Judicial Review – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️👍 CONGRATS TO JENNIFER BADE, ESQUIRE ON A RARE BIA VICTORY FOR THE “GOOD GUYS!” — Issues: Venue, Choice of Law — Matter of M-N-I-, 28 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2024)

Jennifer C. Bade, EsquireFounder & Managing Partner Bade Law Group Brookline, MA PHOTO: Bade Law Group — Jennifer C. Bade, Esquire
Founder & Managing Partner
Bade Law Group
Brookline, MA
PHOTO: Bade Law Group

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-05/4076.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/bia-on-venue-choice-of-law-matter-of-m-n-i-

Since choice of law is dependent on venue in Immigration Court proceedings, the controlling circuit law is not affected by a change in the administrative control court and will only change upon the granting of a motion to change venue. Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023), followed.

“In a decision dated October 24, 2023, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s application for deferral of removal under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The respondent, a native and citizen of Morocco, has appealed that decision. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has not responded to the appeal. Because we agree with the respondent that additional fact-finding and analysis are needed and the Immigration Judge misapplied choice of law precedent, we will remand these proceedings for the entry of a new decision. … The record reflects that the respondent has been detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center (“Moshannon”) in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, throughout these proceedings. The proceedings commenced with the filing of a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on April 18, 2023, at the Cleveland, Ohio Immigration Court, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. … After the respondent’s individual hearing on October 20, 2023, the Immigration Judge applied Third Circuit law and denied deferral of removal under CAT. … The respondent argues that the Immigration Judge erroneously applied Third Circuit law rather than Sixth Circuit law. We review this issue de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2020). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the respondent that the Immigration Judge applied the incorrect circuit’s law. … On remand, the Immigration Judge should reevaluate the respondent’s claim under Sixth Circuit law and apply relevant Board precedent, with consideration to the respondent’s appellate arguments concerning the respondent’s gender identity and sexual orientation. See Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740, 745 (BIA 2023) (explaining that “when considering future harm, adjudicators should not expect a respondent to hide” the respondent’s sexual orientation).”

[Hats off to Jennifer C. Bade!]

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

Great job, Jennifer! Once again, it’s worth asking ourselves how successful arguments of this kind could ever be made by an unrepresented respondent. If, as is painfully obvious to even a casual observer, the answer is “they couldn’t,” then where is the due process in an overloaded, corner-cutting court system where lack of representation is actually on the increase, despite truly heroic efforts by the private and pro bono bars?

I also find the last sentence of the above summary very helpful. While it certainly states the correct rule regarding sexual orientation cases, my sense is that this part of the Matter of C-G-T- precedent is often ignored at the Immigration Court level and not always corrected by the BIA on appeal. So, it’s certainly worth re-emphasizing!

The BIA’s opinion was written by Appellate Immigration Judge Gorman for a panel that also included Appellate Immigration Judge Greer and Temporary Appellate IJ Crossett.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-30-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍👏 CELEBRATE A HUGE GOOD GUYS’ “ROUND 1” WIN OVER WHITE NATIONALIST FL “GOV” RONNIE D!

Adina Appelbaum of CAIR Coalition reports on LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/adina-appelbaum_immigrationlaw-immigrationupdate-legalupdate-activity-7199090235421401088-qNiK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

🚩 Federal court knocks down key part of Florida’s anti-immigrant law temporarily – a massive win for immigrants’ rights against anti-immigrant state laws!

Today, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit challenging the main provision of Florida’s anti-immigrant law SB1718. This means this part of the law is temporarily stopped while the full case continues to get litigated.

Spearheaded by anti-immigrant Governor Ron DeSantis, SB1718 has attacked immigrants in Florida in a multitude of ways, including the provision at issue in this lawsuit, which made it a crime to transport anyone into Florida who had not been “inspected” by the US government.

This had the effect of the state of Florida, through state criminal law, unlawfully enforcing federal immigration law, which hundreds of years of case law makes clear is a matter reserved for the federal government. The district court judge agreed (finding the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their conflict- and field-preemption claims).

Congratulations to the ACLU, SPLC, AIC, and AIJ who have led litigation on this case as well as my colleagues Immigration Impact Lab Senior Attorneys F. Evan Benz and Daniel J. Melo and AILA’s amicus committee for writing an excellent amicus brief in support of the lawsuit.

What can you do?

1. Spread the word. Help educate others about the importance of fighting for immigrants’ rights.

2. Celebrate. As we see more and more states seek to pass anti-immigrant laws at the state level following Florida and Texas’ lead, this decision is a milestone moment in advocates’ efforts to fight back. 🎉

#immigrationlaw #immigrationupdate #legalupdate #immigration

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

Thanks, Adina, and way to go NDPA Team! The case is Farmworker Association of Florida v. Moody, No. 23-cv-22655 (Southern District of Florida, May 22, 2024). Expect Florida to appeal to the 11th Circuit, so, unfortunately, this isn’t the end of the matter.

Here’s a link to the decision by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman (Trump appointee):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16nz3m5egOWHK4ZTp2oa2t-7kWFj3sjdj/view?usp=sharing

Even as the national (non) debate on immigration deteriorates into lies, myths, and hate, there are still victories to be won by great, motivated lawyers dedicated to defending individual rights and the rule of law against political scofflaws like DeSantis and his nativist ilk!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-23-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 EXPLODING THE NEGATIVE “BIPARTISAN MYTHS” ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS: TRAC’S 10-YR. STUDY SHOWS THAT HUGE MAJORITY (2/3) OF ASYLUM SEEKERS GET FAVORABLE RESULTS IF (A BIG “IF”) THEY CAN GET A DECISION FROM EOIR — Representation Is Critical To Success — Hundreds Of Thousands Who Deserve To Stay Languish In Garland’s Endless Backlogs, While He Continues To Enable “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”), The Bane Of Due Process, Fairness, & Efficiency!

Austin Kocher, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
TRAC-Syracuse
PHOTO: Syracuse U.

From Professor Austin Kocher @ Linkedin:

New Report! “Two-Thirds of Court Asylum Applicants Found Legally Entitled to Remain.”

Out of 1M+ asylum cases decided by immigration judges over the past decade, 685,956 (66%) were legally entitled to remain in the United States due to asylum or other relief.

https://trac.syr.edu/reports/742/

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

Remember, this is in a system that has, over decades, been intentionally rigged, manipulated, and skewed AGAINST legal asylum seekers, particularly those of color from certain arbitrarily “disfavored” countries! (Think Haiti, The Northern Triangle, and many African Nations). While this anti-asylum bias has “peaked” in GOP Administrations, Dems have also been guilty including the Biden Administration’s flailing, legally problematic efforts to abuse the asylum adjudication system as a “deterrent” to those legally seeking asylum!

Trial By Ordeal — The U.S. Asylum system over the past two decades has prided itself in making the experience of asylum seekers as restrictive, difficult, complex, arcane, arbitrary, and “user unfriendly” as possible for many of the most vulnerable. Even so, courageous asylum seekers who can actually get a decision persevere and succeed against the odds! What if Administrations of both parties worked to make the system fair and timely, rather than trying to use it as a false “deterrent?” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

Austin’s post triggered this exchange between Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello and me on LinkedIn:

BECKIE: It’s really higher than that, once we factor in all the wrongfully denied cases for clients who can’t afford to appeal.

PWS: Thanks for speaking truth, Beckie! If true asylum experts were on the BIA, IJs were experts who applied or were held by the BIA to the Cardoza, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, 8 CFR 208.13 framework, the asylum adjudication system had dynamic leadership, and individuals were competently represented, many more cases would be granted much more efficiently and backlogs would eventually come under control and start to diminish. In fact, individuals should be considered eligible for asylum even where persecution on a protected ground is “significantly less than probable” — the 10% rule! Moreover, asylum seekers who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” These and the presumption of future persecution established by past persecution, thereby shifting the burden to DHS, are still too often ignored, misapplied, or manipulated against asylum seekers. There is nothing that will make a backlog at least a decade in the making disappear overnight. But, a legitimate, legally compliant, properly generous asylum adjudication system would benefit all involved. It’s sad that Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas are afraid to comply with the rule of law for asylum seekers and other migrants!

Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello ESQUIREPHOTO: Linkedin — Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello ESQUIRE
PHOTO: Linkedin

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-21-24

⚠️ “SIR JEFFREY” OF THE ROUND TABLE ⚔️🛡 SAYS THAT SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE UNDERMINED THE RULE OF LAW BY CONTRAVENING BINDING INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE STANDARDS: “[I]t is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.” — Stop Mocking The Rule Of Law At The Border! ☠️

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/proposed-asylum-bar-regs-are-at-odds-with-international-law-and-why-that-matters

Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)

In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:

Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1

This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.

Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.

Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5

This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.

This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7

Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:

If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8

And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9

As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.

So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.

However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.

In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12

I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.

Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.

As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.

Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 Sept. 2003, https://www.unhcr.org/us/media/guidelines-international-protection-no-5-application-exclusion-clauses-article-1f-1951 (emphasis added).

Application of Certain Mandatory Bars in Fear Screenings, 89 FR 41347 (May 13, 2024), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/13/2024-10390/application-of-certain-mandatory-bars-in-fear-screenings.

See, e.g., American Immigration Council, “The Biden Administration’s Proposed Regulations On Asylum Bars: An Analysis,” (May 10, 2024), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/biden-administration-proposed-regulation-asylum-bars-analysis; Human Rights First Press Release (May 9, 2024) https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/human-rights-first-opposes-new-asylum-proposals-that-would-deny-asylum-hearings/.

6 U.S. 64 (1804).

See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).

James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.

Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.

480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).

Id. at 439.

Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.

Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).

Jeffrey S. Chase, “A Wish List for 2021,” https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/14/a-wish-list-for-2021 (Dec. 14, 2020).

MAY 16, 2024

Reprinted by permission.

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

The Charming Betsy — The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum!
PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter

Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!

For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.

Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-17-24

⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️👨🏽‍⚖️ GARLAND’S LATEST 20 JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS LEAN TO GOVERNMENT SECTOR BY ALMOST 2-1!

Here’s the link to the official announcement by EOIR:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1351546/dl?inline

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

Among the “exceptions” to the trend:

Jenny Vi Beverly, Immigration Judge, Lowell Immigration Court

Jenny Vi Beverly was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Beverly earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2010 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 2013 from the University of Maine School of Law. From 2014 to 2024, she was in private practice as an attorney partner from 2014 to 2017 and as principal attorney from 2017 to 2024, representing noncitizens before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. During her time in private practice, she volunteered as pro bono counsel for the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project in Maine. Judge Beverly is a member of the Maine State Bar.

Mark D. Donovan, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Mark D. Donovan was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Donovan earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from The Catholic University of America, a Master of Business Administration in 2001 from Northeastern University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from New England Law – Boston. From 2012 to 2024, he was an associate at Considine & Furey LLP in Boston, practicing civil litigation and criminal defense. From 2008 to 2012, he was an assistant district attorney in the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office in Bristol County, Massachusetts. Judge Donovan is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.

Nina J. Froes, Immigration Judge, Lowell Immigration Court

Nina J. Froes was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Froes earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of. Massachusetts Dartmouth and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Roger Williams University School of Law. From 2013 to 2024, she was a solo immigration law practitioner at the Law Office of Nina J. Froes in New Mattapoisett, Massachusetts. From 2012 to 2013, she was a clinical fellow at the Immigration Law Clinic, School of Law, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. From 2010 to 2011, she was the legal director of the Immigrant Victims Representation Project, Immigration Department, Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Catholic Charities USA, in Fall River, Massachusetts. From 2008 to 2011, she was a fellow in the immigration unit at the Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Massachusetts in Worcester, Massachusetts. Judge Froes is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the Rhode Island Bar.

