Category: Ramirez v. Sessions

In relation to those cases, the BIA’s one-member decision in this case attempts to significantly expand the definition of a CIMT by removing deceit, a critical indicator of moral turpitude, from the equation. Since this non-precedential decision departs from, rather than relies on, precedential BIA decisions, it is not eligible for Chevron review.

In the absence of Chevron deference, the weight given to a BIA decision “hinges on ‘the thoroughness evident in [the BIA’s] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade.’” Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241, 246 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Martinez, 740 F.3d at 909–10); see Mead, 533 U.S. at 221. Here, the BIA provides only three sentences of analysis that are conclusory in nature and disregards the agency’s prior emphasis on fraud or deceit as a critical determinant without identifying an alternative aggravator. Consequently, the BIA decision is also undeserving of so-calledSkidmore respect because it lacks the power to persuade. See Mead, 533 U.S. at 221.

In sum, under Chevron, BIA decisions defining morally turpitudinous conduct are controlling if they are precedential and reasonable. However, the BIA’s interpretations of laws that it does not administer, such as the Virginia obstruction of justice statute, and its non-precedential decisions are only given weight to the extent that this Court finds the reasoning persuasive. Here, because we do not find persuasive the BIA’s abbreviated and non-precedential opinion, we do not accord it any deference.

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

As we saw during the Bush Administration, “haste makes waste” procedures imposed by the DOJ at the Immigration Courts and the BIA are likely to cause a rebellion in the Article III Courts as they are presented with sloppy work including inadequate factual analyses, incorrect fact-findings, and abbreviated, deficient legal analyses. Factors such as pressure to render more “contemporaneous oral decisions” at the end of the hearing without reviewing the full record and testimony as well as single-judge BIA decisions or “summary affirmances” without opinion aggravate the problem.

As the quantity increases and quality decreases, the Article III Courts will lose confidence in the ImmigratIon Courts and begin returning large numbers of cases for “quality control redos” — something that adds to delay and increases backlogs as well as demoralizing Immigration Judges and frustrating respondents and counsel on both sides.

At some point, I foresee that attorneys for respondents should succeed in convincing the Article III Courts that the BIA no longer qualifies as an “expert tribunal” and that its decisions therefore should not receive so-called “Chevron deference.” Session’s use of his certification power to interfere in judicial decisions is also highly problematic.

Jeff Sessions is neither a judge nor by any stretch of the imagination an unbiased quasi-judicial decision maker. Indeed any Article III or Administrative Judge who made some of the untrue and pejorative statements about migrants, asylum seekers, private attorneys, and the law that Sessions has publicly made since becoming the Attorney General would certainly be required to disqualify himself or herself from a quasi-judicial role in any immigration adjudication.

There is no possibility of a fair, unbiased, due process oriented Immigration Court system under Jeff Sessions and the DOJ.

We have “seen this show before” under Ashcroft and the Bush Administration.  Congress seriously disregards its responsibilities by standing by and watching disaster unfold again with hundreds of thousands of lives, and perhaps the stability of our entire Federal Judicial System, at stake.

PWS

04-19-18