⚖️9TH PANEL LETS IT ALL HANG OUT ON IMMIGRATION CASE — Goulart v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/11/18/19-72007.pdf

From the dissent by U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman, EDNY, sitting by designation:

Goulart is not a sympathetic character. I can understand the desire to remove convicted burglars from this country. Indeed, Judge VanDyke questions why I have bothered to “champion” the cause of a convicted burglar. The answer should be obvious. The judicial oath, which was adopted in the Judiciary Act of 1789, requires us to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” See 1 Stat. 73, 76 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 453). We take such an oath, which derives from biblical teachings, see Deuteronomy 1:17, so as not to be blinded by our like or dislike of the parties. We are not called to decide whether Goulart is a good person, but rather whether a person who has been banished from the United States without legal justification should be permitted to seek to return. The Supreme Court has held that the precise statute under which Goulart was deported violates the Constitution. Principles of law and equity require that he be permitted to move for reconsideration in this case. I respectfully dissent.

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

Wow! Three opinions on a three-judge panel! Been there, done that! Reminds me of my long gone days on the “Schmidt BIA” when we all took our jobs seriously, even if it often didn’t result in “fake unanimity” (the watchword of today’s dysfunctional BIA).

For those who like to apply “ideological analysis” to Article III decisions, this one doesn’t “fit the mold:”

Judge Richard A. Paez (“majority” opinion) is a Clinton appointee.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke (concurring opinion) is a Trump appointee.

Judge Edward R. Korman (dissenting opinion) is a Reagan appointee.

That being said, the majority’s rationale that a deported respondent should have been a “legal clairvoyant,” predicting the eventual Supreme Court decision finding the statute under which he was convicted unconstitutional, is a piece of absurdist legal sophistry. Wonder what the result might have been if the panel majority didn’t look at him as an “alien bank robber,” not deserving of fair treatment or legal rights? Reminds me of what my former “boss” the late “Iron Mike” Inman used to yell at me during heated arguments at the “Legacy INS OGC:” “What did they teach you at that law school!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-20-21

⚖️👎🏽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

⚖️👎🏽GARLAND’S BIA DENIES DUE PROCESS TO UNREPRESENTED WOMAN TRYING TO FILE OWN APPEAL, SAYS 9TH CIR. — Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland (2-1)

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

Here’s a link to the published decision:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021g/09/28/20-70187.PDFs

Here’s a “key quote” from Judge Susan Graber’s majority decision:

In summary, Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal was sufficiently specific to inform the BIA of two issues that she was challenging, given her status as a pro se litigant. Therefore, the BIA violated her right to due process by summarily dismissing her appeal. Whether Petitioner’s claims are meritorious is not before us; that question is for the BIA to decide in the first instance. We remand to the BIA for it to consider the merits of Petitioner’s claims.

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

The BIA likes to dump on unrepresented individuals with summary dismissals because it “generates numbers” and helps fulfill “production goals” without requiring much attention or thinking. As Judge Graber noted, there is no doubt that a minimally competent BIA Appellate Judge could tell exactly what aspects of the IJ’s decision the pro se respondent was challenging. Encouraged to cut corners by their DOJ overlords, the BIA simply found it more expedient to deny without answering the respondent’s objections to the IJ’s decision.

This is just a glimpse into the daily due-process-denying operations of the BIA under Garland. Sometimes, these improper actions get “outed.” But, that would be the exception. Planning to throw 200 new judges into a broken, corner-cutting system, without addressing its obvious defects, is not a a recipe for success! And, relying on this version of the BIA to keep new or incumbent IJs “in line” or promote consistency and “best judicial practices” among what would be approximately 750 IJs nationwide is simply absurd! This is the type of “solution” that only could be proposed by someone who had never represented an individual in Immigration Court!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-28-17

⚖️YET ANOTHER BIA PRECEDENT, MATTER OF SORAM, 25 I&N DEC. 378 (BIA 2010), BITES THE DUST IN 9TH CIR. — “We conclude that the text of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses.” — Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland (2-1)

Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland, 9th Cir., 09-10-21, published

Here’s the opinion:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/10/13-73719.pdf

PANEL: Consuelo M. Callahan and*Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Watford; Dissent by Judge Callahan

* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

STAFF SUMMARY:

Granting Rafael Diaz-Rodriguez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that child endangerment, in violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a), does not constitute “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

In Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018), a divided panel held to the contrary, and a majority of the non-recused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. However, after the petitioner passed away, the en banc court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the panel decision. The panel here observed that Martinez-Cedillo is no longer binding precedent, but explained that between its issuance and the decision to rehear the case en banc, two published opinions relied on it: Menendez v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2018), and Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2018).

The panel concluded that the unusual circumstance here led it to conclude that this case falls outside the scope of the general rule that three-judge panels are bound to follow published decisions of prior panels. The panel explained that both Alvarez-Cerriteno and Menendez simply followed Martinez-Cedillo as then-binding precedent without engaging in independent analysis of the deference issue, and

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND 3

both decisions were effectively insulated from en banc review on that issue. The panel explained that both decisions are irreconcilable with a subsequent decision of the court sitting en banc because their reliance on Martinez-Cedillo is in conflict with the en banc court’s decision to designate that decision as non-precedential.

Applying the categorical approach, the panel identified the elements of California Penal Code § 273a(a): causing or permitting a child “to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered,” committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence. As to the federal offense, the panel explained that Congress enacted the ground of removability at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and did not define the phrase “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” In Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), however, the BIA held that the phrase encompassed child endangerment offenses committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. In considering whether Soram was entitled to deference, the panel was guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017), where the Court observed that the term “sexual abuse of a minor” was undefined and then looked to normal tools of statutory interpretation in concluding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of it.

Applying this approach, the panel concluded that deference was precluded at Chevron step one because the text of §1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses. First, the panel explained that contemporary legal dictionaries from the time of IIRIRA’s enactment indicate that child abuse, child neglect, and child

4 DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND

abandonment were well-understood concepts with distinct meanings that do not encompass one-time negligent child endangerment offenses. Second, the panel explained that the statutory structure suggested that Congress deliberately omitted child endangerment from the list of offenses specified in § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Third, the panel explained that the general consensus drawn from state criminal codes confirms that the phrase does not encompass negligent child endangerment offenses. The panel noted that the fourth source consulted in Esquivel-Quintana, related federal criminal statutes, did not aid its analysis.

Because a violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a) can be committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence, the panel concluded that it is not a categorical match for “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” Accordingly, the panel concluded that Diaz-Rodriguez’s conviction under that statute did not render him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that she was compelled to dissent for two reasons. First, she did not agree that the three-judge panel could disregard Menendez and Alvarez-Cerriteno. Second, Judge Callahan did not agree with the majority’s peculiar reading of the phrase as not encompassing a child endangerment offense committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. Judge Callahan wrote that majority’s suggestion that § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) is unambiguous is contrary to precedent and the unanimous opinions of the court’s sister circuits. Moreover, she wrote that the majority failed to recognize that the court’s task is limited to reviewing the agency’s interpretation for “reasonableness.” Instead, the majority proffered its own definition based primarily on selected dictionary definitions and its own research.