Roopal B. Patel, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Roopal B. Patel was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Patel earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Harvard University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from New York University School of Law. From 2014 to 2024, she was a senior staff attorney at Manhattan Legal Services where she worked on a wide variety of cases, including immigration cases. From 2011 to 2013, she was a staff attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice. Judge Patel is a member of the New York State Bar.

Sarah F. Torres, Immigration Judge, Concord Immigration Court

Sarah F. Torres was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Torres earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from the University of California, Berkeley and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from the University of California, Davis School of Law. From 2019 to 2024, she was the managing attorney of the immigration legal services program at Opening Doors Inc., in Sacramento. From 2015 to 2019, she was a partner at Tomlinson & Torres PC. From 2008 to 2014, she practiced immigration law in private practice. Judge Torres is a member of the State Bar of California.

Joan B. Geller, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Joan B. Geller as an appellate immigration judge in May 2024. Judge Geller earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Wisconsin and a Juris Doctorate in 1994 from the Georgetown University Law Center. From 2003 to 2024, Judge Geller served as an attorney advisor with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and in 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2021 she served as a temporary Appellate Immigration Judge with the BIA. From 2002 to 2003, she was deputy staff counsel at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. From 1996 to 2002, she was a staff attorney at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. From 1994 to 1996, she was a court law clerk at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Judge Geller is a member of the Maryland State Bar and the District of Columbia Bar.

Homero López Jr., Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Homero López Jr. as an appellate immigration judge in May 2024. Judge López earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from Southern Methodist University and a Juris Doctorate in 2010 from Tulane University Law School. From 2018 to 2024, Judge Lopez worked with the Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy (ISLA) in New Orleans, which he cofounded, serving as legal director from 2021 to 2024 and executive director from 2018 to 2020. From 2015 to 2018, he worked with Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, serving as managing attorney of Immigration Legal Services from 2015 to 2018 and as supervising attorney for the Unaccompanied Children’s Program in 2015. From 2011 to 2014, he worked with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, serving as a staff attorney from 2011 to 2014 and as a supervising attorney in 2014. Judge López is a member of the Louisiana Bar.

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

The appointments of Judges Lopez and Geller to the BIA were previously announced on “Courtside.”

Congratulations, best wishes, and good luck to these and all of the other new Judges! Remember, beyond all the bureaucratic nonsense that EOIR might throw at you, the name of the game, the ONLY game, is due process, fundamental fairness, and correct results! With lives at stake, our country and humanity are counting on you to help lift EOIR out of its “downward spiral” and to permanently change the “any reason to deny” culture!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-14-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 W&M IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS SHOW ESSENTIAL ROLE OF GREAT REPRESENTATION IN A SYSTEM GEARED TO “REJECT, NOT PROTECT!”

https://wmimmigrationclinicblog.com/2024/05/07/our-clients-story-sang-instead-of-whispered-immigration-clinic-students-represent-client-in-asylum-trial/

From the William & Mary Law School Immigration Clinic Blog:

“Our Client’s Story Sang Instead of Whispered”: Immigration Clinic Students Represent Client in Asylum Trial

7MAY 2024

Caitlin Parets, J.D. ’24 (left) and Alison Domonoske, J.D. ’24 (right) after their trial in Immigration Court (Spring 2024).

During the last week of Law School classes, Immigration Clinic Students Caitlin Parets, J.D. Class of 2024 and Alison Domonoske, J.D. Class of 2024 represented their client in a four-hour asylum trial. The students traveled with Clinic Professors Nicole Medved and Stacy Kern-Scheerer to appear before the Department of Justice on behalf of the Clinic’s client, Ms. B*.

Ms. B fled to the United States from Central America after suffering death threats at the hands of the powerful maras. After moving to Hampton Roads to find safety with her family, Ms. B reached out to the Immigration Clinic for assistance with her case before the Immigration Court.

Simply having representation in a case before the Immigration Court makes a difference in an asylum seeker’s case. Currently, there is no right to an appointed lawyer in Immigration Court. This means that, if someone cannot afford an attorney or find a nonprofit or law school clinic to represent them, they must represent themselves in court. As of January 2024, less than half of all immigrants facing deportation in immigration court in Virginia had a lawyer. Those who do have representation are significantly more likely to win their case. A 2016 study by the American Immigration Council “found that immigrants were five times more likely to obtain legal relief if they were represented by counsel.” Knowing the impact of representation on cases like Ms. B’s, the Clinic accepted Ms. B as a client.

In the Fall 2023 semester, Alison Domonoske, J.D. Class of 2024, was assigned to work with Ms. B on her asylum case. Alison first got to work preparing to take pleadings in the Immigration Court at Ms. B’s first hearing, called a Master Calendar Hearing. At that hearing, after pleadings were taken, the Immigration Judge scheduled Ms. B for her trial, known as an Individual Hearing, on April 25, 2024. Now, with the trial scheduled, the Clinic jumped into action. At the beginning of the Spring 2024 semester, Caitlin Parets, J.D. Class of 2024, joined the case to prepare for the trial.

In every asylum case, country conditions evidence is critical to provide context for each asylum seeker’s claim, helping the adjudicator understand why an asylum seeker deserves protection. Federal Courts of Appeals again and again have found this information critical in their decisions. In Central American cases, especially those involving violence by the maras like MS-13 and Barrio 18, country conditions are essential to helping judges consider the case beyond American conceptions of “gangs” and “gang violence.” Dr. Thomas Boerman, an expert on Central American gangs best summarized these misunderstandings in his 2018 article in Immigration Briefings:

“[U]nless one has extensively researched and witnessed firsthand the ways in which gang culture manifests in Central America, it is not possible to possess a comprehensive understanding of their influence, the level of control that they exert, or the level of terror, trauma, desperation, and helplessness that they engender in the population in areas under their control.”

These general misunderstandings of life in Central America presented unique challenges to Alison and Caitlin in preparing Ms. B’s case. Not only did they have to show how the facts of Ms. B’s case meet the high standards for asylum, but they also had to overcome misunderstandings of Central American gang violence in order to make their case.

Alison and Caitlin faced these challenges head-on. They conducted extensive country conditions research and legal research to write a brief in support of Ms. B’s case for asylum. They also met regularly with Ms. B to better understand her experience and focus their research. Alison and Caitlin also met weekly with their supervising attorney, Professor Nicole Medved, to discuss each step of their progress.

“Alison and Caitlin worked so hard to prepare a thorough, detailed, and nuanced record for the case,” said Professor Medved. “Preparing a record for trial, always with an eye toward preserving the record for appeal, is difficult for practicing attorneys. It is even moreso difficult for law students as they work on their cases, classwork, and other responsibilities as law students. In spite of all of this, Alison’s and Caitlin’s work product on this case was exemplary.”

“I could not have appreciated at the beginning of the semester how much our understanding and our arguments would evolve and grow in stature and creativity until we were left with the robust and finely crafted case we presented to the judge,” shared Caitlin.

After submitting their brief and supporting evidence, Alison and Caitlin prepared the case for trial. Alison carefully drafted direct examination questions for Ms. B, while Caitlin wrote the closing argument to address the complex legal issues and the extensive evidence in the record. Throughout April, Alison and Caitlin continued to meet regularly with Professor Medved to review their progress.

Alison (left) and Caitlin (right) during the mock hearing (Spring 2024).

As part of their preparation, Caitlin and Alison also had a mock hearing in mid-April. Ashley Warmeling graciously volunteered her time to serve as the judge for their mock hearing, Professor Kern-Scheerer was opposing counsel, and classmate Christina Kim, J.D. Class of 2024 served as the client. After the hearing, Ms. Warmeling provided feedback on the case and what they could expect from a judge in court and offered her advice on their preparation. This mock hearing was a critical step in the students’ preparation for the April 25 trial.

“I was impressed by the students’ preparation and commitment to their client,” said Ms. Warmeling. “This mock hearing–especially when played out in a courtroom setting–gave them a safe space to respond to unexpected curveballs that could come up at their actual trial. Without the Clinic’s intervention, this client would have likely had to navigate the immigration system alone. She would not have been able to assert the creative arguments set forth by these law students. No matter the outcome, this client is so fortunate to have had the advocacy of such a devoted legal team.”

During the trial, Alison and Caitlin represented Ms. B under Professor Medved’s supervision in a four-hour hearing. Alison conducted direct examination of Ms. B through an interpreter and asked redirect questions after cross-examination. Through her questions, she laid the factual foundation needed for closing argument. At the end of the hearing, Caitlin gave her closing argument, showing how Ms. B’s testimony, the record evidence, and Fourth Circuit case law supported a grant of asylum. At the end of the hearing, the Immigration Judge decided to issue a written decision in the case, which will be sent to the Clinic at a later time.

“I’m very grateful for the learning experience of clinic and being able to see Ms. B’s case from the beginning in the Clinic through her individual hearing,” said Alison. “That feels unique since it was such a quick turn-around with the individual hearing date. I’m also happy that I feel like I built good rapport with Ms. B through our interviews and that she trusted me as an advocate. It was challenging but I’m really proud of what we were able to do.”

“As I sat in the courtroom and watched the proceedings unfold, I kept thinking about all the people who do not have an attorney in immigration court,” said Caitlin. “Ours was a case that the judge probably would not have bat an eye at denying after first glance, but because we were able to fully listen to our client’s story, peel back its layers, dig into the facts, and articulate the nuances of her case, our client’s story sang instead of whispered.”

“I could not be prouder of Alison and Caitlin and all of their hard work this semester,” said Professor Medved. “Alison and Caitlin put in so many hours to prepare so thoroughly to be such extraordinary advocates for our client. Trials are always a roller coaster, requiring advocates to be nimble and responsive to the Judge’s concerns and opposing counsel’s arguments. Alison and Caitlin never broke their stride and advocated thoughtfully and zealously for our client. I am so proud of everything they accomplished. Regardless of the judge’s decision, Alison and Caitlin gave Ms. B the best chance possible at winning asylum.”

Experiences like these are made possible by the Clinic’s generous supporters. You can make more student experiences like this possible by donating to the Immigration Clinic.

The Clinic cannot guarantee any particular results for any particular individual or particular case. While the Clinic celebrates our victories and hard work, we recognize that each case is unique. Every noncitizen should consult with a licensed attorney about their case if they are concerned about their situation or are interested in applying for any form of immigration relief. The Clinic cannot promise any particular outcome or any timeframe to any client or potential client.

*All client names and initials have been changed for confidentiality and security

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

This is a great illustration of why more gimmicks, such as the ones recently proposed by the Biden Administration, intended to cut off access to both representation and a hearing process at which proof and informed legal arguments can overcome anti-asylum biases built into the system, will result in more denials of due process, wrong decisions, and improper returns of bona fide refugees.

The Biden Administration and Congress should be focusing on improving our asylum adjudication system so that it provides fundamentally fair, timely, and correct decisions. Instead, far too much attention and too many resources are devoted to a futile attempt to institutionalize cruelty and over-denial as “deterrents.”

Congrats and great appreciation to the students and faculty at the W&M Law Clinic for “getting the message on due process,” even if our political leaders ignore it! The “youth brigade” of the NDPA is our hope for America’s future! 🇺🇸

🇺🇸 DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

05-13-24

🗽⚖️ EXPERT URGES U.S. TO COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS ON GENDER-BASED PROTECTION — Current “Any Reason To Deny” Restrictive Interpretations & Actions Are A Threat To Women Everywhere & Unnecessarily Bog Down Already Burdened System With Unnecessary Legal Minutia, Says Professor Karen Musalo In New Article!

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Read Karen’s newly-released article “Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims” in the 2024 Edition of the International Journal of Refugee Law. Here’s the abstract:

A B ST R A CT

The protection of women and girls fleeing gender-based harms has been controversial in the United States (US), with advances followed by setbacks. The US interpretation of particular social group and its nexus analysis, both of which diverge from guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is the most significant barrier to protection. It has become almost impossible for women and girls to rely upon the particular social group ground because of current requirements that social groups not only be defined by immutable or fundamental characteristics, but also be socially distinct and have particularity. Establishing nexus is also a significant obstacle, with the US requirement of proof of the persecutor’s intent. In the first month of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on migration, which raised hopes that these obstacles to protection would be removed. The order committed to protecting survivors of domestic violence and to issuing regulations that would make the US interpretation of particular social group consistent with international standards. The target date for the regulations was November 2021, but they have yet to issue. This article examines how the evolution of the US interpretation of particular social group and nexus has diverged from UNHCR recommendations. It shows how protection has been denied in gender cases involving the most egregious of harms. The article concludes by providing recommendations for realignment with international standards, which set a benchmark for evaluating the promised Biden administration regulations on the issue.

Here’s a link to the article: https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijrl/eeae009/7656821?utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=ijrl&utm_medium=email&guestAccessKey=298cbf81-f24c-455a-9c94-4be57b8c649f

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

Karen’s highly readable “spot on” article prompted this additional thoughtful comment from my friend and Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jefferey” Chase:

Hi Karen: Wonderful article! So clear, so logical, and just so correct! Thanks as always for this. (And I’m extremely honored to find myself in several of your footnotes – thank you!)

Along the same line of thinking, in December 2020 I wrote a blog post of my wish list for 2021: https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/14/a-wish-list-for-2021.

One of the items was as follows:

Create a “Charming Betsy” Reg Requiring Adherence to International Law:Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.As the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca observed that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, “one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” it would seem that interpreters of our asylum laws should look to international law interpretations of that treaty for guidance.Recent examples in which this has not been the case include the just-published “death to asylum” regulations that will completely gut the 1980 Refugee Act of any meaning; as well as regulations that bar asylum for conduct falling far, far short of the severity required to bar refugee protection under international law (which a federal district court blocked in Pangea v. Barr).

As the Board seems disinclined to listen to the Supreme Court on this point, it is hoped that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.

Do you think there is a way to use Karen’s article to make this into a talking point across the advocacy community? I think there’s merit to trying to normalize an idea over time. Just a thought.

I agree, Jeffrey! Ironically, as Karen shows, “normalizing” refugee and asylum processing to bring it into alignment with the Convention was one of the driving forces behind enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. Indeed, it’s reflected in a key early interpretation of the Act by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (successfully argued by our friend and Round Table colleague Hon. Dana Marks, a “Founding Mother of U.S. Refugee Law”). In rejecting the USG’s restrictive interpretation, the Court consulted the U.N. Handbook while making the point that the refugee definition was to be applied generously so that even those with only a 10% chance of persecution could qualify.

I also note that the abandonment of the “Acosta test,” which I relied on in Kasinga, in favor of a more convoluted, restrictive, and ultimately intellectually dishonest approach, went “into high gear” after the “Ashcroft purge” had removed the core of BIA Judges who spoke up for asylum rights and protection, even when in dissent!

Unfortunately, Administrations of both parties have feared honest and robust implementation of the Refugee Act that truly follows the “spirit of Cardoza and its BIA progeny, Matter of Mogharrabi.” They all have had their “favored” and “feared” groups of refugees and asylees, some more than others.

This, of course, breeds huge inconsistencies and arbitrary adjudications, a problem exposed well over a decade ago by Professors Schoenholtz, Schrag, and Ramji-Nogales in their critical seminal work Refugee Roulette describing the largely unprincipled and politicized operation of our system for adjudicating protection claims.

At some level, all Administrations have given in to the false idea that protection of refugees is politically perilous and that consequently the law should be interpreted and manipulated to “deter” the current “politically disfavored” groups of refugees. Not surprisingly, the latter are usually those of color, non-Christian religions, or from poorer countries where the mis-characterization of groups of legitimate refugees as “mere economic migrants” has become routine. Too often, the so-called “mainstream media” accepts such negative characterizations without critical analysis.

Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has regressed from a somewhat enlightened beginning with the never-promulgated “gender based regulation” mentioned by Karen to a position of fear, desperation, and ultimately “false deterrence.” Apparently, they perceive that GOP nativist lies and shamless fear-mongering combined with their own failure to boldly reform and materially improve the asylum processing system under their control are “scoring points” with the electorate.

The latest misguided proposal being considered in the White House would grotesquely miss the mark of addressing the real glaring problems with our asylum system at the border and beyond. That is the overly restrictive interpretations and applications of the refugee definition, too many poorly-qualified and poorly-trained adjudicators, over-denial leading to protracted litigation and inconsistent results, uninspiring leadership, and a stubborn unwillingness to set up the system in compliance with international rules so that significant numbers of qualified refugees applying at the border can be timely and properly admitted to the U.S. where, incidentally, their skills and determination can contribute greatly to our economy and our society.

The latest bad idea is truncating the already overly-summary and poorly run asylum process in apparent hopes of more quickly denying more potentially valid claims with less consideration. See, e.g., https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/biden-migrants-asylum-changes-00156865. Far from being a panacea for the much-feared and highly distorted “border issue,” it eventually will aggravate all of the problems highlighted by Karen.

One thing it won’t do, however, is stop forced migrants from coming to the United States, even if they must abandon our broken legal system to do so. That’s what forced migrants do! Pretending otherwise and misusing our legal protection system for rejection won’t “deter” the reality of forced migration.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-24

🤯 BIA BLOWS BASICS: 6th Cir. Reams Garland’s Gang For Misreading Supremes’ & Circuit’s Precedents On Crime Of Violence! — Sanchez-Pérez via. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0098p-06.pdf

“One day after he pleaded guilty to violating a Tennessee domestic-violence law, the federal government initiated removal proceedings against Jose Yanel Sanchez-Perez. Ultimately, an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that Sanchez-Perez could not seek cancellation of removal due to this conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals improperly determined that Sanchez-Perez pleaded guilty to a crime of violence, however. Accordingly, we GRANT Sanchez-Perez’s petition for review, VACATE the Board’s order of removal, and REMAND to the Board for proceedings consistent with our opinion. … Because the Tennessee statute at issue, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101(a)(2), criminalizes conduct beyond the federal definition of a crime of violence, the BIA erred in finding that Sanchez-Perez is statutorily barred from seeking cancellation of removal. … The government’s and BIA’s errors in this case involve basic misreading of both our and the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning the distinctions between different federal statutory schemes and the meaningful differences among state criminal statutes. At bottom, because on its face the Tennessee statute at issue here criminalizes conduct that does not require the use or threatened use of violent physical force, the BIA erred when it determined that Sanchez-Perez was statutorily barred from applying for cancellation of removal by virtue of his 2009 conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-111.”

[Hats off to Will York!]

Will York, Esquire

–

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

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

Congrats, Will York!

This is what happens when an appellate body beholden to DHS Enforcement looks for “any reason to deny” while “what me worry” AG Merrick Garland looks the other way!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-07-24

⚖️🗽👏 WASHPOST OBIT/TRIBUTE TO PETER SCHEY IS A LINK TO POSITIVE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY! — “[T]he high-water mark of equal protection jurisprudence.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/05/02/peter-schey-dead/

Harrison Smith writes in WashPost:

Peter Schey, who championed the rights of immigrants for more than five decades, winning landmark legal cases on behalf of undocumented children and their families and helping lead the charge against Proposition 187, a California law that sought to deny social services to people suspected of arriving in the country illegally, died April 2 at a hospital in Santa Monica, Calif. He was 77.

The cause was lymphoma, said Melinda Bird, his friend and former wife.

A driven and tenacious lawyer with a workaholic intensity, Mr. Schey had firsthand experience with the American immigration system. His parents were refugees from Nazi Germany, sailing to South Africa during World War II, and the family moved to the United States when he was 15, after he began participating in anti-apartheid protests and worried his parents when his picture appeared in the newspaper.

Working out of an office in the Westlake district of Los Angeles, Mr. Schey went on to take hundreds of human rights and immigration cases while leading a nonprofit organization, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, and battling Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington.

He was lead counsel in Plyler v. Doe, a landmark 1982 Supreme Court decision that safeguarded the right of undocumented children to attend public schools, and litigated Reno v. Flores, a class-action suit that resulted in a 1997 settlement agreement protecting children in immigration custody. The case transformed the nation’s treatment of young migrants, establishing improved standards of care that Mr. Schey spent years fighting to uphold in court.

. . . .

“When you start being able to refer to other precedents, other cases that you’ve won, it’s a revelation,” [Attorney Carlos] Holguín said in a phone interview, reflecting on Mr. Schey’s career. “You basically are building off a legacy of prior work to move the law even further. Plyler, I think most constitutional law scholars would agree, was the high-water mark of equal protection jurisprudence. We’ve only gone backward from there.”

. . . .

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

Peter got a “full page” obit in the WashPost — the kind usually reserved for heads of state, powerful politicos, famous athletes, entertainers, and world-renowned artists. You should read it at the above link. I’m familiar with many aspects of Peter’s career, but I learned things I never knew before!

Plyler v. Doe is one of those cases that has a “real-life impact!” Like all of my former colleagues at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court, I encouraged school-aged children coming before me to enroll and get as much education as possible. I said, “However your case comes out, the education you get is yours to keep, forever!”

I could see how students progressed in their mastery of English and their comprehension from hearing to hearing. Some of them proudly brought in their report cards to show me their achievements. Peter Schey helped make it possible!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-05-24

🛡️⚔️⚖️ LATEST ROUND TABLE AMICUS CHALLENGES MATTER OF M-R-M-S- (NEXUS/FAMILY BASED PSG) IN 10TH CIR. — O.C.V. v. Garland

Knightess of the Round Table

I. The BIA’s holding in Matter of M-R-M-S- represents a

significant change in the nexus standard in family-

based asylum cases. …………………………………………………….. 5

II. Requiring IJs to determine a persecutor’s subjective,

dominant intent sets judges on a wild goose chase that

will damage uniformity and efficiency. …………………………. 10

III. Matter of M-R-M-S- reduces fairness by requiring a

different standard for family-group applicants and

misunderstands the nature of asylum claims. ………………….16

You can read our full brief here:

2024.04.29 – OCV Amicus Brief FINAL

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

There’s lots of “good stuff” in our brief for those NDPA warriors fighting against M-R-M-S- in the Circuits! ⚖️

Many, many thanks to our “pro bono drafting heroes” at Perkins Coie LLC in Seattle, WA: Erik Kundu & Rebecca Human!🙏🏽😎🗽

Erik Kundu, EsquireAssociate Perkins Coie LLC Seattle, WA PHOTO: Perkins Coie — Erik Kundu, Esquire
Associate
Perkins Coie LLC
Seattle, WA
PHOTO: Perkins Coie

Couldn’t have done it without you!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-24

⚖️🛡️⚔️ ROUND TABLE REACHES SUPREMES, AGAIN! — Bouarfa v. Mayorkas

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Cert granted in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas

Hi all: Thanks to Lory [Rosenberg] for flagging that cert was granted today [April 29] by the Supreme Court in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, in which our group filed an amicus brief in January.

As a reminder, the issue involves whether a revocation of a visa petition by USCIS for non discretionary criteria can be reviewed by the courts. A straight-out non-discretionary denial by DHS of a visa petition can be reviewed by the circuit courts; however, if DHS approves the petition and revokes it a day later for a non-discretionary reason, under the Eleventh Circuit’s reading, the petition can no longer be appealed to the circuit. (The Sixth and Ninth Circuits disagree).

Best, Jeff

Find all the relevant links, including to our amicus brief, here:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/cert-granted-bouarfa-v-mayorkas

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

It’s a pleasure and an honor to be part of this great group of colleagues continuing to fight for due process and fundamental fairness for all!😎

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-01-24

⚖️🗽‼️ ATTENTION NDPA LITIGATORS! — Hamed Aleaziz, Immigration Reporter @ The NY Times Wants To Speak With YOU About The Dysfunctional Mess Facing Asylum Seekers & Their Representatives @ EOIR!

Hamed posted on LinkedIn:

We are looking to connect with immigration attorneys who have clients who crossed the border in recent years and have sought asylum in immigration court.

Specifically, we are looking to talk to asylum-seekers who have waited years/months for their cases to be heard in immigration court and are STILL waiting for a final decision.

Please comment or send me a message if you have a client who would be interested in speaking with us.

Here’s the link to LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7188327072870682624?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_feedUpdate%3A%28V2%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7188327072870682624%29

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

I want you — . . . To tell Hamed Aleaziz at The NYT the truth about the “under the radar” mess at EOIR that is systemically treating those with valid claims and sound defenses unfairly and threatens, with its unrelenting disorder and “deterrence bias,” to destabilize the entire U.S. Justice System!
Public Domain

The (largely avoidable), backlog building, due-process-denying mess at Garland’s EOIR is one of the “unsung drivers” of bad immigration policies and myths about migrants, particularly asylum seekers.

To the extent that this glaring problem is covered at all by the so-called “mainstream media,” it’s usually superficial: reference to the 3.5 million case backlog, long delays, and the need for more Immigraton Judges and court personnel.

Here’s your chance to correct that “cosmetic coverage” by giving Hamed input on the overall unfairness, unnecessary inefficiencies, “user-unfriendliness,” and grotesque lack of overall legal expertise, consistency, and common sense in this broken system! It has improperly become a tool of “deterrence” in behalf of DHS Enforcement and has lost sight of its only proper role of insuring Constitutionally-required due process and fundamental fairness for individuals coming before the Immigration Courts!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-25-24

🤐 “McNULTY UKASE” DRAWS HARSH CRITICISM FROM OSC, HILL, CONTINUES TO ROIL GARLAND’S DOJ! 🤯

"Gagged" — “Gagged”
Garland’s DOJ has taken extreme steps to stop Immigration Judges from publicly criticizing his dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
PHOTO: Public Domain via Creative Commons

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/12/gag-orders-federal-workers-whistleblowers-nda/

Joe Davidson, “Federal Insider,” from p. 2 of today’s WashPost (print edition):

. . . .

In a February email to New York-based immigration Judge Mimi Tsankov, the union president, and Judge Samuel Cole, the union’s executive vice president in Chicago, Sheila McNulty, the chief immigration judge in the department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), said they are prohibited from making public statements “without supervisory approval and any Speaking Engagement Team review your supervisor believes necessary.”

That warning came after Tsankov in October told a Senate Judiciary immigration subcommittee hearing that “Democrat and Republican administrations share the failure of the DOJ’s immigration court management,” saying “immigration courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads, and unacceptable backlogs for many years.” Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), NAIJ’s parent union, cited Tsankov’s congressional testimony as an example of giving “judges a voice” that’s now silenced.

McNulty referred to a controversial and hotly contested Trump administration action that led to the decertification of the immigration judges’ union, when she wrote “any bargaining agreement … that may have existed previously is not valid at present.”

On Nov. 2, 2020, the day before Trump, who waged war on federal unions, lost his reelection bid, the Federal Labor Relations Authority ruled that immigration judges are management employees precluded from union representation. That means, according to McNulty, they cannot speak out as union leaders because she considers their association to be a “group” and not a recognized labor organization. IFPTE has asked the Biden administration to reverse the immigration review office’s “inappropriate and misguided application of the agency speaking engagement policy.”

This must be an embarrassment to proudly pro-union President Biden, who reversed other anti-federal labor organization policies put in place under Trump.

McNulty’s action drew heated reaction from three Republicans who often vote against union interests. “The Committee takes seriously the Department’s effort to silence immigration judges,” wrote Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and its immigration subcommittee, respectively. In a letter to the attorney general, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said any effort “to silence immigration judges … is absolutely unacceptable.”

Grassley also noted that McNulty’s order “failed to include the anti-gag provision as required by law.”

That’s a key point in the Office of Special Counsel’s notice.

. . . .

[IFPTE President Matt] Biggs called the Justice Department office’s policy “an outrageous act of censure and an attack on freedom of the press and transparency.”

“Intentionally or not,” he added, the directive “resulted in a not-so-subtle message to rank-and-file immigration judges to think carefully before talking to congressional lawmakers as whistleblowers or otherwise.”

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

Hon. Mimi Tsankov
President, NAIJ — She “blew the whistle” on the continuing “bipartisan due process mess at EOIR” during recent Congressional testimony. Her “DOJ handlers” were not amused!

Read Joe’s complete column at the above link.

Both Parties, Congress, the Executive, and the Article III Courts share blame for the current untenable mess at EOIR, where Due Process, fundamental fairness, quality control, expertise, and practical efficiency are mere afterthoughts, at best! Although there is no sign that it will happen in the near future, the answer is clear and has been for decades: Congress must put aside partisan differences, stop “jockeying for advantage,” and create an independent Article I Immigration Court with a merit-based selection system for judges and professional court administration. Then, let the system work and the chips fall where they may!

You can’t “run” a court system like a “Vatican-style” bureaucratic agency! How many times does that have to be proved for Congress to finally act? Yes, it’s a “big deal!’ Probably the biggest, most widely ignored, most achievable, most important (millions of lives and futures are literally at stake here) piece of solving the “immigration puzzle!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-13-24

⚖️🗽 SPECTACULAR NDPA OPPORTUNITY: GENDER-BASED ASYLUM LITIGATION — Sharpen Your Skills With This Two-Part Webinar From Tahirih Justice Center, Featuring Experts Maria Daniella Prieshoff, Monica Mananzan (CAIR Coalition), & Judge (Ret.) Lisa Dornell (Round Table) — April 23, April 25!

Due Process is a true team effort!PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center — Due Process is a true team effort!
PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center

Maria Daniella Prieshoff writes on LinkedIn:

Want to level up your #advocacy skills for your #genderbased #asylum cases in #immigrationcourt?Want to learn from a real immigration judge the basics of presenting your case before the immigration court?Then join me for Tahirih Justice Center’s”Advancing Justice: Gender-Based Violence Asylum Litigation in Immigration Court” webinar series!

Monica Mananzan
Managing Attorney
CAIR Coalition
PHOTO: Linkedin

Part 1 of the series is on April 23, 12-1:30pm. It will focus on the case law and strategy you’ll need to present your best gender-based asylum case, including how to handle credibility, competency, and stipulations.Monica Mananzan from CAIR Coalition will join me in this webinar. To register for Part 1: http://bit.ly/3xvwPyt

Honorable Lisa Dornell
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Part 2 of the series is on April 25, 12-1:30pm. Retired Immigration Judge Lisa Dornell will explain the best practices of litigating gender-based asylum cases before an immigration judge, as well as recommendations for direct examination, cross-examination, and how to handle issues with a client’s memory, trauma, or court interpretation.To register for Part 2: https://bit.ly/3PXJqRn

Please share with your networks!Our goal for this webinar series is to help pro bono attorneys and advocates enhance their the advocacy for #genderbasedviolence to have #immigrationjustice – we’d love for you to join us!

Registration Links here:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/maría-daniella-prieshoff-61884435_advocacy-genderbased-asylum-activity-7183838321515626498-byB_?utm_source=combined_share_message&utm_medium=member_desktop

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

Wonderful learning opportunity! Many thanks to everyone involved in putting it together!

Wonder whatever happened to the “gender-based regulations” that Biden ordered to be drafted by Executive Order issued shortly after taking office? At this point, given his “lobotomized/running scared/retrograde/Trumpy Lite” position on asylum seekers and immigrants’ rights, probably just as well that they died an unheralded bureaucratic death (just as similar assignments have in the last three Dem Administrations over a quarter century).

Outside of a few Immigration Judges, who, because they understand the issue and have worked with asylum-seeking women, would never be asked anyway, I can’t really think of anyone at DOJ who would actually be qualified to draft legally-compliant gender-based regulations!

GOP are misogynists. Dem politicos are spineless and can’t “connect the dots” between their deadly, tone-deaf policies and poor adjudicative practices aimed at women of color in the asylum system and other racist and misogynistic polities being pushed aggressively by the far right! While, thankfully, it might not “be 1864” in the Dem Party, sadly, inexplicably, and quote contrary to what Biden and Harris claim these days, it’s not 2024 either, particularly for those caught up in their deadly, broken, and indolently run immigration, asylum, and border enforcement systems!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-11-24

💎 ANOTHER “UNPUBLISHED GEM” UNEARTHED BY HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE — 2d Cir. Says “Undue Delay By BIA” Could Overcome “Aging Out” In 42B Cancellation Case!

https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/659feed6-c58f-40f6-8494-5a46352ff341/6/doc/23-6231_so.pdf#xml=https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/659feed6-c58f-40f6-8494-5a46352ff341/6/hilite/

Cruz v. Garland:

Nevertheless, Cruz argues correctly that Isidro-Zamorano, 25 I. & N. Dec. 829, leaves open the possibility for adjudication of the merits of a cancellation application where the qualifying relative aged out of qualifying status because of undue procedural delays. As explained below, the facts are unclear as to why briefing and decision were delayed. As such, we remand for the BIA to address in the first instance whether the delays on appeal in this case were undue and attributable to the agency, and if they were, for the BIA to review the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal in the first instance.

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

This is yet another in a long list of examples of how the Circuit actually did a better job than the BIA of locating, understanding, and following binding BIA precedent potentially favorable to the respondent!

I wouldn’t bet on today’s BIA adopting on remand an interpretation favoring the applicant, even though, as pointed out by the Second Circuit, such an interpretation would be legally possible. Perhaps, this is a case where amici need to “weigh in” before the BIA on remand.

In my mind, it also raises questions of whether the numerous unnecessary delays, backlogs, and confusion caused by the BIA’s failure to follow the statutory language on the “stop time rule” for 42B cancellation, as twice found by the Supremes, could be categorized as “unnecessary — and totally foreseeable — delay?” Both courts and advocates warned the BIA — in vain — that ignoring the clear language of the statute was a huge mistake that would create more unnecessary disorder in the already dysfunctional EOIR system! But, in their haste to rule in favor of DHS Enforcement, the BIA once again ignored the experts.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-07-24

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

ADDENDUM FROM “SIR JEFFREY:”

“Thanks, Paul (and hi to everyone!), but credit to Ray Fasano for flagging this.

Best, Jeff”

Thanks, Ray!

H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire
PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Adina Appelbaum of CAIR Coalition reports on LinkedIn:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Professor Austin Kocher @ Linkedin:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the link to the official announcement by EOIR:

Related posts:

From the William & Mary Law School Immigration Clinic Blog:

“Our Client’s Story Sang Instead of Whispered”: Immigration Clinic Students Represent Client in Asylum Trial

🇺🇸 DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

Read Karen’s newly-released article “Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims” in the 2024 Edition of the International Journal of Refugee Law. Here’s the abstract:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Harrison Smith writes in WashPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Cert granted in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hamed posted on LinkedIn:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Joe Davidson, “Federal Insider,” from p. 2 of today’s WashPost (print edition):

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Maria Daniella Prieshoff writes on LinkedIn:

Registration Links here:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Cruz v. Garland:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

ADDENDUM FROM “SIR JEFFREY:”

Related posts: