9th Circuit – Page 7 – immigrationcourtside.com

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻AMERICAN INJUSTICE: A COURT SUPREMELY WRONG FOR OUR TIME: Justices Who Oppose Equal Justice For All, View Refugees & Asylum Seekers As Subhuman, Are Incapable Of Consistent Moral Leadership, & Willingly Participate In & Hollowly Attempt To Justify The Bullying Of “The Other” Are Fueling America’s Race To The Bottom Under Trump! — “They believe these people do not deserve an iota of sympathy, let alone due process. That is already how many border agents viewed these immigrants: not as humans with rights, but as fraudulent parasites. The Supreme Court has now transformed that vision into law—and, in the process, allowed the executive to send more persecuted people to their deaths without even a meaningful day in court.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/supreme-court-asylum-deportations-thuraissigiam.html

From Slate:

JURISPRUDENCE

The Supreme Court Doesn’t See Asylum-Seekers as People — One week after saving DACA, the high court proved that its sympathies for immigrants seeking better lives are limited.

By DAHLIA LITHWICK and MARK JOSEPH STERN

JUNE 25, 20203:35 PM

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court saved more than 700,000 immigrants from the Trump administration’s nativist buzz saw. The court ensured that these immigrants, who were brought to the United States by their undocumented parents as children, would continue to be protected by an Obama administration policy called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, sparing them from deportation to countries many could not even remember. The court split 5–4, with Chief Justice John Roberts throwing his lot in with the liberals to find that Donald Trump’s rescission of DACA had been unlawful—largely because it had been carelessly effectuated, defended pretextually, but also because hundreds of thousands of young people had altered their lives in reliance on the promise that they would be immune from deportation.

In a key section of the majority opinion, Roberts highlighted the humanity of these young undocumented people, as was the hopes and dreams of their families: “Since 2012, DACA recipients have enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children, all in reliance” on DACA, Roberts wrote, quoting from briefs in the case. “The consequences of the rescission … would ‘radiate outward’ to DACA recipients’ families, including their 200,000 U.S.-citizen children, to the schools where DACA recipients study and teach, and to the employers who have invested time and money in training them.” The chief justice evinced frustration that the Trump administration seemingly took none of those very human interests into account.

One week later, on Thursday morning, the high court proved that its sympathies for immigrants seeking better lives are limited. In a 7–2 ruling, the justices approved the Trump administration’s draconian interpretation of a federal law that limits courts’ ability to review deportation orders. This time around, the court did not note immigrants’ contributions to the nation or acknowledge their humanity in any way. Having last week treated one class of immigrants like actual people, the court on Thursday pivoted back to callous cruelty. All of the chief justice’s kind words about DACA recipients seemingly do not apply to immigrants who—according to the executive branch—do not deserve asylum.

Thursday’s case, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, involves an asylum-seeker from Sri Lanka named Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam who faces likely death if he is deported because he is Tamil. Thuraissigiam was apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol while trying to cross at the southern border in 2017. After an asylum officer and immigration judge rejected his claims, Thuraissigiam was slated for “expedited removal.” Federal law bars courts from reviewing that deportation order. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional as applied to Thuraissigiam under the Constitution’s suspension clause, which limits the government’s ability to restrict habeas corpus—the centuries-old right to contest detention before a judge.

At the Trump administration’s request, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit, with Justice Samuel Alito writing a maximalist majority opinion for the five conservatives and Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg proffering a narrower concurrence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a lengthy, vivid dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan that accused the majority of flouting more than a century of precedent and “purg[ing] an entire class of legal challenges to executive detention.” (In his own opinion, Alito dismissed Sotomayor’s criticisms as mere “rhetoric.”)

This outcome strips due process from immigrants seeking asylum, who now have even fewer rights to a fair adjudicatory process under an expedited system that already afforded them minimal protections. It will also embolden the Trump administration to speed up deportations for thousands of people with no judicial oversight. Under this now court-approved system, immigrants fleeing their home country must undergo a “credible fear” interview, at which they must explain to a federal officer why they qualify for asylum. (The Trump administration has allowed Customs and Border Protection agents—not trained asylum officers—to conduct credible fear interviews.) If the officer finds no “credible fear of persecution,” their supervisor reviews the determination, as does an immigration judge (who is not a traditional judge but rather an employee of the executive branch appointed by the attorney general). If these individuals find no credible fear, the immigrant is thrown into “expedited removal”—that is, swiftly deported in a matter of weeks. They may not contest the government’s “credible fear” determination before a federal court. It is this extreme rule that Thuraissigiam challenged as a violation of habeas corpus and due process.

Alito breezily dismissed Thuraissigiam’s individual claims by stripping a broad swath of constitutional rights from unauthorized immigrants. First, he declared that habeas corpus does not protect an immigrant’s ability to fight illegal deportation orders. Sotomayor fiercely contested this claim, citing an “entrenched line of cases” demonstrating that habeas has long protected the right of individuals—including immigrants—to challenge illegal executive actions in court. Second, Alito held that unauthorized immigrants who are already physically present in the United States have not actually “entered the country.” Thus, they have no due process right to challenge the government’s asylum determination. Sotomayor noted that this holding departs from more than a century of precedent by imposing distinctions drawn by modern immigration laws on the ancient guarantee of due process.

Alito not only waved away these galling consequences; he seemed to laugh at them.

The upshot of the decision will mean almost certain death for Thuraissigiam and others like him. Thuraissigiam faced brutal persecution in Sri Lanka, a fact Alito did not seem to understand at oral arguments. Various officials in the executive branch shrugged off that persecution. Thuraissigiam just wants an opportunity to prove to a federal judge that these officials violated the law by denying his asylum claim. Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, he cannot. Nor can the many immigrants thrown into expedited removal by the Trump administration, which has used the process as a tool to speed up deportations across the country. Just two days ago, a federal appeals court cleared the way for the government to expand expedited removal beyond immigrants intercepted near the border to those apprehended anywhere in the nation. The administration has shown little interest in carefully considering whom it’s deporting; now many of those decisions will be rubber-stamped by executive officers and left unscrutinized by the federal judiciary.

Alito not only waved away these galling consequences; he seemed to laugh at them. Not for a moment does he appear to believe that asylum-seekers may be genuinely in fear for their lives. Among the many bon mots dropped by Alito in his opinion, he wrote: “While [Thuraissigiam] does not claim an entitlement to release, the Government is happy to release him—provided the release occurs in the cabin of a plane bound for Sri Lanka.” Given that Thuraissigiam claims he will likely be tortured to death if he is sent back to Sri Lanka, it’s not clear that line means what he thinks it does. Throughout the opinion Alito refers to Thuraissigiam as either “alien” or “respondent” and appears simply incapable of imagining that his claims are truthful.

RECENTLY IN JURISPRUDENCE

Five DACA Recipients on What’s Next

The People Arrested for Protesting Police Are in Danger

America Is Closed

DOJ Ethics Office Says Bill Barr Can Investigate Political Enemies Under False Pretext

It’s easy to miss the massive erosion of asylum-seekers’ rights in the victory last week around the triumph of DACA. But in some ways, it’s the most American outcome in the world to view DACA beneficiaries as more human because they have gone to school here and birthed children here, while scoffing at asylum-seekers, who, as part of a lengthy tradition under both constitutional and international law, simply ask the U.S. government to save their lives. Roberts, who seemed so attuned to the hardships of DACA recipients, joined Alito’s merciless opinion in full; in fact, the chief justice assigned the opinion to Alito, who has become the court’s staunchest crusader against immigrants’ rights.

The court’s split shows that a majority of justices think immigrants like Thuraissigiam are not the productive young people of the DACA case, with financial and familial ties to all that makes America great, but rather faceless masses cynically manipulating America’s generous asylum policy and overwhelming its immigration system. They believe these people do not deserve an iota of sympathy, let alone due process. That is already how many border agents viewed these immigrants: not as humans with rights, but as fraudulent parasites. The Supreme Court has now transformed that vision into law—and, in the process, allowed the executive to send more persecuted people to their deaths without even a meaningful day in court.

Support our independent journalism

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

Imposing death sentences without fair hearings, or indeed any real hearings at all, is bad stuff. And, Justices who justify this behavior should not be on the bench at all.

Sadly, that applies just as much to the two so-called “liberal icons” who voted with Alito and four other sneering colleagues who seemed to actually glory in being able to dehumanize another soul with the audacity to fight for his life. Frankly, this stuff is right out of the Third Reich. Read a few of the German Judiciary’s opinions of the time and see how quickly, easily, naturally, and often happily Reich jurists “justified the unjustifiable and the unthinkable.” I have no doubt that Sam Alito and some of his colleagues would have fit right in. How has American Justice gotten to this incredible “low point.”

I don’t know exactly what we can do about life-tenured judges who are unqualified for their jobs. Life tenure is there for a reason — to insure judicial independence overall, even in particular instances like this where it clearly does no such thing. And, with 200+ largely unqualified Trump appointees now on the Federal Bench, essentially “young deadwood,” the problem will get worse before it gets better.

The first step is to replace Trump and oust the GOP from the Senate. Then, methodically appoint only judges committed to equal justice for all, willing to stand up against abuses of justice by both the Executive and the Congress, and whose life experiences and legal work show an unswerving commitment to human rights and the rights of migrants to be treated as persons (fellow humans) under law.

It’s a national disgrace that with immigration and human rights the major issues clogging today’s Federal Courts, few, if any, Federal Judges have any experience representing asylum seekers in the Star Chambers known as “Immigration Courts” nor have they personally experienced the type of dehumanization, racism, torture, grotesque abuses, and unnecessary cruelty that they so unnecessarily, uncourageously, and glibly inflict on migrants and asylum seekers who indeed are the most vulnerable among us. If immigration and human rights are the pivotal issues of American justice, then we need to get Justices and judges on the bench who understand what they are doing and the dire human consequences of their actions (or inactions).

The situation of today’s asylum seekers of color is not much different from that of others Americans of color whose legal and Constitutional rights were denied, and whose humanity was intentionally degraded, by a corrupt judiciary and a legal system that intentionally failed to make Constitutonal equal justice for all a reality rather than a cruel fiction .

A nation that doesn’t demand better judges will never rise above its own mistakes and failures. And a Federal Judiciary that so obviously and intentionally lacks diversity and humanity can never properly serve the national interest.

Ditch the clueless, largely white, male “dudocracy” with their Ivy League degrees and not much else to offer. Appoint judges schooled in real life, who know what the law means in human terms and will use it to solve, rather than aggravate, inflame, or avoid, human problems! There are tons of such lawyers out there. We all know them. We need them to move from the “bullpen” to the Federal Benches, before it’s too late for everyone in America!

Folks, what we have here is “judicially-approved murder without trial.” It could also be called “extrajudicial killing.” Ugly, but brutally true! “The upshot of the decision will mean almost certain death for Thuraissigiam and others like him.” We should understand what’s happening, even if seven disingenuous and unqualified members of our highest court claim not to know or care what they are doing and refuse to acknowledge the real life consequences of their deep, dark, and disturbing intellectual corruption and their studied lack of human compassion, empathy, and decency.

Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out! It’s a Start On A Better Court, For America & For Humanity!

PWS

06-28-20

🏴‍☠️☠️BILLY THE BIGOT BARR’S BIASED BIA’S EFFORT TO SEND LGBTQ INDIVIDUAL TO BE TORTURED IN MEXICO THWARTED BY 9TH CIR. – Unconstitutional “Star Chamber” Ignored Binding Circuit Precedent in Deadly Attempt to Carry Out White Nationalist Regime’s Assault on Legal & Human Rights of Migrants — Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr

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

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

26 Jun 2020

torture

cat

Mexico

zetas

LGBT

More

CA9 on CAT, Mexico, Zetas, LGBTQ: Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr

Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr

“Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof under CAT that she would more likely than not be tortured, with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, if returned to Mexico. The BIA reached its determination by misapplying our precedents regarding acquiescence of a public official and regarding the possibility of safe relocation, as well as by making or affirming factual findings that are directly contradicted by the record. Contrary to the BIA’s determination, we hold that the existing record compels the conclusion that Petitioner has met her burden under CAT. … the record also includes extensive evidence that LGBTQ individuals are subject to a heightened risk of torture throughout Mexico. Considering all relevant evidence, we conclude that the record compels the conclusion that petitioner has met her burden of proof to establish that it is more likely than not that she will suffer future torture if removed to her native country. … We grant the petition and remand for the agency to grant deferral of removal pursuant to CAT because the record compels the conclusion that Petitioner will more likely than not be tortured if she is removed to Mexico.”

[Hats way off to appointed pro bono counsel Max Carter-Oberstone (argued) and Brian Goldman!]

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

One of the best things about this case is that obviously frustrated by the BIA’s “malicious incompetence” and basically contemptuous treatment of binding Circuit precedent, the Court took the unusual step of granting the CAT application outright. Often, cases are remanded to the BIA for useless “redos.” Not only can they get lost on EOIR’s totally out of control docket of 1.4 million+ cases, but that gives the BIA another undeserved chance to concoct some bogus rationale to screw the respondent.

It’s past time for more courts to treat EOIR as the hostile “justice free zone” it has become under Sessions and now Barr. The absolute disaster at the DOJ under Barr was on full, ugly display before the House this week. Courts must treat the DOJ as the unethical, biased, renegade organization that it really is rather than pretending that it still performs any legitimate functions under our
Constitution.

The Supremes might feign ignorance of the Trump regime’s institutionalized racist assault on migrants, particularly those seeking protection. But, some of the lower Federal Courts finally are catching on to what’s happening here. How is this type of systemic, illegal, incompetent, and unethical performance by Billy Barr’s wholly-owned “courts” that are not “courts” at all deemed acceptable? People’s lives are at risk!

Better Executive + Better Legislature + Better Judges = Equal Justice for All!

PWS

06-27-20

👎THIEF-IN-CHIEF: TRUMP MISAPPROPRIATED MONEY TO BUILD WASTEFUL WALL — Symbol of Hate, Stupidity Built With Stolen Funds, Says 9th Circuit!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-says-trump-e2-80-99s-diversion-of-military-money-to-build-border-wall-was-illegal/ar-BB160TZy?ocid=bingoverlayon2

Wall Funding Illegal – Bing

By Bob Egelko

San Francisco Chronicle

Three days after President Trump took his re-election campaign to a construction site of his border wall in Arizona, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he had defied Congress’ constitutional authority over federal spending by redirecting $2.5 billion in military funds to build 130 miles of barriers in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Congress appropriated the funds for military pay, weapons and other Defense Department purposes, and never authorized Trump to spend them on wall construction, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a pair of 2-1 rulings.“Funding for the wall had been denied by Congress,” and the Trump administration “lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer of funds,” said Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, joined by Judge Kim Wardlaw. Both were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Judge Daniel Collins, a Trump appointee, dissented from both decisions. He said the military funds were legally transferred and also that the plaintiffs — California and 15 other states, the Sierra Club and and an advocacy group for border communities — had no right to sue over the alleged violation of congressional spending powers.

Although the appeals court upheld a federal judge’s injunction against construction of the wall segments, the ruling did not halt construction. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 last July to allow the work to continue while the case proceeded. Its brief, unsigned decision said the administration “has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action” — that is, that they had not shown direct harm from the construction that would entitle them to challenge it in court.

The appeals court majority reached a different conclusion, citing the plaintiffs’ claims that the wall was harming the environment and wildlife at the border and the states’ ability to enforce their own environmental laws. Similar issues are pending before the same panel in a case over $3.6 billion for additional wall segments, and the dispute could soon return to the high court.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

The Supreme’s majority appear to be in Trump’s pocket on this one. So, the fraud, waste, abuse, and mindless environmental destruction is likely to continue until we get regime change.

PWS

06-26-20

🏴‍☠️BIA DENIES DUE PROCESS AGAIN! — 9th Cir. Exposes Gross Abuses by EOIR in Effort to Deprive Armenian Refugees of Legal Asylum Status! — Grigoryan v. Barr

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-due-process-grigoryan-v-barr

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9 on Due Process: Grigoryan v. Barr

Grigoryan v. Barr

“Our government granted asylum to Karen Grigoryan (“Petitioner”), his wife, and two of their children (collectively, the “Grigoryans”) in 2001. Beginning in 2005, the Grigoryans were subjected to a protracted immigration ordeal triggered by the government’s allegations of fraud in Petitioner’s asylum application. The Grigoryans’ bureaucratic nightmare culminated when, after they had resided in the United States for nearly fourteen years, an immigration judge (“IJ”) terminated their asylum status, denied their renewed requests for deportation relief, and ordered them removed to Armenia. The IJ terminated the Grigoryans’ asylum status by relying almost exclusively on a single-page “report” introduced by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) that purportedly revealed that Petitioner’s original asylum application contained fraudulent documents. Although the Grigoryans were not allowed to examine any of the documents or the individuals referred to in the report, they ultimately proved that half of the fraud allegations in the report were unfounded. The IJ also relied on adverse credibility findings entered against Petitioner at an earlier hearing that never should have taken place. The question before us is whether, in light of this series of missteps, the agency erred in terminating the Grigoryans’ asylum status. We have jurisdiction over the Grigoryans’ petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We hold that the government violated the Grigoryans’ due process rights by failing to provide them a full and fair opportunity to rebut the government’s fraud allegations at the termination hearing. We therefore grant the petition, vacate the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and the IJ’s order of deportation, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Catalina Gracia and Areg Kazaryan!]

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

Circuit Courts continue to “out” constant failures of elementary due process by a BIA that has abandoned that concept to serve as an “rubber stamp” for their “partners” at DHS Enforcement. Wrongfully sending asylum seekers back to persecution based on bogus grounds and defective procedures can be a death sentence.

But, these systemic violations of due process and the essential “fraud” being perpetrated on the Article III Courts by imposters posing as “subject matter experts” and an enforcement body masquerading as a “court” remains unaddressed. It’s no secret that the corrupt Billy Barr is unqualified to serve as the chief legal official of the U.S. Nor is it “rocket science” to recognize that allowing him to run a “court system” violates Constitutional due process. So, what’s the justification for life-tenured Article III judges who fail to halt these grotesque, life-threatening abuses and require the long, long overdue constitutionally-required reforms to create an independent judiciary insulated from political control?

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

06-08-20

2D CIR. JOINS 9TH IN REJECTING BIA’S PRECEDENT, MATTER OF MENDEZ, 27 I. & N. Dec. 219 (BIA 2018) (Holding Misprision of Felony is a CIMT) – Mendez v. Barr

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/75dbe12d-c0a1-497d-848e-59f07e9aa4b2/3/doc/18-801_complete_opn.pdf

Mendez v. Barr, 2d Cir., 05-27-20, published

PANEL: PARKER, CHIN, and SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Barrington D. Parker

DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Richard Sullivan

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

Tomas Mendez was admitted to the United States in 2004 as a lawful

17 permanent resident. In 2010, he was convicted of misprision of a felony in

18 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. That section makes it a crime for one with knowledge

19 of the commission of a federal felony to conceal it and not promptly report it to

20 the appropriate authorities. 18 U.S.C § 4.

21 In 2016, upon returning from a trip abroad, the Department of Homeland

22 Security charged him, based on his misprision conviction, as inadmissible under

23 § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because he was a

24 noncitizen convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). The

25 immigration judge sustained the charge, and the Board of Immigration Appeals

2

1 (“BIA”) affirmed. The BIA concluded that the violation of § 4 meant that he had

2 committed a CIMT. Matter of Mendez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 219, 225 (BIA 2018).

3 The BIA defines a CIMT as crime that is “inherently base, vile, or

4 depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and duties owed

5 between persons or to society in general.” Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 63

6 (2d Cir. 2006).1 For decades, the BIA never considered misprision a CIMT. Matter

7 of Sloan, 12 I. & N. Dec. 840, 842 (BIA 1966) (holding misprision does not

8 constitute a CIMT).

9 However, in 2002, the Eleventh Circuit held in Itani v. Ashcroft that a

10 conviction under § 4 is categorically a CIMT “because it necessarily involves an

11 affirmative act of concealment or participation in a felony, behavior that runs

12 contrary to accepted societal duties and involves dishonest or fraudulent

1 Unless otherwise indicated, in quoting cases all internal quotation marks, alterations, emphases, footnotes, and citations are omitted.

3

1 activity.” 298 F.3d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 2002).2 Following the Eleventh Circuit’s

2 lead, the BIA did an about face and determined in a case arising in the Ninth

3 Circuit that misprision was a CIMT. In re Robles-Urrea, 24 I. & N. Dec. 22, 25 (BIA

4 2006).

5 The Ninth Circuit rejected the BIA’s conclusion. The court held that

6 because § 4 required only knowledge of the felony and did not require an intent

7 to defraud, or conceal, or to obstruct justice, the statute encompassed conduct

8 that was not inherently base or vile. Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702, 710-12

9 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that “[n]othing in the statute

10 prohibiting misprision of a felony references the specific purpose for which the

11 concealment must be undertaken,” let alone a purpose sufficient to qualify

12 misprision as a categorical CIMT. Id. at 710.

2 In 2017, the Fifth Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit to hold that misprision is categorically a CIMT. Villegas-Sarabia v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 871, 878 (5th Cir. 2017). We respectfully decline to follow the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit’s approach. We believe that neither Itani nor Villegas-Sarabia satisfactorily supports the assertion that specific intent, or intent to defraud, can be read into § 4, especially when Congress did not include such a requirement and has shown elsewhere in the criminal code that it knows how to include such a requirement if it so chooses. The Eleventh Circuit in Itani reasoned only “that misprision of a felony is a crime of moral turpitude because it necessarily involves an affirmative act of concealment or participation in a felony, behavior that runs contrary to accepted societal duties and involves dishonest or fraudulent activity.” 298 F.3d at 1216. We are reluctant to adopt this reasoning because, “any crime, by definition, runs contrary to some duty owed to society” and “[i]f this were the sole benchmark for a crime involving moral turpitude, every crime would involve moral turpitude.” Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702, 709 (9th Cir. 2012). We are also unpersuaded by Villegas-Sarabia, where the Fifth Circuit relied almost exclusively on Itani’s reasoning.

4

1 Mendez moved to terminate removal proceedings and for cancellation of

2 removal, arguing that misprision is not a CIMT. Relying on the BIA’s decision in

3 Robles-Urrea, the IJ found Mendez removable as charged. The IJ also pretermitted

4 Mendez’s application for cancellation of removal, concluding that because his

5 2010 misprision conviction constituted a CIMT, it stopped the clock for

6 calculating length of residency and prevented him from establishing the required

7 seven years of continuous residency. In February 2018, the BIA issued a

8 precedential decision in this case. Matter of Mendez, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 219. It

9 reaffirmed its holding that misprision is a CIMT and declined to follow the Ninth

10 Circuit’s rejection of its reasoning in Robles-Urrea.

11 Mendez petitions for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

12 (a)(2)(D). Mendez argues that a conviction for misprision is not a CIMT because

13 it does not categorically involve conduct that is inherently base, vile, or

14 depraved. He also argues that, contrary to the BIA’s contention, its decision is

15 not entitled to Chevron deference. We agree on both points.

16 DISCUSSION

17 The dispositive issue is whether misprision is a CIMT. Because the BIA has

18 no particular expertise in construing federal criminal statutes (as opposed to the

19 INA), we owe no deference to its construction of § 4. United States v. Apel, 571 5

1 U.S. 359, 369 (2014); Mendez v. Mukasey 547 F.3d 345, 346 (2d Cir. 2008).

2 Accordingly, we review de novo the BIA’s conclusion that Mendez’s conviction

3 under § 4 is a conviction for a CIMT. Rodriguez, 451 F.3d at 63.

. . . .

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

There is a “Circuit split:” The 5^th & 11^th Circuits agree with the BIA’s decision in Matter of Mendez; the 9^th and 2d Circuits reject it. That means it’s likiely to eventually be up to the Supremes to decide who’s right.

PWS

05-27-20

FINALLY, TOGETHERNESS REIGNS SUPREME👩🏻‍⚖️❤️👨‍⚖️: Unanimous Court, Per Justice Ginsburg, Pulverizes 9th Circuit For Stretching To Hold Immigration Crime Unconstitutional, Remands — UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-67_n6io.pdf

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 19–67. Argued February 25, 2020—Decided May 7, 2020

Respondent Evelyn Sineneng-Smith operated an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California. She assisted clients working without au- thorization in the United States to file applications for a labor certifi- cation program that once provided a path for aliens to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. Sineneng-Smith knew that her clients could not meet the long-passed statutory application-filing deadline, but she nonetheless charged each client over $6,000, netting more than $3.3 million.

Sineneng-Smith was indicted for multiple violations of 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i). Those provisions make it a federal felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law,” §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and impose an enhanced penalty if the crime is “done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain,” §1324(a)(1)(B)(i). In the District Court, she urged that the pro- visions did not cover her conduct, and if they did, they violated the Petition and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment as applied. The District Court rejected her arguments and she was convicted, as relevant here, on two counts under §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i).

Sineneng-Smith essentially repeated the same arguments on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Again she asserted a right under the First Amendment to file administrative applications on her clients’ behalf, and she argued that the statute could not constitutionally be applied to her conduct. Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the par- ties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the

2 UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH Syllabus

First Amendment. In accord with the amici’s arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad.

Held: The Ninth Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion.

The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243.

That principle forecloses the controlling role the Ninth Circuit took on in this case. No extraordinary circumstances justified the panel’s takeover of the appeal. Sineneng-Smith, represented by competent counsel, had raised a vagueness argument and First Amendment arguments homing in on her own conduct, not that of others. Electing not to address the party-presented controversy, the panel projected that §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) might cover a wide swath of protected speech, including abstract advocacy and legal advice. It did so even though Sineneng-Smith’s counsel had presented a contrary theory of the case in her briefs and before the District Court. A court is not hidebound by counsel’s precise arguments, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical trans- formation of this case goes well beyond the pale. On remand, the case is to be reconsidered shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties. Pp. 3–9.

910 F. 3d 461, vacated and remanded.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

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

👎Justice Thomas used his concurring opinion as an opportunity to attack the “overbreadth doctrine,” and to solicit future challenges to it, presumably from right-wing advocates and activist conservative judges who agree with him.

It’s interesting how moderate and liberal judges who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, and standing up for individual rights in the face of government overreach are often forced to deny that they are “activists.” By contrast, right wing judges often make little or no attempt to disguise their activist, often anti-human-rights, “turn back the clock to the bad old days,” agenda and to use their opinions as a forum to critique and solicit challenges to rules of law they don’t like. Often such rules under attack from the judicial right tend to vindicate the rights and humanity of individuals, particularly minorities and other vulnerable individuals, over corporate, government, financial, and other elitist interests.

Additionally, as with Thomas, the the right-wing judicial activists customarily harken back wistfully to a past “golden” age of American Jurisprudence when the exclusively white, male, nearly 100% Christian Supremes were perfectly happy to look the other way and bend the rules to favor ruling elites over African Americans, women, children, the poor, non-Christians, and others who weren’t part of the “ruling elites.” Thomas laments the abandonment of the views and methods of the “18th & 19 century” American judiciary. Most ironically, under those rules and the “world outlook and values” they often embodied, it’s highly unlikely that Thomas himself would have been able to attend Yale, become a Justice, or otherwise be allowed and encouraged to reach his full potential.

Quite contrary to Thomas’s argument, we can’t and shouldn’t take “value judgement” out of judging. Indeed, Thomas’s plea to let the Legislature and the Executive run roughshod over constitutional rights if they choose to do so is, in and of itself, a clear “value judgment” as to what best serves society. Making “value judgments” is at the heart of all judging. That isn’t the problem. No, the real problem is the lack of consistent human (and humane) values, practical experience, and human empathy in too many of today’s Federal Judges, particularly those appointed by Trump and Moscow Mitch.

At least we clearly know what’s coming in the future from the “Trump Judiciary” and their cheerleaders like Thomas. Consequently, it’s critically important that “Democrats and liberals” act accordingly the next time they get control over Federal Judicial appointments.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-07-20

LEE SUNDAY EVANS @ WATERWELL: “The Power of Transcripts”— “It wasn’t hard to recognize the power of each individual story, and the patterns revealed when reading two, three, ten testimonies were a disturbing depiction of how the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) were being violated.”

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

FYI, an essay by Waterwell Artistic Director Lee Sunday Evans on the company’s immigration law related work. Best, Jeff

https://howlround.com/power-transcripts

The Power of Transcripts

In July 2019, I sat down with a few people at the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School to discuss the possibility of bringing a performance of The Courtroom: a re-enactment of one woman’s deportation proceedings—a production by the New York City–based theatre company Waterwell, where I’m artistic director—to their campus. Fast forward thirty minutes and Elora Mukherjee—the director of the clinic, an immigration lawyer and professor—had our attention focused in a different direction.

Elora was describing her work as a monitor for the Flores Settlement Agreement—a court settlement that sets the time limit and conditions under which children can be held in immigration detention—over the past twelve years; two weeks earlier, she had provided testimony in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform about the deplorable conditions she and her colleagues had witnessed in two immigration detention facilities in Clint and Ursula, Texas. Then, Elora politely declined to bring The Courtroom to Columbia Law School—at least for the time being—and asked if Waterwell would consider making a new project using first-person testimonies of the children and young parents she had met at the border.

I’ll start at the beginning of our company’s engagement with immigration and then describe The Flores Exhibits—the project Waterwell created in response to this conversation with Elora Mukherjee.

The Courtroom. Photo by Miguel Amortegui

The Courtroom

In the summer of 2018, Arian Moayed—an actor, writer, director, and co-founder of Waterwell—was watching, along with the rest of the United States, as an increasingly heated debate about immigration enveloped our country. Family separations at the border and the uproar that followed flooded the news, along with stories about how increasingly rapid deportation proceedings were compromising due process. Arian was born in Iran, immigrated here when he was seven years old, and became a citizen when he was twenty-six. The stories of how the United States was treating immigrants hit him personally.

He thought: How can Waterwell respond? What can we do to add something meaningful to this conversation?

Then a new question crystallized in his mind: We hear about them in the media, but what does a deportation proceeding in court actually look like? How do deportation proceedings work?

While reaching out to a handful of immigration lawyers and asking them to share transcripts of deportation proceedings, Arian met Richard Hanus, an immigration lawyer in Chicago, who has been practicing for over twenty-five years. Richard shared transcripts of one case he thought might be of interest, and Arian read it right away. The case was powerful.

The transcripts gave the story a certain kind of objectivity, an unvarnished truthfulness about immigration.

A few months later, I started as the newly appointed artistic director of Waterwell. Arian and I dove into these transcripts, did a rough edit of them, then another, then another, then an intense three-day text workshop with incredible actors, and came out with a script that had a three-act structure, with all the dialogue taken entirely from the court transcripts.

We asked Jeffrey S. Chase, a former immigration judge and widely respected leader in the field, to help us understand legal terms in the transcripts and to advise us on how to make most accurate representation of immigration court. He made a terrific recommendation: Go watch some proceedings.

We met at 26 Federal Plaza, went through the metal detectors, and headed up to the floors where proceedings take place. The courtrooms are small, with drop ceilings. There are no witness boxes and there is often no lawyer representing the immigrant—if you are an immigrant required to appear in immigration court, you don’t have automatic access to legal representation. This was not news to Arian, but for me, as a person born in the United States who had never interacted with the immigration system, I found it surprising and unsettling. Immigrants represent themselves, or pay not-unsubstantial sums to hire a lawyer. Non-profits and law school clinics step in to fill this gap, but they do not—and cannot—reach everyone.

