👎🏽ANOTHER 4TH CIRCUIT PUTDOWN FOR GARLAND — AO & IJ COMPLETELY BOTCH “REASONABLE FEAR REVIEW” — OIL COMPOUNDS PROBLEM BY ADVANCING SEMI-FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

Tomas-Ramos v. Garland

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201201.P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-nexus-tomas-ramos-v-garland#

“After Adan de Jesus Tomas-Ramos, a citizen and native of Guatemala, reentered the United States illegally in 2018, a removal order previously entered against him was reinstated. But because Tomas-Ramos expressed a fear of returning to Guatemala, an asylum officer conducted a screening interview to determine whether he reasonably feared persecution or torture in his home country. The asylum officer determined that Tomas-Ramos failed to establish a reasonable fear of such harm, and so was not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) concurred with that determination. Tomas-Ramos now petitions for review of the IJ’s order on two grounds. He first contends that the IJ’s finding that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or torture was erroneous. We agree. The primary ground for the IJ’s decision was that there was no “nexus” between the harm Tomas-Ramos faced and a protected ground. But the agency incorrectly applied the statutory nexus requirement. Instead, the record compels the conclusion that Tomas-Ramos was persecuted on account of a protected ground, in the form of his family ties. And in light of that error, we cannot determine that the other reason given by the IJ for her decision – that Tomas-Ramos could avoid harm by relocating – was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the agency’s decision, and remand for further proceedings.”

[Hats off to Michael D. Lieberman, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, Stacy M. Kim, Paul F. Brinkman, and Michael A. Francus!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

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

- DOJ’s error-studded performance (or lack thereof) in this case is disgraceful!
- I guarantee that there are plenty of other unjust, legally defective reasonable fear and credible fear decisions where these came from. Just most folks never get any meaningful judicial review.
- Both the IJ and the AO got the basics of nexus and the applicable 4th Circuit case law totally wrong here. How are is this acceptable performance from what are supposed to be “expert” courts? Why hasn’t Garland brought in real experts, committed to due process and best practices, to take charge and straighten out this mess?
- Disturbingly, the Biden Administration wants to turn this type of clearly inadequate procedure with poorly trained officers and judges and incorrect applications of the law loose on the merits determinations for all asylum seekers at the border!
- Rather than being a check on bad judges, Garland’s OIL continues to “defend the indefensible” with arguments that don’t meet “the straight-face test.” Aren’t ethical codes equally applicable to Government lawyers?
- Worse yet, Garland continues to unethically defend the scofflaw behavior of the Biden Administration by using a Stephen Miller era “COVID pretext” to deny most asylum seekers at the Southern Border any process, even the pathetic one used here!
- The “wheels have come off” @ Garland’s DOJ and he’s driving on the axel hubs! When is someone going to pull him over and make him fix it?
- Believe it or not, these are life or death cases! ☠️ Why is Garland allowed to treat the lives and rights of migrants and those associated with them so frivolously?
- The IJ’s attempt to bar the R’s attorney from participating in the “credible fear” review is ridiculous! It shows the deep problems in Garland’s broken system which too often is deaf to due process, hostile to attorneys, and immune from common sense and best practices! Why would the “default” for regulatory silence be “no participation” rather than a “strong presumption that attorneys can fully participate?” What kind of “court” bars attorneys from speaking for their clients? Why would any judge not want to listen to attorneys, who are there to help them make correct decisions? The IJ’s conduct here was particularly egregious given that she had already made a clearly wrong decision before cutting off the attorney’s attempt to point out her errors! What a complete farce that Garland has failed to address!
- This is another case where Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Trump appointee with solid conservative credentials, once thought to be a possible contender for the “ACB seat,” joined her colleagues (Judge Harris and Chief Judge Gregory) to overturn a wrong, anti-immigrant decision by EOIR. Her approach in this and another recent case shows more sensitivity to due process, scholarship, and the rights of individual immigrants than many decisions emanating from Biden’s Immigration Courts under Garland.
- I’m not suggesting that Judge R is necessarily going to become a leading defender of due process for immigrants. But, based on these somewhat random “snippets,” she seems more “reachable” and open to sound arguments on the issues than some other Trump appointees, points worth keeping in mind for NDPA advocates!
- She’s also young. So, she will be reviewing immigration cases and making law for decades to come.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-02/22

⚖️4TH CIRCUIT: BIA ABUSED DISCRETION, BLEW ANALYSIS, FAILED TO FOLLOW PRECEDENT IN MINDLESS DENIAL OF CONTINUANCE FOR U VISA APPLICANT— Garcia Cabrera v. Garland — A Microcosm Of Garland’s Dysfunctional, Backlog-Building Immigration Courts & His Disgraceful Defense Of The Indefensible In The Article IIIs! — Why Garland’s Inept & Disinterested Performance @ EOIR Is A “Nail In The Coffin” Of American Democracy! ⚰️

Melody Bussey — Melody Busey ESQUIRE
Associate Attorney
Devine & Beard Law Office
Charleston, SC
PHOTO: Devineandbeard.com

It 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

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201943.P.pdf

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 the Biden 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 NDPA attorneys 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!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-08-21

👎🏽“GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK” IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR GARLAND! ☹️ — FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR HEARINGS, BOGUS IN ABSENTIA REMOVAL ORDERS, UNREASONED PSG DENIALS, FAILURE TO FOLLOW CIRCUIT & OWN PRECEDENTS — The Life-Threatening ☠️☠️⚰️⚰️🪦 Errors Continue To Flow From EOIR’s “Culture Of Denial” — What’s Missing? — Accountability, Judicial Excellence, Due Process, Fundamental Fairness!

Alfred E. Neumann — Will Garland ever be held accountable for threatening the lives of migrants and undermining our entire justice system by running the most dysfunctional “court system” in America on his watch?
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-fundamental-fairness-alcaraz-enriquez-v-garland

CA9 on Fundamental Fairness: Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland

Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland

“Despite its obligation under Saidane, the DHS made no effort—good faith or otherwise—to procure for Alcaraz’s cross-examination the witnesses whose testimony was embodied in the probation report and upon whose testimony the BIA ultimately relied in denying his appeal. See id. This failure impugned the probation report’s reliability and rendered the BIA’s procedure fundamentally unfair. … Based on the BIA’s failure to require the DHS to make a good faith effort to present the author of the probation report or the declarant for Alcaraz’s cross-examination and the prejudice generated therefrom, we grant in part Alcaraz’s petition and remand for a hearing that comports with the requirements of § 1229a(b)(4)(B). … On remand, cross-examination of the author of the probation report (or the declarant) could affect both the IJ’s credibility determination as to Alcaraz and the BIA’s decision to credit the probation report’s version of events over Alcaraz’s.”

[Hats off again to Bob Jobe!]

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

5th Cir. on illegal in absentia, defective notice, blown MTR:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60655.0.pdf

Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case. Here, as in Rodriguez, “[t]he initial NTA” sent to Lemus-Ayala “did not contain the time and date of [his] hearing.” Id. And just as in Rodriguez, see id., the BIA’s holding in this case that Lemus-Ayala was not entitled to recission of the in absentia removal order rested on the Board’s legal conclusion that an NTA “that does not specify the time and place of an individual’s removal hearing . . . meets the requirements of … §1229(a), so long as a hearing notice specifying this information is later sent to the individual.” The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021.

An in absentia removal “order may be rescinded . . . upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with . . . section 1229(a).” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). Lemus-Ayala was not notified “in accordance with . . . section 1229(a),” and so, as in Rodriguez, the proper disposition is to vacate the BIA’s decision to deny Lemus-Ayala’s motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia removal order, and to remand the case for further proceedings. See 15 F.4th at 356.1

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Dan Kowalski again:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-psg-escobar-gomez-v-garland-unpub-2-1

CA4 on PSG: Escobar Gomez v. Garland (Unpub., 2-1)

Escobar Gomez v. Garland

“Carlos Escobar Gomez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his application for asylum. The BIA determined that Escobar Gomez was ineligible for asylum because he failed to establish membership in a particular social group defined with sufficient particularity. Because this ruling is not supported by a reasoned explanation, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.” [Note the long and detailed concurrence by Judge Wynn.]

[Hats off to Nathan Bogart!]

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

Even 4th Cir. “Ultra-conservative” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III has finally had enough, joining his panel colleagues in remanding after the BIA ignored both their own precedent and Circuit precedent on administrative closing in their “rush to no” to please their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/202322.U.pdf

Finally, Merida-Saenz asserts that the Board erred by failing to remand to the IJ for the administrative closure of his case pursuant to our decision in Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282, 297 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that IJs and the Board possess “the general authority to administratively close cases”). While the Board acknowledged that Merida-Saenz had argued for administrative closure on appeal, it neither explicitly resolved that argument nor applied any of the relevant administrative closure factors thereto. See In re Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 696 (B.I.A. 2012) (specifying administrative closure factors). Moreover, the Board’s resolution of Merida-Saenz’s continuance request did not resolve his administrative closure argument. Although a continuance and an administrative closure are similar forms of relief, they are distinct in purpose and in result. See Romero, 937 F.3d at 289, 294 n.12 (contrasting circumstances in which continuance is appropriate with circumstances in which administrative closure is appropriate); Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that administrative closure is “like” a continuance but not identical thereto). Because the Board’s decision does not demonstrate that it has actually considered Merida-Saenz’s administrative closure argument, we grant the petition for review as to this argument and remand to the Board for further proceedings. See Gonzalez, 2021 WL 4888394, at *10 (remanding for Board to address administrative closure argument in first instance); Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 693-94 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that we cannot review the Board’s decision when the Board has given us “nothing to review”).

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

Obviously, the Article IIIs have their own due process problems with burying significant rulings, particularly in immigration, in highly inappropriate, approaching unethical, “unpublished” decisions. These aren’t “routine” cases except that material errors at Garland’s BIA are so frequent that Circuit Courts have wrongly come to view them as “routine” and thereby to “normalize” substandard judging.

That’s basically sweeping the festering and ever-growing problem of a dysfunctional and unjust EOIR “under the carpet” — something that both Garland and EOIR apparently have come to rely upon. The unpublished cases highlighted above each have important messages and analytical points for practitioners as well as the EOIR judges who screwed them up! Even Garland could learn by paying attention to the poor quality work being churned out by EOIR in his name!

You know you’ve hit rock bottom as an immigration jurist when even Judge Wilkinson can’t think of a way to paper over your errors and explain away your abuse of immigrants! The same might be said when you start getting reversed on a regular basis by the 5th Circuit — a court that almost never saw a migrant they didn’t want to dehumanize and deport!

In a real court system with real judges, DHS would be treated as a “party” not a “partner.” But, not in Garland’s courts, where judicial quality and fundamental fairness have gone to die and be buried. ⚰️🪦

Wonder why Dems struggle to govern? Look no further than the astounding lost opportunity for transforming EOIR into a real court system where great judges could be modeling due process, fundamental fairness, backlog-reducing better precedents, and best practices.

One of the best ‘fixes” for any broken system is appointing talented experts who will get the decisions right in the first place and promote excellence and efficiency by establishing, promoting, and, most of all enforcing, “best practices” systemwide, with particular emphasis on getting it right at the initial level, be that Immigration Court or the USCIS Asylum Office.

Of course, at EOIR that would mean appointing a BIA with judges who have the backgrounds and expertise to actually recognize what best interpretations and best practices are in the first place! Hint: It’s got nothing to do with bending over backwards to help “partners” at DHS enforcement, maximizing removal orders, positioning OIL to argue Chevron or Brand X, or thinking of new and creative ways that the system can be mis-used as a “deterrent” to individuals making claims for legal relief. Those were Sessions’s and Barr’s “priorities,” and Garland has done little to change the rancid culture in his Immgration Courts. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/15/%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bd%f0%9f%a4%ae-aimless-docket-reshuffling-adr-on-steroids-eoir-dysfunction-shows-what-happens-when/

Instead, Garland has given us a potentially fatal dose of “good enough for Government work” — on steroids, with lives and the foundations of our democracy hanging in the balance every day!🤮👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽🤡

It’s an entirely unnecessary, ongoing national disgrace!🤮

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-20-21

⚖️4TH CIR. — CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE ROGER GREGORY (DISSENTING) CASTIGATES COLLEAGUES ON GRANTNG “CHEVRON DEFERENCE” TO BIA!

Chief Judge Roger Gregory
U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit

Pugin v. Garland, 4th Cir., 12-01-21, published, 2-1 (Chief Judge Gregory, dissenting)

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201363.P.pdf

GREGORY, Chief Judge, dissenting:

The majority concludes that because the phrase “in relation to obstruction of justice”

in § 1101(a)(43)(S) is ambiguous, the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) renewed interpretation of this provision is due Chevron deference. The majority also concludes that the BIA’s interpretation of “reasonably foreseeable”—in the context of before an investigation or proceeding—is reasonable. Because, in my view, the phrase is not ambiguous, the BIA is not due Chevron deference. However, even if § 1101(a)(43)(S) is ambiguous, the BIA’s conclusion that a formal nexus to an ongoing investigation is not required—based solely on the express exception in § 1512 and the catchall provision that it wrongly interpreted—is unreasonable. Thus, I disagree that Petitioner’s conviction of “Accessory After the Fact to a Felony,” under § 18.2–19 of the Virginia Code, is a categorical match with the generic offense of § 1101(a)(43)(S). For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. . . .

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

Of interest:

The “previous interpretation” discussed here, that the BIA subsequently “ditched” in favor of a more pro-DHS one, is Matter of Espinoza- Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. 889 (B.I.A. 1999), a “Schmidt Era” en banc decision written by Judge Ed Grant in which I joined.
64 pages of arcane discussion and citations from three Circuit Court of Appeals’ Judges who cannot agree on the result shows the continuing disingenuous absurdity of a system that claims that “unrepresented” immigrants receive due process — many of these cases require not only lawyers, but great lawyers with expertise in immigration, criminal law, and statutory interpretation to achieve fair resolution;
Both the majority and the dissent “talk around” a major problem in the misapplication of “Chevron deference” to the BIA: In recent years, the BIA invariably adopts “any interpretation” offered by the DHS over better interpretations offered by respondents and their lawyers — this is a “rigged system” if there ever was one. For Article III Courts to “legitimize” the bogus application of Chevron by a non-expert tribunal that views itself as an extension of DHS Enforcement is a disgraceful dereliction of judicial duty!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-02-21

⚖️👎🏽LATEST QUAD OF ARTICLE III “BODY SLAMS” SHOWS ENDEMIC PROBLEM OF ANTI-IMMIGRANT BIAS, UNPROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT @ GARLAND’S BIA — Wrong On: PSG, Failure Of State Protection, Internal Relocation, Nexus, Right To Counsel, Statutory Interpretation!

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-psg-zometa-orellana-v-garland-unpub

CA6 on PSG: Zometa-Orellana v. Garland (Unpub.)

Zometa-Orellana v. Garland

“Ana Mercedes Zometa-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, suffered regular beatings and rape by her domestic partner. She sought asylum and withholding of removal based both on political opinion and membership in a particular social group. An immigration judge (IJ) denied asylum and withholding of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that ruling. Since then, however, a crucial case on which both the BIA and the IJ relied to assess Zometa-Orellana’s particular social group was vacated by the Attorney General. And the IJ and BIA failed to consider the entire record in determining the El Salvadorian Government’s willingness to respond and Zometa-Orellana’s ability to relocate in El Salvador. For these reasons, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Dr. Alicia Triche!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-nexus-aleman-medrano-v-garland-unpub

CA4 on Nexus: Aleman-Medrano v. Garland (Unpub.)

Aleman-Medrano v. Garland

“Aleman-Medrano’s central argument on appeal is that the agency [EOIR: the IJ and the BIA] erred at the second step of the analysis, improperly rejecting his claim that he was targeted by gang members “on account of” his family ties to his daughter. We agree and, finding no independent basis on which to affirm the agency’s denial of relief, remand for further proceedings. … [W]e are compelled to conclude that Aleman-Medrano’s relationship with his daughter was at least one central reason why he, and not someone else, was threatened by MS-13. … MS-13’s threats to Aleman-Medrano arose “on account of” his family ties and that he thus has met the nexus requirement for both asylum and withholding of removal.”

[Hats off to Abdoul A. Konare!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-2-1-on-right-to-counsel-usubakunov-v-garland

CA9 (2-1) on Right to Counsel: Usubakunov v. Garland

Usubakunov v. Garland

“This is not a case of a petitioner abusing the system or requesting serial delays of his merits hearing—Usubakunov had found an attorney willing to take his case. Although it may be tempting to look for a bright-line rule, we hew to our precedent that the “inquiry is fact-specific and thus varies from case to case.” Biwot, 403 F.3d at 1099. In doing so, we do not suggest that there is “no limit,” Dissent at 19, to the permissible delay for obtaining a lawyer. Our factspecific inquiry here leads us to conclude that the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance violated Usubakunov’s right to counsel. … This case illustrates diligence, not bad faith, coupled with very difficult barriers faced by a detained applicant who does not speak English. Usubakunov sought and identified counsel within the period the IJ originally thought reasonable, but he was stymied by counsel’s scheduling conflict. He had identified by name and organization the lawyer who would ultimately represent him, and Usubakunov thus sought his first continuance of the merits hearing. We conclude that “[u]nder these circumstances, denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion because it was tantamount to denial of counsel.” Biwot, 403 F.3d at 1100. Given these unique circumstances, our grant of the petition will not open the floodgates of continuances, as we apply the same fact-based inquiry we have done for years. That concludes our inquiry, as a petitioner who is wrongly denied assistance of counsel at his merits hearing need not show prejudice. See Gomez-Velazco, 879 F.3d at 993 (citing Montes-Lopez v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012)). In light of the need to remand for a new hearing, we do not address Usubakunov’s other challenges. We grant Usubakunov’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings. PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Bardis Vakili (argued), ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, San Diego, Kristin MacLeod-Ball, American Immigration Council, Brookline, Massachusetts; Mary Kenney, American Immigration Council, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Council; and Laura J. Edelstein, Jenner & Block LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Women’s Refugee Commission!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/natz-victory-slams-matter-of-zhang-melara-v-mayorkas

Natz. Victory Slams Matter of Zhang: Melara v. Mayorkas

Melara v. Mayorkas

“Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019) is not entitled to deference by this Court because it is a dramatic break with past agency interpretation, is in conflict with the Department of State’s current interpretation of the false claim to citizenship ground of inadmissibility, and is a break from Congress’s clearly expressed intent. An agency’s interpretation of an unambiguous statute receives no deference if the interpretation is not in line with Congress’s clearly expressed intent. See, e.g., Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808, 815 (9th Cir. 2016). Matter of Zhang takes a dramatic and unique approach to the knowledge element out of the term “false claim to U.S. citizenship.” See, e.g., Richmond v. Holder, 714 F.3d 725, 729 (2d Cir. 2013) (assuming without deciding that false claim inadmissibility provision has knowledge element); Muratoski v. Holder, 622 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2010) (agency determined that applicant lacked good moral character because he “knew or should have known” that he was not a United States citizen at the time he made that claim); Valdez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 2010) (reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to disagree with agency’s determination that applicant was inadmissible because he “intended to and did make a false claim of United States citizenship”). … The Court finds that Petitioner Antonio Fernando Melara has met his burden of proving each element of naturalization by preponderance of the evidence. Judgment is GRANTED for Petitioner.”

[Hats way off to Sabrina Damast and Patricia M. Corrales!]

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

Individuals are being mistreated! Attorneys are frustrated! Due Process is mocked! Garland is disinterested in fixing the huge structural, personnel, and quality control problems at BIA/EOIR!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-03-21

🍅MORE ROTTEN TOMATOES FOR GARLAND, SESSIONS: NDPA SUPERSTAR 🦸🏻‍♂️🌟 BEN WINOGRAD CREAMS GARLAND’S BIA, OIL IN 4TH CIR! — Sessions’s Wrong Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B- (Illegally Denying Authority To Terminate) Falls, As OIL Argues Nonsensical Position — Garland’s Continuing Wasteful Failure To Get Control Of Immigration Bureaucracy @ DOJ Squanders Time & Resources, Puzzles Article IIIs, Promotes Arbitrary & Capricious “Justice” @ Justice! — Chavez-Gonzalez v. Garland

Here’s the complete opinion by Judge Thacker, joined by Judges Floyd & Harris:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MwZtKE73ucoEVTR9HOZcqUWxTB6RfyxK/view?usp=sharing

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

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1924 Doc: 54 Filed: 10/20/2021 Pg: 19 of 26

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?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-20-21

⚠️MORE PROBLEMS LIKELY LOOM FOR GARLAND’S TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL 🤡 EOIR AS EN BANC 9TH REJECTS “GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK STANDARD” FOR CREDIBILITY REVIEW — “Any Reason To Deny Gimmicks” Fail Again As Court Requires EOIR To Comply With REAL ID! — Alam v. Garland

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Here’s “quick coverage” from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-en-banc-on-credibility-alam-v-garland

CA9, En Banc, on Credibility: Alam v. Garland

“We voted to rehear this case en banc to reconsider our “single factor rule,” which we have applied in considering petitions for review from decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The single factor rule, as we have applied it, requires us to sustain an adverse credibility finding if “one of the [agency’s] identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). On rehearing en banc, we hold that the single factor rule conflicts with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), and we overrule our prior precedent establishing and applying it. We remand this case to the three-judge panel to re-examine the petition for review in light of our clarification of the standard for reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations. … Given the REAL ID Act’s explicit statutory language, we join our sister circuits and hold that, in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the Act, we must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination—our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances. To the extent that our precedents employed the single factor rule or are otherwise inconsistent with this standard, we overrule those cases. We remand this case to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the newly articulated standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations.”

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

Even with Article III Courts, including the 9th Circuit, generally “drifting right,” “good enough for Government work” has been rejected! That ought to help Garland boost the EOIR backlog!

The EOIR/DOJ policy right now appears to be “give any reason to deny,” hope that OIL can make at least one of them stick, and count on righty Circuit Judges to “swallow the whistle.” While that has certainly happened in the 5th Circuit, and to some extent in the 11th Circuit, there still appear to be enough Article IIIs out there critically reviewing EOIR’s too often patently substandard work product to make Garland’s indolent “look the other way” approach to the EOIR mess highly problematic.

Analyzing all the factors also might be inconsistent with mindless, due-process-denying three or four per day “merits quotas,” invented and imposed by Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions (someone with zero (0) Immigration Court experience and a well-justified lifetime reputation as a racist xenophobe — how does Matthews v. Eldridge allow a guy like that to pick and “run” judges — the Article IIIs might choose to look the other way, but most L-1 students know this is wrong and unconstitutional).

Just aimlessly listing common testimonial problems and hoping OIL will find one or more of them actually in the record is much faster (if you don’t count the impact of Circuit remands!) That it’s inconsistent with the statute, the Constitution, and, actually, BIA precedent seems to be beside the point these days. Of course, EOIR’s “assembly line jurists” also get “dinged” for remands.

Is there is anybody left at EOIR HQ today who could properly teach “totality of the circumstances” under REAL ID?

My observation from Arlington was that the number of adverse credibility findings and asylum denials went down substantially once the Fourth Circuit, and even occasionally the BIA, began enforcing “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors” under REAL ID. As lawyers “got the picture” and began providing better independent corroborating evidence and documentation, the ability to “nit-pick” testimony, find the respondent “not credible,” and make it stand up on review diminished, as its well should have!

Of course, in my mind, REAL ID and the Fourth Circuit were just “re-enforcing and adopting” observations that members of our deposed “Gang of Four or Five” had made in numerous dissents from our BIA colleagues “undue deference” to poorly reasoned and thinly supported adverse credibility determinations, particularly in asylum cases.

More careful analysis of the record as a whole, often with the help of JLCs, became the rule at Arlington. And, after a few initial setbacks in the Fourth Circuit, ICE in Arlington generally stopped pushing for unjustified adverse credibility rulings and adopted approaches that actually complied with Fourth Circuit law.

The antiquated “contemporaneous oral decision format,” put on steroids by Sessions and Barr, is particularly ill-suited to the type of careful analysis required by the current statute, not to mention due process. And, having far too many newer Immigration Judges who have no immigration background and who have never had to represent an individual in Immigration Court is also a formula for failure, particularly when combined with inadequate training and idiotic “quotas.”

I’m not sure that the famous Rube Goldberg could have created a more convoluted, inefficient, and irrational process than exists at today’s EOIR. It simply can’t be fixed without leadership and assistance from outside experts who understand the problems (because they and their clients have “lived them”) and who aren’t wedded to all the mistakes and failed “silver bullet solutions” of the past!

By contrast with the EOIR mess, it’s amazing what changes an expert appellate body that actually takes its job and due process seriously can effect. Imagine if we had an expert BIA that made due process and treating individuals fairly “job one,” rather than operating as a “whistle stop on the deportation railroad.”

The ongoing EOIR clown show 🤡 just keeps getting exposed. But, nobody in charge seems to care! That’s a shame, 🤮 because “human lives, ⚰️ and perhaps the survival of our democracy, 🇺🇸 hang in the balance here!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-09-21

🏴‍☠️SUPREMES’ GOP MAJ. SLAMS GULAG DOOR SHUT ON REFUGEES IN “WITHHOLDING ONLY PROCEEDINGS” 👎🏽 — “NO BOND HEARINGS FOR YOU, ALIENS!” — Johnson v. Guzmán Chavez (6-3) — Oh, To Be A “Pipeline Builder” Endowed With Legal & Human Rights That Even Elite GOP Supremes Will Recognize!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-deported-immigrants-penneast-pipeline/2021/06/29/3e83164e-d8dc-11eb-8fb8-aea56b785b00_story.html

This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!

Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders

By Robert Barnes

June 29 at 5:22 PM ET

. . . .

In the immigration case, the court was considering the rights of a relatively small subset of immigrants: those who were deported once before but reentered the United States illegally because they say they faced threats at home.

At issue was a complex federal law that authorizes the government to detain immigrants and which section of it applies to these types of cases.

One piece of the law says, “the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge” and thus the chance to be free while proceedings continue, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. In the other, the immigrant is considered “removed,” and indefinite detention is warranted.

Alito and his fellow conservative justices said it was the second that applied, and the detainees do not get a bond hearing. The court’s three liberals objected.

The case involved people who an immigration officer found had credible fears of danger or persecution in their home countries. For instance, Rodriguez Zometa said he was threatened with death by the 18th Street Gang when he was removed to his home country of El Salvador.

The question of whether the government could hold the immigrants without a hearing before an immigration judge had divided courts around the country. The case was argued before President Biden took office, and lawyers for the Trump administration told the court immigrants were not entitled to a hearing.

Alito said Congress had good reason to be more restrictive with those who came back into the country after being deported. “Aliens who reentered the country illegally after removal have demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order, and they therefore may be less likely to comply with the reinstated order” that they leave, he said.

He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The court’s liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, saw it differently and would have affirmed the victory the plaintiffs won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.

“Why would Congress want to deny a bond hearing to individuals who reasonably fear persecution or torture, and who, as a result, face proceedings that may last for many months or years?” Breyer wrote. “I can find no satisfactory answer to this question.”

The case is Johnson v. Guzman Chavez.

. . . .

Here’s the “full text” of the decision:

19-897_c07d

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

Nice summary, Robert! You can read the rest of Barnes’s report at the link. Indeed, Justice Breyer’s cogent question quoted in the article remains unanswered by the wooden legal gobbledygook in the majority decision, devoid of much understanding of how the dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the DHS “New American Gulag” actually operate and dismissive of what it actually means to be a refugee seeking to exercise legal rights in today’s world.

At issue: The right of non-criminal foreign nationals who have established a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture if deported to apply for bond pending Immigration Court hearings on the merits of their cases. Getting a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge does not in any way guarantee release; just that the decision to detain or release on bond will be based on the individual facts and circumstances. Individuals released from detention have a much better chance of obtaining counsel and gathering the documentation necessary to win their cases. They are also much less likely to be “coerced” by DHS detention into surrendering viable claims and appeal rights.

Majority’s response: These “aliens” have neither rights nor humanity that any life-tenured GOP-appointed judge is bound to respect.

Alternative: There is a readily available alternative statutory interpretation, adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent, that would recognize the human and legal rights of vulnerable refugees seeking legal protection and give them hearings on continuing custody in substandard conditions (in some instances, conditions in the “DHS New American Gulag” fall well below those that would be imposed on convicted felons).

You can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table was one of many organizations filing an amicus brief on behalf of the refugees and in support of the position adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent. While we were unsuccessful on this one, at least we are on the “right side of history.”

Creative suggestion: Detainees should incorporate, perhaps as a pipeline company, or better yet a gun rights’ group, so that they would have legal rights and be treated as “persons” (e.g., “humans”) by the Supremes’ GOP majority.

Next steps:

Advocates should prevail on the Biden Administration to change the regulations to give this limited subclass of applicants for protection a chance to seek bond before an Immigration Judge;
Advocates should keep up the pressure on the Biden Administration and Garland to appoint better judges at EOIR: progressive practical experts, who know how to grant legal protection efficiently and fairly and who will establish appropriate legal precedents to help these cases move through the EOIR system on the merits in a timely and fundamentally fair manner consistent with due process. The length of time it takes “Withholding Only” cases to move through the Immigration Courts has lots to do with: unfair, coercive detention practices by DHS; poor judging and bad precedents at EOIR; incompetent “judicial administration” and politicized “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR by DOJ politicos and their EOIR “retainers.”

Long term solution:

Support and vote for progressive legislators who will revise the immigration laws to do away with the unnecessary and wasteful “New American Gulag;”
Vote progressive candidates for President and the Senate: political officials committed to putting better Federal Judges on the bench at all levels — “practical scholars” with real experience representing the most vulnerable in society and who will tirelessly enforce due process, equal protection, human rights, and fundamental fairness for all persons regardless of race, religion, or status; judges who understand and will seriously reflect on the “real life” human consequences of their decisions. Better judges for a better America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-30-21

🛡⚔️BREAKING: ROUND TABLE, ALLIES OUT-JOUST GARLAND’S BIA YET AGAIN! — This Time It’s A Smashing El Salvadoran Asylum Victory @ The En Banc 4th Cir. — Portillo-Flores v. Garland (9-6)

Here it is, opinion by Judge Stephanie Thacker:

Portillo-Flores-4th-ElSal-EnBancThe concurring opinion by Judge James Wynn says:

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!

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!

Judge Stephanie D. Thacker — 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!

Honl. James Wynn — 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!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-29-21

GARLAND/MAYORKAS UNILATERAL “IN YOUR FACE” 🤮 ASYLUM POLICIES CONTINUE TO INFLAME, OUTRAGE, PROGRESSIVE OPPOSITION! — More Haste Makes Waste “Special Asylum Dockets,” Continuation Of “Miller Lite” Racist/Misogynist Anti-Asylum Policies, Unqualified Judges, Likely To Deny Due Process, Create Aimless Docket Reshuffling, Increase Backlogs — Congress Needs To Remove Immigration Courts From Garland’s Dysfunctional DOJ — Now!

“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color

Here’s yet another “big middle finger” 🖕 to progressives and experts from Garland and Mayorkas:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of Public Affairs

DHS and DOJ Announce Dedicated Docket Process for More Efficient Immigration Hearings

WASHINGTON – Today, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced a new Dedicated Docket process to more expeditiously and fairly make decisions in immigration cases of families who arrive between ports of entry at the Southwest Border. This new process should significantly decrease the amount of time it takes for migrants to have their cases adjudicated while still providing fair hearings for families seeking asylum at the border.

“Families arriving at the border who are placed in immigration proceedings should have their cases decided in an orderly, efficient, and fair manner,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Families who have recently arrived should not languish in a multi-year backlog; today’s announcement is an important step for both justice and border security.”

“The mission of the Department of Justice’s immigration courts is to decide the cases that come before them promptly and fairly,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “This new program for certain newly arriving families will help achieve that critically important goal.”

Under this new process, certain recently arrived families may be placed on the Dedicated Docket. Families may qualify if they are apprehended between ports of entry on or after Friday, May 28, 2021, placed in removal proceedings, and enrolled in Alternatives to Detention (ATD). DHS, in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will make available information services to help families understand the immigration system and refer families to pro bono legal service providers for possible representation.

EOIR has identified immigration courts in 10 cities with established communities of legal services providers and available judges to handle the cases. The designated cities are Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle.

Under the Dedicated Docket, EOIR’s immigration judges will work generally to issue a decision within 300 days of the initial master calendar hearing, subject to the unique circumstances of each case including allowing time for families to seek representation where needed. While the goal of this process is to decide cases expeditiously, fairness will not be compromised.

# # #

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
www.dhs.gov

Here are “statements in opposition” from the National Immigrant Justice Center and Human Rights First:

https://immigrantjustice.org/press-releases/bidens-return-failed-immigration-court-rocket-docket-will-deprive-asylum-seekers

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/human-rights-first-concerned-biden-plan-risks-new-rocket-dockets-when-it-should-end#.YLEQ7NuEm7k.twitter

Here’s the “statement of outrage and solidarity in opposition from the experts at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact: Brianna Krong, (415) 581-8835, krongbrianna@uchastings.edu

CGRS Concerned Biden Policies Will Undermine Fairness, Endanger Refugee Families

San Francisco, CA (May 28, 2021) – The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) is deeply concerned by today’s announcement that the Biden administration will begin fast-tracking asylum cases for certain families seeking refuge. By establishing a “dedicated docket” for asylum-seeking families, the administration will sacrifice fairness in the name of speed, adopting a misguided approach that under both the Obama and Trumpadministrations contributed to record backlogs in the immigration system, eroded due process, and endangered lives. Instead of reviving the failed policies of past administrations, the Biden administration should swiftly end cruel and illegal Trump-era policies and fully restore safe asylum processing at the southern border.

Today’s announcement arrives at a time when families seeking asylum face enormous roadblocks to safety and justice. Over four months into its first term, the Biden administration has failed to end myriad Trump-era policies that continue to place refugees at risk of grave violence, and even death. It is shameful that the administration is prioritizing fast-tracked adjudications while continuing to illegally expel asylum seekers to danger under the widelydebunked pretext of the pandemic. So long as the Title 42 policy remains in place, there can be no safe or fair process for asylum seekers.

The Biden administration also has yet to address Trump policies that have gutted protections for people escaping domestic violence and gang brutality, including many of the families impacted by this new policy. Until Attorney General Garlandtakes action to reverse these policies, the asylum system will remain rigged against families fleeing violence in their homes and communities, who will be wrongly denied protection and ordered deported to the very dangers they’ve fled. Rushing adjudications will make it even more difficult for these families to find safety, further undermining any semblance of fairness in the asylum process.

“CGRS and our partners have set forth a clear roadmap for the Biden administration to adjudicate asylum cases in a timely manner and mitigate backlogs, all while improving fairness and protecting due process,” CGRS Legal Director Blaine Bookey said today. “As advocates, we’ve been down this road before. We know policies that rush asylum adjudications fail to keep families and children safe. We implore the administration not to make the mistake of putting speed above justice.”’

Advocates, asylum seekers, and communities are coming together to demand an asylum system that provides every person a safe and fair opportunity to seek protection, with full access to legal representation and community-based support. The Biden administration should put humanity first, reject the cruel policies of the past, and welcome people seeking asylum with dignity.

Brianna Krong | Communications and Advocacy Coordinator

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

200 McAllister Street | San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 581-8835 (Phone) | (415) 581-8824 (Fax)

krongbrianna@uchastings.edu
Pronouns: she/her/hers

Twitter| Facebook | Donate

Request Assistance or Report an Outcome in Your Asylum Case

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — At DOJ, Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Kristen Clarke appear to regard refugee women applying for asylum at the Southern Border as “less than human.” Human dignity is a bad joke in Garland’s “Star Chambers.”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Here are other initial comments from asylum experts:

I don’t think there was any consultation w/ private bar. NGOs are very upset. Biden administration just held a q and a about two hours ago to answer NGO questions but there’s a lot of unknowns remaining.

Lots of NGOs are off today because of the long weekend but many are working to respond to this and the President’s budget.

See NGO press release in response to President’s budget:

For Immediate Release: May 28, 2021

Contact: press@wearehome.us

We Are Home Campaign Deeply Disappointed by Biden’s DHS Budget Request

Calls on Congress to Do Better

Washington, DC —President Biden’s FY 2022 budget, released today, requests $2.7 billion from Congress for ICE detention – almost the same amount enacted by Congress last year under the Trump Administration. It includes funds for 2,500 family detention beds. Alongside recent increases in the number of people jailed by ICE, this budget request is an alarming signal that DHS and the President are not heeding the call of the immigrant justice movement to reduce and ultimately end the federal government’s harmful and unnecessary reliance on incarceration for immigration processing.

In response to the news, Bridgette Gomez, Director of the We Are Home campaign, said:

“We are deeply disappointed to see that DHS plans to continue Trump-era levels of ICE detention. Candidate Biden promised an immigration policy that reflects our highest values as a nation. As president, Biden has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to racial equity. Any plan that doesn’t dramatically shrink ICE’s incarceration system – which mostly jails Black and Brown people – betrays those commitments. We’ll be looking to Congress to do better and cut ICE’s budget significantly.”

In March, We Are Home joined the Defund Hate coalition in calling on Congress to cut funding for ICE and CBP by at least 50 percent.

In February, the campaign sent comprehensive recommendations to DHS to overhaul enforcement and begin to dismantle the detention and deportation machinery that has devastated millions of families, mostly Black and Brown, and squandered billions of taxpayer dollars. These recommendations included policies to cut detention, including 1) a comprehensive file review of all people in ICE custody, with a presumption of release, and 2) an end to the use of private prisons and state and local jails for ICE detention. The urgency to reduce the detained population is even greater during the pandemic, since people in jails and prisons face particular risk of contracting COVID. ICE has no centralized plan to provide vaccines for people in its custody.”

We Are Home is a nationwide campaign to fight for immigrant communities on three fronts: prioritizing and demanding a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; a moratorium and overhaul of interior enforcement; and broad affirmative relief from deportation. We Are Home is co-chaired by Community Change/Community Change Action; National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA)/Care in Action; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); United Farm Workers/UFW Foundation; and United We Dream.

###

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

The NGOs are quite upset.Note that this comes days after the Fourth Circuit enforced an IJ’s duty to fully develop the record even in represented cases.And yet here is the administration speeding up the assembly line.

In my view, this will lead to more pro se I-589s being filed.And as Sessions vacated Matter of E-F-H-L-, there is now no safeguard in either case law or regs preventing IJs from summarily denying those I-589s for e.g. failing to correctly delineate a PSG.

I can’t for the life of me understand this administration’s determination topreserveTrump’s policies.

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

Quick takes:

Because the system would depend almost entirely on NGOs and pro bono groups to provide counsel, developing policies without consulting those groups or providing grants to increase representation is totally inappropriate, not to mention stupid and insulting;
Special expedited asylum dockets have failed in the last two Administrations, so why try a “proven failure” once again?
Assigning certain Immigration Judges to these “priority dockets” – without first removing non-priority cases from the docket, will result in more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and increased backlogs;
As a recent article by respected experts Professor Karen Musalo and Professor Stephen Legomsky shows, the current system has been “gamed against asylum seekers” by both EOIR and DHS; https://www.justsecurity.org/76671/asylum-and-the-three-little-words-that-can-spell-life-or-death/; without radical progressive changes, the new policy will just produce more unfairness;

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Stephen Legomsky — Professor Stephen H. Legomsky
Emeritus Professor of Law. & Former USG Senior Executive
Washington U. Law
PHOTO: Washington U. Law website

The 10 Immigration Courts selected for this project have widely varying asylum denial rates. For example, for the period 2015-20, according to TRAC, El Paso (an “Asylum Free Zone”) had a denial rate of 90% and New York a denial rate of 32%. How can a system including such extremes be “fair?”
As recent litigation has pointed out, Garland’s Immigration Judges are making basic mistakes and failing to develop records in their rush to screw asylum seekers. Without bringing in expert judges and emphasizing fairness, scholarship, record development, and quality above bureaucratic, enforcement related goals, this proposal is going to increase the due process disaster in Garland’s broken “courts;” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/05/26/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd4th-circuit-blasts-garland-eoirs-indolent-haste-make-waste-denial-centric-asylum-adjudication-in-another-victory-for-round-table-due-proces/
In just a short time, Garland’s outrageous mishandling of the Immigration Courts, and his disdain for expert progressive advice and appointments, shows exactly why Congress must remove these “courts” from the incompetent and biased administration of the DOJ and create an independent U.S. Immigration Court;
Until that happens, progressives and advocates will have to deal with Garland’s “in your face arrogance and ignorance” the same way they dealt with Sessions and Barr — with massive resistance and unending litigation until Garland’s corrupt, incompetent, biased system grinds to a halt.

Turning potential powerful and helpful friends into motivated and committed enemies! Seems pretty stupid to me.

Stephen Miller rightfully made lots of enemies with his racist, neo-Nazi shenanigans. But, he did please and energize his nativist, White Nationalist supporters!

By contrast, Garland has rapidly turned progressive supporters into enemies. But, he won’t get one iota of appreciation or support from Miller and his White Nationalist nativist supporters in the GOP.

Creating policies that are universally opposed or panned. That takes some impressive negative leadership and political idiocy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-29-21

⚖️🗽4TH CIRCUIT BLASTS GARLAND EOIR’S INDOLENT, “HASTE MAKE WASTE,” DENIAL-CENTRIC ASYLUM ADJUDICATION IN ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ROUND TABLE & DUE PROCESS & ANOTHER “WARNING SHOT ACROSS THE BOW” FOR GARLAND’S FAILURE TO INSTITUTE LONG OVERDUE PROGRESSIVE REFORMS AND REPLACE DEFICIENT JUDGES @ EOIR! 🏴‍☠️☠️— Immigration Judges Have A Duty To Develop the Record, Even When It Slows Down EOIR’s “Deportation Railroad” — AREVALO QUINTERO v. GARLAND!

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action — What are Garland, Monaco, and Gujpta doing to end these atrocities!? So far, nothing!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Arevalo Quintero v. Garland, 4th Cir., 05-26-21, published

PANEL:MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Wynn

CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Motz

KEY QUOTE:

In our country, few populations are as vulnerable as noncitizens facing removal

proceedings who are unable to secure the assistance of adequate counsel. Yet the consequences they may face are severe: family separation, prolonged detention, and deportation to a country where persecution or even death awaits.

We are acutely conscious of the harsh realities of our immigration system faced by thousands of noncitizens each day. These individuals come to our shores in search of sanctuary and a better life. Many are poor, young, uneducated, or (like Petitioner) all three. Of course, we recognize that immigration policies are primarily a concern for the elected branches. But it is our role, and our highest duty, to ensure that those policies are applied fairly and with full regard to our laws and our Constitution.

With these grave concerns in mind, we hold today that under the Immigration and Nationality Act and, where relevant, the United States’ obligations under the Refugee Convention, immigration judges have a legal duty to fully develop the record, which becomes particularly important in pro se cases. We believe this procedural protection is essential for ensuring fundamental fairness and reasoned decision making in removal proceedings.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the immigration judge below failed to fulfill her duty to fully develop the record, thereby depriving Petitioner of a vital statutory protection and a full and fair hearing. In light of this and other errors made by the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, we grant the petition, vacate Petitioner’s final order of removal, and remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals with instructions to remand the case to the immigration judge for further fact-finding and reconsideration of Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief.

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

How many more of these disasters will it take for Garland to oust the deadwood and the “denial club” from the Immigration Judiciary, make the urgently needed, long overdue progressive reforms, and bring in progressive leaders and judges to restore due process at the totally and disgracefully dysfunctional EOIR? How many more lives will be needlessly be lost or squandered by the unconstitutional parody of a “court” system that Garland is running @ EOIR? What will the cost of his “case of the slows” be to Garland’s reputation and to the Biden Administration? Why is the “EOIR Clown Show”🤡⚰️still engaging in its daily deadly performances more than four months into the Biden Administration?

Also, every additional embarrassing, unprofessional performance like this by EOIR makes Garland’s horrible decision to hire 17 more “less than the best,” non-expert Immigration Judges, who haven’t represented individuals in Immigration Court, look worse and worse! There are lots of experts out there in the NDPA who know asylum law, know how to develop a record fully, and are highly sensitive to the due process needs of asylum seekers and other migrants. The continuation of ignorant, haste make waste, “any reason to get to no” decision making at EOIR, that specifically was encouraged by Sessions and Barr, is totally unnecessary ands highly inappropriate!

Here’s more from Round Table leader Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

Friends, this is a really great win. In a 62-page published decision, a panel of the Fourth Circuit referenced our amicus brief, adopted many of our arguments, and agreed that an IJ has a duty to develop the record in a pro se withholding/CAT claim.

The court actually granted the withholding of removal claim (see pp. 53-54). It also found that the BIA incorrectly applied Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- to a pro se applicant.

While our brief is mentioned in the body of the decision, if you look at footnote 24, the court especially liked the analogy from our brief (the work of our drafter, Steve Schulman of Akin Gump) comparing a pro se applicant’s attempts to formulate a particular social group to a game of Scrabble in which one of the players “does not speak English and cannot spell;” adding that “without help, the respondent could never win, and can’t even meaningfully participate.”

There are also references to Matter of S-M-J- and the UNHCR Handbook.

I think we can be very proud of this one.

Thanks again to Steve Schulman, who has done such an outstanding job in drafting quite a few of our briefs.

Best, Jeff

Just think of what could be accomplished and the resources that would be conserved if the progressive due process experts were on the INSIDE at EOIR rather than perpetually STUCK ON THE OUTSIDE litigating, writing, lobbying, complaining to get Garland to simply do his job! Not rocket science. But, apparently below Garland’s view and beyond his engagement level from the “ivory tower.”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-26-21

🏴‍☠️BIA CONTINUES TO SPEW FORTH ERRORS IN LIFE OR DEATH ☠️ ASYLUM CASES, SAYS 4TH CIR. — “Three-In-One” — Improperly Disregarding Corroborating Evidence; Incorrect Legal Standard On Past Persecution; Wrong Nexus Finding! — Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson

Kangaroos — “Oh Boy! Three material mistakes in one asylum case! Do you think our superiors in the enforcement bureaucracy will give us extra credit on our ‘move ‘em out without due process quotas?’ Being a Deportation Judge sure is fun!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191978.P.pdf

Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published

PANEL: GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan

KEY QUOTE:

Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.

Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.

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

After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “Not Quite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!

Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!

This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.

Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!

I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!

Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.

Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?

Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️VERA INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM FOR IMMIGRANTS — Widespread Public Support For Representation In Immigration Court!

Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.

To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!

Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Failed Courts Never!

PWS

03–05-21

⚒PULVERIZED AGAIN: 4TH CIR. JACKHAMMERS BIA’S LATEST ANTI-ASYLUM, MISOGYNIST 🏴‍☠️ CRUSADE TARGETING REFUGEE WOMEN FROM GUATEMALA — “Excessively narrow view of nexus” — “Record conclusively establishes that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to control Diaz de Gomez’s persecutors!”

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-guatemala-nexus-argueta-diaz-de-gomez-v-wilkinson

CA4 on Guatemala, Nexus: Argueta Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson

Argueta Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson

“Diaz de Gomez claims that she received repeated death threats from a gang in Guatemala after she and her family witnessed a mass killing by gang members and refused to acquiesce to the gang’s extortion and other demands. … [W]e reject the Board’s “excessively narrow” view of the nexus requirement, and conclude that Diaz de Gomez established that her familial ties were one central reason for her persecution. … We also hold that the record conclusively establishes that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to control Diaz de Gomez’s persecutors. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for the Board to reconsider Diaz de Gomez’s claims in light of our holdings.”

[Hats off to Pamela P. Keenan!]

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

So, let’s compare the 4th Circuit’s view with the most recent abomination and intentional misconstruction of the “unable or unwilling to control” doctrine by totally unqualified political hack Jeffrey Rosen, then impersonating the “Acting Attorney General” and issuing clearly unconstitutional “precedents” to implement the defeated regime’s racially biased, misogynistic, anti-asylum agenda.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/category/asylum/failure-of-state-protection/

Absurdly, up until the Biden Administration suspended it this week, Guatemala, of all places, was fraudulently determined by the Trump immigration kakistocracy to be a “safe third country” for asylum seekers. https://www.state.gov/suspending-and-terminating-the-asylum-cooperative-agreements-with-the-governments-el-salvador-guatemala-and-honduras/

Talk about “crimes against humanity!” ☠️🏴‍☠️ Certainly, every current civil servant who supported and advanced this bogus designation should be held accountable.

Kakistocracy Kills: Obviously, with better qualified judges, competent representation, and a fair system operated in accordance with due process and a proper interpretation of asylum laws, many of those now being arbitrarily, capriciously, and unlawfully turned back at our borders would be entitled to our legal protection. This is life or death, not a problem that can “wait till tomorrow” to be addressed! Every day that the patently inadequate “judges” currently on the BIA remain in their positions means more injustice, trauma, and even death for legitimate asylum seekers!

The BIA Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ has got to go!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-10-21

⚖️🗽IN ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR NATIVIST ANTI-ASYUM AGENDA @ EOIR, 4TH CIR. FINDS “UNREASONABLE” BIA’S ATTEMPT TO DEFINE PSG IN MATTER OF W-G-R- SO THAT NOBODY EVER QUALIFIES! — Amaya v. Rosen

Juan Carlos Amaya v. Jeffrey A. Rosen

Amaya v. Rosen, 4th Cir., 01-25-21, published

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!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-25-21

⚖️🗽SUPREMES HEAR CASE ON UNNECESSARY DETENTION IN GULAG OF THOSE SEEKING LEGAL PROTECTION FROM PERSECUTION AND TORTUE! — Biden Administration Must End Human Rights Abuses 🏴‍☠️☠️In The “New American Gulag!”

From my friends over at the Legal Aid and Justice Center of Virginia:

Dear Paul,

Today marks a milestone for the Legal Aid Justice Center.

This morning at 10 A.M., the U.S. Supreme Court will begin oral arguments in Pham v. Chavez, LAJC’s first case before the high court in our 54-year history. It is also the last immigration case to be heard by the Supreme Court during Trump’s presidency, a fitting way to cap the past four years of fighting this administration’s harmful policies, which we kicked off with our 2017 lawsuit Aziz v. Trump challenging Trump’s Muslim ban, filed one week after his inauguration.

It is not uncommon for people who have been previously deported to eventually return to the U.S. seeking protection from new threats to their lives or liberty in their home countries. Today’s case is to decide whether immigrants who illegally reenter the United States after a prior deportation and seek an asylum-like form of protection called “withholding of removal” have the right to ask a judge for release from detention while they fight their cases, which routinely take over a year.

This case will affect more than 3,000 people every year nationwide —a number that will likely grow as those who have been turned away at the border through the current administration’s unjust policies return in desperation to seek help once again.

We thank our pro bono co-counsel Paul Hughes, an experienced Supreme Court practitioner arguing the case for us today, and the team at McDermott Will & Emery and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic who assisted with the briefing. Paul has partnered with us on many of our legal challenges to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, dating back to Aziz v. Trump.

This case began in summer 2017 when we won the release of five individuals being held without bond at the Farmville Detention Center. We quickly recognized that the system needed to be reformed. Our subsequent class action lawsuit has beaten back every challenge to date, and no matter the outcome of today’s hearing, has already won the release of more than 100 people from detention.

We hope the highest court in the land will also acknowledge that these immigrants should have the chance to seek freedom.

Angela Ciolfi
Executive Director
Legal Aid Justice Center

Follow Us

DONATE

Legal Aid Justice Center

Charlottesville / Falls Church / Richmond / Petersburg

info@justice4all.org

Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser

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

Many, many thanks to the Legal Aid & Justice Center, pro bono co-counsel Paul Hughes, the team at McDermott Will & Emery, and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic for making this happen. The Round Table 🛡⚔️also filed an amicus brief in this important case:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/category/supreme-court/pham-v-guzman-chavez/

As noted in my previous posting, this case is also a good example of the false and misleading narratives pushed by unethical former Solicitor General and leading “Trump Toady” Noel Francisco in defending the regime’s “crimes against humanity” and racist agenda targeting asylum seekers and other migrants.

In fact, as anybody actually familiar with the Immigration Court system knows, holding bond hearings for 3,000 seekers of protection would not be a major burden on the Immigraton Courts. It’s an example of critical, yet routine, duties that should be performed easily, efficiently, fairly, and frequently by any qualified U.S. Immigration Judge.

What has been a “burden on the system” and a fiscal, due process, and management disaster is the improper “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” engaged in by DOJ politicos and their “maliciously incompetent” toadies at EOIR. This mismanagement and total failure of competent judicial leadership and administration has pushed the backlog to over an astounding 1.1 million cases (with many others likely MIA or lost in space in the EOIR mess).

To accomplish this dysfunctional disaster, EOIR has doubled the number of Immigration Judges. This often involves hiring judicial candidates from prosecutorial backgrounds who lack the human rights and immigration expertise, and in some cases the backbone to comply with their oaths to uphold the Constitution, necessary to restore due process to the system, issue prompt bonds to those seeking protection, establish precedents for expeditious granting of asylum and other protection, and, most of all, hold an out of control DHS enforcement kakistocracy accountable.

Judge Garland👨🏻‍⚖️ take note! As of the date of your confirmation, your name will start appearing on the grossly deficient work product churned out by EOIR and the scofflaw nonsense being presented to the Supremes and other Federal Courts by the SG’s Office and other DOJ lawyers who have forgotten or abandoned their ethical obligations.

I can’t believe that any Federal Judge highly respected enough to be nominated to the Supreme Court by a real President would want his name and legacy tarnished by association with the White Nationalist due process disaster and misuse of public funds currently going on at EOIR.

The “EOIR Clown Show”🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ must go! And, while you’re at it, the SG’s Office and other litigating components who have “carried the water” for a regime out to bury truth and dismember our Constitution and our democratic institutions also are in dire need of a “thorough housecleaning!”🧹🪠

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag” ☠️⚰️🤮 Never!

PWS

01-11-21

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

Tomas-Ramos v. Garland

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Garcia Cabrera v. Garland, 4th Cir., 01-06-21, published

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9 on Fundamental Fairness: Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland

5th Cir. on illegal in absentia, defective notice, blown MTR:

Dan Kowalski again:

CA4 on PSG: Escobar Gomez v. Garland (Unpub., 2-1)

It’s an entirely unnecessary, ongoing national disgrace!🤮

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Pugin v. Garland, 4th Cir., 12-01-21, published, 2-1 (Chief Judge Gregory, dissenting)

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA6 on PSG: Zometa-Orellana v. Garland (Unpub.)

CA4 on Nexus: Aleman-Medrano v. Garland (Unpub.)

CA9 (2-1) on Right to Counsel: Usubakunov v. Garland

Natz. Victory Slams Matter of Zhang: Melara v. Mayorkas

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the complete opinion by Judge Thacker, joined by Judges Floyd & Harris:

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s “quick coverage” from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!

Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders

Here’s the “full text” of the decision:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here it is, opinion by Judge Stephanie Thacker:

The ongoing travesty of justice @ EOIR and the lives threatened thereby continue to be a national disgrace on Garland’s watch!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s yet another “big middle finger” 🖕 to progressives and experts from Garland and Mayorkas:

Here are “statements in opposition” from the National Immigrant Justice Center and Human Rights First:

Here’s the “statement of outrage and solidarity in opposition from the experts at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law:

Here are other initial comments from asylum experts:

Quick takes:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s more from Round Table leader Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Failed Courts Never!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag” ☠️⚰️🤮 Never!

Related posts: