"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Today, we’re celebrating the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Annor v. Garland. The court ruled that immigration judges must follow proper analytical steps in determining whether noncitizens have been convicted of a particularly serious crime (PSC).
This is an important decision because anyone convicted of a PSC is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal, so PSC determinations have life-or-death consequences for immigrants facing persecution if they are deported to their home countries.
“Today, the Fourth Circuit spoke clearly: the immigration court system must treat PSC determinations with the care they deserve,” stated Immigration Impact Lab Senior Attorney Peter Alfredson, who worked on the amicus brief alongside Lab Deputy Program Director Samantha Hsieh.
CAIR Coalition submitted an amicus brief, also signed by RAICES, in support of Mr. Annor, who was represented by Ben Winograd of the Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC.
Come on, man! How is this a competent adjudication by the BIA? It isn’t! So, why is it happening time and again under Garland?
“[T]he immigration court system must treat PSC determinations with the care they deserve!” Absolutely! But, it’s not happening in Garland’s “any reason to deny/defend garbage” DOJ! At least it’s not happening systemically under Garland!
Rather than correcting IJ errors and insisting that the legal rights of migrants be respected and protected, the BIA too often has been a big part of the problem! Sloppiness, lack of expertise, “any reason to deny,” “reject don’t protect” have all become hallmarks of Garland’s dysfunctional system!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Contrary to GOP White Nationalist restrictionist blather, accepted by many spineless Dem politicos and the media, and enabled by Garland, this system should be identifying, screening, facilitating representation, expediting protection (not rejection), and arranging reception and resettlement, NOT engaging in more mindless “deterrence” and “uber enforcement.”
Garland’s abject failure to insist on due process and stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers and other migrants has undermined our democracy! There is a huge “over-denial“ problem in our asylum adjudication system that skews the entire “debate!”
Our nation, our politicos, and our media are simply too gutless and morally vapid to admit that there are many, many more individuals arriving at our borders who should qualify for some sort of legal protection under a fair and legitimate screening and adjudication system!
Best comment, from Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis: “Something is seriously wrong at DOJ when a seasoned IJ and BIA member make these kinds of mistakes, and when OIL attorneys defend such errors in court. Crimmigration should not be so hard that it takes a team of litigation superstars to achieve a just result!”
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC) — “He ‘gets’ it! So why don’t Garland and Dem leaders? Is Dan THAT much smarter than they are? Sure looks like it!”
You betcha, Dan! “Something is seriously wrong at DOJ” is an understatement! Dan, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, and I are among the many who have been saying that since the Obama Administration. It’s painfully obvious that Garland isn’t the answer (nor is Mayorkas), and that NDPA superstars like Ben and others should be in charge of the human rights legal and adjudication bureaucracies at DOJ and DHS in a Dem Administration!
“Petitioner Rodolfo Josue Tinoco Acevedo appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address whether Tinoco Acevedo’s case should be remanded to a new immigration judge (“IJ”) under Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2015), we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Rather than opine as to the exact grounds on which the BIA decided that the applicant was entitled to a new hearing before a new IJ in Matter of Y-S-L-C-, we remand for the BIA to interpret its precedent and address Tinoco Acevedo’s argument in the first instance. … we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for the BIA to consider whether Tinoco Acevedo is entitled to a new hearing before a different IJ because the initial IJ’s conduct—both during and following the hearing—failed to satisfy the high standard expected of IJs under Matter of Y-S-L-C-. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.” [Note: The IJ was Roxanne C. Hladylowycz.]
[Hats off once again to IRAC superlitigator Ben Winograd!]
Yet another example of the BIA not being familiar with and applying their own precedents where they could be favorable to the respondent. Any old boilerplate BS will do as long is the result is “dismiss and remove.”
It’s one thing for the BIA to articulate “high standards” for IJ conduct in Matter of Y-S-L-C-. It’s quite another to consistently enforce them where the lives of migrants are at stake!
