"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.
“Singh experienced multiple physical attacks and death threats over an eight-month period, from November of 2014 to June of 2015. No reasonable factfinder would conclude that Singh did not experience serious harm rising to the level of persecution. … For all these reasons we find that the record compels a finding that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. … [T]he BIA did not independently analyze relocation and determine that the government met its burden. Rather, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasons for finding that internal relocation was safe and reasonable. In doing so, the BIA adopted the IJ’s flawed relocation analysis, which did not afford Singh the presumption of past persecution or shift the burden to the government to prove that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate within India. … In sum, because the BIA erred in its relocation analysis, we grant Singh’s petition to review his claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for consideration in light of Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654. … For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT Singh’s petition in part and REMAND to the BIA to consider (1) whether Singh is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of statutorily protected grounds by the government or individuals whom the government was unable or unwilling to control; (2) if so, whether the DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (3) whether Singh is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications for his ability to support his qualifying relatives through work in El Salvador. … The BIA’s decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
—Daniel M. KowalskiEditor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
******************
What if a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon were routinely engaging in “surgical malpractice?” Wouldn’t it be a cause for grave concern?🤯
Almost every week, sometimes multiple times, the BIA mishandles the basics in potential “life or death” cases. Yet, Garland somehow shrugs it off! This not only adds to the “dehumanization” of migrants (their lives don’t count), but also badly skews the statistical profile that undergirds much of the misguided immigration (non) dialogue.
If the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, huge “over-denial” problem at EOIR were addressed with better qualified judges and adjudicators, it would become apparent that many more, probably a majority, of those caught up in the dysfunction at EOIR and the Asylum Office are qualified to remain in the U.S. in some status. And, proper positive precedents would guide practitioners, ICE Counsel, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to correct results without protracted litigation that eventually burdens the Courts of Appeals, causes avoidable remands, fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and contributes mightily to the mushrooming EOIR backlog!
As a result, these cases could be prepared, prioritized, granted, and individuals could get on with their lives and maximize their human potential to help our nation — just as generations before them have done including the ancestors of almost all Americans! How soon some of us forget!
The real, largely self-created, “immigration crisis,” is NOT insufficient “deterrence, detention, and cruelty” at the border! It’s the grotesque failure of all three branches of Government to insist on a fair, timely, well-staffed, professionally-managed, due-process-compliant adjudication, review, and resettlement system for asylum seekers and other immigrants. It’s also the ongoing attempt to “cover up” and minimize our Government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, particularly those asserting their legal right to apply at our borders and in the interior regardless of status!
The racially-driven “targeting” of asylum seekers at the border is a ruse designed to deflect attention from the realities of human migration, what drives it, and the failure of governments across the board to come to grips with them and to fulfill their legal responsibilities to treat all persons fairly, humanely, and in accordance with correct interpretations and applications of the law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s additional commentary on Singh from my Round Table ⚖️⚔️ colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
The IJ was really determined to deny on this one. And I guess Vandyke had filled his quota of once in a lifetime for finding fault with the government, and thus had no choice but to dissent.
How would YOU like to face a system “determined to deny” with your life on the line? How would Garland like it?
Actually, under the generous “well-founded fear” standard applicable to asylum (Cardoza-Fonseca/Mogharrabi) and the authoritative guidance in the U.N. Handbook on adjudication, applicants like Singh who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Garland has, quite improperly, like his immediate predecessors, allowed this key humanitarian legal principle to be mocked at EOIR! Instead, as cogently pointed out by “Sir Jeffrey,” here the IJ and the BIA actually went the “extra mile” to think of “any reason to deny” — even totally specious ones!
Also, half-baked, legally deficient “reasonably available internal relocation analysis”is a long-standing, chronic problem at EOIR, despite a regulation setting forth analytical factors that should be evaluated. Few, if any, such legitimate opportunities are “reasonably available” in most countries sending asylum applicants!
Moreover, once past persecution is established, the DHS has the burden of showing that there is a reasonably available internal relocation alternative, something that they almost never can prove by a preponderance of the evidence! Indeed, in my experience, the DHS almost never put in such evidence beyond rote citations to generalized language in DOS Country Reports!
The “judicial competency/bias” problems plaguing EOIR are large and well documented. Yet, Garland pretends like they don’t exist!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“This court grants a petition for review of an agency denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief only under the most extraordinary circumstances. See Gutierrez-Alm, 62 F.4th at 1194; Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). This is one of those rare instances. For the reasons discussed above, the agency’su adverse credibility determination is amply supported by substantial evidence. But the IJ failed to properly consider and evaluate the evidentiary weight of multiple documents Kalulu offered into the record independent of her testimony, and the BIA made clear factual errors when it reviewed those documents. Because the agency’s decision therefore “cannot be sustained upon its reasoning,” this case must be remanded for the IJ or BIA to reconsider its decision. De Leon, 51 F.4th at 1008 (internal quotation marks omitted). On remand, the agency must reexamine the three declarations and medical document discussed in section III(b) to consider whether they, when properly read alongside other nontestimonial evidence in the record, independently prove Kalulu’s claims for asylum or withholding of removal. This court takes no position on whether those documents provide such proof or whether Kalulu merits any of the relief for which she applied.”
Dissent: “The majority ignores our precedent and instead concludes that the agency would have reached the same adverse credibility determination in the absence of these unsupported findings. That approach contravenes the REAL ID Act, binding circuit precedent, and fundamental principles of administrative law. I respectfully dissent.”
Many congrats to Amalia, Judah, and their NDPA team!
As my friend Dan often says about EOIR, “you can’t make this stuff up!”🤯
Well, the panel judges all agree that the BIA is wrong! It’s just a question of HOW wrong.
Note Van Dyke is a Trump appointee, and one of the most far-right judges on the bench. Murphy is a Bush II appointee. Sanchez (concur/dissent) is a Biden appointee.
The BIA has to have worked overtime to do such a miserable job that even Van Dyke couldn’t paper it over, although he took a stab at it!
The majority decision is basically a restatement of the 4th Circuit’s pre-REAL ID precedent Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). That case materially affected practices, changed results, and saved lives during my tenure at the “Legacy”Arlington Immigration Court!
So, it’s not that requiring that testimony be evaluated along with independent, non-testimonial evidence is something “new” or “rocket science!”🚀 Heck, it’s even incorporated in the REAL ID Act. This is “Immigration 101!” Yet, theBIA came up woefully short while Garland ignores fundamental flaws in his judicial system.
It’s well worth looking at a bit more of Judge Gabriel Sanchez’s vigorous separate opinion:
Petitioner Milly Kalulu, a native of Zambia, alleges she
was persecuted because she is a lesbian in a country that
criminalizes same-sex relationships. When her relationship
with a woman was discovered by her girlfriend’s brothers,
she was beaten, whipped, injected with an unknown
substance, stabbed in the chest, doused with gasoline, and
threatened with death over several violent encounters.
Kalulu submitted documentary evidence corroborating her
claims, including a copy of her medical report, a declaration
from her aunt in California, and declarations from several
Zambians who witnessed the attacks on her. The agency,
however, dismissed this evidence based on unsupportable or
trivial grounds.
I agree with the majority that the agency failed to
consider whether Kalulu’s supporting evidence
independently proves her claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). “Where potentially dispositive testimony and
documentary evidence is submitted, the BIA must give
reasoned consideration to that evidence.” Cole v. Holder,
659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Antonio v.
On the basis of his robust SOTU performance, I have every confidence that President Biden can more than adequately defend himself from the “Hur report.” Sadly, the same can’t necessarily be said for all the asylum seekers and other immigrants harmed by Garland’s indifference to systemic injustice in his “courts!”
This is the real “immigration crisis” that threatens our legal system and our democracy!
(Reuters) – A conservative judge appointed by former President Donald Trump on Monday accused his colleagues on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of playing “dirty” in a “trainwreck” of rulings to prevent immigrants from being deported.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s criticism came in a dissent to a 2-1 decision holding a Mexican native’s California conviction for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime was not a deportable offense under federal immigration law.
VanDyke, who has become known for a string of dissents since joining the liberal-leaning court in 2020, noted he had not been shy in criticizing the San Francisco-based court’s “abysmal and indefensible immigration precedents.”
He said the 9th Circuit for more than a decade has been “doing everything in our power (and much not) to upset” the Board of Immigration Appeals’ “reasonable” interpretation of what constitutes an offense related to obstruction of justice.
The BIA in this case had concluded Fernando Cordero-Garcia committed such an offense after he was convicted in California of sexual battery without restraint, sexual exploitation by a psychotherapist and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime.
“My colleagues in the majority should be embarrassed,” VanDyke wrote. “Perhaps not for their wrong decision today–to err is human, after all, even for those in robes. But they should be troubled by our court’s jaw-dropping, always-increasing, epic collection of immigration gaffes.”Cordero-Garcia’s lawyer, Michael Mehr, declined to comment.
Cordero-Garcia, who entered the country in 1965 as a lawful permanent resident, was a psychologist for the County of Santa Barbara Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services department who prosecutors said sexually assaulted patients, the ruling said.
Two appointees of Democratic presidents — U.S. District Judge Barry Moskowitz, a visiting judge on the court, and U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz — ruled for Cordero-Garcia in overturning the BIA’s decision on the obstruction offense.
Moskowitz, writing for the majority, said he was not writing on a “clean slate,” as the 9th Circuit in 2020 ruled an “obstruction of justice” offense must be connected to ongoing or pending criminal proceedings.
The California law Cordero-Garcia was convicted under, by contrast, does not require any connection to an ongoing or pending proceeding or investigation, making it “not an appropriate comparator” to obstruction under federal law.
VanDyke, though, said the 9th Circuit’s approach had created a “lopsided circuit-split,” with the majority acknowledging its ruling ran counter to decisions by the 1st and 4th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The case is Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-72779.
For Cordero-Garcia: Michael Mehr of Mehr & Soto
For the United States: Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips of the U.S. Department of Justice
While VanDyke has been eager to rip into his colleagues for critically reviewing BIA rulings, rather than just “rubber stamp deferring,” he is no stranger to controversy. He received the coveted “not qualified to serve” rating from the ABA and has been characterized as an “unqualified hack” by Joe Patrice over at abovethelaw.com.https://abovethelaw.com/2021/12/ninth-circuit-judge-has-had-it-with-trump-judges-insulting-dissents/.
Interestingly, a chunk of the dissent is dedicated to showing that Mr. Cordero-Garcia is a louse. However, that doesn’t seem to have much to do with the legal application of the “categorical test” to his crime in the immigration context. For all its difficulties, Congress was well aware that courts had historically applied the “categorical test” as opposed to the “sounds like a bad guy” approach when they enacted the statutory language in question.
Curiously, VanDyke castigates his majority colleagues for “result oriented” decision making. But it seems highly unlikely that either District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, who wrote the opinion, or Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz would have chosen Mr. Cordero-Garcia’s situation as one to “throw out a lifeline.”
What’s more likely is that they fairly applied controlling Circuit precedent notwithstanding the highly unsympathetic individual involved. By contrast, critics have characterized VanDyke as an ideologue — driven by a far-right agenda — whose main focus on the bench has been “writing vitriolic Town Hall editorials to publish in F.4th.” Id.
From a due process standpoint, one of the most severe problems undermining our entire justice system today is the disturbingly poor performance of the BIA which often functions as a “rubber stamp” on incorrect anti-immigrant decisions by Immigration Judges, many of them appointed during the Trump Administration with questionable credentials, at best. That’s when the BIA isn’t busy serving as a “shill” for DHS Enforcement — often bending the law or going out of their way to sustain ICE appeals from correct decisions below that grant relief or benefit individuals. BIA precedents favorable to asylum seekers and other migrants are few and far between — despite an obvious lack of immigration and human rights expertise among many Trump appointees to the immigration bench.
The problem is compounded when reviewing Circuit Courts ignore the glaring Constitutional conflict of having a “court” that is “owned” by an enforcement agency (and was blatantly “weaponized” against migrants by Sessions and Barr) and the poor quality decision making, lack of scholarship, and overt bias that plagues EOIR. “Rubber stamp deference” to BIA decisions that do not deserve it is a systemic problem for the Article IIIs, actively encouraged by the Supremes judge-created Chevron and Brand X doctrines of undue deference. From this perspective, VanDyke and many (not all) of his Trump colleagues are a big part of the problem — not the solution!
Michael K. Mehr ESQ! Senior Partner Mehr & Soto LLP Santa Cruz, CA PHOTO: Website
Many congrats to Michael Mehr for vigorously and successfully litigating this complex issue in the 9th Circuit. It’s telling to compare the “quiet competence” of dedicated, expert advocates like Mehr with the “bombastic grandstanding” of VanDyke and others in the xenophobic right. Mehr and others in the NDPA have honed their their advocacy and scholarship skills by decades of giving a “voice” to those who otherwise are seldom “heard” by the powers that be.
Undoubtedly, given the circuit split, this eventually will end up at the Supremes. There, VanDyke’s fellow Trump appointees could well agree with him. But, that might be more reflective of problems with the composition of today’s Supremes than with the law. Stay tuned!
