
Seems like the obvious “remedy” would be to require that DHS issue a new compliant NTA!
Respondents don’t get to “remedy” all mistakes, even inadvertent ones! Why should the USG be allowed to weasel its way out of a situation they intentionally created in a misguided effort (aided and abetted by EOIR “management”) to cut corners and generate statistics to please their political masters?
Ever since the “Ashcroft purge,” the BIA has functioned less and less as an independent quasi adjudicative body and more and more as an apologist for, enabler, or justifier of each Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda! In other words, the BIA’s role has become largely to slap a “quasi-judicial veneer” on DHS enforcement policies and priorities so that OIL can argue Chevron deference or even “Brand X” in the Article IIIs!
Of course, using EOIR as a “deterrent” and “enforcer” over the past two decades has been a spectacular failure! It has led to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on Steroids,” absurdly insurmountable backlogs, and frequent rebukes from the Article IIIs.
Indeed, having helped create and magnify exponentially the mess at EOIR, many of the Trump and Biden Administration’s “gimmicks” appear aimed at avoiding or sidestepping the EOIR process altogether.
It’s the height of disingenuousness! At the urging of the White House, DOJ and DHS “break” the fair hearing system at EOIR. They then use their own misconduct and mismanagement as an excuse to deny asylum seekers and others access to the fair and impartial adjudication system to which they are legally entitled!
And, while the Article IIIs, even the Supremes, have “called out” EOIR on frequent, particularized errors, they have been happy to sweep the obvious “big problem” under the rug in a monumental exercise of “judicial task avoidance!”
That problem is that as currently operated, the EOIR system is a clear violation of the Constitutional principle that individuals facing removal, an often irreparable, even deadly, loss, are entitled to a reasonable decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). While justice is served in some EOIR decisions, the systemic failures push in the exact opposite direction.
Without the necessary systemic safeguards in place, life and death decisions are largely an arbitrary and capricious “crap shoot” where wildly inconsistent results on the same or similar facts too often depend on the attitude of the judge, the whimsical decisions by “management” on whether to interfere in decision-making, and the location and circumstances of the hearing.
This is NOT the way to run a legitimate court system in compliance with due process and fundamental fairness!
For now, advocates should continue to vocalize their strong opposition to “how can we help our partners at DHS Enforcement” adjudication passing for justice at EOIR!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — Asylum experts and advocates question the wisdom of the BIA’s “take no prisoners” approach to asylum! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Gebra v. A.G., 3d Cir, 07-19-23, unpublished (unfortunately)
PANEL: AMBRO, RESTREPO, FUENTES, Circuit Judges
OPINION: JUDGE RESTRO
KEY QUOTE:
i. The BIA applied an overly rigorous standard to the new evidence.
Gebra argues that the BIA applied an “overly rigorous standard” when analyzing the new evidence presented when determining whether he established a new claim. Pet’r Br. 44 (citing Tilija v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2019)). In Tilija, we held that unless the new evidence is inherently unbelievable, it must be taken as true. 930 F.3d at 172; see also Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313 (“Facts presented in the motion to reopen
are ‘accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable.’”) (cleaned up). If the BIA fails to accept new evidence as true, then it applies an “overly rigorous standard.” Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Furthermore, not accepting such evidence as true is an abuse of discretion if the petitioner would have established a prima facie case for eligibility with the rejected evidence. Id. (citing Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313).
Here, the BIA did not find that the new evidence was inherently unbelievable but nevertheless refused to accept new evidence, such as Gebra’s medical report after the 2009 attack, as “persuasive” or true because it “provide[d] little specificity or detail with respect to the alleged attack.” JA4; cf. Tilija; 930 F.3d at 172 (finding that where the BIA asked for “more details” and questioned the veracity of the evidence, it impermissibly failed to accept the evidence as true). By requesting that the medical record, on its own,
corroborate that the injuries were caused by “Islamic fanatics,” the BIA imposed an
overly rigorous standard. JA4; Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Similarly, the BIA’s conclusion that the report from the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization (“EUHRO”) pro- vides “no details” with respect to when, where, how, nor “any other details surrounding the circumstances of the alleged incident,” was an abuse of discretion. JA4; Tilija, 930
11
F.3d at 172. The BIA treated the new evidence with the same “overly vigorous standard” that it applied to the new translation of the 1993 police report that was previously dis- credited.
Having concluded that the BIA held Gebra to an excessively rigorous standard, we next determine whether Gebra established a prima facie case for asylum.
ii. Gebra’s new evidence established a prima facie case for asylum.
Gebra’s new evidence, accepted as true, establishes a prima facie case for asylum. A motion to reopen an asylum case must establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Se- voian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 173, 170–71 (3d Cir. 2002). This standard requires an applicant to produce objective evidence that shows a “reasonable likelihood” that they can establish eligibility for relief. Id. at 173. In this context, to “establish” means that the evidence in favor of asylum outweighs the evidence against. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 564 (3d Cir. 2004), as amended (Dec. 3, 2004). A “reasonable likelihood” merely means showing a realistic chance that the applicant can later establish that asylum should be granted. Id. Prima facie “would lack meaning” if it required that evidence submitted at the prima facie stage conclusively establish eligibility for asylum. Id. Thus, Gebra need only provide objective evidence that shows a reasonable likelihood that he is
entitled to asylum relief. Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Specifically, Gebra would need to
demonstrate that he suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future perse- cution, on account of his religious beliefs. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) (enumerating reli- gion as a protected ground).
12
Here, Gebra provided objective evidence in the form of medical records and hu- man rights reports regarding his 2009 attack. For example, a December 8, 2009, medical report from Victoria Hospital in Egypt corroborates the statement in his affirmation that, due to the attack, he was “wounded and sent into the Victoria Hospital due to multiple contusions and dermal bleeding on [his] back and different parts of [his] body.” JA167, 175; see Doe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 145 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that a single
beating, “if sufficiently egregious,” may constitute persecution, such as where petitioner was beaten by a mob, causing him to bleed and suffer injuries to his head and back). Ge- bra also included medical reports of the psychological trauma he experienced and therapy sessions he attended as a result of the attacks. Doe, 956 F.3d at 145–46 (“Persecution may be emotional or psychological, as well as physical.”) (citation omitted). Further- more, the December 30, 2009, report from EUHRO stated that they independently “veri- fied” Gebra was “attacked by some [Islamic] fanatics” who thought Gebra was behind demonstrations for the rights of Coptic Christians due to his work as a cameraman for Fa- ther Zacharia Botros, a Coptic Christian priest known for critiquing Islam. JA173.
Taken together, this evidence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Gebra could es- tablish he was persecuted due to his religious beliefs.
In sum, the BIA abused its discretion when it did not accept Gebra’s evidence ask true and concluded that he did not establish a new claim for asylum in his third motion to reopen.
**************************
Let’s apply a tiny bit of common sense here, in contravention of the BIA’s current practices. How likely is it that a guy would pursue asylum claims for 30 years, even after being denied, deported, and actually persecuted in Egypt upon return, if there weren’t some merit in the claim? At least enough to earn him a new hearing! It’s not rocket science to know that Coptic Christians often face persecution in Egypt! Was it really wise to push this clearly flawed (one could say “scofflaw”) denial all the way to the Circuit, thus wasting even more time and further undermining the BIA’s credibility? What are they thinking at Garland’s DOJ?
Think what efficiencies, not to mention due process and fundamental fairness, a BIA of well-qualified judges who were actual experts in asylum law — focused on legal protection, not specious rejection — could bring to our broken asylum system! Why not give due process and justice a chance at DOJ?
“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Black Mauritanians and other asylum seekers of color find that the scales of justice are systemically weighted against them when on trial for their lives in AG Garland’s “courts!” Public RealmDanae King Faith & Values & Immigration Reporter Columbus Dispatch
“This data further confirms concerns raised about implicit racial and other bias in credibility determinations in US asylum adjudications,” the report states.
The report notes that Black asylum seekers face different treatment in the immigration system than others, including longer than average detention times, trouble finding accurate and adequate interpreters, different treatment in court, lack of access to counsel, purposefully rushed proceedings, biased judges, wrongful denial of asylum and more.
Lynn Tramonte has seen all those scenarios happen in Ohio.
“In immigration court, it’s almost like you’re guilty until proven innocent and they would rather err on the side of deporting a refugee who was tortured than granting asylum to someone who might be lying,” said Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, a group of Ohio immigrants and citizens who work to protect the dignity and rights of all through activism.
Nemecek has also seen judges and government attorneys “team up on (immigrants) and ask all kinds of questions and find them not credible.”
From 2002 to 2022, 713 Mauritanians went before immigration judges in Cleveland, and 443 were denied asylum. Another 28 had another form of relief, such as withholding of removal, and 242 were granted asylum, according to TRAC.
Tramonte wishes judges would do more research on the nations where asylum seekers are coming from.
“They have zero knowledge of documents from other countries or even what it’s like to be tortured,” she said.
A spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) disputed those claims.
. . . .
***********************
Read Danae’s full article at the link!
“Courtside” and others have been raising these issues for a long time! Yet, Garland has neither spoken out nor taken action to “clean up” courts that every expert would say are “broken” and need major changes, including better-qualified judges who have true expertise in asylum and human rights!
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke is totally “MIA” on this serious issue and on the racially-driven travesties in DOJ’s “wholly-owned” court system, in immigration detention centers, and at the Southern Border! Associate AG Vanita Gupta, once a civil rights icon, has “vaporized” on perhaps the biggest, potentially solvable, civil rights/racial justice issue facing America! What’s happening here?
I spent years doing Mauritanian asylum cases on the EOIR Ohio Docket (and, to a lesser extent, in the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court). Most were clear grants of asylum! Few were appealed by ICE! Almost none were reversed by the BIA! I doubt that conditions have improved materially since then.
Unfortunately, mistreatment of Black Mauritanian asylum seekers by EOIR is nothing new. It has a long and disreputable history going back decades.
In the late 1990’s, my now Round Table colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg and I frequently dissented from wrong-headed denials of Mauritanian asylum claims by our BIA colleagues. See, e.g., Matter of M-D-, 23 I&N Dec. 1180, 1185, 1189 (Schmidt, Chairman, Rosenberg, Board Member dissenting), rev’d sub nom, Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000). There, the Circuit, in a decision written by Chief Judge Walker, agreed with many of the points raised by Judge Rosenberg and me in our respective dissents: “[T]he BIA failed to: (1) rule explicitly on the credibility of Diallo’s testimony; (2) explain why it was reasonable in this case to expect additional corroboration; or (3) assess the sufficiency of Diallo’s explanations for the absence of corroborating evidence.”
Judge Rosenberg and I were later “rewarded” by AG John Ashcroft by being “purged” from the BIA, along with a minority of other colleagues who had the temerity to stand up for the legal and human rights of migrants! Folks at EOIR “got the message” that standing up for immigrants’ rights and due process could be “career threatening!”
That, in turn, unleashed a crescendo of sloppy, anti-migrant, dehumanizing decisions emanating from EOIR. Things got so bad so fast that subsequent Bush II AGs Gonzalez and Mukasey were finally forced, under extreme pressure from the Article IIIs, to intervene and put a stop to the most glaring abuses.
But, in fact, the EOIR system never recovered from that debacle. From then on, the BIA has been largely a “captain may I rubber stamp” (credit “Sir Jeffrey” Chase) for DHS Enforcement and each Administration’s political agenda. It’s been a continuous downward spiral, with subsequent AGs either actively encouraging abuses of asylum seekers and other migrants or being “willfully indifferent” to the ongoing legal and human rights disasters on their watches.
It’s interesting how when the “powers that be” ignore abuses, they don’t go away. They just fester and get worse. Garland’s “what me worry” stewardship over EOIR is a classic example.
As for EOIR’s claim that they are providing IJs with “robust” asylum training, in the words of my friend, Kansas City attorney (and former Arlington intern) Andrea Martinez, “I call BS!” The proof is in the results!
My friend and Round Table colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase puts it more elegantly:
In stating that the program is “robust” (i.e. fine as is), who among EOIR’s upper-level leadership is enough of an expert in the topic to make that determination? There are actually recent IJ hires with a great deal of expertise in asylum and CAT, but to my knowledge, they are not the ones creating or presenting the trainings.
EOIR’s asylum and CAT training remains insufficient, and the evidence of this can be found in the deluge of Circuit Court reversals, or even from simply reviewing hearing transcripts. Just compare the USCIS Asylum Officer training program with EOIR’s IJ training materials. A particular problem is the failure to properly train new IJs in the case law of the specific circuit in which they sit. Immigration Judges are largely left to their own devices to learn the law properly.
Another example of superior asylum training available “on the market” is that developed by Professor Michele Pistone (a true asylum expert who has taught and inspired generations of attorneys now serving in and out of government) at VIISTA Villanova. I am sure that EOIR could have arranged with Professor Pistone to create a “world class” asylum training program for both new and experienced IJs. Indeed, she would have been a logical choice for Garland to have recruited for a senior position at EOIR.
The talent to fix EOIR exists on the open market. However, EOIR can’t be fixed with the senior management team Garland has put, or in some cases left, in place.
In the meantime, the stunningly poor quality, blatant racial insensitivity, and inept judicial administration Garland tolerates at EOIR will continue to be a millstone around the neck of American Justice and the Democratic Party. To what depths Garland will drag both remains to be seen.
Garland’s dysfunctional and systemically biased Immigration “Courts” are a millstone around the neck for American Justice and Dems! Creative Commons license
Finally, where are progressive human and civil rights stalwarts like Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ) on this issue? Why haven’t they demanded some accountability from Garland? And, whatever happened to our first African-American Veep Kamala Harris? Does she still exist? What’s more important than racial justice in “life or death courts” wholly controlled by her Dem Administration?
The 2022 Term ended last week but there already are new immigration cases on the Supreme Court’s docket for the 2023 Term.
Law 360 reports that the Supreme Court on the last day of the 2022 Term agreed to review 1) if Board of Immigration Appeals decisions denying cancellation of removal for exceptional hardship are subject to judicial review and 2) consolidated cases on the sufficiency of notice in removal proceedings.
Issue: Whether an agency determination that the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (and not subject to judicial review).
The Court continues to deal with the ripple effects of Pereira v. Sessions (2018), which addressed the sufficiency of notice in removal proceedings.
Issue: Whether the government provides notice “required under” and “in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information, such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen’s request to rescind that order.
KJ
*******************************
Aleksandra Gontaryuk ESQ Managing Partner AG Law Newark, NJ PHOTO: AG Law
From: Aleksandra Gontaryuk
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 4:29 PM
To: AILA New Jersey Chapter Distribution List <newjersey@lists.aila.org>
Subject: Precedential Decision — 3rd Circuit
Hot off the presses. No supplemental notice allowed to cure defective NTA unless there is a change or postponement of time and place in NTA. In this case, my client had a defective NTA, so 3rd Circuit ruled there can be no change or postponement from a defective NTA in the first place when DHS didn’t issue new NTA!! In absentia remanded.
[The case is Madrid-Mancia v. AG, available in full text at the above link.]
Aleksandra N. Gontaryuk, Esq.
AG Law Firm
*******************
Actually, Dems need an AG who WILL WORRY about systematic denials of due process, fundamental fairness, and failure to install best-qualified progressives in the disastrously dysfunctional Immigration Courts! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
The notice issue presented by Campos-Chaves and Singh has been to the Supremes, albeit in different forms, twice before recently. The BIA/DOJ position has been emphatically “stuffed” by the Supremes both times! Yet, here we are again with the same backlog-enhancing, due-process-denying nonsense, this time from a Dem AG who was supposed to act like a “real” Federal Judge, not a “stooge” for DHS Enforcement.
The long and short of it is that this third trip to the Supremes on the notice issue was avoidable. That is, if Garland had appointed immigration experts, individuals not afraid to enforce the statute even where it benefits the individual, as it often will if properly and fairly interpreted, to the BIA, long a hotbed of anti-immigrant interpretations of law. Garland continues to enable a system “packed” with anti-immigrant and anti-asylum judges promoted under Trump and largelyretained by Garland. This should outrage all progressives!
Dems continue to fecklessly “wring their hands” about the sharp right turn of the Supremes and the lower Article IIIs and the predictable decimation of individual rights. It all occurred in plain sight and with plenty of advance warning from the GOP as Dems diddled away their chances to stop it.
Dems aren’t going to be able to expand the Supremes, nor are term limits likely to happen. Both would require GOP support, which will not be forthcoming now that they have achieved their long-promised “takeover!” Discussing it is a waste of breath and brain cells. It also diverts attention from the Dems ongoing failure at EOIR.
The Dems best practical chance of reforming the Federal Courts would be to start “at the critical retail level” with what they control and could change tomorrow:The U.S.Immigration Courts housed (however improperly) in the DOJ. Right now they are an embarrassing mess of bad judging, anti-immigrant bias, worst practices, grotesque mismanagement, insurmountable backlogs, and hare-brained gimmicks.
Every day, in this and other forums, we see inspiring examples of the type of extraordinary progressive, creative, courageous legal talent available “in the marketplace.” They are the ones Garland should be recruiting and putting on the EOIR bench at both appellate and trial levels.
We would get an immediate, long overdue, improvement in the quality and efficiency of justice at EOIR. Correct, scholarly precedents would have carry-over into other areas of law and even gain international traction.
And, Dems would be building a “long bench” of “tried and true” candidates for Article III positions in the process! Who knows if and when a chance like this will come again? Yet, Garland and the Dems are squandering it, damaging democracy and humanity in the process! Talk about turning a “win-win” into a “lose-lose!” It’s something that Dem politicos excel at!
Dems failure to institute progressive reforms and bring in expert progressive judges at the court they do control makes the rest of their pronouncements on Federal Court reform meaningless babbling!
Dems “babble on” about Federal Court reform as GOP scores “real life” victories over individual rights and equity. It’s a waste of time, and “task avoidance” by Dems that diverts attention from the major Federal System they own 100% and operate (very badly): The U.S. Immigration Courts @ EOIR! — “Towel of Babel” By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
Pay no attention to Dems disingenuous complaints about the Supremes and “Trumpy” lower court judges until they demonstrate the ability and willingness to reform EOIR!
Dems control the composition of one of the most consequential Federal Appellate Tribunals, the BIA. Is THIS really the look that they want to project? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:
CA1 on Changed Country Conditions (Guatemala) – Mendez Esteban v. Garland
“[T]he 2017 report and the testimony from Mendez do not — together or independently — establish that changes in Guatemala have fundamentally altered the specific conditions that gave rise to Mendez’s substantiated claim of political persecution. Accordingly, the BIA’s conclusion that DHS rebutted Mendez’s presumption of well-founded fear is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore find Mendez statutorily eligible for asylum. … [W]e grant the petition for review as to Mendez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition as to Mendez’s claim for CAT protection. We accordingly affirm the denial of Mendez’s CAT claim, vacate the denials of Mendez’s political opinion-based asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the IJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Appellant Ishmael Kosh petitions us to review the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that terminated his asylum status and denied his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He maintains that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) improperly sought to terminate his asylum status in asylum-only proceedings because he first entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. Per Kosh, that limiting program no longer applies to him, so he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction removal proceedings instead. In such unlimited proceedings, asylees can raise an adjustment-of-status claim as a defense to removal. We conclude that, if Kosh re-entered the country as an asylee without signing a new Visa Waiver Program form limiting his defenses, he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction proceedings. We thus grant his petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
As many practitioners know, the BIA’s continual bogus “fundamentally changed circumstances” findings for countries where the human rights conditions have remained abysmal for decades, certainly NOT materially improving, and in most cases in the Northern Triangle getting worse, are an endemic problem. Following a finding of past persecution, ICE, not the respondent, bears the burden of proof!
If that burden were honestly and expertly applied, considering individualized fear of harm, ICE would rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence in only a minuscule percentage of cases. Certainly, that was my experience over 21 years on both the trial and appellate benches at EOIR.
Moreover, in this and most other cases of past persecution, even if ICE were able to satisfy its burden of rebutting the presumption of future persecution by a preponderance of the credible evidence, the respondent would be a “slam dunk” for a grant of discretionary asylum on the basis of “other serious harm.” It’s not clear that any of the three judicial entities that considered this case understood and properly applied the “other serious harm” concept.
The BIA’s chronic failure to fulfill its proper role of insuring a fair application of asylum and other protection laws and to provide guidance “shutting down” IJs who routinely manufacture bogus reasons to deny is a systemic denial of due process and failure of judicial professionalism. That it continues to happen under a Dem Administration pledged to restore the rule of law and due process for asylum seekers is astounding, deplorable, and a cause for concern about what today’s Dems really stand for!
This case should have been granted by the IJ years ago. An appeal by ICE on this feeble showing should have been subject to summary dismissal.
That cases like Mendez Esteban are still aimlessly kicking around Garland’s dysfunctional system in an elusive search for justice is a serious indictment of the Biden Administration’s approach to asylum and to achieving long overdue, life-changing, and readily achievable reforms that are within their power without legislative action. It also helps explain why Garland has neither reduced backlogs nor sufficiently improved professionalism, even with many more IJs on the bench.
Practical tips for fighting against bogus “presumption rebuttals” by IJs under 8 CFR 208.13:
Insist that the IJ actually shift the burden to ICE to rebut the presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
Use the regulatory definition of “reasonably available” internal relocation to fight bogus IJ findings. For example, countries in the Northern Triangle are “postage stamp sized” and plagued by nationwide violence and corruption. The idea of “reasonably available internal location” under all the factors is prima facie absurd! (A “better BIA” would have already pointed this out in a precedent.)
Argue for a discretionary grant of asylum even in the absence of a current well founded fear based on 1) “compelling circumstances” arising out of the past persecution (“Chen grant”), and/or “other serious harm” under the regulations — a much broader concept than persecution that does NOT require nexus to a protected ground.
Knowing and using the law aggressively to assert your client’s rights, making the record, and exhausting all appellate options are the best defenses to biased, anti-asylum, often disconnected from reality denials of life-saving relief to your clients!
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.
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.
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.”
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 throughCBP 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! ☠️⚰️
BIA Asylum Panel cutting down the backlog by trampling asylum seekers and their legal rights! Guatemalans are a favorite target for Garland’s “Band of Bullies” at EOIR. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA3 on Guatemala, Law, Facts and Standard of Review: Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
“Based on past experiences, if returned to Guatemala, Selvin Heraldo Saban-Cach fears being persecuted by a local gang because of his identity as an indigenous person. Accordingly, he seeks withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied his applications and ordered his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. This petition for review followed. For the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Although the BIA need not write an overly detailed explanation of its review of an IJ’s decision, it must provide an adequate explanation of its ruling and afford us an opportunity to review it. Here, the BIA did neither. At times, the IJ’s decision completely conflicts with the record. Yet, for reasons that are not at all apparent, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in its entirety. … The BIA must review the first, factual question for clear error and the second, legal question de novo. In affirming the IJ’s decision of the second question regarding acquiescence, the BIA concluded that it found “no clear error in the [IJ]’s predictive fact-finding.” Accordingly, in addition to not bifurcating the Myrie step-two inquiry, the BIA also erred by applying this heightened standard of review to a legal question. Because of these errors, “we have little insight into the basis for [the BIA’s] determination that the IJ’s opinion ‘clearly reflects that [s]he used the proper “willful blindness” standard in relation to the issue of acquiescence.’” Accordingly, on remand the BIA needs to reassess each question.”
[Hats way off to Stephanie Norton, CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall!]
Stephanie Norton CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall Law PHOTO: Seton Hall Law website
********************
Congratulations to NDPA star Stephanie Norton! This is yet another example of the great talent “out here” who could replace mal-functioning EOIR judges. Human lives are at stake, this system is dysfunctional, crying out for bold reforms! Wonder how the Dems will try to “spin” their miserable performance at EOIR in 2024?
The IJ’s and BIA’s findings of “no past persecution” in this case rise to the level of absurd! Here’s what happened:
The BIA recognized that gang members had attacked Saban-Cach on multiple occasions and that the worst attack left him unconscious after he was stabbed with a broken glass bottle. However, the BIA agreed with the IJ that, in the aggregate, this abuse did not rise to the level of persecution. The BIA explained that, “because most of the incidents did not involve physical injuries, and because the worst attack did not require him to seek professional medical care for his physical injuries, the applicant did not establish harm rising to the level of past persecution.”
Come on man! No competent, fair minded judge would reach such a totally ridiculous conclusion based on such shallow, specious, and basically “made up reasoning!” Not incidentally, it also directly conflicted with Circuit precedent as well as with the realities of life in Guatemala!
The BIA also ran roughshod over its OWN binding precedent, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 23 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1998) (cumulative harm is persecution), which should have made a finding of past persecution a “no brainer” for a panel of competent asylum adjudicators! The sloppy, biased, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR is a major cause of their out of control backlog. Efforts to deny easily grantable cases, and failure to direct wayward asylum-denying IJs to get it right in the first place, is a drag on our entire justice system — all the way up to the Courts of Appeals!
That’s because EOIR’s “any reason to deny” approach to asylum encourages, and often rewards, frivolous litigating positions by ICE, discourages stipulations and settlements in cases that should easily be granted, and results in OIL taking ethically and legally flawed positions in the Courts of Appeals. For example, in this case the 3rd Circuit characterized parts of OIL’s position as “disingenuous,” “puzzling and disappointing,” and pointedly stated that “[r]egrettably, the government’s response brief doubles down on this inaccuracy.”
So, these are the legal quality and ethical standards set at DOJ by AG Merrick Garland, a former Circuit Judge himself who certainly should be expected to “know better.” Apparently, in his view, due process, fundamental fairness, impartial adjudication, adherence to the law, judicial and legal ethics don’t apply when it’s “only migrants” whose lives are at stake! While this is a common approach from White Nationalist GOP politicos, don’t we deserve better from a Dem Administration that claims to care about racial justice, but whose actions with respect to migrants say otherwise?
The court also blasted EOIR for “ethnocentric” judging and failure to fairly evaluate cases.
We have previously cautioned IJs and the BIA against ethnocentric evaluations of petitioners’ resources. Petitioners primarily come from countries in the poorest and most dangerous regions of the world. Any presumption that they enjoy the same kinds of resources as their adjudicators is shortsighted and unfair. Unless the record supports it, IJs and the BIA should not assume that their own views of appropriate medical care and its ready accessibility make up a universal reality.
Petitioners for relief under the asylum system must be afforded the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands. The immigration system can only provide a fair and neutral determination of the claims of people from different cultural and economic circumstances if adjudicators diligently avoid unrealistic assumptions about petitioners’ circumstances.
Any competent asylum practitioner would understand what the court is getting at. But, EOIR IJs at both the trial and appellate level make these basic mistakes time after time.
The 3rd Circuit and other courts might claim to find the BIA’s “entire” affirmance of a decision often in “complete conflict” with the record to be inexplicable. But, WE know that it’s because the “deportation assembly line” works on the “principle” of “any reason to deny” and “keep cranking out those final orders of removal.” To Hell with justice, quality, fairness, and the human lives involved!
This disasterous, backlogged, “star chamber system” is neither appropriately staffed nor competently operated to afford individuals “the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands.” How is this due process and fundamental fairness required by our Constitution?
“Justice” Star Chamber Style. — AG Merrick Garland appears to be blissfully unconcerned about the methods applied by too many of his EOIR “judges,” and his DOJ attorneys who “run interference” for them, to achieve “removal for any reason, at any cost!”
Until a court has the guts to “pull the plug” on EOIR’s ongoing, deadly clown show 🤡, declare it unconstitutional, and require at least minimal due process reforms, these outrages will continue! “Puzzling” about recurring miscarriages of justice at EOIR, as the 3rd Circuit did here, is one thing; acting decisively to enforce the Constitution by stopping the abuse, once and for all, is quite different. Requiring EOIR judges with demonstrated expertise in asylum law, willing to professionally review records, and decide cases of asylum seekers correctly, without “ethnocentrism” or bias, would be a logical starting point! It should be a “no brainer!”
“When you walk into your EOIR ‘courtroom’ and this guy takes the bench, you’re probably in for a BAD day! Isn’t it time to finally END the ‘Clown Show’ in our dystopian Immigration ‘Courts?'” PHOTO: Clown Civertan.jpg, Creative Commons License
“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.
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 enactingthe 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.”