It was a particularly bad idea for the BIA to spring this haphazard “good enough for government work” approach when Ben Winograd is appellate counsel. Winograd knows the BIA and 4th Circuit precedents better than most BIA judges. And, unlike the latter, he’s willing to stand up for immigrants’ legal rights!
It would be better for Garland and American justice — not to mention those seeking justice in Immigration Court, too often in vain — if brilliant, due-process-oriented “practical scholars” like Ben Winograd replaced the “holdover BIA judges” who aren’t up to the job of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Remarkably, there was a time in the past when that long disregarded judicial essential was the “vision” of EOIR.
Ironically, the Article III Judges of this 4th Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory, Circuit Judges Motz and Wynn) understand the critical requirements for EOIR judging better than AG Garland! That’s a problem (although, concededly, outside the “World of EOIR” Garland has had his best week as AG)!
This opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory. He continues to be a leader among Article III Judges who take due process and immigrants’ rights seriously! He’s also someone who “gets” the clear connection between immigrant justice (or, in too many cases lack thereof) and racial justice.
With the Chief Immigration Judge position now vacant, Judge Garland has a golden opportunity to appoint a “Judge Gregory clone” to that critical position. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30193&action=edit. That would also be a wise course for Garland to take to replace the current glaringly inadequate leadership at his failing BIA! How about Chief Appellate Immigration Judge/Chairman Ben Winograd?
“Every day is ‘Kangaroo Field Day’ @ Garland’s DOJ!” When it comes to immigrant justice, “good enough for government work” is the mantra! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“The BIA “affirm[ed] the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny reopening because the respondent has not sufficiently demonstrated that his brother’s murder represents a material change in country conditions that would affect his eligibility for asylum.” A.R. 4. As we noted above, while (b)(4) requires “changed country conditions,” (b)(3)does not. Thus, the BIA’s reference to a “material change in country conditions” and the analysis that followed shows that the BIA applied § 1003.23(b)(4). See A.R. 4. In applying the standard of § 1003.23(b)(4) to a timely filed motion, the BIA acted contrary to law. … The question for the BIA to consider in evaluating Garcia Hernandez’s motion to reopen was whether Garcia Hernandez offered, in the proper from and with the appropriate contents, evidence that was material and not previously available at the initial hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). Because the BIA did not analyze that question, and instead evaluated the issue under § 1003.23(b)(4), the BIA abused its discretion. … The BIA held that Zambrano did not apply because the changed circumstances there took place before the petitioner filed a time-barred petition even though here, the purported changed circumstances took place after the time-barred petition was filed and adjudicated. But nothing in Zambrano suggests its holding or reasoning was limited in the way the BIA suggests. Thus, Zambrano’s framework in examining changed circumstances should have been applied to Garcia Hernandez’s asylum application. … [W]e grant Garcia Hernandez’s petition for review. We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Garcia Hernandez’s motion to reopen under the appropriate standard. The BIA should also address Garcia Hernandez’s asylum application under the framework of Zambrano and conduct any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Many congrats to Ben and Alex, who were both “regulars” at the Arlington Immigration Court! Alex is also a former Arlington Intern and a “charter member” of the NDPA!😎
The 4th Circuit decision was written by Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, a Trump appointee, for a unanimous panel thatincluded Judge Motz and Judge Thacker. While Judge Q doesn’t always “get it right,” his cogent analysis of the BIA’s lawless behavior in this case is “spot on.”
How does a supposedly “expert” tribunal like the BIA blow the “easy stuff” — like following their own regulations? Clearly it has something to do with an unduly permissive “haste makes waste/rush to deny” anti-immigrant culture at EOIR that Garland has not effectively addressed!
Another obvious problem: Why were Garland’s lawyers at OIL defending this obviously wrong decision?You don’t have to be an “immigration guru” to read the regulations!
Sadly, it’s not the first time under Garland that OIL has chosen to waste judicial resources and undermine our justice system by “defending the indefensible.” It’s what happens when leaders promote an “anything goes/no accountability/good enough for government work” atmosphere!
There are deep substantive, structural, personnel, attitude, and “cultural” problems at EOIR and DOJ. That, over his first year in office, Garland has chosen to ignore these glaring malfunctions of justice @ Justice is an ongoing national disgrace!🤮
It doesn’t have to be this way! But, unfortunately, it is! And, even more disturbingly, no meaningful improvements appear to be on the horizon! That’s a deadly ☠️⚰️ outlook for American justice and for those poor souls caught up in Garland’s unfair, broken, dysfunctional “court” system that bears little resemblance to any commonly understood notion of what a fair, impartial, subject matter expert court should be in America!🤯
Train Dennis Adams, Federal Highway Administration; levels adjustment applied by Hohum Public domain. — Garland’s Deportation Railway retains most of his predecessors’ engineers, conductors, and crew. It’s often slow, unreliable, erratic, and subject to arbitrary unannounced schedule changes. It continues to bypass “Due Processville” and “Fundamental Fairness City.”
Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 4th Cir., 02-16-22, published
PANEL: NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Niemeyer
DISSENT: Judge Motz
KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:
Under the current immigration statutes, DHS has good reason to require applicants for relief from removal to submit fingerprints and other biometrics. But before DHS does so, it must first comply with specified notice obligations. Where, as here, DHS fails to do so, I would not fault the applicant. As the Supreme Court explained in Niz-Chavez, “[i]f men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.” 141 S. Ct. at 1486.
I respectfully dissent.
*********************
The IJ and the BIA relied on a wrong BIA precedent. The 4th Circuit majority judges recognized its incorrectness, but took OIL’s invitation to fashion another rationale for denying this asylum applicant a hearing on the merits of her life or death claim. While the respondent was represented by counsel, the disputed “warnings” and dialogue relating to the missing biometrics were not translated into Spanish, the only language she understood.
While this case was pending, USCIS finally delivered the long and inexplicably delayed biometrics appointment letter to the respondent. But, that made no difference to a group of judges anxious to railroad her back to Honduras (one of the most dangerous and thoroughly corrupt countries in the hemisphere) without a meaningful chance to be heard.
Of all the Federal Judges who looked at this case over the years, only Judge Motz was interested in providing the respondent a due process hearing on her life-determining claim. The rest evidently were more fixated on creating reasons for NOT hearing her case. With the same amount of judicial and litigation effort, likely less, the respondent probably could have received a due process hearing on the merits of her claim. Additionally, there would have been consequences for the BIA’s defective “good enough for government work” precedent.
Of course, like Garland, none of the exalted judges involved in this disgraceful dereliction of duty have actually represented an asylum applicant in Immigration Court and had to deal with the confusing, convoluted, backlogged, and often notoriously screwed up DHS/EOIR biometrics process. See, e.g., “USCIS Biometrics Appointment Backlog,” https://www.stilt.com/blog/2021/02/biometrics-appointment-backlog/.
I suspect that folks contesting a parking ticket get more consideration in our system than this asylum applicant got from Garland’s unfair and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the OIL lawyers who defend these mis-handled cases. And, in the world of “refugee roulette,” where human lives are treated like lottery tickets, a different Circuit panel of judges might have joined Judge Motz in getting it right.
The problem starts with EOIR — tribunals that receive deference without earning it through expertise, quality scholarship, and prioritizing due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices. It’s aggravated and multiplied by Garland — an Attorney General indifferent to injustice and the trail of broken lives and dashed hopes left in its wake. And, it’s aided, abetted, and enabled by judges like the panel majority here, who can’t be troubled with the hard work of understanding the consequences of their dilatory approach and demanding fair, competent, and reasonable expert judging from EOIR.
As several of my colleagues have said about the broken, dysfunctional, unfair Immigration Court system, the haphazard review by some Circuit Courts, and the disturbing systemic lack of judicial courage when it comes to fairly applying the Due Process Clause of our Constitution to migrants of color: “The cruelty is the point.”
It’s also worthy of note that the failure of all the Federal Judges, save Judge Motz, to make any meaningful inquiry into the respondent’s clearly expressed fear of return to Honduras appears to violate mandatory requirements for withholding of removal under the INA and international conventions. Perhaps that’s not surprising as Federal Judges have allowed Garland, Mayorkas, and their predecessors to use the transparent pretext of “Title 42” to systemically violate the legal and human rights of refugees at our borders — every day!
It’s also worth putting into context the Biden Administration’s continuing pontification about the human rights of Ughyurs, Afghans, women, and other persecuted minorities, as well as their professed commitment to racial justice in the U.S., which has not been matched by actions. Indeed, the Biden Administration’s actual approach to human rights looks much more like “Miller Lite Time” than it does a courageous, competent, and fair reinstitution of the rule of law!
According to recent reports, many of the Ughyurs and Afghans who were fortunate enough to reach the U.S. and avoid arbitrary “turn backs” at our borders, are now mired in the endless, mindless Mayorkas/Garland bureaucracy that masquerades as an “asylum system” — subject to long waits, missing work authorizations, and sometimes arbitrary and secretive “denials” blasted by human rights advocates. In a functional system these would be the “low hanging fruit” that could rapidly be removed from limbo and given the ability to fully function in our society. But, not in the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” atmosphere fostered by Mayorkas and Garland.
Melody Busey ESQUIRE Associate Attorney Devine & Beard Law Office Charleston, SC PHOTO: Devineandbeard.comIt should have been a 2-minute “no brainer” administrative closing @ EOIR. Instead, it took two years of tough, smart, dedicated litigation by their firm to get justice in Garland’s broken and dysfunctional “Clown Court” system. But, in the end, Melody Busey, Mark Devine, & Ashley Beard got long-overdue justice for their client by pummeling “Garland’s DOJ Clown-ocracy” in the Fourth Circuit! Should justice in America really be this difficult and uncertain? Garland seems to think so! — Mark J. Devine & Ashley R. Beard Principal Partners Devine & Beard Law Office Charleston, SC PHOTO: Devineandbeard.com
Garcia Cabrera v. Garland, 4th Cir., 01-06-21, published
PANEL: MOTZ, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Judge Motz
CONCURRING OPINION; Judge Rushing
KEY QUOTE:
In sum, we hold that the BIA and IJ abused their discretion in denying Garcia
Cabrera’s motion for a continuance. Both the BIA and IJ departed from the established policies set forth in precedential opinions in holding that Garcia Cabrera failed to show good cause. Under Matter of L-A-B-R-, the BIA and IJs must consider two factors above all others: (1) the likelihood that USCIS will grant the movant’s U visa application, and (2) whether a U visa would materially affect the outcome of the movant’s deportation proceedings. 27 I. & N. Dec. at 406. Both of these factors weigh in Garcia Cabrera’s favor. The BIA recognized the existence of these factors but failed to consider whether or how they applied, focusing solely on less significant secondary factors. And although the IJ did address the primary factors, he nonetheless abused his discretion by failing to recognize that a U visa would materially affect the outcome of the deportation proceedings.
******************
Many, many congrats to NDPA stars Melody Busey, Mark J. Devine, and Devine & Beard Law Office in Charleston, SC, for their perseverance and outstanding advocacy in this case! As I’ve said before, it’s painfully obvious (to anyone but Garland and his team) that the wrong folks are on the bench and in key policy positions at EOIR!
Notably, this decision comes from an ideologically diverse 4th Circuit panel with two Trump appointees. Clearly, this panel took more time to understand the record and carefully and correctly analyze the applicable law and policy considerations than did the “faux experts” at EOIR, at either the trial or appellate levels!
Although I don’t always agree with Judge Rushing, her concurring opinion here shows that she took the time to carefully read the record, understand the applicable law, and clearly explain her position in straightforward, understandable terms. In other words, she treated this case like the important life or death matter it is, rather than “just another immigration case on the assembly line.” And, that led her to get the “bottom line” right. That’s a degree of judicial professionalism that we seldom, if ever, see from Garland’s EOIR these days.
That we get better performance on immigration cases from some Trump appointees on the Article IIIs than from Garland’s “wholly-owned EOIR” shows the total disconnect in theBiden Administration’s approach to the ongoing, unmitigated disaster unfolding every day in our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Unlike the Article IIIs, the Immigration Courts, now sporting an astounding, largely self-created 1.5+ million and growing case backlog, are a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the Administration and Garland’s DOJ!
When you’re in an EOIR “programmed to deny” by White Nationalist nativist overlords like Sessions, Barr, and Miller, you do dumb things and churn out sloppy work.
Indeed, “virtual discussion” of this case spurred some “PTSD” recollections by NDPAattorneys of other horrible, lawless decisions by this particular Immigration Judge, who never should have been on the bench in the first place. Incredibly, this judge, a member of the disgraceful “90% Denial Club” that has helped create disgusting “Asylum Free Zones” at EOIR throughout America, was appointed by the tone-deaf Obama Administration!
The idea that there weren’t better-qualified candidates out there at the time in private practice, the NGOs, clinical education, or even the government is simply preposterous! Failure of Dems to realize the progressive potential of the Immigration Courts has a long and disreputable history! Indeed, EOIR under Garland looks and performs disturbingly similar to EOIR under Miller, Sessions, and Barr!
While this particular IJ has retired, too many other unqualified judges appointed in the past under selection systems stacked against outside advocates and experts remain on the bench, at both the trial and appellate levels, under Garland.
Here’s part of the “Garland Tragedy/Missed Opportunity.” He actually has at least a few folks among his judiciary ranks who have experience and actually understand U visas and how to deal properly, justly, and efficiently with them. I guarantee that none of them would have come up with this inane and wasteful performance of judicial ineptitude and, frankly, anti-immigrant bias!
Why aren’t those folks “running the show” on the BIA, rather than the “deny anything for any reason” holdover gang that (save for Judge Saenz) Garland has “adopted as his.” Excluding Judge Saenz, I doubt that collectively the appellate judges on the BIA have ever handled a U visa case for an applicant. They are blissfully clueless as to both the practical stupidity and traumatic human consequences of the horrible decision-making exhibited at both the trial and appellate levels in this debacle! What’s a wrong with this bizarre picture of Dem incompetence and malfeasance?
Interesting that White Nationalist xenophobes like Sessions, Barr, and Miller had no problem whatsoever using their positions to further lies and myths about asylum seekers and other migrants and acting to weaponize the Immigration Courts (including “packing”them with unqualified and questionably qualified judges, unfairly selected) against individuals and their lawyers seeking justice (following eight years of indolent mismanagement of EOIR by politicos in the Obama DOJ which “teed EOIR up” for Trump and Miller).
By contrast, Dems appear afraid to speak out and act with resolve and purpose on due process, fundamental fairness, human rights, impartial professional expert judging, and human dignity — at our borders and in our Immigration Courts. Why?
Is is because deep down they don’t really believe in racial justice and equal justice for all? Because they can’t accept the humanity of migrants? Why is Garland still carrying out many of Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist policies and using a “court system” unfairly “packed” with those selected because they were perceived to be willing to carry out the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, anti-immigrant agenda?
More than nine months after taking over at “Justice,” why is Garland still defending clearly wrong, counterproductive, and frivolous EOIR decisions like this? Why should simple justice for migrants require a two-year battle by members of the NDPA to be realized?
And, I daresay that there are other panels, in other Circuits, that would have “rubber-stamped” EOIR’s errors. Lack of professionalism and judicial expertise at EOIR, promoted and defended by Garland, breeds wildly inconsistent results and turns justice in life or death cases into a “crap shoot.” That undermines and builds contempt for the entire Federal Justice System and exposes deep flaws at the DOJ that Garland has ignored!
In a functioning system, this case involving someone who is prima facie qualified to remain in the US: 1) should never have been brought by DHS, and 2) if brought, should have been promptly administratively closed or terminated without prejudice by EOIR. A competent judge might also have considered sanctioning DHS counsel for pushing ahead with this case with no justification whatsoever. In other words, conducting frivolous litigation!
That’s how you: 1) cut cases that don’t involve legitimate enforcement issues from the intentionally bloated EOIR docket; 2) reduce incredible, largely self-created backlogs; 3) hold DHS accountable for wasting court time; 4) deliver a long overdue “shape up or ship out” message to poorly performing Immigration Judges (like those in this case) at both the trial and appellate levels; 5) promote consistency and equal justice for all; 6) end the reprehensible practice of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR; and 7) stop wasting the time of the Article IIIs by defending garbage like that churned out at both the IJ and BIA level here!
Garland has demonstrated cluelessness, timidity, and intransigence in all of the foregoing essential areas of long overdue radical, yet common-sense and basically “no brainer,” progressive reforms at EOIR! You can’t get there with the current, holdover BIA! That’s as clear today as it was the day Garland was sworn in as AG.
The Biden Administration’s gross failure to bring progressive leadership, scholarship, competency, quality, and professionalism to a poorly performing, dysfunctional EOIR is corroding our justice system! Seems like an incredibly bad stance for an Administration claiming to be the “last best hope” for preserving American democracy, heading into midterms with a significant portion of its reliable progressive base angry and turned off by its contemptuous mal-performance on immigration, human rights, racial justice, and EOIR reforms!
Sometimes, just asking for financial support and votes isn’t enough! You have to earn it with bold actions!
In reviewing such decisions, we treat factual findings “as conclusive unless the evidence was such that any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled to a contrary view,” and we uphold the agency’s determinations “unless they are manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710, 719 (4th Cir. 2011). These standards demand deference, but they do not render our review toothless. The agency “abuse[s] its discretion if it fail[s] to offer a reasoned explanation for its decision, or if it distort[s] or disregard[s] important aspects of the applicant’s claim.” Id.; accord Zavaleta-Policiano, 873 F.3d at 247.
Orellana contends that the IJ and the BIA did precisely this in their reasoning as to whether the Salvadoran government was willing and able to protect her.3 We must agree. Examination of the record demonstrates that the agency adjudicators erred in their treatment of the evidence presented. Here, as in Tassi and Zavaleta-Policiano, the agency adjudicators both disregarded and distorted important aspects of the applicant’s claim.
First, agency adjudicators repeatedly failed to offer “specific, cogent reason[s]” for disregarding the concededly credible, significant, and unrebutted evidence that Orellana provided. Tassi, 660 F.3d at 722; accord Ai Hua Chen, 742 F.3d at 179. For example,
3 Orellana also contends that the BIA failed to conduct separate inquiries into the Salvadoran government’s “willingness” to protect her and its “ability” to do so. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding legal error where the BIA considered a government’s efforts at offering protection without “examin[ing] the efficacy of those efforts”). After careful review of the record, we must reject this contention. The BIA applied the proper legal framework. It treated “willingness” and “ability” as distinct legal concepts, and it sufficiently addressed each in its order.
9
Orellana testified that during her third attempt to obtain a protective order in 2009, the Salvadoran family court refused to offer aid and instead directed her to the police station, which also turned her away. Yet the IJ gave this evidence no weight.
The IJ declined to do so on the theory that it was “unclear and confusing as to why exactly she was not able to get assistance from either the police or the court during these times.” But the record offers no evidence to support the view that the Salvadoran government officials had good reason for denying Orellana all assistance. Cf. Tassi, 660 F.3d at 720 (requiring agency to “offer a specific, cogent reason for rejecting evidence” as not credible). Rather, Orellana offered the only evidence of their possible motive aside from the family court officials’ claim that they were “too busy” — namely, uncontroverted expert evidence that “[d]iscriminatory gender biases are prevalent among [Salvadoran] government authorities responsible for providing legal protection to women.”
Nor did the IJ or the BIA address Orellana’s testimony, which the IJ expressly found credible, that she called the police “many times” during a twelve-year period, calls to which the police often did not respond at all. This testimony, too, was uncontroverted. To “arbitrarily ignore[]” this “unrebutted, legally significant evidence” and focus only on the isolated instances where police did respond constitutes an abuse of discretion.Zavaleta-Policiano, 873 F.3d at 248 (quoting Baharon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228, 233 (4th Cir. 2009)); accord Hernandez-Avalos, 784 F.3d at 951 (“[A]n IJ is not entitled to ignore an asylum applicant’s testimony in making . . . factual findings.”).
10
The agency’s analysis also “distorted” the record evidence concerning the instances of government involvement. Tassi, 660 F.3d at 719. For example, although the IJ accepted as credible Orellana’s testimony that Salvadoran family court employees rebuffed her third request for a protective order because “they were too busy” and suggested that she try again another day, the IJ inexplicably concluded from this testimony that Salvadoran family court employees “offered continued assistance” to Orellana. The IJ similarly distorted the record in finding that, in 2006, “the [family] court in El Salvador acted on [Orellana’s] behalf” when it took no action against Garcia, and in finding that, in 2009, a different Salvadoran court “attempted to assist” Orellana bydenying her the protective order that she requested.
Despite these errors, the Government asserts three reasons why the BIA’s order assertedly finds substantial evidentiary support in the record. None are persuasive.
First, the Government argues that Orellana’s own testimony established that she had “access to legal remedies” in El Salvador. But access to a nominal or ineffectual remedy does not constitute “meaningful recourse,” for the foreign government must be both willing and able to offer an applicant protection. Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Second Circuit has explained, when an applicant offers unrebutted evidence that “despite repeated reports of violence to the police, no significant action was taken on [her] behalf,” she has provided “ample ground” to conclude “that the BIA was not supported by substantial evidence in its finding that [she] did not show that the government was unwilling to protect [her] from private persecution.” Aliyev v.
Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2008). Evidence of empty or token “assistance” 11
cannot serve as the basis of a finding that a foreign government is willing and able to protect an asylum seeker.
Second, the Government contends that Orellana cannot show that the Salvadoran government is unable or unwilling to protect her because she did not report her abuse until 1999 and later abandoned the legal process. But Orellana’s initial endurance of Garcia’s abuse surely does not prove the availability of government protection during the decade-long period that followed, during which time she did seek the assistance of the Salvadoran government without success. As to Orellana’s asserted abandonment of the Salvadoran legal process, we agree with the Government that an applicant who relinquishes a protective process without good reason will generally be unable to prove her government’s unwillingness or inability to protect her. But there is no requirement that an applicant persist in seeking government assistance when doing so (1) “would have been futile” or (2) “have subjected [her] to further abuse.” Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, Orellana offered undisputed evidence of both.
Finally, the Government suggests that even if the Salvadoran government had previously been unwilling or unable to help Orellana, country conditions had changed by 2009 such that she could receive meaningful protection. Because the agency never asserted this as a justification for its order, principles of administrative law bar us from
12
dismissing the petition on this basis. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94–95 (1943).4
We have often explained that an applicant for asylum is “entitled to know” that agency adjudicators “reviewed all [her] evidence, understood it, and had a cogent, articulable basis for its determination that [her] evidence was insufficient.” Rodriguez- Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968, 975 (4th Cir. 2019); accord, e.g., Baharon, 588 F.3d at 233 (“Those who flee persecution and seek refuge under our laws have the right to know that the evidence they present . . . will be fairly considered and weighed by those who decide their fate.”). That did not happen here.
We therefore vacate the order denying Orellana asylum.5 On remand, the agency must consider the relevant, credible record evidence and articulate the basis for its decision to grant or deny relief.
This is how “malicious incompetence” builds backlog. This case has been pending since March 2011, more than eight years.It has been before an Immigration Judge twice, the BIA three times, and the Fourth Circuit twice. Yet, after eight years, three courts, seven judicial decisions, and perhaps as many as 17 individual judges involved, nobody has yet gotten it right! This is a straightforward “no brainer” asylum grant!
However, the Fourth Circuit, rather than putting an end to this continuing judicial farce, remands to the BIA who undoubtedly will remand to the Immigration Judge. Who knows how many more years, hearings, and incorrect decisions will go by before this respondent actually gets the justice to which she is entitled?
Or maybe she won’t get justice at all. Who knows what the next batch of judges will do? And, even ifthe respondent “wins,” is getting asylum approximately a decade after it should have been granted really “justice?” This respondent actually could and should be a U.S. citizen by now!
To make things worse, although the DHS originally agreed that most of the facts, the “particular social group,” as well as “nexus” were “uncontested,” now, after eight years of litigating on that basis, likely spurred by Session’s White Nationalist unethical attack on the system in Matter of A-B-, the DHS apparently intends to “contest” the previously stipulated particular social group.
Rather than putting an end to this nonsense and sanctioning the Government lawyers involved for unethical conduct and delay, the Fourth Circuit merely “notes in passing,” thereby inviting further delay and abuse of the asylum system by the DHS and EOIR.
This well-documented, clearly meritorious case should have been granted by the Immigration Judge, in a short hearing, back in March 2013, and the DHS should have (and probably would have, had the Immigration Judge acted properly) waived appeal.
Indeed, in a functional system, there would be a mechanism for trained Asylum Officers to grant these cases expeditiously without even sending them to Immigration Court.
The bias, incompetence, and mismanagement of the Immigration Court system, and the unwarranted tolerance by the Article III Courts, even those who see what is really happening, is what has sent the system out of control
Don’t let the Administration, Congress, the courts, or anyone else blame the victims of this governmental and judicial misbehavior — the asylum seekers and their lawyers, who are intentionally being dehumanized, demeaned, and denied justice in a system clearly designed to screw asylum seekers, particularly women fleeing persecution from the Northern Triangle!
We don’t need a change in asylum law.We need better judges and better administration of the Asylum Office, as well as some professionalism, sanity, and discipline from ICE and CBP about what cases they choose to place in an already overtaxed system.
That’s why it’s critical for advocates not to let the Article IIIs “off the hook” when they improperly “defer” to a bogus system that currently does not merit any deference, rather than exposing the misfeasance in this system and forcing it to finally comply with Constitutional Due Process of law.
While the statute says Article III Courts should “defer” to fact findings below, such deference should be “one and done.” In cases such as this, where EOIR has already gotten it wrong (here five times at two levels), Due Process should require “enhanced scrutiny” by the Article IIIs.
It’s welcome to get a correct published analysis from an Article III.
But, as noted by the Fourth Circuit, this is at least the third time the BIA has ignored the Fourth Circuit’s published precedents by “disregarding and distorting” material elements of a respondent’s claim. There is a name for such conduct: fraud.
Yet, the Fourth Circuit seems unwilling to confront either the BIA or their apologists at the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) for their unethical, incompetent, frivolous, and frankly, contemptuous behavior.
That’s why it’s absolutely critical for the advocacy community (the “New Due Process Army”) to keep pushing cases like this into the Article III Courts and forcing them to confront their own unduly permissive attitude toward the BIA which is helping to destroy our system of justice.
And, if the Article IIIs don’t get some backbone and creativity and start pushing back against the corrupt mess at EOIR, they will soon find the gross backlogs caused by “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “malicious incompetence” will be transferring to their dockets from EOIR.
Due Process Forever; complicity in the face of “malicious incompetence,” never!