Watching court proceedings—the combination of banal procedural details and life-and-death stakes—fundamentally shaped our thinking. What we witnessed was quiet, tense, tedious, disorienting. We knew that, for our performance, we’d have to risk recreating those very dynamics. It wouldn’t be quite a play but a reenactment. As we created The Courtroom, we focused on the small, regular mistakes shown in the transcripts—awkward phrasing of a thought, the quick mistaken use of a word—embracing them as interesting windows into how people function in court when they are prepared but don’t have a script, and set out to find real courtrooms to perform in. We created the original staging in our most hallowed venue: a grand courtroom on the seventeenth floor of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, the seat of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Though this prestigious courtroom was very different from small, plain immigration courts, the architecture taught us a lot about how courtrooms work.

The Courtroom. Photo by Maria Baranova.

The transcripts we used to create the script were from the case of Elizabeth Keathley, an immigrant from the Philippines who came to the United States on a K3 visa after she married her husband, who was a United States citizen. After inadvertently registering to vote at the DMV in Bloomington, Illinois, receiving a voter registration card in the mail, and voting, Elizabeth had to appear in court for deportation hearings. She lost the first case, but her appeal was heard in the Seventh Circuit, where the federal judges ruled in her favor.

The first performances were terrifying. We had no idea if the piece would capture people’s interest and hold their attention. But we put our faith in how this case encapsulated the age-old adage about the personal and the political. Through this story about a married couple in the early stages of building their family, who had made one honest mistake that put the wife in danger of being deported, the audience got to see a portrait of our nation’s legal system that exposed its catastrophic flaws and showed its singular, profound potential.

We were floored by audiences’ responses to the performances and started to understand the real power of the transcripts.

The transcripts gave the story a certain kind of objectivity, an unvarnished truthfulness about immigration—a polarizing issue that seems relentlessly distorted when we encounter it in the media, something that is all the more painful because it is central to our country’s identity. Ali Noorani, director of the National Immigration Forum, put it perfectly in his book, There Goes the Neighborhood: “Immigration gets at the core of who we are, and who we want to be, as a country.”

The Courtroom gave audiences an opportunity to get closer to the immigration legal system’s inner workings. Not to be told what to think, not to be told again how bad things are, but to get closer to something true and real. It was our realization about the power of unaltered transcripts that guided us when we started to think about what to make in response to our conversation with Elora Mukherjee.

The Flores Exhibits

We told Elora we would think deeply about how we could make a meaningful project, and she said she’d send us the testimonies. We took the conversation with her very seriously, feeling a sincere responsibility as artists to take up the need she put before us but having very little idea what we could create in response.

I printed out everything Elora sent me and sat down to read the sixty-nine testimonies. I thought: Again, here is that combination of procedural banality alongside life-and-death stakes. It unnerved me. The project needed to capture that specific disorienting, haunting aspect of the testimonies. It wasn’t hard to recognize the power of each individual story, and the patterns revealed when reading two, three, ten testimonies were a disturbing depiction of how the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) were being violated.

Here’s a quick history of the FSA and why it’s important: In 1985, a fifteen-year-old Salvadoran girl named Jenny Flores was held in substandard conditions in immigration detention for a prolonged period of time. Based on her experience, a number of legal organizations filed a lawsuit against the government, which in 1997 resulted in the Flores Settlement Agreement. This set standards for the treatment of unaccompanied children (anyone under the age of eighteen) while they are in detention, including requiring the government to provide reasonable standards of care as well as safe and sanitary living conditions, and to release minors without any unnecessary delay, setting a cap of twenty days.

It is often impossible for people held in detention to socially distance, and there are many reports that there is no access to soap or sanitizer in numerous facilities.

The sixty-nine testimonies that Elora gave us were exhibits filed by the National Youth Law Center in a temporary restraining order requesting emergency relief for minors held in Customs and Border Patrol facilities; the firsthand accounts demonstrated violations of the Flores Settlement. Wrenching news reports about children being held in detention facilities for extended period of times—sometimes in cages—without access to basic hygiene supplies and adequate nutrition or sleep were based on these lawyers’ experiences and these testimonies.

What could we create to respond? We wanted people to experience the testimonies in full. We wanted people outside of New York City, where we’re based, to hear them. We wanted to involve actors but also all the incredible people we’d met during the process of creating The Courtroom who were not actors: lawyers, former judges, immigrant-rights advocates, immigrants who are not in the arts, and playwrights, designers, and other artists invested in this issue.

We decided not to make a piece of theatre. We decided to make a series of videos.

The testimonies would be read in full, without any textual or cinematic editing. We would ask readers from different sectors of society to participate with the hope that it would demonstrate—in a quiet, un-didactic way—a wide-ranging solidarity and investment in the issue. Each reader would sit at a simple wooden table with a glass of clean water, which is often described in the testimonies as being hard for immigrants to get in detention.

The Flores Exhibits. Photo courtesy of Andrew Kluger.

We wanted the readers to be good storytellers but I directed them not to take on any “character” they gleaned from the text or embody the experience described by the person who gave the testimony to the lawyers. We said the goal was for people to hear the words as clearly as possible—without emphasis, without dramatization.

To date, we have filmed forty-three out of the sixty-nine testimonies and are working to complete the filming of the remaining ones. This coming fall, we hope to instigate and facilitate live screenings of The Flores Exhibits around the country as a way to bolster support, organizing, and advocacy for the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement to be upheld and improved.

Taking Action

Right now, there are efforts around the country to decarcerate as many people held in jails, prisons, and detention facilities as possible due to the amplified dangers posed by COVID-19 to anyone in this kind of environment. It is often impossible for people held in detention to socially distance, and there are many reports that there is no access to soap or sanitizer in numerous facilities.

Using excerpts from videos in The Flores Exhibits, we released this ninety-second video connecting firsthand testimonies of people held in detention in June 2019 to the urgent need to get people out of detention during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If you are interested in getting involved, here are a few ways to start:

Find out where there are detention facilities near you: local jails and prisons often have contracts with ICE, and there are dedicated ICE facilities, often in rural areas. Once you know where those facilities are in your state, follow them in the news and connect with and support local organizations and elected representatives who advocate for the release of immigrants, proper living conditions, and access to healthcare in detention. (For a full explanation of government agencies involved in immigration detention, watch this video.)
Join and amplify the efforts of Detention Watch Network, a coalition of eight hundred organizations around the country to get urgent messages to governors, ICE directors, sheriffs, and other represented officials to release people from detention during COVID-19.
Join New Sanctuary’s efforts to advocate to free unaccompanied minors held in immigration detention.
Join Freedom for Immigrants to get involved in your area.
Read the Southern Border Community Coalition’s New Border Vision so you can be part of their proactive movement to transform culture, values, and policy at our southern border.

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

Think about the grotesque perversions of justice going on in the US today! Desperate kids seeking protection and entitled to legal process being illegally held in detention as unlawful punishment and coercion in violation of U.S. Court orders.

Some of the criminals who masterminded and carried out these illegal, unethical, and totally immoral schemes not only remain free but, outrageously, are on our public payroll: Thugs like Stephen Miller, Chad Wolf, Billy Barr, and Ken Cuccinelli. “Cooch Cooch” actually continues to spew his vile propaganda after being held by a Federal Judge to have been illegally appointed.

Another notorious human rights criminal and child abuser, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, remains at large and is outrageously running for return to the Senate, a position he already had abused and misused to promote a White Nationalist racist agenda in the past.

Still others like “Big Mac With Lies” and Kirstjen Nielsen are also at large, disingenuously trying to “reinvent” themselves by having the audacity to tout their past criminal activities, public lies, and human rights abuses as “senior executive experience.”

As these transcripts show, it’s a “world turned upside down” under the vile Trump kakistocracy. But, we all have a chance to redeem our nation in November by voting the kakistocracy out and re-establishing honesty, human values, mutual respect, cooperation, our Constitution, and the rule of law as the hallmarks of America.

On the other hand, the despicable performance by those public officials who abandoned their legal and moral obligations to humanity also shines a light on the many unsung heroes of our time: folks like Professor Elora Mukherjee, Lee Sunday Evans, Arian Moayed, Judge Jeffrey Chase, and the many other members of the New Due Process Army throughout the U.S. Unlike many of our public officials, they are standing up for Due Process and the rule of law in the face of seemingly never-ending tyranny, racism, xenophobia, and hate-mongering from the Trump regime.

Due Process Forever! The Regime’s Continuing Child Abuse ☠️☠️ Never!

PWS

04-26-20

BIA DENIES DUE PROCESS TO VISA PETITIONER, SAYS 9TH CIR. — Zerezghi v. USCIS

Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community forwards this report:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-due-process-standard-of-proof-zerezghi-v-uscis

CA9 on Due Process, Standard of Proof: Zerezghi v. USCIS

Zerezghi v. USCIS

“We hold that the BIA violated due process by relying on undisclosed evidence that Zerezghi and Meskel did not have an opportunity to rebut. In making its initial determination of marriage fraud, the BIA also violated due process by applying too low a standard of proof. On remand, it must establish marriage fraud by at least a preponderance of the evidence before it can deny any subsequent immigration petition based on such a finding.”

[Hats way off to Robert Pauw!]

Robert Pauw
Founding Partner
Gibbs, Houston & Pauw
Seattle, WA

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

How totally perverse has the EOIR system become?

Well, the BIA’s sole function is to insure Due Process for individuals and to apply top-flight expertise and scholarship to keep the Immigration Courts, ICE, CBP, and USCIS in line and following the law and best practices.

Instead, the BIA has become a corner-cutting, sloppy, “rubber stamp” on DHS Enforcement and USCIS “enforcement wannabes.” Remember, early on, the Trump regime made it clear that service to the public, i.e., immigrants, their families, and their communities, was no longer “part of the mission” at USCIS. Instead, the mission is to help ICE & CBP institute politically-driven White Nationalist xenophobic enforcement initiatives.

USCIS was created as a separate agency under DHS specifically to allow service to the immigrant community to flourish without the subservience to law enforcement often present and institutionalized at the “Legacy INS.” However, this regime and its toadies in DHS “Management” have seen fit to recreate the very same conflicts of interest and enforcement dominance that USCIS was created to overcome. In most ways, things are far worse than they ever were at the “Legacy INS.” And, let’s remember that USCIS is funded largely by user fees collected from the public on the now largely fictional rationale that they are getting valuable and professionalized services. What a complete mess and abuse of public funding!

Moreover, given the BIA’s lousy performance, rather than assisting the Article III Courts, it now all too often falls to the Article IIIs to keep the BIA in line and do its job for it. But, given the wide disparity in interest levels, expertise, and integrity among the Article IIIs, the results have been spotty.

Some Article III Judges step up and do the job; others sweep the chronic problems under the table and look the other way as rights are trampled and service to the public mocked. And, no Article III to date has been courageous and scholarly enough to take on the real problem: the glaring unconstitutionality under the Due Process Clause of a so-called “court” controlled, staffed, and evaluated by a highly biased prosecutor empowered to reverse individual case outcomes that don’t match his political agenda!