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

Who knows how this eventually will come out? But, what I can guarantee is until it is finally resolved, by the Supremes or otherwise, immigration practitioners and their clients will have a mess of inconsistency and bad decisions by EOIR on their hands.

Complicated issues involving criminal law come up all the time in EOIR “detention courts,” located in the Mayorkas/Garland “New American Gulag,” where many respondents are unrepresented or under-represented. How would an unrepresented respondent be able to prepare a “defense” like this? No way! The entire EOIR system suffers from some extreme constitutional problems that Garland has done nothing to address.

Having bad precedents like this in effect for a decade or more, almost always tilted toward DHS enforcement, results in many wrongful removals, as well as numerous remands and “redos” that help increase the astronomical 1.4 million case backlog! Having better judges on the BIA, real independent jurists with practical scholarly expertise, unafraid to interpret statutes and apply the law in favor of respondents when that is the “better view,” and to impose “best practices” on the Immigration Courts, is a necessary first step in addressing EOIR’s many legal and operational shortcomings.

It appears that Garland is disinterested in meaningful due process reforms and inserting real progressive judicial leadership into EOIR. The good news: With the vast majority of the immigration, human rights, and constitutional expertise and legal talent now in the private sector, and more talent coming out of law schools all the time, the NDPA stands a good chance of “litigating Garland’s failed EOIR to a standstill” over the next four years.

While that’s hardly the most desirable result, it would be infinitely better than the continuing due-process-denying “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland currently runs at EOIR! Sometimes, you just have to take what the opposition gives you!

At what point will “powers that be” finally pay attention to the ongoing disaster at EOIR? When the backlog reaches 1.5 million? 2 million? 3 million? 4 million? 5 million? How many unjust and illegal removals will take place, and how many lives and futures irrevocably altered or ruined before this dysfunctional system finally reaches its “breaking point?”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-13-21

⚠️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

🤮☠️ GARLAND’S EOIR STAR CHAMBERS CONTINUE TO GRIND OUT ANTI-ASYLUM TRAVESTIES! — Read What Passes For “Justice” In Garland’s Deadly Parody Of A Court System!

Garland’s “right hand man” on EOIR matters is eerily familiar, in a Himmleresque way! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Kangaroos — “Miller’s Mob” is still alive and well at Garland’s EOIR. Legal asylum seekers — not so well, not so alive!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action — At Garland’s BIA, a “Miller-trained and inspired” Asylum Panel can, and does, kill dozens of unarmed asylum seekers in a single day to “make quota.” Despite being thoroughly discredited for judicial use, Garland has inexplicably continued due-process-denying, corner-cutting, quality-killing “production quotas” for his assembly line worker/judges in Immigration Courts!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/25/19-72890.pdf

CA9 on Credibility: Munyuh v. Garland

Munyuh v. Garland

“Ms. Munyuh’s case concerns us. From our reading of the record, the IJ seemed determined to pick every nit she could find. Besides erring procedurally, the IJ discounted probative evidence on flimsy grounds and displayed a dubious understanding of how rape survivors ought to act. Although we give great deference to the IJ as factfinder, substantial-evidence review does not require us to credit the credibility finding of an IJ who cherry-picks from—or misconstrues—the record to reach it. The IJ must consider the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). At the very least, the two legal errors we have identified warrant remand. The IJ erred by failing to give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting Ms. Munyuh’s reasonable, plausible explanations for the discrepancies tied to her declaration that the police truck broke down after only four or five kilometers. And she further erred by discounting the supporting documentation without giving Ms. Munyuh adequate notice and opportunity to provide corroborative evidence. We therefore vacate the removal order and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. PETITION GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Ronald D. Richey!]

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

Congrats to Attorney Ronald D. Richey, who appeared before me many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.

Here’s a quote from the opinion by Senior Circuit Judge Danny Boggs, a Reagan appointee “on loan” from the 6th Cir., that shows the appallingly unprofessional performance of the Immigration Judge and the BIA in this “life or death” case:

On this point, the IJ made findings with which no reasonable factfinder could agree. She found Ms. Munyuh’s testimony that “the truck had traveled over two hours” to conflict with her earlier estimate that it had traveled “over an hour.” And she found Ms. Munyuh’s redirect testimony that “the truck [had] traveled approximately four to five hours before breaking down” to be “clearly in conflict with each of [Ms. Munyuh]’s prior estimations.”

But these time estimates are all consistent with each other. Indeed, assuming the truck really had traveled for four to five hours, Ms. Munyuh had no other choice but to give those answers. The IJ asked her if the truck had traveled more or less than an hour, to which Ms. Munyuh said more than an hour. Then the IJ asked whether the truck had traveled at least two hours, to which Ms. Munyuh answered in the affirmative.

No reasonable factfinder could find those two statements to conflict with Ms. Munyuh’s later testimony that the truck traveled for four to five hours. The IJ’s contrary finding is therefore unsupported by substantial evidence.

Wow! Is this what constituted “acceptable performance” when Judge Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? And, don’t forget, OIL actually defended this garbage product in May 2021, well after Garland took office and after experts had advised him to “clean house.”

The bad judges at EOIR whose lack of competence and/or bias unfairly condemn asylum seekers to persecution, torture and death, or all three, do NOT have life tenure and should NOT be on the Immigration Bench. Period! It’s not rocket science!

“No reasonable fact finder.” Isn’t that a problem in life or death cases? So-called “judges” who time after time stretch and misinterpret facts, ignore due process, and misapply basic asylum law to unfairly sentence asylum seekers to death! Why isn’t this grounds for removal from the bench? Or at least removing them from all asylum cases!

While Judge Boggs and his colleagues are rightfully “concerned” with EOIR’s performance in this case, Garland doesn’t appear to share those concerns. This is “business as usual” at Garland’s EOIR, just as it was when Stephen Miller was calling the shots! Obviously, Garland isn’t taking the human lives at stake here with even a modicum of seriousness. That’s totally unacceptable! Maybe Judge Boggs needs to pick up pen ✒️ and paper 📜 and express his outrage in writing to his former Circuit Court colleague, attaching an annotated copy of the garbage being turned out by his EOIR Star Chambers!

Star Chamber Justice — Just look the other way, it’s the Garland way! “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Also, don’t think that cases like this are an “aberration.” No, they aren’t! The only “aberration” is that this is one of a tiny sliver of injustices that was actually caught and corrected by the Article IIIs. How many unrepresented or under-represented individuals do you think that this judge and this BIA panel “railroad” in a week?

