"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.
Hernandez v. Garland, 2d Cir., 04-21-23, Walker, Pooler, Park, Circuit Judges
POOLER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
2 Standards matter. A standard of review is the essential mechanism that
3 defines an appellate court’s proper role in reviewing the record presented. All
4 appellate courts must adhere to the proper standard of review. The Board of
5 Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “the Board”) is no exception. Here, the BIA
6 applied a standard that substantially deviated from the clear error standard and
7 improperly made factual findings that contradicted those made by the
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The BIA’s failure to adhere to the proper standard is
9 “the type of error that requires remand.” De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 108
10 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
11 This Court lacks jurisdiction to review purely discretionary decisions by
12 the BIA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), but we retain jurisdiction over
13 “constitutional claims or questions of law,” Noble v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 73, 77 (2d
14 Cir. 2007) (quoting § 1252(a)(2)(D)). When reviewing decisions, “[t]he Board will
15 not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration
16 judge. Facts determined by the immigration judge, including findings as to the
17 credibility of testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the
18 findings of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous.” 8 C.F.R. §
1
1 1003.1(d)(3)(i). “[W]hen the BIA engages in factfinding in contravention of 8
2 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv), it commits an error of law, which [the Court has]
3 jurisdiction to correct.” Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2010); see also
4 Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that the Court will
5 vacate BIA decisions “that result from flawed reasoning or the application of
6 improper legal standards”). Though the BIA “may review questions of law” and
7 “all other issues” on appeal de novo, see § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), it is explicitly barred
8 from “engag[ing] in factfinding in the course of deciding cases” aside from
9 taking “administrative notice of facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute,”
10 § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A).
11 Here, the BIA recited the precise legal standard at the beginning of its May
12 2019 decision. Special App’x at 7 (citing § 1003.1(d)(3)). But we do not simply
13 “rely on the Board’s invocation of the clear error standard; rather, when the issue
14 is raised, [the Court’s] task is to determine whether the BIA faithfully employed
15 the clear error standard or engaged in improper de novo review of the IJ’s factual
16 findings.” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Chen v.
17 Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 470 F.3d 509, 514 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that
18 despite “cit[ing] the proper legal standard at the outset of its decision, [the BIA]
2
1 failed to apply this deferential standard of review”). Despite its invocation of the
2 clear error standard, the BIA did not ultimately apply this standard of review to
3 Oscar Hernandez’s case. Merely reciting the standard does not transform the
4 BIA’s impermissible factfinding into a permissible exercise of discretion. Such lip
5 service should not suffice.
6 The majority opinion characterizes the BIA’s impermissible factfinding as a
7 simple “de novo reweighing of the equities based on the facts found by the IJ.”
8 Maj. Op. at 3. That is not the case. Without identifying any of the IJ’s findings as
9 clearly erroneous, the BIA implicitly rejected the IJ’s factual findings and
10 substituted the facts found by the IJ with its own factual findings. If the BIA
11 rejects the IJ’s findings, we expect it to “supply cogent reasons for its rulings,”
12 which the BIA failed to provide. See Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016).
13 The BIA completely disregarded the IJ’s credibility determination when it
14 concluded, contrary to the IJ’s findings, that it “d[id] not find [Hernandez’s]
15 explanation convincing” regarding the circumstances of his 2016 arrest. Special
16 App’x at 10. This divergence in characterization of the 2016 incident was central
17 to the BIA’s decision. In its attempt to parse out the definition of “convincing,”
18 the majority claims the BIA did not overturn the IJ’s factual findings, arguing the
3
1 BIA’s intended use of the word meant it was not “persuaded” by Hernandez’s
2 explanation, not that his testimony was not “truthful.” Maj. Op. at 11. This is an
3 unconvincing distinction. Next, the majority suggests the BIA doubted that
4 Hernandez warranted discretionary relief, not the truthfulness of his testimony.
5 Id. at 12. That clarification, however, does not do much to support the majority’s
6 argument. The BIA’s “de novo” reconsideration of whether Hernandez merited a
7 favorable exercise of discretion was premised on its factual determination that he
8 had “continued to engage in violent behavior” following his first arrest and
9 conviction in 2009. Special App’x at 10. The only evidence cited for this
10 determination was that Hernandez’s “most recent arrest in 2016 . . . included
11 abusive behavior toward his spouse”—a characterization directly at odds with
12 the IJ’s findings. Special App’x at 10.
. . . .
*******************************
You can read the full decision, including Judge Poolers’ full dissent, at the link.
As Judge Pooler points out, manipulation of the standards of review can be used either to improperly substitute judgement on fact-findings (BIA) or too avoid critical review of BIA’s actions (Circuit majority).
Thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for passing this along.
“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!🤯
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!
This case was argued on September 21, 2021, more than two months after Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (AG 2021), where AG Garland had refuted Sessions’s legal reasoning! Moreover, the 4th Circuit itself had pointed out the legal flaws in overruling Session’s abominable Castro-Tum, his abuse of AG authority that began this whole sorry episode in American jurisprudence. Yet, OIL argued this case as if nothing had happened and “Gonzo” Sessions were still in charge!
Looking to the character and context of the Government’s litigating position — in stark contrast to its recent regulatory position explained below — we are quite frankly puzzled that the Government currently stands in support of Attorney General Sessions’s decision in Matter of S-O-G-, particularly in light of the fact that Matter of S-O-G- relies heavily on Castro-Tum, which is no longer good law.
To begin with, this court has overruled Castro-Tum in Romero, in which we relied on the broad language of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) to hold that the immigration courts possess the authority to administratively close cases. Indeed, the fact that Castro-Tum has been overruled should not only begin the analysis here, but it should definitively end it.
But, beyond the fact that Castro-Tum is now defunct, Attorney General Garland no longer takes the position set forth in Castro-Tum and has since disavowed the idea that the IJs and BIA cannot administratively close proceedings. In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, Attorney General Garland decided, “Because Castro-Tum departed from long-standing practice, it is appropriate to overrule that opinion in its entirety and restore administrative closure” authority to the agency. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326, 329 (A.G. 2021). In doing so, Attorney General Garland noted “three courts of appeals have rejected Castro- Tum” and held that administrative closure is “‘plainly within an [IJ]’s authority’ under Department of Justice regulations.” Id. at 328 (citing Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen. U.S. of
Am., 997 F.3d 113, 121–22 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656, 667 (7th 18
Cir. 2020) (Barrett, J.); Romero, 937 F.3d at 292). Indeed, “[o]nly one court of appeals has upheld Castro-Tum.” Id. (citing Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2020). “[B]ut even that court subsequently ruled that [IJs] and the [BIA] do have authority to grant administrative closure in order to permit a noncitizen to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.” Id. (citing Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 999 F.3d 986, 991–93 (6th Cir. 2021)). Attorney General Garland’s position on administrative closure in Matter of Cruz-Valdez (and the reasoning behind it) calls into question the Government’s position in this matter and Matter of S-O-G- that IJs and the BIA do not have the inherent authority to terminate proceedings.3
The obvious answer here is that Garland has failed to take the necessary steps to replace the BIA and bring new leadership to OIL.
This should have been “Week One Stuff” after Garland assumed office! Instead, the EOIR system continues to careen out of control, clog the Article III judiciary with semi-frivolous litigation, and destroy human lives!
How many wrongly-treated respondents are fortunate enough to have Ben Winograd take up their cause, or indeed to have any legal assistance at all? How many can even get to the Court of Appeals to correct Garland’s errors?
The continued dysfunction at EOIR & DOJ is a humanitarian crisis and a threat to our legal system and American democracy! It’s high time for Judge Garland to wake up and treat this mess like the existential crisis it is!
Congrats again to Ben Winograd! Obviously, Garland should have recruited real immigration experts like Ben to be on the BIA or supervise OIL to get this system back on track. Why hasn’t he?
Generally, when the Board of Immigration Appeals errs, “the proper course . . . is
to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 249 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam)). “But that is not an invariable rule.” Id. If the record evidence, considered as a whole, “would compel ‘any reasonable adjudicator’ to reach the opposite conclusion, then a remand is unnecessary, and [this Court] will reverse the Board’s finding.” Id. (quoting Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122, 130 (4th Cir. 2017)).
II.
Here, as the majority opinion holds, the immigration judge and the Board of
Immigration Appeals erred by applying the wrong legal standards, arbitrarily disregarding relevant evidence, and failing to explain their decisions adequately. See Maj. Op. at 3, 12– 13, 16–18, 20–21, 25–26, 27–33. And based on such errors, the majority vacates the agency’s determination as to each prong of the asylum analysis—persecution, nexus to a protected ground, and government control—and remands for reconsideration. See id. at 3, 18, 21, 27–33. But when all relevant evidence in the record is properly considered under
the correct legal standards, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude 35
that Petitioner suffered past persecution as a child and that his membership in his nuclear family was at least one central reason for that persecution.
. . . .
I conclude by adding that Petitioner has been seeking protection in the United States for more than five years. We should not prolong his quest any more than necessary.
***************************
Hats off to everyone involved in this!
Knightess of the Round Table
Particular kudos to Judge Stephanie Thacker who wrote the majority and whose vigorous dissent from the wrong-headed panel decision undoubtedly helped secure en banc review. She stuck to her guns!
Honorable Stephanie D. Thacker U.S. Circuit Judge Fourth Circuit Photo From Ballotpedia
Also, much appreciation to Judge James Wynn for his separate opinion 1) calling out the” poppycock” in the dissent; and 2) drawing attention to the highly improper and recurring problem with EOIR keeping deserving asylum seekers dangling for many years while they think of bogus reasons to deny asylum to please their “enforcement masters” at DOJ and DHS. This is neither due process nor justice! No wonder the backlogs are sky high!
Hon. James Wynn U.S. Circuit Judge Fourth Circuit PHOTO: Wikipedia
As my esteemed Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase said:
“It’s remarkable how much good law is packed into this one decision.”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
The corollary to that is: “It’s remarkable how much bad law and poor judicial performance is packed into EOIR’s bungling of these life or death cases which deserve and require both expert judges and fair, timely adjudication in accordance with asylum law and due process.”
When are Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke finally going to pull the plug on “Club Denial” at the BIA and bring in some real judges who will respect individuals’ civil, constitutional, and human rights, and start setting forth much better precedents that incorporate the wise teachings of folks such as Judge Thacker and Judge Wynn? The latter two jurists certainly appear to understand the Immigration Court system and its many (potentially fixable, but not the way Garland is going about it) flaws and shortcomings much better than anyone in EOIR HQ or on Garland’s staff.
The ongoing travesty of justice @ EOIR and the lives threatened thereby continue to be a national disgrace on Garland’s watch!
PANEL: THACKER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: JUDGE QUATTLEBAUM
DISSENT: JUDGE RICHARDSON
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:
Juan Carlos Amaya, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks to avoid deportation to that country, fearing persecution on account of membership in the PSG “former Salvadoran MS-13 members.”1 Appellant’s Br. at 13–16. For that reason, he argued to an immigration judge (“IJ”) that his removal from the United States should be withheld.2 After the IJ denied Amaya’s claims, he appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed Amaya’s appeal, determining that the “former Salvadoran MS-13 members” PSG was “too diffuse” to satisfy the particularity requirement. J.A. 4. Assuming we must afford Chevron deference to the BIA’s decision, our question is whether we think the BIA’s decision is reasonable. Because we do not, we grant the petition in part and remand on this ground.
***************
Great opinion by Judge A. Marvin QUATTLEBAUM! He’s a Trump appointee whom I’ve criticized in the past. But, his analysis is “spot on” in this case!
Perhaps the Federal Courts are finally catching on to the BIA’s disingenuous “scissors approach” to PSG. That’s used to “cut off” all PSG asylum claims no matter how meritorious.
Here’s how it works. They incorrectly find that almost all “particularized” social groups fail the “social distinction” test. But, when you prove “social distinction,” they wrongly characterize the social group as too “amorphous” or “vague” to be particularized. In that manner, the BIA and many IJs can manipulate the law to reject proper “particular social groups” and keep their White Nationalist anti-asylum “handlers” at the DOJ happy, which also helps them retain their positions.
It will be interesting to see how that works out for them if, as many of us have recommended, Judge Garland actually puts some Appellate Judges on the BIA who understand asylum law and start applying it fairly, correctly, and in accordance with due process?
In making EOIR appointments, the Obama Administration generally eschewed the “best and brightest” with expertise representing asylum seekers and applying the UN Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980 in accordance with their humanitarian intent, rather as ways to advance a restrictionist agenda of deterring asylum seekers by wrongfully denying their claims. After all, how many asylum seekers are fortunate enough to have a good lawyer like Abdoul Aziz Konare represent them in their asylum cases? Not very many!
No, the average asylum seeker, many in detention and without adequate access to counsel or research materials, gets railroaded out with gobbledegook like “Chevron deference,” too “amorphous,” not “socially visible” and citations to cases even experienced Federal Judges often don’t correctly understand. So, getting asylum tends to depend not so much on the strength of your claim (many of which should be pretty easily grantable unless the IJ is “programmed to deny” — the norm these days), but on your lawyer, your IJ, and whether you are fortunate enough to have access to a thoughtful Article III judge like Judge Quattlebaum in this case. He took the time to figure out the bogus nature of the DOJ’s standard “BS arguments.”
Unfortunately, many Federal Judges would have just “punted” by accepting the “Chevron deference” argument for a “quick kill” without the need for much thought or analysis. After all, Court of Appeals Judges also like to “keep their dockets moving” and what easier victim to “throw under the bus” than an asylum applicant who is going to be deported to a place where he or she will be too busy fighting to stay alive to reflect on the deteriorating quality and lack of concern for fairness in the U.S. Judicial system.
The Trump kakistocracy actually went a long way toward convincing the world that the once widely admired U.S. Justice system is now little more than a “third world sham” — controlled by nationalist politicos, programmed to reject, deny, dehumanize, and operated largely for the exclusive benefit of the rich white ruling class.
I hope that “Team Garland” will “End the EOIR Clown Show” 🤡 and restore integrity to our system. But, so far, it bumbles along chewing up and spitting out hope, humanity, and lives, while mocking any normal understanding of “justice” on a daily basis. Not something I’d want on my watch!
HERNANDEZ-CARTAGENA v. BARR, 4th Cir., 10-15-20, published
PANEL: THACKER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBUAM, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: JUDGE STEPHANIE THACKER
KEY QUOTE:
Contrary to the BIA’s conclusion in this case, the record does not support the conclusion that Petitioner’s own conflict with the gang precipitated any of the events in question. Indeed, substantial evidence in the record compels the conclusion that at least one central reason Petitioner was targeted was her membership in the Hernandez-Cartagena family. The unrebutted evidence in the record demonstrates that the threats and violence against Petitioner, her child, and her siblings were designed to get her parents to pay up. Pursuant to Hernandez-Avalos, it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.
11
IV.
For the reasons set forth herein, the petition for review is granted, the decision of
the BIA is reversed, and we remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
********************
Why this is important: It delivers a totally deserved “double whammy” to two of the worst and most biased precedents issued during the Trump White Nationalist “kangaroo court era” at the BIA.
First, in Matter of L-E-A, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), (“L-E-A- 1”) the BIA recognized the “nuclear family” as a “particular social group.” Yet, to produce the necessary asylum denial sought by their “Trump handlers” at DOJ, the BIA erroneously found that the threatened harm had no “nexus” to the PSG.
To reach this improper and illogical result, the BIA disingenuously trashed the “normal” rules of causation. Those say that nexus is established if the harm would not have occurred “but for” membership in the protected group. Of course, there could be multiple “but fors” in a particular case, recognizing the “at least one central reason” statutory language for nexus.
That respondent was targeted for harm by gangs because his family owned a drug store that the gangs wanted to access to distribute illegal drugs. Had the respondent not been a member of his particular family, there is no reason to believe he would have have been targeted for any harm, or indeed have been of any interest to the gangs at all.
In other words, “but for” his membership in that particular family PSG, the threats would not have occurred. Essentially, a “no brainer” asylum grant that could have been quickly granted by a competent adjudicator. Any DHS appeal should have been a strong candidate for summary dismissal.
Instead of doing the obvious, the BIA invented new rules of causation. Contrary to the record, they found that family membership was essentially irrelevant to the threatened persecution. No, according to the BIA, the threats against the respondent were motivated solely the gang’s desire to sell illegal drugs through the family store, not a protected ground.
By searching for “any other motivation” and then basically substituting it to the exclusion of the clear family PSG motivation, the BIA bizarrely and erroneously concluded that the PSG was not “one central reason” for the persecution. This allowed the BIA to deny asylum to a respondent who fit squarely within the “refugee” definition.
Although the decision might have been cloaked in garbled legalese and irrational, result-oriented analysis, the overall message to Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges was clear: faced with facts that demanded an asylum grant to a Central American refugee, the adjudicator should manufacture “any reason other than a protected ground” to deny protection. The BIA will have your back.
Let’s play out the BIA’s intentionally perverted analysis on a larger scale. The leaders of the Nazi movement stood to profit mightily from the eradication of the German Jewish community. Stolen artwork, confiscated wealth and property, and even the proceeds of the gold and silver obtained from collecting and melting down the dental fillings of gassed Jews found their way into Nazi bank accounts, many abroad. Thus, the BIA could view the Holocaust not as religious, nationality, or racial persecution, but rather part of an overall criminal scheme to enrich Nazi leaders by stealing from prosperous or vulnerable individuals. No persecution there!
Happily, in Hernandez-Cartagena, Judge Thacker and her colleagues blew through the type of bogus analysis set forth in L-E-A- 1. Although not specifically citing the BIA’s defective precedent, the court applied “normal rules of causation” rather than the BIA’s “any reason to deny” approach.
The petitioner was a “conduit” In the gang’s scheme to extort money from her parents. The court recognized that “it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.”
Good bye and good riddance L-E-A- 1. Hello, rational analysis and well-merited protection, although sadly only within Fourth Circuit, for now.
But, that’s not the end of the tale of woe from America’s most blatantly biased, unprofessional, deadly, and totally unconstitutional “21st Century Star Chambers.” Not satisfied with the BIA’s illegal denial of protection in L-E-A- 1, two years later, Attorney General “Billy the Bigot” Barr “certified” that case to himself. That became Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) (“L-E-A- 2”).
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
His purpose? To reverse the only correct part of L-E-A- 1: the BIA’s recognition of the “nuclear family” as a “PSG.” As we all know, the nuclear family is one of the oldest, most well-established, well-defined, and universally recognized social units in human history. Not surprisingly, then, it has been recognized as a “PSG” under the Refugee Act of 1980 in numerous judicial and BIA decisions as well as by a myriad of human rights and international law scholars.
Bill Barr Consigliere Artist: Pat Bagley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license
No matter to Billy! In an exercise in disingenuous legal gobbledygook and counter-rationality, he tried to explain why it was wrong to recognize the obvious: that the nuclear family” is a “cognizable PSG” for asylum adjudication purposes.
Instead, Billy substituted what I call the “Kardashian rule.” Only those families who have some sort of widespread recognition in society as a whole should be considered to possess the “social distinction” (the characteristic formerly known as “social visibility”) to qualify as a “cognizable PSG.”
Billy Barr’s Vision Of A “Cognizable Particular Social Group” By hotrock pictures – Vimeo: Kardashian Kollection at Sears (view archived source), CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82871460 Creative Commons License
Again, without specifically citing L-E-A- 2, (perhaps the OIL was too embarrassed to argue it) Judge Thacker and her colleagues “blew away” its bigoted and irrational nonsense:
We have repeatedly held “a nuclear family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group” cognizable in our asylum framework. Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has been a leader in recognizing the nuclear family as a PSG, going all the way back to a case where they reinstated some of my rulings as an Immigration Judge that had been wrongfully reversed by the BIA: Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). But, hey, who remembers stuff like that from nearly a decade ago where I was once again proved right and the BIA was wrong?
Yeah, I’ll have to admit that after eight years of regularly getting “stuffed” by my BIA colleagues at en banc, there were few things in my professional life more satisfying than having a Court of Appeals “stuff” the BIA on a case where I had dissented as a BIA Judge or been reversed as an Immigration Judge!
So Billy the Bigot’s attempt to impose the absurdist “Kardashian rule” (sorry Kim, Kourtney, and Khloe) in L-E-A- 2 bites the dust, at least in the Fourth Circuit. I hope it will serve as a “blueprint” to eradicate the “twin travesties” of L-E-A- 1 & 2across the nation!
Exhilarating as this case is, it’s just one step in the right direction. The unconstitutional White Nativist bias and abuse being heaped upon refugees and other migrants by a “Star Chamber” beholden to the likes of “Billy the Bigot” Barr and his predecessor Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions won’t end until EOIR is abolished and replaced with a real court system that complies with 5th Amendment Due Process. If the Article III Courts don’t have the guts to get the job done, then its up to future better Congress to make it happen!
🌟First and foremost, Aaron Caruso, Esquire, of Abod & Caruso, Wheaton, MD. He appeared before me in Arlington. He’s the “total pro,” a “judge’s lawyer:” scholarly, unfailingly courteous, prompt, well-prepared, practical, wrote outstanding “to the issue” briefs that didn’t waste my time, took tough cases, and never gave up on his clients. In a “better world,” he’s definitely someone I could see on the Federal Bench at some level. A member of the NDPA, for sure!
Honorable Stephanie D. Thacker U.S. Circuit Judge Fourth Circuit Photo From Ballotpedia
🌟Judge Stephanie Thacker of the Fourth Circuit. I haven’t studied all of her judicial opinions. But, based on this opinion and her outstanding and totally correct dissent in Portillo-Flores v. Barr where she cogently castigated her fellow panel members for “going along to get along” with the BIA’s “at worst nonsensical and cursory at best” asylum denial, she appears one of a painfully small number of Article III Judges who both understand the mockery of justice going on in our Immigration “Courts” and have the guts to take a strong stand against it. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/09/04/%E2%80%8D%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8Finjustice-watch-4th-cir-judge-stephanie-thacker-cogently-castigates-colleagues-for-misapplying/
Interestingly, this is the same panelas in Portillo-Flores. And, the BIA’s sloppy and incompetent analysis, including ignoring the evidence of record, presents largely the same issues. Only, this time Judge Thacker’s colleagues paid attention to what she was saying!
That says something about both her persuasiveness and her colleagues’ willingness to listen and take a better approach to judicial review. That’s also what’s known in the business as “making progress every day, one case, one life at a time.”
Unfortunately, Trump and the GOP right wing pols have turned Federal judicial selection into a race to control justice until at least 2060. That has forced the Dems to finally wake up and do likewise the next time they get the chance. The upshot: At 55, although still in the “prime years” of her career from a professional standpoint, Judge Thacker has probably “aged out” of the sweepstakes to be the “heart and soul” of the Supremes for the next four decades.
The good news: She should be around to continue saving lives, speaking truth to power, and serving as a great role model for younger, aspiring jurists and public officials of all races and genders for many years to come.
Compare Judge Thacker’s clear, concise, cogent analysis in this case with the wandering legal gobbledygook and pure nonsense put forth by the BIA and Barr in L-E-A- 1 & 2.
🌟Judge Julius N. Richardson and Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of the Fourth Circuit also deserve stars. I really lambasted these two Trump appointees for their tone-deaf performance in Portillo-Flores. But, here they surprised me by joining fully in Judge Thacker’s analysis. Shows a capacity for teamwork, listening, adjusting views, and taking judicial review seriously, all really good things!
Additionally, it’s really important and significant when Trump appointees “do the right thing” and uphold due process, fundamental fairness, and recognize asylum seekers as “persons” entitled to equal justice under our Constitution.Given the large number of fairly young Trump appointees on the Federal Bench, it’s critical that as many of them as possible join their colleagues in resisting the White Nationalist assault on the rights and human dignity of people of color, particularly migrants and asylum seekers, being orchestrated by Trump, Miller, Barr, Wolf, and the rest of the regime’s gang of bigots.
Don’t know if this will be repeated in the future, but the votes of Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum in this case are an encouraging sign for the American justice system. Will it be a trend or an aberration? Can’t tell, but stay tuned.
🌟Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hats off for Sandra Marleny Hernandez-Cartagena. In the face of a bogus “court” system controlled and operated by White Nationalist racist bigots for the purpose of wiping out asylum laws, demoralizing applicants through dishonest procedures and rules meant to discourage them from seeking protection, and to “send a message” that they aren’t wanted in our country, she persisted for herself, her family, and others similarly situated. Her victory in this case is a victory for American justice and for every one of us who believe in due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all.
Thanks, Sandra, for inspiring us with your courage and unrelenting persistence in the face of evil and institutionalized, illegal, bias!
PANEL: THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Quattlebaum
DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Stephanie D. Thacker
KEY QUOTES FROM JUDGE THACKER’S DISSENT:
The majority opinion begins its analysis with a reminder of the applicable standard of review, emphasizing the importance of deference in this context. But the majority fails to mention a threshold requirement for the application of deference — in order to be accorded deference, agency decisionmakers below must conduct sufficient analysis to which we can defer. See Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 338 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he Supreme Court long ago instructed that ‘the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained.’” (quoting SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943))). Here, neither the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) nor the Board of Appeals (“BIA”) provide even the bare minimum level of explanation that our precedent requires. This failure is an abuse of discretion.
The agency decisions here are precisely the kinds of cursory opinions we have repeatedly rejected for their failure to engage with an applicant’s arguments and evidence. I therefore respectfully dissent.
. . . .
In conclusion, I borrow from the majority opinion, which likens the standard of review to an offensive lineman in football. In light of the limited analyses below, which were at worst nonsensical and cursory at best, the standard of review “offensive lineman” in this case cannot protect the decision below. Instead, the weak analysis of the agencies left their blind side wide open.
I dissent.
***************************
“[A]t worst nonsensical and cursory at best.” Those prophetic words from Judge Thacker’s dissent should outrage every American! Don’t vulnerable individuals, effectively on trial for their lives, deserve better from the U.S. Justice system? Is the “half-baked” standard applied by the panel majority really the way we would want ourselves or our loved ones judged in any matter of importance, not to mention what is in many ways a “capital case?” What’s going on in our Article III Judiciary?
Read the full opinion at the link. This is a prime, very disturbing example of the “any reason to deny” standard used by the Trump regime to subvert justice for asylum applicants of color. Here, as effectively pointed out by Judge Thacker it was (laboriously and wordily) “rubber stamped” by twocomplicit Article III Judges.
To call this “second class justice” would be far too generous. It’s basically no justice at all and a damning illustration of how intellectual absurdity and race-driven results have become institutionalized and acceptable, not just in the Immigration Courts, but in various places throughout our judicial system that is failing to deliver on the Constitutional requirement of “equal justice for all.”
Any activists who think that the problems of racial tension in America are going to be resolved without addressing the systemic judicial failure to stand up against the illegal, racially-biased mistreatment of asylum seekers and other migrants by the likes of Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, and Wolf, as enabled by the Supremes and other Article III Judges who have “swallowed their whistles,” is mistaken.
As cogently pointed out by Judge Thacker, this was a “no brainer remand” under any application of the proper standards. Indeed, the panel majority spent more time and effort, and killed more trees, looking for ways to “paper over” the BIA’s indefensible and unprofessional performance than it would have taken them to correct it! This panel majority appeared much more interested in “rehabilitating the BIA” and “codifying injustice” (probably as an aid to rubber stamping more assembly line injustice in the future) than it was in achieving justice for the young man whose life was at stake.
Indeed, Judge Quattlebaum and Judge Rushing are so arrogantly “tone deaf” and impervious to human suffering that they employ a “snarky sports analogy” in essentially imposing a potential death sentence on a young Salvadoran refugee without any serious pretense of due process or effective and intellectually honest judicial review. Is this how Quattlebaum and Rushing would like to be “judged” if they or their loved ones (or someone they considered “human”) were on trial for their lives? No way! So why is it “due process” for this young man?
Obviously, these are two judges who are confident in a privileged life “above the fray” that puts them beyond moral and legal accountability for the unjust human misery and suffering that they cause. It’s all a “sports joke” to them. But, not so funny to those whose lives are at stake in what once was supposed to be a serious legal process but now has devolved into a deadly and totally dysfunctional “Clown Show.”
It’s also a national disgrace and a serious indictment of our entire justice system that this type of clearly “dangerous and defective judging” goes on in our life-tenured judiciary. America deserves better from our Article III Judiciary!