A glimpse of future horrors to come: Emboldened by Article III complicity, and egged on by the White Nationalist nativists, EOIR now outrageously proposes to charge astronomically higher fees for its shabby, biased, and ever deteriorating “work product.” This is a transparent attempt to further restrict access to justice for the most vulnerable among us. Another clear denial of Due Process!

Yes, Congress is responsible. Yes, Congress is largely in failure. But, that doesn’t absolve the Article IIIs of their duty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency. Will they finally wake up, act with some courage, and do their jobs? Or, will they engage in further “judicial task avoidance” until it’s too late for all of us?

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-16-20

DUE PROCESS WINS IN THE WEST: Split 9th Cir. Slams DOJ’s Vile/Unethical “No Due Process Due” Argument — Orders Bond Hearings For Asylum Applicants Who Passed Credible Fear — Padilla v. ICE — Round Table Amicus Brief Helps Save Due Process!

Padilla v. ICE

Padilla v. ICE, 9th Cir., 03-27-20, published

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

SUMMARY* Immigration

Affirming in part, and vacating and remanding in part, the district court’s preliminary injunction ordering the United States to provide bond hearings to a class of noncitizens who were detained and found to have a credible fear of persecution, the panel affirmed the injunction insofar as it concluded that plaintiffs have a due process right to bond hearings, but remanded for further findings and reconsideration with respect to the particular process due to plaintiffs.

The district court certified a nationwide class of all detained asylum seekers who were subject to expedited removal proceedings, were found to have a credible fear of persecution, but were not provided a bond hearing with a record of hearing within seven days of requesting a hearing. Part A of the district court’s modified preliminary injunction provided: 1) bond hearings must take place within seven days of a class member’s request, or the member must be released; 2) the burden of proof is on the government to show why the

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

4 PADILLA V. ICE

member should not be released; and 3) the government must produce recordings or verbatim transcripts of the hearings, as well as written decisions. Part B concluded that the class is constitutionally entitled to bond hearings. A motions panel of this court previously denied the government’s request to stay Part B, but granted the stay as to Part A.

The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their due process claim, explaining that immigration detention violates the Due Process Clause unless a special justification outweighs the constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that other processes—seeking parole from detention or filing habeas petitions—were insufficient to satisfy due process. The panel further rejected the government’s suggestion that noncitizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause, observing the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of entry—he or she is entitled to due process.

The panel next concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its irreparable harm analysis, noting substandard physical conditions and medical care in detention, lack of access to attorneys and evidence, separation from family, and re-traumatization. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of the equities and public interest favors plaintiffs, explaining that the district court weighed: 1) plaintiffs’ deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right and its attendant harms; 2) the fact that it is always in the public interest to prevent constitutional violations; and 3) the

PADILLA V. ICE 5

government’s interest in the efficient administration of immigration law.

As to Part A of the injunction, the panel concluded that the record was insufficient to support the requirement of hearings within seven days, and that the district court made insufficient findings as to the burdens that Part A may impose on immigration courts. The panel also noted that the number of individuals in expedited removal proceedings may have dramatically increased since the entry of the injunction. Thus, the panel remanded to the district court for further factual development of the preliminary injunction factors as to Part A.

The panel also rejected the government’s argument that the district court lacked authority to grant injunction relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), which provides: “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of [8 U.S.C. §§ 1221–1232], other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.” Examining the relevant precedent, statutory scheme, and legislative history, the panel concluded that here, where the class is composed of individual noncitizens, each of whom is in removal proceedings and facing an immediate violation of their rights, and where the district court has jurisdiction over each individual member of that class, classwide injunctive relief is consistent with congressional intent.

Finally, the panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction as to the nationwide class. However, the panel directed that, on

6 PADILLA V. ICE

remand, the district court must also revisit the nationwide scope.

Dissenting, Judge Bade wrote that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred injunctive relief in this case, concluding that the majority’s opinion does not square with the plain text of § 1252(f)(1), is inconsistent with multiple Supreme Court cases, and needlessly creates a circuit split with the Sixth Circuit. Judge Bade further wrote that, even if the district court had jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief, the preliminary injunction is overbroad and exceeds what the constitution demands. Judge Bade would vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings with instructions to dismiss the claims for classwide injunctive relief.

PANEL: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Michael Daly Hawkins and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges.

OPNION BY: Chief Judge Sydney R. Thomas

DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Bridget S. Bade

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY OPINION:

The government also suggests that non-citizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause. As we have discussed, this position is precluded by Zadvydas and its progeny. The government relies on inapposite cases that address the peculiar constitutional status of noncitizens apprehended at a port-of-entry, but permitted to temporarily enter the United States under specific conditions. See, e.g., Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (“Mezei”), 345 U.S. 206, 208–09, 213–15 (1953) (noncitizen excluded while still aboard his ship, but then detained at Ellis Island pending final exclusion proceedings gained no additional procedural rights with respect to removal by virtue of his “temporary transfer from ship to shore” pursuant to a statute that “meticulously specified that such shelter ashore ‘shall not be considered a landing’”); Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185 (1958) (noncitizen paroled into the United States while waiting for a determination of her admissibility was not “within the United States” “by virtue of her physical presence as a parolee”); Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925) (noncitizen excluded at Ellis Island but detained instead of being deported immediately due to suspension of deportations during World War I “was to be regarded as stopped at the boundary line”).

Indeed, these cases, by carving out exceptions not applicable here, confirm the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of his or her entry—he or she is entitled to due process. See, e.g., Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212 (“[A]liens who have once passed

PADILLA V. ICE 25

through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”); Leng May Ma, 357 U.S. at 187 (explaining that “immigration laws have long made a distinction between those aliens who have come to our shores seeking admission . . . and those who are within the United States after an entry, irrespective of its legality,” and recognizing, “[i]n the latter instance . . . additional rights and privileges not extended to those in the former category who are merely ‘on the threshold of initial entry’” (quoting Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212)); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the entry fiction is best seen . . .as a fairly narrow doctrine that primarily determines the procedures that the executive branch must follow before turning an immigrant away” because “[o]therwise, the doctrine would allow any number of abuses to be deemed constitutionally permissible merely by labelling certain ‘persons’ as non-persons”). We thus conclude that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clause.

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

First, and foremost, let’s give a big vote of appreciation to the All-Star Team at Wilmer Cutler who represented our Round Table on this:

Alan Schoenfeld and Lori A. Martin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Rebecca Arriaga Herche, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jamil Aslam, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amici Curiae Retired Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members.

Knjightess — Knightess of the Round Table

This team is it’s own “Special Forces Brigade” of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”)!

WOW! Persons are “persons” under the Constitution even when they have brown skins and are asylum seekers! How “rad” can you get! What a blow to “business as usual” for the regime and their “Dred Scottification” program of dehumanizing and making non-persons out of migrants and other vulnerable minorities!

Too bad that the Supremes and other Circuit Courts have too often advanced “Dred Scottification,” hiding behind transparently bogus and contrived “national emergencies” and the doctrine of judicial dereliction of duty otherwise known as “Chevron deference.” I guess that’s why the regime has the contempt for both the law and the Article III Courts to press such legally, morally, and Constitutionally “bankrupt” arguments as they did in this case. Never know when you’ll get a “thumbs up” from those who sometimes don’t view oaths of office and their obligations to their fellow humans with enough seriousness!

Significantly, the panel found that “plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that they are constitutionally entitled to individualized bond hearings before a “neutral decisionmaker.” However, in doing so they “papered over” the obvious fact that the constitutional requirement of a “neutral decisionmaker” cannot be fulfilled as long as Billy Barr or other politicos control the Immigration Courts!

Indeed, the panel decision was a strong rebuke of Barr’s atrocious, unethical, scofflaw decision in Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019) purporting to unilaterally change the rules to eliminate bond for those who had passed “credible fear.” Fact is that no individual appearing in today’s Immigration Courts has access to the constitutionally-required “neutral decisionmaker” because Barr retains the ability to simply unilaterally change any result that doesn’t match his White Nationalist nativist agenda and can hire and fire the so-called “judges” at will.

Indeed, under Barr’s totally illegal and professionally insulting “production quotas,” I’m not sure that the “judges” on the “deportation assembly line” even get “production credit” for bond decisions because they aren’t “final orders of removal.” However, denial of bond is actually an important “whistle stop” on the “deportation express.” Those kept in the “New American Gulag” have difficulty finding attorneys and the systematic mistreatment they receive in detention helps to demoralize them and coerce them into giving up claims or waiving appeals.

When are the Article IIIs finally going to stop “beating around the bush” and hold this whole mess to be unconstitutional, as it most clearly is?

In some ways, the panel’s decision reminds me of one of my own long-ago concurring/dissenting opinion in Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799, 810 (BIA 1999) (en banc) (“Joseph II”):

However, I do not share the majority’s view that the proper standard in a mandatory detention case involving a lawful permanent resident alien is that the Service is “substantially unlikely to prevail” on its charge. Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 3398, at 10 (BIA 1999). Rather, the standard in a case such as the one before us should be whether the Service has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge that the respondent is removable because of an aggravated felony.

Mandatory detention of a lawful permanent resident alien is a drastic step that implicates constitutionally-protected liberty interests. Where the lawful permanent resident respondent has made a colorable showing in custody proceedings that he or she is not subject to mandatory detention, the Service should be required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge to continue mandatory detention. To enable the Immigration Judge to make the necessary independent determination in such a case, the Service should provide evidence of the applicable state or federal law under which the respondent was convicted and whatever proof of conviction that is available at the time of the Immigration Judge’s inquiry.

The majority’s enunciated standard of “substantially unlikely to pre-vail” is inappropriately deferential to the Service, the prosecutor in this matter. Requiring the Service to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge would not unduly burden the Service and would give more appropriate weight to the liberty interests of the lawful permanent res- ident alien. Such a standard also would provide more “genuine life to the regulation that allows for an Immigration Judge’s reexamination of this issue,” as referenced by the majority. Matter of Joseph, supra, at 10.

The Service’s failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits would not result in the release of a lawful permanent resident who poses a threat to society. Continued custody of such an alien would still be war- ranted under the discretionary criteria for detention.

In conclusion, mandatory detention should not be authorized where the Service has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge. Consequently, while I am in complete agreement with the decision to release this lawful permanent resident alien, and I agree fully that the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of this aggravated felony charge, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s enunciation of “substantially unlikely to prevail” as the standard to be applied in all future cases involving mandatory detention of lawful permanent resident aliens.

Concern for Due Process and fundamental fairness have intentionally been eradicated in the Immigration “Courts” by Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr. It’s past time for this constitutional mockery to be put out of its misery (and the unending misery it causes for the humans coming before it) once and for all!

As my late BIA colleague Judge Fred W. Vacca once said, albeit in a different context, “It’s time to put an end to this pathetic imitation of an adjudication.” Fred and I didn’t always agree. In fact, we disagreed much of the time. But, he did know when it was finally time to “stop the nonsense,” even when some of our colleagues just kept the system churning long past the point of reason and sanity.

And, folks, that was back in the days when the BIA actually functioned more or less like an “independent appellate court” until the Ashcroft purge of ’03 forever ended that noble vision. Like the rest of the system and those who enable it to keep churning lives as if they were mere water under the bridge, the BIA and the rest of the Immigration “Courts” have now become a national disgrace — a blot on our national conscience. Human beings seeking justice are neither “numbers” to be achieved for “satisfactory ratings,” nor “enforcement problems” to be exterminated without Due Process.

Dehumanization of the “other”and stripping them of legal and human rights is a key part of fascism. It’s what allowed German judges and most of German society to “look the other way” or actively aid in the holocaust. It has no place in our justice system — now or ever!

Due Process Forever! Judicial Complicity in Weaponized Captive “Courts,” That Aren’t Courts At All, Never!

PWS

03-28-20

KILLER “COURTS” ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻 — “Malicious Incompetence” Or “Criminal Negligence” @ EOIR? — Experts Chase & Dzubow Rip Into EOIR/DOJ Officials For Needlessly Endangering Lives! — Kakistocracy Turns Deadly!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/3/26/like-firing-randomly-into-a-crowd

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase in Jeffrey S. Chase Blog:

Like “Firing Randomly Into a Crowd”

On March 23, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a sua sponte order in a case pending before it, ordering the Petitioner’s immediate release from detention “in light of the rapidly escalating health crisis, which public health authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers.” In taking such action, the court used its authority to protect those under its jurisdiction.This is what judges and courts are supposed to do.

In contrast, the leadership of EOIR, the agency which oversees our nation’s immigration courts, sees its mission quite differently. With shocking indifference to those subject to its authority, including its own employees as well as members of the public, EOIR’s present leadership seeks only to please its Department of Justice masters, much like a dog rolling over or playing dead to earn a pat on the head from its owner.

As we all began to comprehend the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic weeks ago, EOIR refused to close immigration courts out of fear of sending a message contrary to Trump’s statements that the health crisis was a “hoax.” Christopher Santoro, the coward holding the title of Acting Chief Immigration Judge, ordered court staff to remove CDC-issued advisories on ways to help stop the spread (i.e. by not shaking hands) on the grounds that the immigration judges lacked the authority to hang such notices in their own courtrooms. In defense of his stupidity, Santoro offered the age-old excuse of the weak: that he was only following orders.

As the virus spread, and people began dying, EOIR kept its courts open far longer than it should have. An ICE attorney who represented the government throughout a crowded Master Calendar hearing in Newark, NJ on March 13 is presently in a coma in intensive care with COVID-19 fighting for his life. I’ve heard that an immigration judge in one of NYC’s immigration courts is presently ill with COVID-19 and pneumonia.There have been additional reports of others at immigration detention centers testing positive.

As cities locked down and sheltered in place, EOIR finally agreed to postpone non-detained hearings, but only until April 10. Hearings in detained courts continue to go forward.And for some reason, non-detained courts that were closed and should have remained so were reopened for the filing of documents only, with such openings announced by nighttime tweets. On Wednesday night, EOIR tweeted that several courts would “open” the next morning, without explaining whether that meant hearings that had previously been announced as postponed would instead go forward the following morning.As this occurred after business hours, there was no one to call for clarification. In fact, the opening was only to file documents.EOIR’s leadership (for want of a better term) has decided that all court filings due during the court closings are now due on March 30.Many lawyers in NYC have no way to meet this deadline, as their office buildings have been locked in compliance with the state’s shutdown order.

In order to accept these filings, EOIR is forcing court clerical staff to leave the safety of their homes, disobey the state PAUSE directive and expose themselves and their family members to possible infection in order to report to work. In NYC, traveling to work for most employees requires riding trains and buses, further increasing the risk of exposure.As schools are closed, how those court staff with child care needs will manage in a time requiring social isolation is unknown.

Furthermore, not all judges hearing detained cases are granting continuances despite the crisis. EOIR has not informed judges that the present crisis exempts them from meeting their performance metrics, which requires all judges to complete 700 cases per year, and to finish 95 percent of cases on the day of their first-scheduled individual hearing. Newly hired judges, who are on probation for two years, are therefore being forced to choose between their own job security and the health and welfare of all those who appear in their courts.

In recent days, EOIR has been besieged with letters from health care professionals, law professors, and various legal and advocacy organizations containing strong arguments to do what the Ninth Circuit had done instinctively and without having to be asked. In one of these letters, attorney George Terezakis, writing on behalf of the New York-based Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys (on whose Board of Directors I sit), described how the mother of a detained respondent who traveled from her home in Long Island to the court in Lower Manhattan by commuter train and subway to file a document for her son’s hearing was later diagnosed with the coronavirus. Terezakis continued: “Just as someone firing randomly into a crowd of Immigration Judges, court staff, attorneys, interpreters and detainees’ family members will foreseeably and inevitably kill someone…keeping the courts open ensures continued, needless infection, serious illness and death…”The letter continued: “This is a real crisis requiring real leadership to take decisive action that will place the safety of those under its jurisdiction ahead of other concerns. There is no escaping the inevitable consequences of inaction.”

As for Santoro, “I was only following orders” has historically fared poorly as a defense. Someone whose name is preceded by the title “Chief Immigration Judge” is required to stand up and take appropriate action in a time of crisis, and accept the consequences of such action. And for those in EOIR’s leadership chain who refuse to do so, it is incumbent on all of us to do everything in our power to ensure that they will be held fully accountable for their inaction under the next administration.

Copyright 2020 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

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

Hon. Susan G. Roy
Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC
Princeton Junction, NJ
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://www.asylumist.com/2020/03/26/incompetence-and-reckless-at-eoir-endanger-lives/

Jason Dzubow writes in The Asylumist:

The coronavirus is causing unprecedented disruptions to nearly every area of life, and the Immigration Courts are no exception. The courts were already in a post-apocalyptic era, with over one million cases in the backlog, and now the situation has been thrown into near total chaos. The fundamental problem is that EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals–is determined to continue adjudicating cases, even if that means risking the lives of its own employees; not to mention the lives of respondents, witnesses, and lawyers (and anyone who comes into contact with them).

EOIR is closing and re-opening various courts seemingly at random, often times with an after-hours Tweet, such as one last night at 9:23 PM, declaring that the Newark and Seattle Immigration Courts will reopen today for purposes of accepting filings and litigating detained cases (non-detained cases through April 10, 2020 have been postponed). In reaction to this latest news, Susan G. Roy, an attorney and former Immigration Judge (and my friend from law school – Hi Sue!) wrote last night–

NJ has the second highest number of corona virus cases in the nation, second only to NY. The Newark Immigration Court was closed because someone tested positive for the virus. Now a DHS attorney is fighting for his life in ICU, another attorney is very ill, and an interpreter has tested positive. These are the ones we know about. The Court was set to reopen on April 12. That is a reasonable time to ensure that everyone is safe and that the risk of transmission is limited. How is it even remotely reasonable to decide to open TOMORROW? Even if it is only for filings, court staff and others will be forced to violate the Governor’s Executive Order [directing all residents to stay at home], put themselves at great risk, and risk contaminating others, while many people who work in the same building remain under mandatory quarantine. You are ruthlessly jeopardizing the lives of your own employees, not to mention the public, for no legitimate reason.

And it’s not just advocates who are upset about EOIR’s decision-making. The National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” – the judges’ union) and ICE attorneys are also reacting with anger. In response to EOIR’s tweet reopening the courts in Seattle and Newark, NAIJ responds, “Putting our lives at risk, one Tweet at a time.” And Fanny Behar-Ostrow, an ICE prosecutor and president of AFGE Local 511, says of EOIR: “It’s like insanity has taken over the agency,“

The gravity of keeping courts open is reflected in one incident, described in a recent letter from the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys in New York–

One of our members recently had a detained master calendar hearing scheduled for this past Friday, March 20, at the Varick St. Court. In order to prepare the bond application and for the master, the attorney and his staff met with the client‘s mother. A request for a bond hearing, together with the required relief applications, and a request for a telephonic hearing, were hand delivered to the Court at noon on Wednesday March 18th, 2020. The attorney did not receive any response to the motion for a telephonic hearing, and repeated calls to the court that day and the next went unanswered. To ensure that the Court was aware of the request, the client‘s mother retrieved from the attorney‘s office, Thursday evening, a letter to the court confirming the request for a telephonic hearing. She traveled to the court in Manhattan, from Long Island, and delivered the letter to the Clerk, and thereafter waited in the waiting area with family members of other detainees and other attorneys who were compelled to appear.

Today we received confirmation the client‘s mother has been diagnosed with COVID–19 virus, through medical testing. Can you imagine the number of people she came into contact with as the result of the decision to keep this court open? In addition to exposing the attorney and office staff, she traveled from her home on Long Island, on the Long Island Railroad, to Penn Station, from there to the subway and ultimately to the Court. Undoubtedly she came into contact with, and exposed, countless numbers of people, who in turn exposed countless others.

Anyone with a basic grasp of the fundamental principles of epidemiology – easily garnered from watching CNN or the local evening news – understands how easily this virus spreads. Given this, the decision to continue to keep the courts open can only be construed as a conscious decision on the part of EOIR to subject our Immigration Judges, court staff, interpreters, DHS attorneys, institutional defenders, members of the private bar, our clients, their families, and all whom they come into contact with, to an unreasonable risk of infection, serious illness and death.

NAIJ echoes this sentiment: “With [New York] the epicenter of the virus, DOJ is failing to protect its employees and the public we serve.”

The appropriate path forward is painfully obvious. EOIR should immediately close all courts for all cases. Staff should work remotely when possible to re-set dates and adjudicate bond decisions (so non-criminal aliens who do not pose a danger to the community can be released from detention). That is the best way to protect everyone involved with the Immigration Court system and the public at large.

Finally, I think it is important to name names. The Director of EOIR is James McHenry. I have never been a fan. Mr. McHenry was profoundly unqualified for his job, having gone from supervising maybe half a dozen people in a prior position to overseeing thousands at EOIR. However, he was politically aligned with the goals of the Trump Administration and he got the job. I have previously described the functioning of the agency during Mr. McHenry’s tenure as maliciousness tempered by incompetence. But these days, it is more like maliciousness exacerbated by incompetence. And in the current crisis, incompetence can be deadly. It’s time for Mr. McHenry and EOIR to do the right thing: Close the courts now.

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

Thanks, Jeffrey, Jason, and Sue, my friends, for “telling it like it is!” Now is not the time for “go along to get along” bureaucratic responses.
Unfortunately, attorneys and court staff might now start paying with their lives for EOIR’s inexcusable two-decade failure to implement a functional e-filing system.
As one of my Round Table colleagues said, “Since when is a late night tweet ‘official notice?’” Don’t remember anything about “notice by tweet” in 8 CFR!
As I noted previously, J.R. and his tone-deaf, complicit Supremes effectively repealed the “Bivens doctrine,” holding Federal officials responsible for “Constitutional torts” committed outside the scope of their official duties. They thereby essentially gave rogue Federal officials a “license to kill,” at least where the victim was merely an unarmed Mexican teenager. It appears that Barr, McHenry, and others in the “chain of command” are trying out their new “licenses.” They had better hope that J.R. & Co’s “willful blindness” and unwillingness to stand up for lives and Constitutional rights extend even when American citizen lawyers and court clerks are among the casualties.
Not surprisingly, EOIR’s contempt for due process and the lives of asylum seekers, families, children, and other migrants has expanded to include the lives of their own employees and members of the public forced to deal with this godawful, unconstitutional mess.
When the reckoning comes, we should not forget the negligent complicity of Congress as well as the Article III Courts for allowing the life-threatening, dysfunctional, unconstitutional mess that EOIR has become continue to operate and to threaten the health, safety, and welfare of all Americans.

PWS

03-27-20

SANITY & HUMANITY SUDDENLY STRIKE: 9th Cir. Panel “Sua Sponte” Orders Release Of Respondent From The Gulag Because Of Coronavirus!

Case: 18-71460, 03/23/2020, ID: 11638656, DktEntry: 53, Page 1 of 1

LUCERO XOCHIHUA-JAIMES, Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-71460

Agency No. A206-105-249

ORDER

FOR PUBLICATION

FILED

MAR 23 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

*

Before: SILER, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

In light of the rapidly escalating public health crisis, which public health authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers, the court sua sponte orders that Petitioner be immediately released from detention and that removal of Petitioner be stayed pending final disposition by this court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

The matter is remanded to the BIA for the limited purpose of securing Petitioner’s immediate release.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

*

The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

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

Yea!

Shows how the Article IIIs can take the initiative to save lives and do justice when they want to. How about a “say sponte” finding that the entire unconstitutional Immigration “Court” system is, well, . . . unconstitutional. Not “rocket science” — just justice!

It’s published!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-23-20

I’M NOT THE ONLY RETIRED JUDGE TO “CALL OUT” JOHN ROBERTS FOR BETRAYAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, DESTRUCTION OF AMERICAN VALUES, INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY, & SUPREME COMPLICITY IN THE FACE OF TYRANNY! — Retired Hawaii State Judge James Dannenberg: “You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law. The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others.”

I https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/judge-james-dannenberg-supreme-court-bar-roberts-letter.html

Hon. James Dannenberg — Honorable James Dannenberg
Retired State Judge
Hawaii

Dahlia Lithwick reports for Slate:

James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. He has appeared on briefs and petitions as part of the most prestigious association of attorneys in the country: the Supreme Court Bar. The lawyers admitted to practice before the high court enjoy preferred seating at arguments and access to the court library, and are deemed members of the legal elite. Above all, the bar stands as a sprawling national signifier that the work of the court, the legitimacy of the institution, and the business of justice is bolstered by tens of thousands of lawyers across the nation.

On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. In his letter, reprinted in full below, Dannenberg compares the current Supreme Court, with its boundless solicitude for the rights of the wealthy, the privileged, and the comfortable, to the court that ushered in the Lochner era in the early 20th century, a period of profound judicial activism that put a heavy thumb on the scale for big business, banking, and insurance interests, and ruled consistently against child labor, fair wages, and labor regulations.

The Chief Justice of the United States

One First Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20543

March 11, 2020

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.

This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.

I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.

The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.

Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.

Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.

It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.

I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.

The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around.

I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.

Please remove my name from the rolls.

With deepest regret,

James Dannenberg

**********

So true. I’d also compare JR’s subservience to a transparently racist, White Nationalist, authoritarian agenda to White Supremacist darling Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision. Roberts is knowingly enabling the “Dred Scottifing” of Hispanics, African Americans, Muslims, political opponents, the LGBTQ community, journalists, minority voters, and a host of others on the authoritarian regime’s “enemies” list.

At a time when America needs a Chief Justice with the courage and integrity to stand up for our Constitution, the rule of law, and the lives of the most vulnerable among us, we instead get Roberts.

J.R. Is quick to stand up for the rights of corporations, guns, and the Executive. But, when it comes to the rights of individuals — things like due process, human rights, and the right to be treated with human dignity, he’s nowhere to be found.

One of the most grotesque failures to stand up for our Constitution, the legal rights of asylum seekers to fair adjudication, and human rights was J.R. & his Supremes’ majority’s granting of the regime’s bogus emergency stay in Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/03/11/let-the-killing-continue-predictably-supremes-game-system-to-give-thumbs-up-to-let-em-die-in-mexico-brown-lives-dont-matter/

Only Justice Sotomayor had the guts and intellectual integrity to stand up for the future of humanity, simple human decency, and the rule of law by voting to deny the regime’s fraudulent stay request. Typically, Roberts & Co. didn’t even have the decency and intellectual honesty to provide a rationale for their life-threatening action. A reasoned decision is one of the “minimal requirements for due process” that Roberts and the Supremes’ majority ignore on a regular basis when rolling over for Trump toady Solicitor General Noel Francisco and his transparently fabricated “emergencies.” Francisco is another one whose disingenuous role and disregard for legal ethics in carrying out Trump’s wanton cruelty and human rights abuses should never be forgotten.

The damage caused by Roberts’s failure to lead and protect humanity isn’t legalistic or academic. It’s “real harm” to “real people.”

Let’s get “up close and personal” with what happens to individuals who fled to our country seeking only due process and fair and humane treatment, just to find Roberts’s and his Supremes’ immorality and warped sense of justice.

Here’s what Roberts’s complicity looks like:

The burns from the acid attack Elizabeth endured while she was kidnapped.

The acid burned all the way through to the bone in Elizabeth's left ankle. — The acid burned all the way through to the bone in Elizabeth’s left ankle. Courtesy of Elizabeth.

Courtesy of Elizabeth Elizabeth's acid burns. — Courtesy of Elizabeth
Elizabeth’s acid burns.

That’s right folks. Torture, proudly presented to you by Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority of the United States Supreme Court. Who would have thought it could happen here? Like Judge Dannenberg, I spent a lifetime respecting the Supreme Court and even defending their decisions, including ones with which I disagreed. That has ended with the corruption, dishonesty, and inhumanity of the Roberts Court in the Age of Trump. Unworthy of America. Unworthy by of respect.

And here’s some narrative to go with it from Adolfo Flores over at BuzzFeed News:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/asylum-seeker-tortured-mexico

. . . .

Elizabeth left her home in Guatemala after being brutally beaten by the father of her daughter. She went to the police who refused to help her despite filing a complaint against him. The beatings in front of her daughter continued. Fearing that one day soon he’d kill her, Elizabeth left with her daughter.

“There’s a reason why there are so many femicides,” Elizabeth said.

The pair arrived near Ciudad Juárez in late July. She got off a bus she took with her daughter that was supposed to take them to Ciudad Juárez and got into what she believed was an Uber. She asked the driver to take her to the bridge that connects the city to El Paso. But as the city lights started to fade and the streets turned to desert and cliffs, Elizabeth realized the driver was taking her away from the city.

For about 12 days she was kept inside a dirty home, occasionally fed old food, and assaulted. Different men touched her genital area and licked her breasts in front of her daughter, according to documents provided by her attorneys. She wasn’t raped, but later had brownish discharge from her vagina she believes was the result of the men hurting her with an object or fingers.

Her attorneys said they believe the men were in the cartel, but don’t know for sure. They threatened to rape her and her daughter if she didn’t provide them with a number to call family for ransom. After days of holding her for ransom that her family couldn’t pay, the men threw chemical acid on her legs that resulted in second-degree burns. Despite closing her eyes and covering her ears, her then-10-year-old daughter could hear her mother’s screams, later telling Elizabeth she would never forget the sound of them.

At one point their kidnappers went outside and her daughter realized they left the door open. Elizabeth was too weak and in too much pain from the acid burns, but her daughter persisted.

“‘I don’t want them to kill us, torture us, or do something worse,'” Elizabeth recalled her daughter saying. “‘I can’t take this anymore, I feel like I’m going to die from sadness.'”

The pair ran from the house and were eventually chased by their kidnappers, armed with large black weapons, Elizabeth said. She fainted from the pain and heat, so her daughter ran ahead and flagged down police officers who called for help. A helicopter arrived shortly after to pick up Elizabeth.

Elizabeth woke up in a hospital and was discharged after seven days despite her left ankle still bleeding and with the bone exposed. Elizabeth said the hospital was overcrowded and didn’t have enough space, but believes she was discharged quickly because she was an immigrant and not a priority for the hospital’s staff.

She was taken to a shelter that was later closed due to bad conditions. At a second shelter, the director and staff helped cure her ankle — which smelled and cause her to fear she would get gangrene — with medication and topical creams because Elizabeth was too scared to venture outside.

In November, Elizabeth had recovered enough to walk, so she went with her daughter to the Arizona border and presented herself to CBP officers to request asylum. She told them about her attack and was taken to a hospital in Tucson to be medically screened. The doctor prescribed her medication to avoid infection. Then CBP sent her back to Ciudad Juárez.

On Jan. 31, Palazzo and other attorneys walked with her to a border crossing and asked that she be allowed to fight her case in the US. She was interviewed on the phone by the asylum officer who later said she failed.

While Elizabeth was in Ciudad Juárez, the shelter operators asked her if she could watch the door while they ran an errand. A shootout occurred shortly after between criminals and police near the shelter. Men who were running from the police ran up to the shelter’s doors and told Elizabeth to let them in. She faced them and refused, but they threatened to come back for revenge before running off.

Last week, a day before Elizabeth was due at a court hearing in El Paso, she was in the streets of Ciudad Juárez when one of her kidnappers approached her and recognized her. Filled with dread, Elizabeth and her daughter quickly made their way to the shelter to hide. Her fear then was that the men would come looking for her there.

The next day, on Friday, she went to her immigration court hearing in El Paso. She joined other immigrants in MPP who present themselves at the border in the predawn hours of the day to be transported to immigration court. Her plan was to ask for another non-refoulement interview, but that same morning, a federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration policy.

For the entire day, attorneys, immigrants, and advocates tried to understand what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ order affirming a 2019 preliminary injunction meant for people stuck in Mexico, but also what would happen to those who had court hearings in the US that day, like Elizabeth. Sending them back would surely violate the judges’ order, some immigration attorneys said.

By Friday night, the 9th Circuit stayed its initial order blocking the Trump administration from enforcing MPP and the policy was allowed to continue. Still, Elizabeth and her daughter remained in CBP custody, and attorneys weren’t sure authorities were going to release her into the US.

She was interviewed three times about her fears of being sent back to Mexico. Her daughter told a US asylum officer about the nightmares she has, how she can’t sleep, and that she had trouble eating. Eventually, Elizabeth was told she passed her interview, was released Monday with an ankle monitor, and sent to reunite with family in Kansas.

Elizabeth was worried about the costs of continuing to receive medical care in the US for her acid burns, but she is determined to start a new chapter in her life.

“I’ve suffered a lot,” she said, “but for the first time in a long time, I feel safe.”

UPDATE

March 7, 2020, at 12:54 a.m.

This post was updated to include the more than 1,000 public reports of rape, torture, kidnapping, and other violence against immigrants sent back to Mexico.

MORE ON THIS

A Parasite In Her Eyes Was Slowly Making Her Blind, But The US Turned This Immigrant Away Multiple Times
Adolfo Flores · Feb. 14, 2020

A Venezuelan Dad Was Allowed Into The US, But His 18-Year-Old Daughter Was Sent Back To Mexico Alone
Adolfo Flores · Feb. 17, 2020

Two Couples Shared What It Was Like Falling In Love At A Migrant Camp At The US–Mexico Border
Adolfo Flores · Feb. 14, 2020

TOPICS IN THIS ARTICLE

Immigration

Mexico

Adolfo Flores
Immigration Reporter
BuzzFeed News

Adolfo Flores is a reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in McAllen, Texas..
Contact Adolfo Flores at adolfo.flores@buzzfeed.com.
Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

There are lots of Elizabeths out there who have been silenced, some forever, by the likes of Roberts and other “unjust judges.” But, eventually, their stories will be told in all their grim and horrifying detail. At that point, folks like Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and their enablers will attempt to “rewrite history,” to eschew moral and legal responsibility and shift the blame elsewhere with the “usual BS” like “just following the law,” “calling balls and strikes,” “just following orders.” Those are largely the same pathetic excuses offered by those who advanced the cause of human slavery, created Jim Crow, enabled genocide against Native Americans, and helped Hitler.

One of the most important tasks of the younger generation of the New Due Process Army is to bear witness and insure that J.R. & Co. don’t “get away with murder,” literally. Their job is to insure that the stories of those wronged by enablers of the Trump regime are heard loudly and clearly; to confront the complicit with the judgements of history; to insure that the descendants of those who “stood small” and failed humanity know who their ancestors “really were” when the chips were down; and to make sure that history never again repeats itself in the form of John Roberts or anyone like him being allowed to hold positions of great trust and public responsibility in our judiciary.

Take a good like at the pictures above of Elizabeth’s legs and ankles. Those aren’t the results of somebody legitimately “just calling balls and strikes.” Roberts has “struck out.” Unfortunately, however, the rules allow him to continue to play the game to the detriment of our nation and human decency and the continued torment of those to whom he has willfully and inexcusably denied justice.

Due Process Forever; The Complicity of John Roberts, Never!

PWS

03-14-20

LET THE KILLING CONTINUE — PREDICTABLY, SUPREMES “GAME” SYSTEM TO GIVE THUMBS UP TO “LET ‘EM DIE IN MEXICO” — “Brown Lives Don‘t Matter” In Full Gear @ High Court – Justice Sotomayor Only One To Stand For Constitution & Human Rights As Race Toward Authoritarianism Accelerates!

Robert Barnes
Supreme Court Reporter
Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-trump-remain-in-mexico/2020/03/11/7abd4b9c-62d7-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html

Supreme Court says Trump administration may continue ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy for asylum seekers

Robert Barnes

Migrants are led back down Paso del Norte International Bridge in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, last month after the United States refused them entry. (Paul Ratje/AFP/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration may continue its “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers while lower-court challenges continue, after the federal government warned that tens of thousands of immigrants amassed at the southern border could overwhelm the immigration system.

The justices reversed a decision of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had ordered the policy be suspended Thursday on parts of the border. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only noted dissenter.

The Trump administration had warned the justices of a dire situation without their intervention.

“Substantial numbers of up to 25,000 returned aliens who are awaiting proceedings in Mexico will rush immediately to enter the United States,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a brief. “A surge of that magnitude would impose extraordinary burdens on the United States and damage our diplomatic relations with the government of Mexico.”

The experimental U.S. policy requires migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed. (Luis Velarde/The Washington Post)

Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy blocked in federal appeals court

The program — officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP — is among the tools the Trump administration has used to curb mass migration from Central America and elsewhere across the southern U.S. border.

In the 13 months it has been in place, the government said, 60,000 migrants have been sent back into Mexico to await their U.S. asylum hearings, part of an effort to limit access to the United States and deter people from attempting the journey north.

The administration implemented the program last year, after more than 470,000 migrants — including parents and children — crossed into the United States illegally, with most quickly freed amid a massive immigration court backlog.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing immigration groups and individuals, called it an “unprecedented policy that fundamentally changed the nation’s asylum system, contrary to Congress’s design and the United States’ treaty obligations.”

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last month issued an injunction against the policy along the borders of California and Arizona, states within the court’s authority.

Judges William A. Fletcher and Richard A. Paez, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, agreed with a lower-court judge in California that MPP probably violated federal immigration law by ousting undocumented asylum seekers who should be allowed to apply for protection in the United States.

‘Remain in Mexico’ program dwindles as more immigrants are flown to Guatemala or are quickly deported

The judges also said the program probably violated the administration’s “non-refoulement” obligations under international and domestic law, which prohibit the government from sending people to countries where they face danger. The 57-page ruling cited asylum seekers who feared kidnapping, threats and violence in Mexico.

“There is a significant likelihood that the individual plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the MPP is not enjoined,” Fletcher wrote in the opinion. “Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico under the MPP risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum.”

Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that the panel should have adhered to a prior appeals court decision that allowed MPP to take effect.

The Supreme Court’s action marks another case in which the Trump administration has asked the high court to immediately intervene after an adverse ruling from a regional appeals court.

The court on a 5-to-4 vote in January allowed the administration to begin implementing new “wealth test” rules making it easier to deny immigrants residency or admission to the United States because they have used or might use public-assistance programs.

Maria Sacchetti contributed to this report

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

So much for human dignity, our Constitution, and the rule of law. How many will die because of the Supreme’s dereliction of duty before we finally get regime change? Of course, the Supremes haven’t shown much interest in voting rights and fair elections either.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-11-20

WASHPOST EDITORIAL CHANNELS COURTSIDE! — Calls Out “Wolfman” & Other Cowardly Trump Toadies Who Lie & Gloat About Abusing Vulnerable Asylum Seekers! – “In fact, the human suffering caused by Remain in Mexico, a policy Mr. Wolf has promoted, is what has truly been “grave and reckless,” and an insult to American traditions and values.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-border-crisis-is-trumps-remain-in-mexico-policy/2020/03/06/02d6964c-5cd8-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html

By Editorial Board

March 7, 2020 at 7:00 a.m. EST

WITH CHARACTERISTIC bombast, the White House denounced a federal court ruling the other day that threatens the administration’s policy of shifting migrants across the border into Mexico while they await the outcome of their asylum claims. The ruling, said press secretary Stephanie Grisham, could “reignite the humanitarian and security crisis at the border.”Too late, Ms. Grisham. As a direct result of the administration’s policy, known as Remain in Mexico, a full-blown humanitarian and security crisis already has been raging at the border since last spring. But since the victims, violence and costs of that crisis happen to be just south of the border — sometimes nearly within view of it — U.S. officials have successfully averted their eyes. To the Trump administration, a crisis of its own making is out of sight and therefore must not exist.

Sadly, it does exist. Some 60,000 migrants, mainly from Central America, have been returned by U.S. officials to Mexico over the past year to await adjudication of their asylum claims. Many have given up. Those who remain, stranded in squalid shelters and tent camps along the frontier, are easy prey for Mexican crime cartels. More than 1,000 reported cases of kidnapping, rape torture and other violent crimes targeting migrants waiting in Mexico have been documented by Human Rights First, an advocacy group. Independent journalists have also confirmed such cases, often involving Mexican criminals who use the migrants as leverage for ransom demands aimed at their relatives at home or in the United States.

The mass victimization of asylum seekers runs afoul of U.S. law and this country’s treaty obligations, which prohibit subjecting asylum seekers to such risks. “Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that [migrants returned to Mexico under the administration’s policy] risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum,” wrote Judge William A. Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled against the policy but let it stand pending further appeals.

. . . .

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

Read the complete editorial at the above link.

It’s great to be on the right aside of history here. But, it would be better to make history by getting essential “regime change” in November – across the board.

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

03-08-20

ROUND TABLE NEWS: Getting The Due Process Message Across — 9th Cir. Orders Regime To Respond To Round Table’s Amicus Briefs in Matter of A-B- Challenges!

Lory Rosenberg — Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg
Senior Advisor
Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLC

Round Table stalwarts Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg report:

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 03/03/2020 at 3:25:28 PM PST and filed on 03/03/2020

Case Name: Sontos Diaz-Reynoso v. William Barr

Case Number: 18-72833

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AF): The panel previously ordered that argument for the above-captioned cases would proceed with Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, No. 18-72833 being argued first. The panel supplements its previous order for argument in this first case, as follows: Petitioner will argue, reserving time for rebuttal if desired, then Amicus Curiae The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies will argue, then Respondent will have an opportunity to respond to both Petitioner and the Amicus, and finally Petitioner may use any time reserved for rebuttal. Additionally, Respondent should be prepared to address the arguments raised by Amici Curiae Thirty-Nine Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals. [11616996] [18-72833, 18-72735, 18-73434, 19-70489] (AF)

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

Great to know that at least some Article IIIs are paying attention. We can only hope that they will act on our expert views and save some very deserving and highly vulnerable lives. Of course, we couldn’t have gotten this far without the amazing pro bono team over at Gibson Dunn!

PWS

03-08-20

Case Name:	Sontos Diaz-Reynoso v. William Barr
Case Number:	18-72833
Document(s):	Document(s)

Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out! It’s a Start On A Better Court, For America & For Humanity!

Related posts:

Immigration Law

Better Executive + Better Legislature + Better Judges = Equal Justice for All!

Related posts:

Wall Funding Illegal – Bing

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! The Regime’s Continuing Child Abuse ☠️☠️ Never!

Related posts:

CA9 on Due Process, Standard of Proof: Zerezghi v. USCIS

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

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Judicial Complicity in Weaponized Captive “Courts,” That Aren’t Courts At All, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; The Complicity of John Roberts, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

Related posts: