⚖️🧑🏻‍⚖️🍅FOOD FIGHT ERUPTS IN 5TH CIRCUIT AS EN BANC MAJORITY DECIDES TO FOLLOW LAW EVEN WHERE IMMIGRANT WINS! — 3 Trump Appointees, 1 Bush II Appointee, Join All Dem Appointees To Thwart 8 GOP Scofflaws’ Efforts To Overturn Rodriguez v. Garland!😎 

Food Fight
Far right activist  5th Circuit Judges reacting to colleagues who followed law and ruled in favor of immigrants. PHOTO: Creative Commons.

The issue is whether an in absentia removal order can be based on a statutorily defective notice. The panel followed the Supreme’s decision in Niz-Chavez and rejected the BIA’s conflicting decision in Matter of Laparra. In other words, the panel required the Government to follow the statute, a process known as “complying with the law.” This sent some of this most conservative circuit’s most far-right judges over the edge. Here’s the en banc decision:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60008-CV1.pdf

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

  • Credit Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for the “food fight” characterization.
  • The scofflaw GOP dissenters cited “deference” to the Executive, something they have pointedly refused to apply to Biden Administration precedents and policies favoring migrants. 
  • The majority says: “[The BIA] flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, which Laparra ignored.” 
  • Incredibly, Garland is on the “wrong side” of this controversy, defending the legally incorrect misinterpretation of his “Trump holdover” BIA!
  • The statutory requirement at issue: That a “Notice to Appear” before the Immigration Court inform the individual of the time and place of the hearing. How difficult does that sound? Not very, unless you are bumbling bureaucrat at DHS and EOIR who chose, even after the Supremes’ initial decision, to  violate that decision and the statute in almost 100% of the cases instituted before the Immigration Courts! 
  • Kudos to the 3 Trump appointees and one Bush II appointee who joined 3 Obama appointees and 2 Clinton appointees to uphold the rule of law and thwart their GOP scofflaw colleagues.
  • Interestingly, and perhaps mildly encouraging, the “Trump appointees” split 3-3 on this one.
  • Apparently nothing drives a wedge between conservative judges like the scary prospect of following the law when it gives immigrants a win!
  • Future ambitious academic study: How much of the current out of control backlog can be traced to the Government’s, and particularly the BIA’s, inept handling of straightforward notice requirements set forth in the statute?
  • There’s a reason why I keep referring to Garland’s out of control EOIR backlogs as “largely self-created,” albeit in fairness not exclusively by him. The Trump Administration, and to a lesser extent the Obama Administration, also “excelled” at “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” driven by “prioritizing” improper political goals over due process, fundamental fairness, quality, and practical scholarship in the Immigration Courts.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-21-22

FINALLY, 3D CIR. BLASTS THROUGH JURISDICTIONAL BS & TELLS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TO GIVE SOME MEANINGFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW TO SOME OF THOSE CAUGHT UP IN “LET ‘EM DIE IN MEXICO!” – But, Is It Too Little, Too Late For Most Of The 60,000 Poor Souls Illegally Condemned By The Regime To Deadly Misery On The Mexican Side of the Border? — E.O.H.C.; M.S.H.S. v. Sec. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security  

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/192927p.pdf

 

E.O.H.C.; M.S.H.S. v. Sec. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 3d Cir., 02-13-20, published

PANEL: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Bibas

KEY QUOTE:

This case raises the age-old question: “If not now, when?” Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 1:14. For aliens who are challenging their removal from the United States, the answer is usually “later.” But not always. And not here.

. . . .

Immigration claims ordinarily proceed from an immigra- tion judge through the Board of Immigration Appeals to the court of appeals by petition for review of a final removal order. Review by district courts is not the norm. But neither is this case. Most of the claims here cannot await a petition for re- view. By the time appellants are ordered removed to Guatemala (if ever), it will be too late to review their claims about their return to Mexico in the meantime. Only their statutory right-to-counsel claim will still be redressable. So the INA does not bar review of the remaining claims. And there is federal-question jurisdiction over the Flores claim. Because the United States is a party to the Flores Settlement Agreement, the contract claim is governed by federal common law and so arises under federal law. In short, the District Court has juris- diction over most of the claims. We will thus affirm the dis- missal of the statutory right-to-counsel claim and otherwise re- verse and remand for the District Court to address the merits.

 

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

The court actually makes one highly questionable assumption: That folks returned to Mexico will survive long enough to challenge the inevitable denial of their asylum claims in Barr’s biased “kangaroo courts.” The court fails to recognize/articulate the real driving force behind “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico:” Kill off the asylum applicants, make it impossible for them to raise their claims in the U.S. legal system by denying reasonable access, and/or demoralize individuals so that they will give up and accept their fate, even where it likely means death or torture. That’s what our “justice system” has become under the regime.

Perhaps, Article III Courts are starting to take notice of what Let ‘Em Die in Mexico is really about. The dead can’t get judicial review, at least in this world. We can only hope!

 

Too bad the awareness hasn’t extended to the 9th Circuit and their truly abominable, not to mention cowardly, decision in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan.

 

Article III Courts twiddle and fiddle, hem and haw, while real people die!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

 

PWS

 

09-14-20