"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
In the 18 months since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, Republican officials have had ample opportunity to prove they’re not merely antiabortion but also pro-child. They keep failing.
GOP politicians across the country have found new and creative ways to deny resources to struggling parents and children. Take, for instance, the summer lunch program.
Under a new federal program, children who are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches can also receive food assistance during the summer. The policy, created as part of the bipartisan budget deal in 2022, gives eligible families $40 per month per child, or $120 total over the summer. It often works essentially as a top-up for food stamps, since these families must buy more groceries when their children lose access to nutritious school meals when classes go out of session. (It’s similar to a temporary program offered during the pandemic, though it’s much less generous.)
The federal government pays the entire cost of the benefits associated with this new food program and half the administrative costs. The program isn’t automatic, though; states had to opt in by Jan. 1.
Republican governors across 15 states chose not to, as my Post colleague Annie Gowen reported. Up to 10 million kids will be denied access to this grocery aid as a result.
Why have these governors rejected food assistance, even amid soaring grocery prices and pledges to help families strained by inflation?
Some states, such as Texas and Vermont, cited operational or budgetary difficulties with getting a new system running in time for this summer. These obstacles could presumably be surmounted in future years. In other states, GOP politicians expressed outright disdain for the program.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, for instance, said of the new program, “I don’t believe in welfare.” A spokeswoman for Florida’s Department of Children and Families cited vague unspecified fears about “federal strings attached.”
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds suggested there was no point in giving this grocery assistance to food-insecure children “when childhood obesity has become an epidemic.”
Reynolds is apparently unaware that obesity is linked to a lack of reliable access to nutritious food and that children in food-insecure homes face a higher risk of developmental problems. This suggests withholding this nutritional assistance hurts not only the state’s children today but also its workforce tomorrow.
This is hardly the only time GOP politicians have worked to swipe food from the mouths of hungry children — and their moms.
. . . .
Indeed, if a version of a child tax credit expansion ultimately materializes — and it might in the next few days — that will happen only because Democratic lawmakers explicitly held those corporate tax breaks hostage in exchange for aid to poor kids.
Republicans keep assuring the American public that they really, truly care about helping women forced into bearing children even when they’re not financially or emotionally ready to do so. They claim they want to protect youngsters and invest in their financial future.
Time for the GOP to put its money where its mouth is.
Trump & McConnell stuck a mob of these unqualified righty extremists on the lower Federal Courts. Even a super conservative Supremes might be tiring of the overt bias and lack of basic judicial competence exhibited by these judicial hacks. https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
The Court’s decision in United States v. Texas was 8–1, with all eight justices in the majority concluding that Tipton didn’t even have jurisdiction to hear this case in the first place — though they split 5-3 on why Tipton lacked jurisdiction. Only Justice Samuel Alito, the Court’s most reliable Republican partisan, dissented.
The case concerned 2021 guidelines, issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, that instructed ICE agents to prioritize enforcement efforts against undocumented or otherwise removable immigrants who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America’s well-being.”
Two red states, Texas and Louisiana, sued, essentially arguing that ICE must arrest more immigrants who do not fit these criteria. Moreover, because Texas federal courts often allow plaintiffs to choose which judge will hear their case by deciding to file their lawsuits in specific parts of the state, these two red states chose Tipton — a staunchly anti-immigrant judge who has been a thorn in the Biden administration’s side since the first week of his presidency — to hear this lawsuit.
In one of the most predictable events in the US judiciary’s history, Tipton promptly obliged the two states by striking down Mayorkas’s guidelines.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Texas holds that no federal judge should have ever even considered this case. As Kavanaugh explains, the plaintiff states “have not cited any precedent, history, or tradition of courts ordering the Executive Branch to change its arrest or prosecution policies so that the Executive Branch makes more arrests or initiates more prosecutions.” To the contrary, the Court held in Linda R. S. v. Richard D. (1973) that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”
. . . .
That said, the decision does contain some language that anti-immigrant judges may latch onto to impose their preference on the country — including a paragraph that reads like it was written to preserve lawsuits challenging the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
And there is one other very frustrating thing about this case. Although the Supreme Court eventually ruled that Tipton is not the head of ICE and cannot decide who its agents arrest, it rejected a request to temporarily block Tipton’s decision last July.
Some GOP judges and super-sleazy state AGs have a very clear vision of the future for refugees of color. Most days, the Biden Administration can’t decide whether they share it or not. EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)Professor (Emeritus) David A. Martin UVA Law PHOTO: UVA Law
The court’s opinion carries the reader along on what purports to be textual analysis and implacable logic. On closer examination, however, it is a startling exercise in judicial imperialism. The opinion seizes on fragments of statutory text, taken out of context, to construct a presumed congressional intent that would be more to the judges’ liking. It ignores contrary indicators in the wording and the historical development of the key provisions. It makes no attempt to reconcile the supposed strict mandate with the historical fact that Congress went 20 years without really noticing—much less objecting to—the absence of implementation. The court also shows an arrogant disregard for the operational realities of border enforcement, including the sensitivity of diplomatic relations with Mexico that sustain cross-border cooperation—on migration issues as well as other policy priorities.
I can bring some special perspective in analyzing the appeals court’s decision. I have been a scholar and teacher of immigration law for 40 years, and I also was fortunate to hold policy-level positions dealing with immigration in three different departments, under three different Presidents. My years in government gave me close exposure to the operational realities at a level most law professors—and judges—don’t experience. One of those stints consisted of 30 months during the mid-nineties as General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the period when the key reform bills on which the Fifth Circuit relies were introduced, debated, amended, enacted and implemented.
. . . .
****************
Read David’s complete article at the above link. As usual, my “practical scholar” friend gives you the real legal analysis that should have been applied by the court. Now, here’s my “less nuanced” take on this atrocious and cowardly piece of extreme White Nationalist judicial misfeasance!
Remarkably, in their 117 pages of snarky, wooden legalese, demeaning of humanity, and willfully misrepresenting reality, these life-tenured righty judges (surprise, two Trumpists, one Bush I) give no serious consideration whatsoever to the well-documented, daily, ongoing abuses of the human and legal rights of those fleeing oppression who are subjected to this heinous White Nationalist program! See, e.g., https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/shameful-record-biden-administration-s-use-trump-policies-endangers-people-seeking-asylum
Just how do asylum applicants exercise their statutory “right” to apply for asylum and other protection under U.S. and international law if they are dead, kidnapped, beaten, extorted, raped, threatened, given inadequate notice of hearing, denied their right to legal assistance, prevented from preparing and documenting their cases, and if they are fortunate enough to finally get a hearing, subjected to an anti-asylum, anti-due-process, non-asylum-expert “faux judiciary” run by a prosecutor with a majority of his “holdover judges” appointed or co-opted by his White Nationalist, asylum-hating predecessors? The Fifth Circuit doesn’t bother to explain. That’s probably because historically their failure to stand up for human rights and racial justice for those in need of protection has been part of the problem.
Also, it’s remarkable how righty judges who couldn’t find any reasons to stop the Trump regime from rewriting asylum law out of existence in unprecedented ways, without legislation, and usually without regard to the APA, suddenly take a much different position when it comes to the Biden Administration’s modest efforts to vindicate human rights and restore some semblance of the rule of law. But, that’s actually less surprising than the Biden Administration’s failure to “see the handwriting on the wall” and have a “Plan B” in operation.
Obviously, these three life-tenured right-wing human rights abusers in robes need to spend a few months “detained” in Mexico or in the “New American Gulag!” But, that’s wishful thinking. Not going to happen! These are ivory tower guys with life tenure, fat salaries, and robes who use their positions to pick on the most vulnerable in the world and deprive them of their legal and human rights based on intentional misconstructions of the law, ignorance of reality, and pandering to a rather overly political racist appeal from GOP AGs who are from “the bottom of humanity’s — and our legal profession’s — apple barrel!” Doesn’t get much worse than that!
Nevertheless, it should be clear to both advocates and the Biden Administration that “Remain in Mexico” likely is here to stay! Despite the lack of merits to the Fifth Circuit’s decision, and the Supreme’s granting of the Biden Administration’s cert petition, I wouldn’t hold my breath for relief from either the right-wing Supremes or the feckless Dems in Congress.
Given that the program is likely to be judicially imposed, the Administration and advocates can still get together to make it work in compliance with due process. It’s well within their power and not rocket science:
Appoint a new BIA with appellate judges who are practical scholars in asylum and will establish coherent, correct legal guidance on domestic violence claims, gender based asylum, gang-based claims, nexus, “failure of state protection,” credibility, corroboration, the operation of the presumption of future persecution, the DHS’s burden of rebutting the presumption, “rise to the level,” right to counsel, fair hearings, and other critical areas where the current “Trump holdover” BIA’s guidance has been lacking, inadequate, and/or defective. They can also insure consistency in asylum adjudications, something that has long escaped EOIR.
Get a corps of Immigration Judges with established records and reputations for scholarly expertise, commitment to due-process, practicality, and fairness to asylum seekers to handle these cases.
Work with pro bono and advocacy groups and the UNHCR to insure that every person applying under this program has access to competent representation and adequate opportunities to prepare and document cases. Nolan Rappaport and I have recently written about the “largely untapped potential” of a better “qualified representative” program. Professor Michele Pistone at Villanova Law has done some ground-breaking innovative work on training accredited representatives for asylum cases in Immigration Court. But, like most other long overdue reforms, it appears to have gone over Garland’s distracted head! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/02/02/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽there-will-be-no-supreme-intervention-to-stop-mpp-☹%EF%B8%8F-rappaport-pistone-schmidt-tell-how-the-administration-advocates-c/
Work with the Government of Mexico and the UNHCR to guarantee the health, security, safety, and welfare of those waiting in camps in Mexico.
Then, we’ll finally find out how many of those who have already passed credible fearactually qualify for a grant of asylum under a fair, competent, timely system run by experts with individuals who are well-represented! I’ll bet it’s the majority, not the measly 2% who have received grants under EOIR’s “Stephen Miller Lite” approach!
For example, during 13 years on the trial bench, I found that the majority of those referred to Immigration Court after a positive “credible fear” finding (all of the “Remain in Mexico” applicants fall in that category) qualified for asylum or some other type of protection from removal. And, like my friend and long time-colleague Professor Martin, I’ve been working on asylum issues from enforcement, advocacy, academic, and judicial standpoints, in and out of government, since before there was a Refugee Act of 1980!
So, to me, the “2% asylum grant rate” in Immigration Court for these cases,” particularly in light of some revised intentionally overly restrictive “credible fear” criteria imposed by the Trump regime, appears clearly bogus. Why hasn’t Garland looked into the systemic defects in the EOIR system, as applied to “Remain in Mexico,” that have artificially suppressed the grant rate?
Lack of lawyers, undue hinderances on gathering evidence and presenting cases, poor notice, lack of expertise, inadequate training, and anti-asylum performance by IJs and the BIA, and in some cases kidnapping, assault, rape, extortion, and other well-documented physical harm knowingly inflicted on applicants by placing them in clearly dangerous and unacceptable conditions in Mexico are just the start!
There are lots of creative ways of making our current immigration system work better! You just need the knowledge, motivation, expertise, and guts to make it happen! So, far that’s been lacking at all levels of the Biden Administration, but particularly at Garland’s “brain-dead” DOJ. Gosh, these guys make Stephen Miller look like a “creative genius,” albeit an evil and pathological one! 🤯🤮🏴☠️ Come on, man!
As many of us have pointed out, Garland, Mayorkas, Biden, and Harris could and should have had such a system up and operating by now! Outrageous and disgusting as the conduct of the 5th Circuit has been, it’s hardly unpredictable given past performance. Every day that the Administration continues to waste by not making the necessary changes at EOIR, a court system totally within their control, adds to the human misery and injustice!
So, bottom line: White Nationalist judges get life tenure from the GOP. Meanwhile, back at the ranch of the “Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight,” Biden and Garland retain Trump’s White Nationalist appointees and enablers at EOIR and eschew the chance to create a diverse, progressive, expert, practical, due-process-oriented, fundamental-fairness-insistent, racial-justice-committed judiciary to decide life-or-death cases that affect and influence the operation of our entire justice system and our democracy in ways that no other court system in America does! The Administration’s alarming “tone deafness” is blowing perhaps the “last clear chance” to create a “model judiciary!” Sounds like something only a Dem Administration could do. Go figure!
DISCLAIMER: While I have been inspired by, and drawn on, the work of my friends Nolan & Michele, this posting is my view and does not necessarily represent either of their views on MPP, its merits, and/or the litigation challenging it.
INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) prohibits the government from paying for lawyers to represent immigrants in removal proceedings. The pertinent part of this section states that, “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings” (emphasis added).
But there is an alternative. EOIR has a program for recognizing organizations and accrediting their non-attorney representatives to represent aliens in removal proceeds for a nominal fee, and INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) does not prohibit the government from providing these organizations with the funds they need to expand their immigration operations.
The government established the recognition and accreditation program to increase the availability of competent immigration legal representation for low-income and indigent persons, which promotes the effective and efficient administration of justice.
Two levels of accreditation are available. Full accreditation authorizes the accredited representative to represent immigrants in proceedings before DHS, in proceedings before an immigration judge, and in appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Partial accreditation just authorizes them to assist immigrants in proceedings before DHS, such as in applying for an immigration benefit.
Aliens needing low-cost legal representation for removal proceedings or to apply for asylum can find recognized organizations and accredited representatives in their area on the roster of Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives. Currently, there are 761 recognized organizations and 1,970 accredited representatives, but only 300 of them have full accreditation.
An organization applying for recognition must establish that it is a Federal, tax-exempt, non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization; that it provides immigration legal services primarily to low-income and indigent clients; and that, if it charges fees, it has a written policy for accommodating clients who are unable to pay the fees.
And it must establish that it has access to adequate knowledge, information, and experience in all aspects of immigration law and procedure.
An organization applying for the accreditation of a representative must establish that the representative has the character and fitness needed for representing immigration clients; that he has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings or been convicted of a serious crime; and that he has the necessary knowledge in immigration law and procedures.
Professor Michele Pistone Villanova Law
Excellent training programs are available to provide representatives with the knowledge they need to represent immigrants in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, such as the Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates (VIISTA) — a university-based online certificate program that was established by Michele Pistone, a law professor at Villanova in August 2020, to provides the training immigrant advocates need to become accredited representatives.
VIISTA covers all of the topics needed to become an effective immigrant advocate — such as interviewing, how to work with an interpreter, how to work with migrant children, trial advocacy and, of course, immigration law.
Biden’s promise to maximize legal representation
Biden included maximizing legal representation in his “Blueprint for a Fair, Orderly, and Human Immigration System.” His plan to achieve that objective includes providing $23 million to support legal orientation programs — but orientation programs do not provide legal representation. In fact, the statement of work for the LAB contract solicitation requires orientation presenters to explain that they do not provide legal advice or representation.
Accredited representatives with full accreditation do provide legal advice and legal representation — but there aren’t nearly enough of them now to meet the need for such assistance.
Biden could use the funds he has earmarked for the legal orientation program to provide recognized organizations with the money they need to increase the number of accredited representatives — but a better solution would be for congress to provide the necessary funding.
For many asylum-seeking immigrants, an accredited representative with immigration law training may be their only hope for representation when they appear at their asylum hearings.
**********************
Thanks for this timely and informative piece, Nolan! Amazingly, this “accessible” analysis of an under-publicized opportunity is Nolan’s 300th published op-ed on The Hill! Congratulations! 🎊🍾
Go on over to The Hill to read the full article! The excerpt published above also contains helpful links to the VIISTA Program @ Villanova.
The extraordinary, innovative VIISTA Program began with Michele’s dinner table conversation with Judges Larry “The Burmanator” Burman, Mimi Tsankov (now NAIJ President), and me following an FBA Conference in DC several years ago. I doubt that any other lawyer in America could have turned it into reality. Michele got all the grants for seed money herself — winning a prestigious Kaplan Family Foundation Grant for Innovation in the process!
Because VIISTA is modularized, available online, constantly evaluated (including, of course, by students), and updated, it is “built for rapid expansion” throughout America, as suggested by Nolan. Even now, Michele is actively looking for “partners.”
My Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase and I were privileged to have had modest roles in VIISTA’s curriculum development and review. Additionally, our Round Table colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall is one of the exceptional VIISTA faculty.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) A “Fighting Knightess of the Round Table,” she’s also one of VIISTA’s talented expert faculty members who knows exactly what asylum seekers need to prove to win in what currently is “America’s most dysfunctional court system!” She has “lived life on both sides of the bench!”
Recently (pre-omicron) Jeffrey and I were fortunate enough to be invited to a “VIISTA Anniversary Celebration” @ Villanova. We had a chance to meet not only folks from the Kaplan Foundation and Villanova (which has been totally supportive), but also to meet and hear from some faculty and members of the “Inaugural Class” about their achievements and their plans for the future.
This is truly “making the law better” and “delivering justice” at a grass roots level! And, as Nolan points out, expanded programs like this might be asylum seekers’ best chance of getting great representation that could be “outcome determinative.” Michele’s goal is 10,000 new representatives in 10 years! Who could doubt her ability to pull it off!
By now, it should be clear to both advocates and the Biden Administration that “Remain in Mexico” is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. No matter what the lack of merits to the Fifth Circuit’s decision might be (I’m sure that its tone-deaf, disconnected from reality and humanity approach will be the subject of numerous critical commentaries and law review articles), no relief can be expected from either the right-wing Supremes or the feckless Dems in Congress.
Given that the MPP program is going to be judicially imposed, the Administration and advocates can still get together to make it work in compliance with due process. It’s well within their power and not rocket 🚀 science:
A Better Due-Process- Focused Approach To “Remain in Mexico:”
Better BIA. Appoint a new BIA with appellate judges who are practical scholars in asylum and will establish coherent, correct legal guidance on domestic violence claims, gender based asylum, gang-based claims, nexus, “failure of state protection,” credibility, corroboration, the operation of the presumption of future persecution, the DHS’s burden of rebutting the presumption, “rise to the level,” right to counsel, fair hearings, fair notice, and other critical areas where the current “Trump holdover” BIA’s guidance has been lacking, inadequate, or defective. They can also insure consistency in asylum adjudications, something that has long escaped EOIR.
Better Judges. Get a corps of Immigration Judges with established records and reputations for scholarly expertise in asylum, demonstrated commitment to due-process, practicality, and fairness to asylum seekers to handle these cases.
Better Representation. Work with pro bono, advocacy groups, VIISTA, and the UNHCR to insure that every person applying under this program has access to competent representation and adequate opportunities to prepare and document cases. Another one of Nolan’s good ideas for VIISTA-type programs would be for Congress to provide scholarships for students (beyond those already available from Villanova). I have also gotten “anecdotal reports” that EOIR has built up an unconscionable backlog in processing of applications for Accreditation & Recognition. If confirmed, this must be immediately addressed.
Better Conditions. Work with the Government of Mexico and the UNHCR to guarantee the health, security, safety, and welfare of those waiting in camps in Mexico.
Indeed, the Biden Administration could and should already have put this very straightforward, achievable program in place during its first year in office, instead of “treading water” (or worse, in many cases)!