🏴‍☠️⚰️THEATER OF THE ABSURD: Incredibly, Garland & Mayorkas are now proposing to put this “Miller-Lite” EOIR infested with many incompetent, poorly trained, asylum-denying “judges,” with no credible leadership, totally lacking in professionalism and quality control, “in charge” of establishing precedents, insuring, and enforcing due process in their proposed “streamlined” asylum system! In other words, the solution for those who have repeatedly demonstrated an outrageous inability to conduct fair hearings and whose ignorance of asylum law and best practices is often stunning is to put them in charge of doing “paper reviews” of applications denied by Asylum Officers!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/18/%F0%9F%97%BDcourtsides-instant-analysis-bidens-proposed-asylum-regs-advocates-beware-%E2%9A%A0%EF%B8%8F%E2%98%B9%EF%B8%8F-despite-a-potentially-workable-framework-adminis/

Good luck with that! Could there be a more insane proposal under current conditions? Making Stephen Miller the new “Asylum Czar” at EOIR? Perhaps, don’t be surprised!

Of course, in the nutsos world of Garland and Mayorkas, their fatally flawed proposal arguably would be a better than the current illegal and immoral use of Miller’s bogus Title 42 scheme to return legal asylum seekers to torture or death WITHOUT ANY PROCESS WHATSOEVER.

It’s simple. A complete “housecleaning” at EOIR, starting with the BIA, new progressive leadership and professional expert training at EOIR and the Asylum Office, new progressive asylum precedents and guidance, and an operating program for universal representation of asylum seekers are ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITES for fair and efficient regulatory reform of the asylum system! In the meantime, allow Asylum Officers to grant asylum to those who pass credible fear, but continue to give full Immigration Court hearings to any who can’t be granted. Get rid of Title 42 and start processing legal asylum seekers in an orderly fashion through ports of entry!

More than seven months into the Administration, Garland and Mayorkas could, and should, have had these needed progressive personnel, leadership, and structural changes in place, producing due process, and most important, actually saving lives! Instead, they have wasted time and squandered goodwill by continuing to run Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist system with Miller’s personnel in place! Simply incredible!

And, the bumbling, highly predictable weakness of the team of DOJ lawyers trying to defend the Administration’s few humanitarian immigration initiatives has become patently obvious. How can you expect lawyers who have spent the last four years misrepresenting asylum seekers as less than human and a threat to society suddenly start setting the record straight and effectively advocating for their human and legal rights? Obviously, they can’t! While EOIR is clearly the most glaringly dysfunctional part of DOJ, it’s obviously not the only problem and the only place Team Garland needed to (but didn’t) “clean house.”

I “get” that this isn’t Judge Bell’s, Ben Civiletti’s, or Janet Reno’s DOJ any more! But, remarkably, and tragically for the poor souls and their lawyers involved, Garland doesn’t!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-21

☠️⚰️👎🏽BIDEN ADMINISTRATION EMBRACES “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” — SUPREMES LIKELY TO HELP THEM OUT!🤮

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/08/supreme-court-to-review-bond-hearings-for-detained-immigrants.html

Dean Kevin Johnson posts on ImmigrationProf Blog:

Monday, August 23, 2021

Supreme Court To Review Bond Hearings For Detained Immigrants

By Immigration Prof

Share

The Supreme Court has decided a number of immigrant detention cases in recent years. Next Term brings another case. Alyssa Aquino for Law360 reports that the Court agreed today to review a Ninth Circuit decision that required bond hearings for immigrants who have been detained for more than six months with final removal orders. A split ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the federal government to hold bond hearings for detained migrants, and that the government bears the burden of proving that detainees are a flight risk or public safety threat.

The consolidated cases are Garland. v. Gonzalez and Tae D. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez. Amy Howe on SCOTUSBlog offers some background on the cases her.

KJ

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

Notice any difference between the Biden-Harris campaign rhetoric and actual performance once elected?

Never know when a “due process free zone” where individuals not charged with crimes can be detained forever without individualized bond determinations will be a handy hammer to have in your toolbox!

And, don’t forget those huge profits being raked in by the private detention industry, so beloved by DHS and politicos who receive contributions and can tout the “job creation” in the Gulag! Also, states and localities who rent out substandard prison space on questionable contracts love the Gulag!

Significantly, none of the lower court decisions the Biden Administration seeks to overturn requires the release of anyone! Nope! All the lower courts have done is to give the “civil prisoners” a right to plead their cases for release and to require the Government to provide an individualized rationale for continued indefinite detention! Sure sounds like simple due process to me!

Maybe, if Garland, Mayorkas, and the Supremes had a chance to spend a few “overnights in the Gulag” they would take the Fifth Amendment’s application to people of color in our nation and pleading for their lives at our borders more seriously!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag,” Never!

PWS

08-24-21

☠️ 9TH CIR. PELTS BIA WITH MORE ROTTEN TOMATOES 🍅! — Attempt To Deport Refugee Woman Entitled To Asylum, Withholding & CAT Thwarted! — BIA Wrongly Conflates Registered Nurse With Taxi Driver In Insane Misogynistic Bid To Return Mexicana Refugee To Death!⚰️👎🏽

Woman Tortured — “Taxi to Falls Church, anyone?”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 9th Cir., 08-20-21, (Panel = Fletcher, Watford, Collins; Opinion = Fletcher)

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/20/19-73312.pdf

Court staff summary:

. . . .

Citing Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (BIA 1985), the Board concluded that “female nurses” were not a cognizable “particular social group” because being a nurse, like being a taxi driver, is not an immutable characteristic. The panel held that the Board erred by simply citing Matter of Acosta, and failing to provide any meaningful analysis about the immutability of “female nurses.” The panel explained that in contrast to Acosta, Plancarte cannot avoid compulsion by the cartel simply by changing jobs, because even if she ceased employment as a nurse, she would still be a nurse, as she has received specialized medical training and has a professional license as a nurse. Moreover, the cartel targeted Plancarte precisely because of her specialized nursing skills, and threatened her and her family with torture and death to force her to use those skills to provide medical treatment to the cartel. Thus, regardless of whether she would continue to work as a licensed nurse, Plancarte lacks “the power to change” the immutable nursing characteristics—her medical knowledge and nursing skills—that make her important to the cartel. The panel therefore granted the petition with respect to Plancarte’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remanded for consideration of the other required characteristics of her proposed particular social group of “female nurses.”

Turning to Plancarte’s CAT claim, the panel concluded that the Board’s decision ignored uncontradicted record evidence showing both acquiescence and direct involvement by government officials. The panel held that substantial evidence therefore compelled the conclusion that there was official involvement and acquiescence in the cartel forcing Plancarte to provide medical treatment to cartel members. The panel granted the petition with respect to CAT, and remanded for a determination whether the likelihood of

4 PLANCARTE SAUCEDA V. GARLAND

torture if Plancarte were returned to Mexico is sufficient to warrant CAT relief.

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

Welcome to the “any reason to deny culture” at Garland’s EOIR!

In addition to the gross errors noted by the panel, I also think that there is a winning argument that being a registered nurse is “fundamental to identity” and therefore not something we should require an individual to change. Put it in today’s COVID context, for Pete’s sake!

Think that being a lawyer isn’t “fundamental” to the identity of a BIA Appellate Judge, an Immigration Judge, or an Article III Judge? Only when these “judges” are thinking of ways to deny protection to others do they engage in such obvious intellectual dishonesty and absurd reasoning!

This is the type of case that should have been a “quick grant” and a precedent for other grants of protection in a functioning justice system! Instead it’s an disaster! One that just happens to have been “outed” by a conscientious Court of Appeals panel — something no person of color can count on! It should be no mystery why this maliciously incompetent system creates huge, growing, out of control backlogs while squandering public resources and destroying lives!

Immigration Court — Failure
BIA — Failure
OIL — Failure
Garland — Failure

And this gang is going to be in charge of setting precedents and protecting due process and human rights of women and other asylum seekers under the Administration’s proposed “streamlined” asylum system? Absurd! It will be a death sentence for far too many refugees!

Congrats to Vallerye Allyn Anderson for saving a life here! Her outstanding performance and understanding of human rights were far superior to that of any “judge” or other DOJ lawyer involved in this case. So, why are the wrong judges still making life or death decisions at EOIR without competent “adult supervision” from qualified judges at the BIA with expertise in asylum law and the guts to apply it correctly, humanely, and generously? See, e.g., Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga. Just hope that Vallerye and others like her will pursue EOIR judgeships until the disgraceful, deadly, two-decade old “progressive expert lockout from the 21st Century Immigration Judiciary” finally ends and quality, courage, and due process prevail!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Failure to “clean house” of Miller Lite White Nationalism, it’s acolytes, go along to get along toady enablers, and to bring common sense, long overdue, obvious, recommended, available progressive human rights reforms and better judges and leaders to EOIR — An ongoing national disgrace!🤮

PWS

08-22-21

👎🏽🤮EOIR DENIES DUE PROCESS, AGAIN! — Proper Notice Is “Of Signal Importance” For Due Process In Our Justice System — Except For Those In Immigration Court Where You Have To Litigate To The Circuit To Get Basic Rights Guaranteed To All! — This Is What “Dred Scottification” & “Systematic De-Personification” In A Totally Dysfunctional Outlaw Tribunal Looks Like! — Meet NDPA “Rising Star” Karen S. Monrreal, Esq., Who “Bested” Garland’s DOJ In Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland (9th Cir.)!

Dan Kowalski reports in LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-due-process-flores-rodriguez-v-garland

CA9 on Due Process: Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland

Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland

“The IJ’s failure to put Flores-Rodriguez on notice of this central issue in his case denied him “a full and fair hearing” by preventing him from submitting significant testimony and other evidence. Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971. Because the IJ’s conduct potentially affected the outcome of the proceedings, Flores-Rodriguez has also suffered prejudice. Id. For these reasons, a due process violation warranting reversal has occurred. We express no opinion whether, if Flores-Rodriguez had received notice and defended against the claim that he had made false claims of citizenship, he would have likely prevailed or to the contrary been held inadmissible. But what is of signal importance in our system of justice is that when a person is charged with a crime or charged with allegations warranting removal from the country, that person is fairly entitled to notice of the claims against him and an opportunity to be heard in opposition. Because that opportunity was not given here, we grant the petition and remand to the BIA with instructions that it hold whatever future proceedings are necessary to ensure due process is given to Flores-Rodriguez before decision is made. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.”

[Hats off to Karen S. Monrreal!]

Karen S. Monrreal, Esquire
Reno, NV

******************
Many, many congrats Karen! You are quickly establishing yourself as a “fearless warrior queen” of the NDPA. 🛡⚔️ Looking forward to a time when you and others like you will take your places on the Immigration Court and other Federal Benches. That will bring some much needed, and obviously now missing, expertise, courage, humanity, practicality, and diversity to our Federal Judicial system that is stale, out of step, non-representative of our diverse nation, and floundering from top to bottom, even as the future of our democracy remains in peril.

Here’s an inspiring video about Karen and how and why she became an immigration attorney:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjisfnSorjyAhXMneAKHVkYAqMQwqsBegQIFxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8CMfnvxMaKk&usg=AOvVaw3jOePmv5PGtnWvd2TeEB3M

Thanks for being such a great role model, Karen, for the “new generation” of the NDPA! And believe me, those of us in the “Over the Hill Brigade” of the NDPA are out there recruiting all the time!

Wow! Providing due process before making a final decision! What a radical concept! Clearly at odds with the Sessions/Barr emphasis on prejudging cases in favor of ICE enforcement and against individuals and their “dirty lawyers” out to “game” the system. That’s what the “rote form denial orders” that Sessions and Barr encouraged to generate more removals are all about! No need to know much about the law or the facts of the case. Just fill in the blanks and check “denied” and “removed!”

It’s telling, however, that even with a massive increase in judges, these “corner cutting restrictionist gimmicks” astronomically increased an already out of control backlog of cases, even while denying fair hearings to thousands! Seven months into the Biden Administration (which has the remarkable benefit of numerous “expert action plans” for reducing backlog without denying due process), that backlog continues to grow with no apparent plan for controlling it.

🔌 How many “Team Garland” Senior Officials does it take to pull this at EOIR?

Will Garland ever “pull the plug” on this parody of a “court” that keeps “blowing the basics” with human lives and futures at stake? Not very surprising when expertise is “optional” and due process takes a back seat to “cranking out removal orders” and meeting clearly unethical, due-process-denying “quotas.” Also, it’s one where a bureaucratic judicial selection process designed by the last Administration to “dumb down” and “bias out” the Immigration Courts in favor of DHS Enforcement is still in use!

One can imagine a court system where repeated significant due process violations, questionable ethics, continuing substandard legal performance, disturbing lack of subject matter expertise, grotesque inconsistencies, and statistically inexplicable patterns of anti-individual decision-making would raise some “red flags” among peers and those charged with maintaining professional standards. These days, however, it appears that only failure to meet “production quotas” or actually taking extra time to get decisions right can get an EOIR judge in hot water.

Gotta wonder what Judge Garland would have thought if one of his Article III colleagues produced “garbage work” like this on, say, a routine Federal Tort Claims case? He probably would have been pretty upset and acted accordingly.

But, where it’s only people’s lives and futures at stake — “the loss of everything that makes life worth living” as famously stated by the Supremes of yore — anything seems “good enough for government work” in Garland’s malfunctioning, yet deadly and inefficient, “clown courts.” 🤡 (NOTE: With a sense of false optimism, I had hoped to put the poor “EOIR Clown Emoji” — forced to work extreme overtime during the Trump Kakistocracy — out to rest. But, alas, Garland’s failure to take the lives and rights of migrants, not to mention the health, welfare, and sanity of my litigating colleagues, seriously, and his inability to connect the dots between officially-sanctioned injustice @ EOIR and injustice throughout our society, has forced him back into duty!)

I must admit that I don’t “get it” as to why Garland thinks this is acceptable performance by a public agency and fails to take the obvious steps to end to this ongoing disgrace that ruins human lives, frustrates hard-working private lawyers trying to do their jobs (actually the only folks, in addition to some in the NAIJ, keeping this sinking boat afloat right now), and undermines our entire justice system! It also diminishes his own reputation, stature, and legacy.

Many of us understand that the Biden Administration can never attain racial justice in America as long as racially charged injustice, lack of due process, and bad judging prevails in our Immigration Courts. Tragic that those in charge haven’t achieved that same level of enlightenment, understanding, and urgency! Delay in making long overdue progressive reforms and personnel changes costs lives, squanders resources, and further undermines our democracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-17-21

⚖️9TH CIR.’S PROGRESSIVES TAKE IT ON THE NOSE FROM CONSERVATIVE COLLEAGUES & SUPREMES — Dissent Matters — Immigration Among Key Supremes’ Reversals

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-07-13/with-trump-appointees-9th-circuit-suffers-another-year-of-reversals-at-supreme-court

David G. Savage & Maura Dolan report in the LA Times:

. . . .

“There is still a large cohort of liberal judges” on the 9th Circuit, said Ed Whelan, a conservative legal analyst in Washington, “but there are now many conservative appointees who are vigilant in calling them out.”

In total, 47 judges sit on the 9th Circuit — 24 appointed by Republicans going back to President Nixon, and 23 named by Democrats starting with President Carter.

Many of those judges work part time. Of the full-time jurists, 16 are Democratic and 13 are Republican appointees.

The size of the circuit — the nation’s largest — partly explains why its cases are often subject to Supreme Court review.

“The 9th Circuit is so vastly larger than any other circuit that it is inevitable they are going to take more 9th Circuit cases,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school.

Although this year’s 9th Circuit reversal rate was unusually high, the high court in fact overturned 80% of all the cases it reviewed, Chemerinsky noted.

Moreover, only a tiny percentage of appellate decisions are reviewed by the Supreme Court. Typically, the 9th Circuit hands down about 13,000 rulings a year.

Chemerinsky noted the Supreme Court overturned several 9th Circuit cases on immigration and habeas corpus, the legal vehicle for releasing someone from detention. “The 9th Circuit is historically more liberal on immigration and habeas cases,” he said.

Some reversals occurred in cases that were not ideological, however: The high court overturned a 9th Circuit decision by Republican appointees on what constitutes a robocall.

Though the Supreme Court split along ideological lines on property rights, voting rights and conservative donor cases from the 9th Circuit, the justices were unanimous in reversing the 9th Circuit in several immigration cases.

On June 1, they overturned a unique 9th Circuit rule set by the late liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Over nearly 20 years, he had written that the testimony of a person seeking asylum based on a fear of persecution must be “deemed credible” unless an immigration judge made an “explicit” finding that they were not to be believed.

In one of his last opinions, Reinhardt approved of asylum for Ming Dai, a Chinese citizen who arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa and applied for refugee status for himself and his family. He said they were fleeing China’s forced abortion policy.

Only later did immigration authorities learn that his wife and daughter had returned to China because they had good jobs and schooling there, but the husband had no job to return to.

An immigration judge had set out the full story and denied the asylum application, only to be be reversed in a 2-1 ruling by a 9th Circuit panel. The panel cited Reinhardt’s rule and noted that although evidence emerged casting doubt on Dai’s claims, there had been no “explicit” finding by an immigration judge so his story had to be accepted.

“Over the years, our circuit has manufactured misguided rules regarding the credibility of political asylum seekers,” Senior Judge Stephen S. Trott wrote in dissent. Later, 11 other appellate judges joined dissents arguing for scrapping this rule.

Last fall, Trump administration lawyers cited those dissents and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case. They noted the importance of the 9th Circuit in asylum cases. Because of its liberal reputation, “the 9th Circuit actually entertains more petitions for review than all of the other circuits combined,” the lawyers said.

In overturning the appeals court in a 9-0 ruling, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch began by noting that “at least 12 members of the 9th Circuit have objected to this judge-made rule.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered another 9-0 ruling holding that an immigrant arrested for an “unlawful entry” after having been deported years ago may not contest the basis of his original deportation. The 9th Circuit had said such a defendant may argue his deportation was “fundamentally unfair,” but “the statute does not permit such an exception,” Sotomayor said in U.S. vs. Palomar-Santiago.

The high court’s furthest-reaching immigration ruling did not originate with the 9th Circuit, but it nonetheless overturned a 9th Circuit decision.

At issue was whether the more than 400,000 immigrants who had been living and working in the U.S. under temporary protected status were eligible for long-term green cards. The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit said no, rejecting a green card for a Salvadoran couple who had entered the country illegally in the 1990s and had lived and worked in New Jersey ever since.

The 9th Circuit had taken the opposite view; Trump lawyers cited this split as a reason the high court should take up the New Jersey case. On June 7, Justice Elena Kagan spoke for the high court in ruling that the 3rd Circuit was right and the 9th Circuit wrong. To obtain lawful permanent status, the immigration law first “requires a lawful admission,” she said in Sanchez vs. Majorkas.

The 9th Circuit’s sole affirmance came in a significant case: By a 9-0 vote in NCAA vs. Alston, the justices agreed with the 9th Circuit that college sports authorities could be sued under antitrust laws for conspiring to make billions of dollars while insisting the star athletes go unpaid.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

This confirms the importance of the Biden Administration getting more progressive voices on Federal Courts at all levels, including the Immigration Courts!

First, not all important cases go to the Supremes, and those that do often take years to get there and be resolved. In the meantime, the rulings of BIA and the Circuits are often the “final word.”

Even at the individual Immigration Judge level, only a small minority of cases are appealed. So the difference between progressive expert judges committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and humane practical interpretations and judges appointed because of a belief that they would “go along to get along” with DHS Enforcement is huge — basically life or death for many asylum seekers, other migrants, and their families (often U.S. citizens or LPRs).

Second, even where outvoted, progressive judges can often provide much more cogent, understandable, and practical alternatives to “knee jerk restrictionist/nativist” interpretations. Not only are these “better interpretations” often picked up and successfully argued and expanded by advocates, but they often expose shallow, specious reasoning by restrictionists and serve as “signposts to a better future” even if it sometimes takes years or even decades for the system to catch up. Also, dissents can prompt remedial legislation or needed oversight.

Indeed a number of the “Gang of Five” dissents from the “Schmidt-era BIA,” which basically cost us our jobs, still look very “spot on” decades later — particularly as Circuits continue to expose the intellectual dishonesty and corner-cutting sloppiness of far too many EOIR decisions in “life or death” matters!

Obviously, Trump McConnell and the right-wing activist organizations they parroted and enabled have had an immediate, large-scale, largely negative, effect on American Justice — from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts. It’s essential that the Biden Administration fight back with courageous, well-qualified, progressive “practical scholars” at all levels of the Federal Judiciary. Judges with the guts and integrity to expose and push back against the stilted, often anti-democracy, far right agenda of too many of the Trump-McConnell appointees.

In this respect, creating a progressive “model judiciary” to supersede the godawful, dysfunctional mess at EOIR should be the “low hanging fruit.” In practical terms, it also will help reduce backlog, raise the level of Immigration Court practice, and hold DHS accountable to the rule of law. It should also be a model for what a better progressive Article III Judiciary could and should look like, all the way up to the Supremes!

🇺🇸🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-19-21

🆘ABOVE THEIR PAY GRADE: VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE & ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AREN’T “ROCKET SCIENCE” 🚀 — But, Garland BIA’s Failure To Master The Basics Draws Two More Stinging Rebukes From Circuits!

9th Circuit on VD: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/25/19-72893.pdf

“But here there was no indication that the IJ implicitly considered any favorable factors in making its voluntary departure determination.”

1st Circuit on adjustment of status: https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-el-salvador-gang-membership-jurisdiction-hardship-evidence-perez-trujillo-v-garland

“. [T]he government is right that we have no jurisdiction to re-weigh the evidence of hardship. But, a reweighing could only occur if there had been a weighing of that evidence in the first place. And, here, we conclude that there was no weighing of that evidence at all. We thus reject the government’s argument that the BIA, in overturning the immigration judge’s ruling granting Perez-Trujillo adjustment of status, did consider hardship as he contends that it was required to do under Matter of Arai.”

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

Notice a theme here: No need to actually consider the evidence, just deny, particularly when that’s the result demanded by the “partners” over at DHS enforcement? What kind of “court” operates in this manner? Where is the “fair and impartial adjudication” required by Due Process and Matthews v. Eldridge?

Clearly, these are signs of “denial-oriented assembly line decision-making by the BIA.” And, how does Garland explain OIL’s “defense” of weighing and considering factors that NEVER OCCURRED — essentially fabricated? Sounds like intentionally misleading courts to me! THIS is our Department of “Justice” under Garland?

Bias, poor judging, a culture of denial, and political interference with docket management are endemic problems at Garland’s BIA! That’s a prime reason why under DOJ’s “maliciously incompetent” administration and weaponization EOIR has built a still out of control 1.3 million case plus backlog!

Easy cases become endless exercises, as EOIR and OIL waste the time of the Circuits trying to “paper over” shoddy and biased decision-making on the “deportation assembly line.” Cases that should have been favorably resolved years ago instead keep bouncing around the system on “Circuit remands.”

Some then become the victims of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by DOJ politicos and their EOIR toadies and never get resolved at all! All these problems are magnified by two-decades of grossly incompetent DOJ/EOIR “management” that has elevated political agendas and bureaucratic nonsense over implementing a functioning e-filing system like every other comparable “court” in America! Due Process and customer service continue to come last at Garland’s EOIR!

DON’T let Garland and Mayorkas claim that the “solution” is more improperly “expedited” special dockets and less due process. NO, NO, NO! The solution is better judges (now, not later), granting more deserving cases rather than “looking for reasons to deny,” better judicial training, positive precedents from a new expert BIA, and an end to bogus “quotas,” stupid and unethical “performance work plans,” and political interference with docket management by DOJ and EOIR HQ!

Without aggressive progressive interventions and a massive infusion of new progressive expert personnel into EOIR, the Immigration Courts will continue to flounder and fail under Garland. Then, in the finest DOJ tradition, looking for a way to cover himself, he and his team will attempt to shift the blame to their victims — hapless, abused respondents and their long-suffering lawyers! Don’t let them get away with it!

Garland’s failure to institute “no brainer” progressive reforms @ EOIR and to replace bad judges is life-threatening and an incredible drag on our entire legal system! Tell him you have had enough! Demand better! Let your voices be heard in protest every day until we get the long overdue, readily achievable, EOIR reforms progressives have worked for and were promised!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-29-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🤮👎IT JUST KEEPS GETTING WORSE @ GARLAND’S BIA — Plethora of Errors, Mischaracterizations, Misogyny, and Abuses Emanate From Garland’s Deadly, Out Of Control Star Chambers In Falls Church — How Many Deaths & Embarrassments Is It Going To Take For Judge G. To Finally Pull The Plug 🔌 On This Dangerous, Incompetent Band Of Scofflaws? — Issue = Asylum For Rape Victim/Abused Widow In India!

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/21/18-72786.pdf

Kaur v. Garland, 9th Cir., 06-21-21, published

PANEL:Mary M. Schroeder and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr.,* District Judge.

OPINION BY: Judge Mendoza

STAFF SUMMARY:

Granting Ravinder Kaur’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish material changed circumstances to warrant an exception to the time limitation on her motion to reopen, and in concluding that she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Kaur sought to reopen her removal proceedings based on a combination of changed personal circumstances – the death of her abusive husband and his family’s threats that they would kill her if she returned to India because she was responsible for his death, and changed country conditions – including worsening conditions in India for women and widows.

The panel held that the Board mischaracterized the record and erred in concluding that Kaur presented evidence of only changed personal circumstances in support of reopening. The panel explained that while a self-induced change in personal circumstances does not qualify for the changed circumstances exception, that principle cannot apply rigidly when changed circumstances in the country of origin, while personal to the petitioner, are entirely outside her control, as was the case here. The panel further

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

KAUR V. GARLAND 3

explained that even where any change in personal circumstances is voluntary and did not originate in the country of nationality, the changed circumstances exception applies where changes in personal circumstances are made relevant due to changes in country conditions. The panel wrote that Kaur’s husband’s death, and his family’s death threats, were made relevant by increased violence in India against women, and in particular against widows. The panel further wrote that, contrary to the Board’s determination that Kaur provided evidence of only generalized conditions, Kaur presented evidence demonstrating that the prevalence and severity of human rights violations against women and widows had materially worsened in many respects.

The panel held that the Board also erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal relief. First, the panel concluded that the Board erred in determining that Kaur failed to establish that a protected ground, including her membership in a family social group, would be one central reason, or a reason, for the harm she fears. The panel wrote that a person may share an identity with a persecutor, and if a member of a particular social group is persecuted by other members of that same group because those members perceive the applicant as being “insufficiently loyal or authentic” to that group, she has been persecuted on account of a protected ground. Second, the panel concluded that the Board erred by requiring Kaur to show that her similarly situated family members had been mistreated. The panel explained that the safety of similarly situated members of the family who remained in the country of origin may be pertinent to a claim of future persecution, but does not itself disprove it, and in this case, the Board relied on the safety of Kaur’s daughter, who was not similarly situated. Third, the

4 KAUR V. GARLAND

panel concluded that the cultural context and Kaur’s evidence established more than a mere personal vendetta.

The panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT protection. First, the panel held that the Board erred in applying a “more likely than not” standard, rather than requiring Kaur to show a “reasonable likelihood” of meeting the statutory requirements for CAT protection. Moreover, the panel concluded that the Board abused its discretion in determining that Kaur did not meet the government consent or acquiescence requirement. The panel pointed out that Kaur presented evidence that her husband’s family is wealthy and has the means of carrying out their threats, that India suffers from widespread corruption, and that officials respond ineffectively to crimes, especially those against women. Based on that evidence, the panel concluded that the Board did not have substantial evidence to dismiss Kaur’s fears as speculation.

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

This is outrageous! In addition to raising issues about Garland’s failure to replace the “Killer BIA” with real progressive judges who are experts in human rights, due process, and immigration law, as almost every expert recommended, it raises serious concerns about Associate AG Vanita Gupta’s inexplicable failure to bring in litigation competence at OIL. Presenting and defending this mess as acceptable performance by DOJ quasi-judicial officials raises very serious ethical questions about both the “judges” and the attorneys defending their obviously defective, bias-based, anti-asylum, anti-female work product.

As many of us have been saying ever since the election, the “thorough housecleaning” at DOJ can’t wait! There is plenty of evidence to get the government lawyers participating in this mockery of justice out of leadership and decision-making positions, at a minimum! The fact that this case was argued under the Trump regime does not change the unethical performance at OIL or the incompetence of the BIA. Folks who “go along to get along” with violations of law and ethics, particularly in support of a White Nationalist agenda, should not be holding responsible Government legal positions. PERIOD!

Every individual and group who believes in due process, equal justice, gender fairness, good government, humanity, racial justice, and legal ethical norms should be demanding that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke change leadership at EOIR, immediately relieve and replace (even if on a temporary basis) the BIA, and bring ethics, expertise, and competence to OIL.

Kristen Clarke, some the most outrageous “civil rights abuses” in America here taking place right at the DOJ — at EOIR and OIL! Others are “hidden in plain sight” at DHS, particularly in their “New American Gulag.” You’re NOT going to solve voting rights, police misconduct, or any other civil rights problem in America without first getting the DOJ’s house in order. And, that means standing up to your dawdling and, to date, remarkably ineffective “political bosses” and demanding immediate change!

It’s YOUR REPUTATION, along with the lives of refugee women like Ms. Kaur, that are on the line here!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-21-21

9TH CIR. FINDS BIA APPLIED WRONG STANDARD TO DENY CAT — Soto-Soto v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/11/20-70587.pdf

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges, and JANE A. RESTANI,* Judge.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.;

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Wallace

* The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

No. 20-70587

Agency No. A209-406-355

OPINION

2 SOTO-SOTO V. GARLAND

SUMMARY** Immigration

Granting Delfina Soto-Soto’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ reversing an immigration judge’s grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding for the Board to grant CAT relief, the panel held that the Board erred by reviewing the IJ’s decision de novo, rather than for clear error, and concluded that the record compelled the conclusion that Soto-Soto met her burden of proof to establish that it is more likely than not that she will suffer future torture if removed to Mexico.

Michoacán state police arrested and brutally tortured Soto-Soto until she confessed to the kidnapping and murder of a five-year old boy. After the Mexican trial court dismissed the charges against her as a result of due process errors during the investigation, she fled to the United States. Mexican prosecutors subsequently conducted a new investigation and filed new charges against Soto-Soto, INTERPOL put out a Red Notice for her extradition to Uruapan in Michoacán, Mexico, which is 67 miles from where Soto-Soto was tortured in Morelia, Michoacán. Relying on Soto-Soto’s past torture, her reporting of the torture to the Michoacán State Commission of Human Rights despite warnings not to do so, the reissued arrest warrant, and country condition evidence showing that indigenous women like Soto-Soto are particularly

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

SOTO-SOTO V. GARLAND 3

vulnerable to torture, the IJ held that Soto-Soto was more likely than not to be tortured again if removed to Mexico. The Board reversed and held that the IJ’s determination was clearly erroneous because he did not acknowledge the Mexican judicial system’s appropriate steps to correct past due process errors, that Soto-Soto was not harmed while in custody for eight months after reporting the torture, and that members of Soto-Soto’s family remain in Mexico unharmed.

The panel concluded that the Board’s decision reflected that it engaged in a de novo weighing of the evidence, rather than clear error review. The panel explained that the Board may find an IJ’s factual finding to be clearly erroneous if it is illogical or implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record, but in this case, the Board failed to explain how the IJ’s decision was illogical, implausible, or without support.

The panel’s majority also concluded that the Board’s view of the evidence was not supported by the record. First, the majority wrote that the record emphatically did not show that the Mexican court took steps to cure the due process errors caused by the state police officers torturing a confession out of Soto-Soto. Further, the majority wrote that even if the record supported the Board’s factual findings, that would not be enough to overturn the IJ’s decision under clear error review, because the IJ’s predictive finding as to the likelihood of torture is entitled to broad deference, which the Board failed to provide. Second, the majority wrote that because Soto-Soto’s human rights commission complaint was not filed until after she was released from custody, and nothing in the record suggested that the state police officers were aware of her report, Soto-Soto’s physical safety while in custody was not probative of the state police officers’

4 SOTO-SOTO V. GARLAND

intent to carry out their threat of future torture. Finally, the majority wrote that the lack of harm to Soto-Soto’s family was irrelevant because threats of such harm hinged on Soto- Soto’s return to Mexico, which had not yet occurred. The panel also observed that the Board failed to discuss the IJ’s other key factual findings, including country condition reports establishing that indigenous women are more likely to be tortured in Mexico than other groups.

Reviewed under the proper standard of review, the majority concluded that the IJ’s decision was not clearly erroneous, and that the record compelled the conclusion that Soto-Soto met her burden of proof to establish that it is more likely than not that she will suffer future torture if removed to Mexico. The majority remanded the petition to the Board with the direction to grant deferral of removal.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Wallace agreed that the Board impermissibly applied de novo review in reversing the IJ’s grant of relief. However, Judge Wallace wrote that he believes that the IJ erred in the likelihood of future torture analysis, and he relatedly disagreed with the majority’s and IJ’s conflation of the various Mexican law enforcement actors in the state of Michoacán into a unitary actor—i.e., the Michoacán state police—in assessing the likelihood of torture. Judge Wallace also highlighted that the IJ found Soto-Soto was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because there are serious reasons to believe that she did, in fact, kidnap and murder the child whenhisfamilyrefusedtopaythedemandedransom. Judge Wallace believed that her likely guilt should have been considered as well because her original criminal case was not dismissed due to factual innocence but due process errors that have been corrected. Judge Wallace concluded that the majority’s direction to the Board to grant CAT relief rather

SOTO-SOTO V. GARLAND 5

than reversing and remanding the petition to the Board for further consideration goes against the court’s ordinary practice, especially because the record did not compel the conclusion that Soto-Soto satisfied her burden of proof.

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

More result-oriented decision making and basic errors on the EOIR deportation railroad.🚂

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-12-21

⚔️⚔️🛡ROUND TABLE SALLIES FORTH AGAIN AS 9TH VACATES GARLAND BIA’S PRECEDENT IN MATTER OF K-S-E-, 27 I&N Dec. 818 (BIA 2020) (misconstruing “firm resettlement” in effort to punish, harm asylum seekers)

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Hi all:We filed an amicus brief in the attached case (drafted for us by Sullivan Cromwell) challenging the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of K-S-E- before the 9th Circuit. K-S-E- held that firm resettlement can be found based on the availability of permanent residence in a third country, regardless of the asylum seeker’s unwillingness to pursue such status.

The 9th Cir. yesterday vacated the Board precedent and remanded for the Board to further consider the firm resettlement issue, inter alia.

Best, Jeff

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

To quote one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues:

Excellent news! Should an ethnic Korean from China or Japan be forced to accept an offer of firm resettlement from North Korea? To quote our President, “C’mon, man!”

“C’mon, man,” indeed! For Garland’s BIA it’s just a question of “what can we do to screw asylum seekers today!” The level of absurdity, irrationality, and/or illegality is largely irrelevant.

It’s not like Sessions and Barr had any concern for the law. The BIA knew there would be no meaningful consequences as long as they carried out the White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda of the Trump regime!

But, you could say much the same about Garland! There was more than ample evidence and documentation of anti-asylum bias and deficient decision making to replace of the BIA with “real judges” from among progressive experts on the day Garland was sworn in as AG.

Yet, three months later, nothing much has changed and the assault on asylum seekers and justice at Garland’s EOIR continues largely unabated. Indeed, Garland’s totally inappropriate, due process damaging, appointment of yet more (17) “Barr-picked judges” has further aggravated the problem to a simply astounding degree! It’s like you’re behind by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter and your so-called “head coach” awards your opponents 17 more points for no particular reason! What on earth is going on in Garland’s head?

Real judges on a “Reform BIA” from the ranks of progressive experts would have Matter of K-S-E-, Matter of A-B-, Matter of L-E-A-, Matter of Castro-Tum and a host of other Trumpist garbage “sorted” in no time and the now-dysfunctional EOIR system back on track to due process and functionality. What’s glaringly missing is any semblance of awareness, urgency, and competent progressive leadership from Garland and those surrounding him!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-11-21

😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️: 9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-departure-bar-sua-sponte-reopening-balerio-rubalcaba-v-garland#

CA9 on Departure Bar, Sua Sponte Reopening: Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland

Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland

“This case presents the question whether the departure bar limits an IJ’s ability to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction to review questions of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we conclude that the departure bar does not apply in the context of sua sponte reopening. That is, an IJ’s discretion to reopen a case on his or her own motion is not limited by the fact that a noncitizen has previously been removed or has departed from the United States. Therefore, we grant the petition for review.”

[Hats off to Elsa Martinez!]

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

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201915091.pdf

KELLY SANCHEZ-CASTRO,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _______________________

(June 1, 2021)

Petitioner,

Respondent.

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:

Kelly Sanchez-Castro, a native of El Salvador, petitions for our review after

she unsuccessfully sought relief from removal because a gang targeted her family based on the assumption that her father’s work in the United States made it

USCA11 Case: 19-15091 Date Filed: 06/01/2021 Page: 2 of 15

wealthy. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and substantial evidence supports its decision. Sanchez-Castro is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the gang that targeted her family did so only as a means to the end of obtaining funds, not because of any animus against her family. And she is ineligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture because she has not established that any harm she will suffer if returned to her home country will come with at least the acquiescence of a government official. We deny Sanchez-Castro’s petition for review.

. . . .

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

To reach its incorrect and life-threatening endorsement of the BIA’s misconstruction of the nexus requirements (throwing out the normal rules of causation to achieve an anti-asylum-seeker result) the 11th Circuit panel eschewed a much better and more intellectually honest approach by the 4th Circuit in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).

Notwithstanding Chief Judge Pryor’s cavalier attitude about sending Ms. Castro-Sanchez back to possible death or dismemberment at the hands of gangs who operate with relative impunity in El Salvador, these are not “academic exercises.” They are serious life or death matters involving bad law produced by a (non) “court” (the BIA) controlled by a law enforcement official (the Attorney General) that is not comprised of judges who are recognized experts in asylum and immigration laws and has over recent history construed the law against immigrants at almost every opportunity!

These two cases show the difference between this panel of the 9th Circuit that takes judicial review and what’s at stake seriously and the “indifferent to humanity” rubber-stamp approach applied by the 11th Circuit panel. We need better judges, progressives with expertise in due process, human rights, immigration, and racial justice at every level of our Federal Judiciary — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes! Circuits like the 5th and the 11th with long and disgraceful records of relative indifference to the rights and lives of migrants, mostly those of color, are long, long overdue for infusion of better qualified progressive “practical scholars” and advocates.

That makes the progressive outrage over Garland’s totally inappropriate “giveaway” of Immigration Judge positions he controls to Barr-selected, non progressive, candidates who applied under a flawed recruitment process designed to discourage diversity and exclude the best qualified expert candidates from the private sector, along with his failure to address skewed anti-asylum-seeker precedents like L-E-A- and A-B– all the more understandable! It also makes changes that will put more expert, progressive, due-process oriented judges who have experience representing individuals in court all the more urgent!

Cases like this wouldn’t get into the “Article III Life or Death Lottery” if Garland had dealt promptly and properly with L-E-A-, A-B-, and other Trump-era, anti-asylum, anti-migrant, anti-due-process, misogynist precedents!

Judge Merrick Garland — Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — His failure to institute long-overdue and obvious progressive due process reforms @ EOIR is costing Kelly Castro-Sanchez and other vulnerable refugee women their lives while enraging their advocates! It’s not an “academic exercise,” as Garland seems to think. There are real life consequences and irreparable harm from his failure to take due process, human rights, and racial justice seriously @ EOIR!
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Tell the Biden Administration that we need progressives, not more “regressives,” on the Federal Bench, starting with the Immigration Courts! End abusive judging by a non-diverse Federal Judiciary!

PWS

06-04-21

From the dissent by U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman, EDNY, sitting by designation:

🇺🇸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 a link to the published decision:

Here’s a “key quote” from Judge Susan Graber’s majority decision:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland, 9th Cir., 09-10-21, published

Here’s the opinion:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

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

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dean Kevin Johnson posts on ImmigrationProf Blog:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag,” Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports in LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

David G. Savage & Maura Dolan report in the LA Times:

🇺🇸🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

9th Circuit on VD: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/25/19-72893.pdf

1st Circuit on adjustment of status: https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-el-salvador-gang-membership-jurisdiction-hardship-evidence-perez-trujillo-v-garland

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Kaur v. Garland, 9th Cir., 06-21-21, published

It’s YOUR REPUTATION, along with the lives of refugee women like Ms. Kaur, that are on the line here!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Tell the Biden Administration that we need progressives, not more “regressives,” on the Federal Bench, starting with the Immigration Courts! End abusive judging by a non-diverse Federal Judiciary!

Related posts: