"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“Little Shop of Horrors:” Another human life devoured by the “due process eating plant” hidden away in the bowels of the BIA! PHOTO: Little Shop of Horrors at Grafton High School 14.jpg, Creative Commons License
Faiza Sayed Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the Safe Harbor Project Brooklyn Law School PHOTO: Brooklyn Law Website
ABSTRACT—Each year, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)—the Justice Department’s appellate immigration agency that reviews decisions of immigration judges and decides the fate of thousands of noncitizens—issues about thirty published, precedential decisions. At present, these are the only decisions out of approximately 30,000 each year, that are readily available to the public and provide detailed reasoning for their conclusions. This is because most of the BIA’s decision-making happens on what this Article terms the “immigration shadow docket”—the tens of thousands of other decisions the BIA issues each year that are unpublished and nonprecedential. These shadow docket decisions are generally authored by a single BIA member and consist overwhelmingly of brief orders and summary affirmances. This Article demonstrates the harms of shadow docket decision- making, including the creation of “secret law” that is accessible to the government but largely inaccessible to the public. Moreover, this shadow docket produces inconsistent outcomes where one noncitizen’s removal order is affirmed while another noncitizen’s removal order is reversed—even though the deciding legal issues were identical. A 2022 settlement provides the public greater access to some unpublished BIA decisions, but it ultimately falls far short of remedying the transparency and accessibility concerns raised by the immigration shadow docket.
The BIA’s use of nonprecedential, unpublished decisions to dispose of virtually all cases also presents serious concerns for the development of immigration law. Because the BIA is the final arbiter of most immigration cases, it has a responsibility to provide guidance as to the meaning of our complicated immigration laws and to ensure uniformity in the application of immigration law across the nation. By publishing only 0.001% of its decisions each year, the BIA has all but abandoned that duty. This dereliction likely contributes to well-documented disparities in the application of immigration law by immigration adjudicators and the inefficiency of the immigration system that leaves noncitizens in protracted states of limbo and prolonged detention. This Article advances principles for reforms to increase transparency and fairness at the BIA, improve the quality, accuracy and
893
N O RT H WE S T E RN U N I V E RS I T Y L A W RE V I E W
political accountability of its decisions, and ensure justice for the nearly two million noncitizens currently in our immigration court system.
AUTHOR—Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. I am thankful to Matthew Boaz, Richard Boswell, Jason Cade, Stacy Caplow, Pooja Dadhania, Elizabeth Isaacs, Kit Johnson, Anil Kalhan, Elizabeth Keyes, Catherine Kim, Shirley Lin, Medha Makhlouf, Hiroshi Motomura, Prianka Nair, Vijay Raghavan, Philip Schrag, Andrew Schoenholtz, Sarah Sherman- Stokes, Maria Termini, Irene Ten-Cate, and S. Lisa Washington for thoughtful conversations and comments on drafts. This Article benefitted from feedback at the New Voices in Immigration Law Panel at the 2022 AALS Annual Meeting, the 2021 Clinical Law Review Writers’ Workshop at NYU, and the junior faculty workshop at Brooklyn Law School. I am grateful to Benjamin Winograd and Bryan Johnson for helpful conversations about the Board, unpublished decisions, and FOIA, and to David A. Schnitzer and Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran for discussions about the Andrews and Uddin cases. Thank you to Emily Ingraham for outstanding research assistance and to the editors of the Northwestern University Law Review for excellent editorial assistance. Financial support for this Article was provided by the Brooklyn Law School Dean’s Summer Research Stipend Program.
**********************
Professor Sayed has written an “instant classic” that should be a staple for future historians assessing the legal career and impact of Merrick Garland and how the Democratic Party has failed humanity time again on immigrant justice when the stakes were high and the solutions achievable!
Here’s my “favorite” part:
In 1999, Attorney General Janet Reno attempted to deal with the BIA’s rapidly increasing backlog of appeals by implementing “streamlining rules” that made several changes to the way the Board operated.41 Most importantly, certain single permanent Board members were now permitted to affirm an IJ’s decision on their own and without issuing an opinion.42 The Chairman of the BIA was authorized both to designate certain Board members with the authority to grant such affirmances and to designate certain categories of cases as appropriate for such affirmances.43 Finally, Attorney General Reno increased the size of the Board to twenty-three members.44 Evaluations of the reforms found that they “appear to have been successful in reducing much of the BIA’s backlog” and “there was no indication of ‘an adverse effect on non-citizens.’”45
Despite the documented success of Attorney General Reno’s reforms, in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced controversial plans to further streamline the BIA’s decision-making.46 These rules “fundamentally changed the nature of the BIA’s review function and radically changed the composition of the Board.”47 To support the reforms, Ashcroft cited not only the backlog but also “heightened national security concerns stemming from September 11.”48 The reforms included making single-member decisions the norm for the overwhelming majority of cases and three-member panel decisions rare, making summary affirmances common, and reducing the size of the Board from twenty-three members to eleven.49 A subsequent study found that Attorney General Ashcroft removed those Board members with the highest percentages of rulings in favor of noncitizens.50 As a result of the reforms, outcomes at the BIA became significantly less favorable to noncitizens,51 and the federal circuit courts received an unprecedented surge of immigration appeals.52
In the wake of harsh criticism of immigration adjudications by federal circuit courts, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the DOJ to conduct a comprehensive review of the immigration courts and the Board in 2006. Based on this review, Attorney General Gonzalez announced additional reforms “to improve the performance and quality of work” of IJs and Board members.53 The most significant change was the introduction of performance evaluations, which include an assessment of whether the Board member adjudicates appeals within a certain time frame after assignment.54 Scholars have explained that “the performance evaluations give an incentive to affirm rather than reverse IJs by emphasizing productivity, and because immigrants file the overwhelming number of appeals with the BIA . . . the incentive to affirm means outcomes that favor the government.”55
The Trump Administration once again transformed Board membership. Board members whose appointments predated the Trump Administration were reassigned after refusing buyout offers,56 and the Administration expanded the Board to add new members.57 Most of the new Board members appointed under the Trump Administration had previously served as IJs,
where they had some of the highest asylum denial rates in the country.58
Garland has failed to replace the asylum denying judges who were “packed” onto the BIA during the Trump era with qualified real judges who are experts in asylum law, unswervingly committed to due process, and able to set proper precedents and enforce best judicial practices. That’s a key reason for the “prima facie arbitrary and capricious inconsistencies’ in EOIR asylum grant rates — 0% to 100% — a rather large range!
The latter read like a compendium of legally and factually questionable “how to deny asylum and get away with it” instructions. Absent is any hint of the properly fair and generous treatment of asylum seekers required by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and once echoed in BIA precedents like Mogharrabi, Kasinga, Chen, Toboso-Alfonso, A-R-C-G-, and O-Z- & I-Z- .
Some well-reasoned grants that could be widely applied to recurring situations are also buried on the “shadow docket.” At the same time, as cogently described by Professor Sayed, cases with almost identical facts that resulted in denial are also hidden there. This system is simply NOT functioning in a fair, reasonable, and legally sound manner. Not even close! Yet, Garland has not brought in competent expert judicial administrators and managers at EOIR who recognize the problems and would make solving them, rather than aggravating them, “priority one!” Why?
Contrast that with the enlightened movement among American Law Schools to promote immigration “practical scholars” and clinicians to administrative positions in recognition of their inspirational leadership and superior “real life” problem-solving skills! It’s as if Garland and the rest of Biden’s inept immigration bureaucracy operate in a “parallel universe” where immigration, human rights, and racial justice don’t exist!
Not surprisingly, some of the BIA’s best and most useful guidance on asylum came before the “Ashcroft purge.” But, they still remain “good law” that Immigration Judges can use, despite the “any reason to deny” culture reflected by today’s “Trump holdover” BIA. Curiously, this negative asylum “culture” is tolerated and enabled by Garland, even though it directly contradicts promises made by Biden and other Dem politicos during the 2020 campaign! Why?
The Obama Administration also did not act to undo the damaging changes made during the Bush Administration. Thus, the ambivalent attitude of Dem Administrations toward justice for immigrants and building a fair, functional BIA has much to do with the current dysfunctional, unfair, and horribly administered mess at EOIR!
I was one of those BIA judges removed during the “Ashcroft purge,” essentially for “doing my job,” ruling fairly, and upholding the rule of law.Notably, many of the views of the “purged” judges were eventually reflected in Court of Appeals, and even a Supreme Court, reversals of the BIA.
Once “exiled” to the Arlington Immigration Court, except where bound by contrary BIA precedent, I ruled the same way that I had in many of the cases coming before me at the BIA. Guess what? I was seldom reversed by my former colleagues! I used to quip that “I finally got the ‘deference’ that I never got as Chair or a BIA judge.”
ICE appealed relatively few asylum and/or withholding grants; surprisingly often, their “closing summary” actually echoed what likely would have been in my final oral opinion, had it been been necessary to issue one. A number of BIA reversals by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during my Arlington tenure made points that I, and/or my ”purged colleagues,” had raised in vain during my time on the BIA. A few even involved poorly-reasoned attempts by the BIA to reverse some of my decisions granting relief!
And, oh yes, there were the gross inconsistencies in unpublished “panel” decisions. Once, an Arlington colleague and I came down with opposite conclusions on whether a particular Virginia crime, on which there was then no BIA precedent, involved “moral turpitude.” Within a week of each other, we both received an answer from different BIA panels. We BOTH were reversed! As we joked at lunch, the only consistent rationale from the BIA was that “the IJ was wrong!”
The current BIA is a continuing blot on American justice, The same information and resources available to Professor Sayed in writing this article were available to Garland. How come she “gets” it and he (and his lieutenants) don’t? Why didn’t Garland hire Professor Sayed and a team of other experts like her to straighten out and rejuvenate EOIR?
And, let’s not forget that the increased public access to the “shadow docket,” even if still inadequate, is NOT the result of EOIR wanting to provide more transparency or any enlightened reforms stemming from Garland. No, it required aggressive litigation by the New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”) against EOIR to force even these improvements!
Does the public REALLY have to sue to get basic services and information that a properly functioning USG agency should already be providing? Merrick Garland seems to think so! How is this the “good government,” promised but not delivered by Biden in the critical areas of immigration, human rights, and racial justice?
Vulnerable asylum seekers and others whose lives depend on a just, professional, expert EOIR deserve better! Much, much better! The inexplicable and disastrous failure and refusal of Garland and the Biden Administration to deliver on the promise of due process and equal justice at EOIR will likely haunt the Democratic Party and our nation well into the future. As my friend Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow would say, “It didn’t have to be this way!”
BIA Asylum Panel cutting down the backlog by trampling asylum seekers and their legal rights! Guatemalans are a favorite target for Garland’s “Band of Bullies” at EOIR. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA3 on Guatemala, Law, Facts and Standard of Review: Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
“Based on past experiences, if returned to Guatemala, Selvin Heraldo Saban-Cach fears being persecuted by a local gang because of his identity as an indigenous person. Accordingly, he seeks withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied his applications and ordered his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. This petition for review followed. For the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Although the BIA need not write an overly detailed explanation of its review of an IJ’s decision, it must provide an adequate explanation of its ruling and afford us an opportunity to review it. Here, the BIA did neither. At times, the IJ’s decision completely conflicts with the record. Yet, for reasons that are not at all apparent, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in its entirety. … The BIA must review the first, factual question for clear error and the second, legal question de novo. In affirming the IJ’s decision of the second question regarding acquiescence, the BIA concluded that it found “no clear error in the [IJ]’s predictive fact-finding.” Accordingly, in addition to not bifurcating the Myrie step-two inquiry, the BIA also erred by applying this heightened standard of review to a legal question. Because of these errors, “we have little insight into the basis for [the BIA’s] determination that the IJ’s opinion ‘clearly reflects that [s]he used the proper “willful blindness” standard in relation to the issue of acquiescence.’” Accordingly, on remand the BIA needs to reassess each question.”
[Hats way off to Stephanie Norton, CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall!]
Stephanie Norton CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall Law PHOTO: Seton Hall Law website
********************
Congratulations to NDPA star Stephanie Norton! This is yet another example of the great talent “out here” who could replace mal-functioning EOIR judges. Human lives are at stake, this system is dysfunctional, crying out for bold reforms! Wonder how the Dems will try to “spin” their miserable performance at EOIR in 2024?
The IJ’s and BIA’s findings of “no past persecution” in this case rise to the level of absurd! Here’s what happened:
The BIA recognized that gang members had attacked Saban-Cach on multiple occasions and that the worst attack left him unconscious after he was stabbed with a broken glass bottle. However, the BIA agreed with the IJ that, in the aggregate, this abuse did not rise to the level of persecution. The BIA explained that, “because most of the incidents did not involve physical injuries, and because the worst attack did not require him to seek professional medical care for his physical injuries, the applicant did not establish harm rising to the level of past persecution.”
Come on man! No competent, fair minded judge would reach such a totally ridiculous conclusion based on such shallow, specious, and basically “made up reasoning!” Not incidentally, it also directly conflicted with Circuit precedent as well as with the realities of life in Guatemala!
The BIA also ran roughshod over its OWN binding precedent, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 23 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1998) (cumulative harm is persecution), which should have made a finding of past persecution a “no brainer” for a panel of competent asylum adjudicators! The sloppy, biased, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR is a major cause of their out of control backlog. Efforts to deny easily grantable cases, and failure to direct wayward asylum-denying IJs to get it right in the first place, is a drag on our entire justice system — all the way up to the Courts of Appeals!
That’s because EOIR’s “any reason to deny” approach to asylum encourages, and often rewards, frivolous litigating positions by ICE, discourages stipulations and settlements in cases that should easily be granted, and results in OIL taking ethically and legally flawed positions in the Courts of Appeals. For example, in this case the 3rd Circuit characterized parts of OIL’s position as “disingenuous,” “puzzling and disappointing,” and pointedly stated that “[r]egrettably, the government’s response brief doubles down on this inaccuracy.”
So, these are the legal quality and ethical standards set at DOJ by AG Merrick Garland, a former Circuit Judge himself who certainly should be expected to “know better.” Apparently, in his view, due process, fundamental fairness, impartial adjudication, adherence to the law, judicial and legal ethics don’t apply when it’s “only migrants” whose lives are at stake! While this is a common approach from White Nationalist GOP politicos, don’t we deserve better from a Dem Administration that claims to care about racial justice, but whose actions with respect to migrants say otherwise?
The court also blasted EOIR for “ethnocentric” judging and failure to fairly evaluate cases.
We have previously cautioned IJs and the BIA against ethnocentric evaluations of petitioners’ resources. Petitioners primarily come from countries in the poorest and most dangerous regions of the world. Any presumption that they enjoy the same kinds of resources as their adjudicators is shortsighted and unfair. Unless the record supports it, IJs and the BIA should not assume that their own views of appropriate medical care and its ready accessibility make up a universal reality.
Petitioners for relief under the asylum system must be afforded the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands. The immigration system can only provide a fair and neutral determination of the claims of people from different cultural and economic circumstances if adjudicators diligently avoid unrealistic assumptions about petitioners’ circumstances.
Any competent asylum practitioner would understand what the court is getting at. But, EOIR IJs at both the trial and appellate level make these basic mistakes time after time.
The 3rd Circuit and other courts might claim to find the BIA’s “entire” affirmance of a decision often in “complete conflict” with the record to be inexplicable. But, WE know that it’s because the “deportation assembly line” works on the “principle” of “any reason to deny” and “keep cranking out those final orders of removal.” To Hell with justice, quality, fairness, and the human lives involved!
This disasterous, backlogged, “star chamber system” is neither appropriately staffed nor competently operated to afford individuals “the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands.” How is this due process and fundamental fairness required by our Constitution?
“Justice” Star Chamber Style. — AG Merrick Garland appears to be blissfully unconcerned about the methods applied by too many of his EOIR “judges,” and his DOJ attorneys who “run interference” for them, to achieve “removal for any reason, at any cost!”
Until a court has the guts to “pull the plug” on EOIR’s ongoing, deadly clown show 🤡, declare it unconstitutional, and require at least minimal due process reforms, these outrages will continue! “Puzzling” about recurring miscarriages of justice at EOIR, as the 3rd Circuit did here, is one thing; acting decisively to enforce the Constitution by stopping the abuse, once and for all, is quite different. Requiring EOIR judges with demonstrated expertise in asylum law, willing to professionally review records, and decide cases of asylum seekers correctly, without “ethnocentrism” or bias, would be a logical starting point! It should be a “no brainer!”
“When you walk into your EOIR ‘courtroom’ and this guy takes the bench, you’re probably in for a BAD day! Isn’t it time to finally END the ‘Clown Show’ in our dystopian Immigration ‘Courts?'” PHOTO: Clown Civertan.jpg, Creative Commons License
Professor Kate Shaw Cardozo Law PHOTO: Cardozo Law WebsiteProfessor Leah Litman University of Michigan Law PHOTO: Michigan Law Website
Kate and Leah were live from the University of Pennsylvania in Strict Scrutiny’s first live show of 2023! Penn Law Professor Jasmine E. Harris joined the hosts to recap arguments in a case that could impact disability rights. Kate and Leah recap two other arguments, in a case about immigration law and another about the ability to criminally prosecute corporations owned by foreign states. Plus, a major update about the Supreme Court’s “investigation” into who leaked the draft opinion of Dobbs last spring. And Temple University Law School Dean Rachel Rebouche joined the hosts to talk about some concerning updates in abortion access– an unfortunately commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
• Here’s the report summarizing the Supreme Court’s investigation into who leaked the Dobbs opinion. (TLDR: they still don’t know who did it, but they tried their best? Former United States Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said so.)
To hear the comments on our amicus brief “tune in” at 14:00 (lots of other “interesting commentary” on other cases if you listen to the entire program):
“With the highest possible human stakes,” amen, Kate!I get that, you get that, those stuck in the “purgatory of EOIR” get that! But, sadly, Biden, Harris, Garland, Mayorkas, their too often bumbling bureaucrats, and a whole bunch of Federal Judges at all levels DON’T “get” the dire human consequences and the practical impact of many of their decisions. That’s particularly true of those that give EOIR a “pass” on bad interpretations, opaque procedures, and a “super-user-unfriendly” forum that all too often defies logic and common sense! If they did “get it,” EOIR wouldn’t be the dystopian, likely unconstitutional, and life-threatening mess that it is today!
All you have to do is imagine yourself to be an unrepresented individual, who doesn’t speak English, on trial for your life in this messed up and unaccountable “court” system that holds millions of lives in its fumbling hands! Seems like a “modest ask” for those who have risen to the Federal Bench. But, for many, it’s a “bridge too far!” Let’s just hope that the Court does the “right thing” here!
Thanks to Round Table Maven Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for spotting this!
Immigration Courts across the U.S. have been randomly rescheduling and advancing cases without regard to attorney availability or whether we have the capacity to complete our cases. The very predictable result of this fiasco is that lawyers are stressed and overworked, our ability to adequately prepare cases has been reduced, and–worst of all–asylum seekers are being deprived of their right to a fair hearing. Besides these obvious consequences, the policy of reshuffling court cases is having other insidious effects that are less visible, but no less damaging. Here, I want to talk about some of the ongoing collateral damage caused by EOIR’s decision to toss aside due process of law in favor of reducing the Immigration Court backlog.
As an initial matter, it’s important to acknowledge that the Immigration Court backlog is huge. There are currently more than 2 million pending cases, which is more than at any time in the history of the Immigration Court system. To address this situation, EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review – the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts) has been working with DHS (the prosecutor) to dismiss low-priority cases, where the non-citizen does not have criminal issues or pose a national security threat. Also, the U.S. government has been doing its best to turn away asylum seekers at the Southern border, which has perhaps slowed the growth of the backlog, but has also (probably) violated our obligations under U.S. and international law.
In addition, EOIR has been hiring new Immigration Judges (“IJs”) at a break neck pace. In the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of IJs nationwide, though some parts of the country have received more judges than others. In those localities with lots of new IJs, EOIR has been advancing thousands of cases. The goal is to complete cases and reduce the backlog. Why EOIR has failed to coordinate its new schedule with stakeholders, such as respondents and immigration attorneys, I do not know.
What I do know is that EOIR’s efforts have created great hardships for attorneys and respondents (respondents are the non-citizens in Immigration Court). Also, I expect that this whole rescheduling debacle will have long-term effects on the Immigration Courts, as well as on the immigration bar.
The most obvious effect is that lawyers and respondents simply do not have enough time to properly prepare their cases. When a hearing was set for 2025 and then suddenly advanced to a date a few months in the future, it may not be enough time to gather evidence and prepare the case. Also, this is not occurring in a vacuum. Lawyers (like me) are seeing dozens of cases advanced without warning, and so we have to manage all of those, plus our regular case load. So the most immediate consequence of EOIR’s policy is that asylum seekers and other respondents often do not have an opportunity to present their best case.
Perhaps less obviously, lawyers are being forced to turn work away. We can only competently handle so many matters, and when we are being assaulted day-by-day with newly rescheduled cases, we cannot predict our ability to take on a new case. In my office, we have been saying “no” more and more frequently to potential clients. Of course, this also affects existing clients who need additional work. Want to expedite your asylum case? Need a travel document to see a sick relative? I can’t give you a time frame for when we can complete the work, because I do not know what EOIR will throw at me tomorrow.
One option for lawyers is to raise prices. We have not yet done that in my office, but it is under consideration. What we have done is increase the amount of the down payment we require. Why? Because as soon as we enter our name as the lawyer, we take on certain obligations. And since cases now often move very quickly, we need to be sure we get paid. If not, we go out of business. The problem is that many people cannot afford a large down payment or cannot pay the total fee over a shortened (and unpredictable) period of time. The result is that fewer non-citizens will be able to hire lawyers.
Well, there is one caveat–crummy lawyers will continue to take more and more cases, rake in more and more money, and do very little to help their clients. Such lawyers are not concerned about the quality of their work or doing a good job for their clients. They simply want to make money. EOIR’s policy will certainly benefit them, as responsible attorneys will be forced to turn away business, those without scruples will be waiting to take up the slack.
Finally, since EOIR is increasing attorney stress and burnout to untenable levels, I expect we will see lawyers start to leave the profession. I have talked to many colleagues who are ready to go. Some are suffering physical and mental health difficulties due to the impossible work load. Most immigration lawyers are very committed to their clients and have a sense of mission, but it is extremely difficult to work in an environment where you cannot control your own schedule, you cannot do your best for your clients, you cannot fulfill your obligations to your family and friends, and where you are regularly abused and treated with contempt. Long before EOIR started re-arranging our schedules, burnout among immigration lawyers was a serious problem. Today, that problem is exponentially worse, thanks to EOIR’s utter disrespect for the immigration bar. I have little doubt that the long term effect will be to drive good attorneys away from the profession.
For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way. EOIR could have worked with attorneys to advance cases in an orderly manner and to ensure that respondents and their lawyers were protected. But that is not what happened. Instead, EOIR has betrayed its stated mission, “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws.” Respondents, their attorneys, and the immigration system are all worse off because of it.
***********************
Jason Dzubow The Asylumist
“For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way.” Amen, Jason! Me too! And, I think I speak for most, if not all, of my esteemed colleagues on the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members.”⚔️🛡
In addition to betraying its mission “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws,” EOIR has trashed its noble once-vision: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
The use of the word “uniformity” in EOIR’s “mission” is an absurdity given the “range” of asylum denials fostered and tolerated by Garland’s dysfunctional system: 0-100%! It’s also understandable, if unforgivable, that EOIR no longer features words like “due process,” “fundamental fairness,” “teamwork,” and “innovation” prominently on its website!
A Dem AG is attacking our American justice system and the legal profession at the “retail level” and causing real, perhaps “irreparable,” damage! What’s wrong with this picture? Everything! What are we going to do about it? Or, more appropriately, what are YOU going to do about it, as my time on the stage, and that of my contemporaries, is winding down?
“This appeal arises from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of Karla Yadira Lara Canales’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion to reopen as untimely, leaving the order of removal in place. We now VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND so that the BIA may properly consider whether Lara Canales is entitled to equitable tolling. … [E]ach of the BIA’s bases for determining that Lara Canales had not accrued the continuous physical presence required for eligibility of cancellation of removal was legal error. We now hold that Lara Canales is statutorily eligible to seek cancellation of removal. However, this holding does not automatically entitle Lara Canales to have her motion to reopen heard on the merits. The BIA must, upon remand, engage in the fact-intensive determination of whether the 90-day deadline on motions to reopen should be tolled because of the extraordinary circumstance presented by Pereira. If the BIA determines Lara Canales satisfies the requirements for equitable tolling, she may then present her motion for a determination on its merits. We therefore VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND this case for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off once again to superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!]
Thanks Raed for continuing to lead the fight for justice in “America’s worst ‘court’ system” in America’s most right-wing Circuit!
THIS “any reason to deny mentality” at EOIR, still being promoted by Garland’s BIA, combined with incredibly inept and unprofessional “administration” of EOIR by DOJ, is why the Immigration Court is broken and being crushed by unending backlogs, daily chaos, and a travesties of justice and sound government!
The Biden Administration pretends like the problem doesn’t exist and/or isn’t important enough to fix. But, I can assure you that they are WRONG! “Dead wrong” in some cases!
In addition to the public manifestations of dysfunction and unprofessionalism like this case, I get regular e-mails from NDPA members relating their own EOIR horror stories and venting their frustrations with the arrogant “above the fray/what me worry about humanity and those defending it” attitude of Garland and the rest of the Biden Administration responsible for the ongoing EOIR catastrophe!
I strongly doubt that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the rest of the DOJ “clueless crew” responsible for this indelible blot on American justice would last 60 days if required to practice exclusively before EOIR under the unfathomably horrible, due-process-denying conditions they have promoted and enabled over their past two years of horrible legal “leadership!” As aptly stated by one practitioner who recently contacted me:
“Things in Immigration Court will never be the same, but I at least expected attention to due process. Nope, IJ’s are more interested in getting the cases done.”
How is this appropriate conduct from a Dem Administration that claims to value human lives, racial justice, and the rule of law, but whose actions at EOIR (and elsewhere in immigration and human rights) say the exact opposite? Poorly functioning as EOIR was when I retired in 2016, the “anecdotal consensus” from practitioners seems to be that it’s measurably worse now under Garland’s inept leadership! “Come on man,” this just isn’t right!
After all this time (17 years since the BIA’s supposedly “final” order), this case is still not complete! It’s back at the BIA for yet another chance for them to deny on specious, legally incorrect grounds. One possibility is to misapply the “equitable tolling” concept mentioned by the 5th Circuit. The BIA has a long, disgraceful record of resisting and mis-applying equitable tolling.
Or, perhaps they will attempt to invoke their recent precedent in Matter of Chen, 28 I&N Dec. 676 (BIA 2023) https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1561876/download to deny reopening for “failing to make out a prima facie case for relief on the merits.”
Chen is a case where the the respondent moved to reopen to apply for NLP cancellation having attained the required 10 years of physical presence by reason of the BIA’s two wrong-headed precedents overruled by the Supremes in Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Having twice screwed up in a way that created tens of thousands of potential remands and reopenings, someone not familiar with the BIA might have expected them to set forth clear, practical, generous criteria that would encourage IJ’s to consistently reopen cases where the respondent now had the qualifying time and relative(s) in light of the problems caused by the BIA itself. After all, that’s basically the direction in the BIA’s long-standing precedent Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) (reopening where the record“indicate[s] a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing”). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjWzY36pdn8AhVgF1kFHTcxChEQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3281.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Ntzlp4MuxfupmjaDIn7i6
Since “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is inherently a fact-bound issue requiring a hearing to develop those facts, one might expect most cases to be routinely reopened.
But, the BIA took a different tack in Chen. While acknowledging that the hardship asserted by the respondent fell within the zone of those “recognized” by the BIA, they found “she has not identified and documented heightened hardship beyond that which would normally be expected to occur in such circumstances.”
While the BIA claimed to be “following” Matter of L-O-G-, they actually appear to have violated the teaching of that case that: “In considering a motion to reopen, the Board should not prejudge the merits of a case before the [respondent] has had an opportunity to prove the case.”(21 I&N Dec. at 419). That should particularly be true when the BIA itself has had a major role in creating the situation where reopening is sought.
By providing only a negative precedent (they didn’t even botherto “bookend” this with a precedential example of a grantable motion) to a system already suffering from a “culture of denial,” the BIA aggravated an long-festering problem. One can expect many IJ’s to view Chen as an “invitation to deny” the many Pereira/Niz Chavez motions to reopen in the offing for specious reasons or indeed for “any reason at all.” I expect talented NDPA warriors like Raed to make mincemeat out of the BIA’s wrong-headed attempt to minimize the “Pereira-induced damage” they have generated.
Like most of the misguided efforts of the 21st Century BIA, this attempt to cut corners, summarily deny, and NOT provide full due process and real hearings is likely to take more time and waste more resources than simply giving respondents the fair merits hearings to which they are legally entitled in the first place.But, that’s exactly what this Dem Administration has wrought at EOIR. “More of the same, instead of the promised change!”
“Those of us who care about people on the wrong side of history just have to help case by case, person by person.” – Anne Pilsbury, quoted in Francisco Goldman, “Escape to New York,” The New Yorker, Aug. 9, 2016.
Anne Pilsbury is well; she continues to work at Central American Legal Assistance (“CALA”), the organization she founded almost four decades ago. She was recently awarded the Carol Weiss King Award by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. She remains most generous in sharing her knowledge with the immigration law community in New York.
However, as of January 1, Anne has stepped down from CALA’s helm, passing the Directorship of the organization to the extremely talented Heather Axford.
It thus seems like an appropriate time to honor Anne’s extraordinary career. Her path from Washington, D.C. to Maine “country lawyer” to representing asylum-seekers in Williamsburg, Brooklyn is a fascinating one. It began with Anne’s role as plaintiff’s counsel in Hobson v. Wilson,1 a remarkable case having nothing to do with immigration law.
Hobson involved a top-secret FBI operation of the late-1960s to early-1970s called COINTELPRO, which targeted civil rights groups seeking racial equality, and another set of organizations actively opposing the Vietnam war. COINTELPRO specifically listed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference led by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee as primary targets.
In the words of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, COINTELPRO focused on “(1) efforts to create racial animosity between Blacks and Whites; (2) interference with lawful demonstration logistics; (3) efforts to create discord within groups or to portray a group’s motives or goals falsely to the public; and (4) direct efforts to intimidate the plaintiffs.”2
From December 1963 until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “neutralize” him as an effective civil rights leader. In the words of the man in charge of the FBI’s “war” against Dr. King:
No-holds were barred. We have used [similar] techniques against Soviet agents. [The same methods were] brought home against any organization against which we were targeted. We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business.3
Beginning her work on the case as a law student in D.C. and continuing with the case while in private practice in D.C., Anne and her co-counsel brought suit against the FBI for systemically violating their clients’ “constitutional rights, individually and through conspiracies, while plaintiffs engaged in lawful protest against government policy in the late 1960’s and in the 1970’s in the Washington area.”4 After a 17 day trial, Anne and her colleagues won the suit. In my view, that case alone earned Anne membership in the Due Process Army Hall of Fame.
During the time Hobson was being litigated, Anne moved to Maine, opening her own practice there in the town of Norway (pop. 5,000), traveling back and forth to D.C. for the Hobson trial. So then how did she end up in Brooklyn representing asylum seekers?
Anne explained to me that the government appealed the Hobson decision to the D.C. Circuit (in 1982), after which Anne began traveling to the New York City offices of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who served as her co-counsel on the appeal. And finding some time on her hands during the two-year pendency of that appeal allowed Anne to pursue her interest in helping those fleeing civil war in Central America, which was an issue very much in the news at the time. Although Anne found groups dedicated to the issue itself, she was less successful in locating organizations actually providing representation to immigrants from Central America.
Anne continued that INS was detaining Central Americans at that time in the Brooklyn Navy Yard.5 Anne learned that a local Catholic priest and nun, Father Bryan Karvelis and Sister Peggy Walsh, were visiting those detainees, sometimes paying the bond for their release; they even housed those who had nowhere to stay in the rectory of their Brooklyn church. And Sister Peggy had obtained accredited representative status, allowing her to represent individuals before the government.
In Anne’s words, after litigating against the FBI in Hobson, she naively thought that by comparison, dealing with INS “would be a piece of cake.” Between briefs in Hobson, Anne organized a group of pro bono lawyers to represent Central Americans in applying for asylum under the brand-new 1980 Refugee Act. Anne spent the first year working out of her car, after which Father Bryan offered her space in the Transfiguration Church on Hooper Street, where CALA remains located to this day.
Anne thus began CALA with no funding, paying a secretary herself, and working without a salary for about two years. In a wonderfully ironic twist, CALA’s first funding came from Anne’s attorney fees in Hobson, thus making the FBI CALA’s first major benefactor.
Interestingly, Anne explained that it took a few years before the newly created EOIR began to hear Central American cases in earnest; in the early 1980s, the federal government somehow believed that the problems in the region would be over in a year or two.
Once they did begin hearing Central American cases, the Immigration Judges of that time denied virtually all of their asylum claims, generally doing so by incorrectly classifying the feared harm as “random violence.” In spite of the new asylum law intended to make adjudications fairer and free of political influence, it took years before Anne won her first asylum case.
And yet Anne persevered, building a model program and recruiting and mentoring outstanding lawyers. Anne also challenged EOIR’s misguided decisions and policies in the federal courts.
I want to make it clear that I had not included this next anecdote in my initial draft; it is being added at Anne’s own request. But while fighting to prevent the deportation of factory workers illegally arrested in a workplace raid, a March 1988 conference before U.S. District Court Judge Mark A. Constantino apparently became quite heated, resulting in the judge holding Anne in criminal contempt of court. That order was overturned by the Second Circuit in Matter of Pilsbury.6 The Second Circuit decision contained the following quote directed at Anne by Judge Constantino:
You go practice your shabby law somewheres [sic] else. Don’t you dare practice it in the Eastern District. You no longer will be permitted to practice in any part of this court. You will not be able to practice in this court or the immigration service. This court will see to it.7
Judge Constantino’s words turned out to be about as accurate as the Department of Justice’s belief that the turmoil in Central America would settle down after a few months. Some thirty-five years later, Anne’s impact on asylum case law has been nothing less than remarkable.
In 1994, in the case of Osorio v. INS,8 Anne prevailed in challenging the BIA’s determination that a labor union leader’s fear of persecution in Guatemala was not on account of his political opinion because, as a labor union leader, his point of dispute with the Guatemalan government was economic, not political.
In reversing the BIA’s conclusion, the Second Circuit quoted a statement made by Anne at oral argument, which became one of the most famous lines in asylum law history: that according to the BIA’s view, the Nobel Prize winning Soviet novelist and renowned dissident “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would not have been eligible for political asylum because his dispute with the former Soviet Union is properly characterized as a literary, rather than a political, dispute.”9
The court agreed with Anne that “Regardless of whether their dispute might have been characterized as a literary dispute, it might also have been properly characterized as a political dispute.”10 The Osorio decision remains extremely relevant today for its expansive view of what constitutes “political opinion” for asylum purposes, and for recognizing that nexus can be satisfied where the persecution is on account of mixed motives, a concept later codified by Congress.
A month earlier, in the case of Sotelo-Aquije v. Slattery,11 Anne had won a Second Circuit victory for a community leader from Peru who was denied asylum by the BIA in spite of being at risk of violence for speaking out against the Shining Path.
Also in 1994, Anne prevailed before the Ninth Circuit in a case called Campos v. Nail,12 challenging an Immigration Judge’s pattern or practice of denying all motions for change of venue filed by Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum seekers who had not established a U.S. address prior to their arrest by the INS. In applying this policy without consideration of the individual’s circumstances, the IJ forced respondents who had long settled thousands of miles away to return at no small expense to Arizona for their hearings, or face an in absentia deportation order if unable to do so. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Anne that the policy violated the petitioners’ “statutory and regulatory rights to be assured a reasonable opportunity to attend their deportation hearings and to present evidence on their own behalf,” which “in turn interfered with the plaintiffs’ statutory and regulatory rights to apply for asylum and to obtain representation by counsel at no expense to the government.”13
Anne later won two cases before the Second Circuit creating important protections for asylum seekers in establishing their credibility before Immigration Judges. The precedent decisions in Alvarado-Carillo v. INS,14 and Secaida-Rosales v. INS15 rejected the application of an inappropriate standard relying on speculation or conjecture in rejecting an asylum applicant’s credibility, and required that such determinations be based on facts material to the claim. However, in noting how difficult keeping such gains can be, Anne pointed to the fact that both of these decisions were specifically cited with disapproval by Congress in its subsequent amendments contained in the 2005 REAL ID Act giving Immigration Judge greater leeway to deny asylum based on credibility or corroboration.
In 2006, Anne won an important case recognizing that a different standard applies when determining persecution to children. In Jorge-Tzoc v. Gonzales,16 the Second Circuit held that harm that had not been found to rise to the level of persecution to an adult “could well constitute persecution to a small child totally dependent on his family and community.” The court also cited INS’s asylum guidelines for children recognizing that “The harm a child fears or has suffered, however, may be relatively less than that of an adult and still qualify as persecution.”17
I’ve just mentioned some of the highlights from Anne’s career. From her office inside the Transfiguration Church, the entity Anne founded has assisted thousands of immigrants over the years. And CALA has very much remained focused on the community it serves; as Anne says, that is very much by choice. Among those serving on the organization’s Board of Directors are early clients of CALA, along with former staff.
The community connection is not limited to people. The CALA website lists among its staff, photo and all, “Oscar Gerardi Caceres the Cat,” an actual cat rescued by Anne (as opposed to an attorney with a cat filter), whose responsibilities are listed as “greeting clients, inspecting files, and prowling the office as our security guard.” It must be pointed out that this whimsical entry also carries a far more serious meaning, as the office cat has been named to honor the memory of three fallen leaders of the decades-long violence in Central America: Msgr. Oscar Romero (killed in 1980 in El Salvador), Berta Caceres, an environmental activist and indigenous leader killed in Honduras in 2016, and Bishop Juan Gerardi, killed in Guatemala in 1998 right after releasing the church’s devastating truth commission report on military atrocities.
Over the years, I have left every conversation with Anne having learned something important. Anne has a casual, often direct way of speaking; her words can be simultaneously remarkably simple and deeply profound.
I offer as an example this quote of hers from the same 2016 New Yorker article quoted above:
“I never expected it to take so long for our government to wake up to what was happening in Central America, and to stop funding militaries and wars, and stop blaming immigrants for trying to save their own lives….Thirty years later, I’m no longer so optimistic, I don’t expect people here to learn from history anymore. Of course, you never stop hoping they will, when the lessons are so obvious.”
In 2006, the block of Marcy Avenue on which the Transfiguration Church sits was named “Msgr. Bryan J. Karvelis Way.” I found online remarks made by City Council Member Diana Reyna during the meeting at which the naming was voted upon. Those remarks included the following:
Brooklyn parishes, like their neighborhoods, have gone through a lot of changes over the years. But one thing remains constant: in a Diocese of Immigrants, they continue to reach out to the latest newcomers, and make a home for them. Transfiguration parish is a superb example of this, and today is a good day to celebrate its history.
In paying tribute to Father Bryan, those remarks are no doubt also a tribute to the work of Anne and CALA over the past 40 years.
Please join me in thanking Anne Pilsbury profoundly, and wishing her all of the best her future pursuits.
Hobson v. Wilson, 556 F. Supp. 1157, 1163 (D.D.C. 1982).
Just to give out-of-town readers a sense of change over Anne’s career, the Brooklyn Navy Yard presently includes the largest movie studio outside of Hollywood; a large number of innovative tech start-ups, and a Wegman’s Supermarket.
866 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1989).
Id. at 22.
18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994).
Id. at 1028-29.
Id. at 1029.
17 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1994).
43 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 1994).
Id. at 1291.
251 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2001).
331 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2003).
435 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2006).
Id. at 150.
Copyright 2023 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Republished by permission.
*********************************
Congratulations, Anne, on an amazing career — one that continues on in a different role! You are what real leadership and courage are all about!
Building a better America, “case by case, person by person.” I used to say that to folks in court during my days on the bench. It was a “team effort” that included everyone in the courtroom.
Also, thanks to Jeffrey for such a moving and elegantly written portrait of a real American patriot. Giving thanks and recognizing those who have “paved the way” and supported our common values and ideals is an oft-overlooked value in and of itself.
The Biden Administration and Dems generally are notoriously bad in this area. That’s particularly and painfully evident when it comes to those who “held the line” on our Constitution, democracy, and human rights — at a time when many of those leaders and politicos who would benefit were nowhere to be found “in the trenches” of defending and promoting social justice in the face of the Trump/GOP onslaught.
This is my favorite quote from Jeffrey’s profile of Anne:
“I never expected it to take so long for our government to wake up to what was happening in Central America, and to stop funding militaries and wars, and stop blaming immigrants for trying to save their own lives….Thirty years later, I’m no longer so optimistic, I don’t expect people here to learn from history anymore. Of course, you never stop hoping they will, when the lessons are so obvious.”
Clearly, Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, Garland, a number of Dem politicos, Federal Judges at all levels, and many members of the so-called “mainstream media” neither learned nor heeded the obvious lessons of history. They also ignored the law in their disgraceful “rush to reject rather than protect!”
They keep “blaming the victims” for saving their own lives, ignoring our nation’s failure to live up to our humanitarian commitments, and violating our statutes and Constitutional guarantees of the right to apply for asylum and receive a fair adjudication of claims. It’s as if World War II, Hitler, the Holocaust, and its aftermath have been “written out” of our history — mainly by the GOP but also disturbingly by some Democrats and members of the Biden Administration.
Also, many congratulations to “rising NDPA superstar” Heather Axford on her appointment as the new Director of CALA! Heather has already “creamed” the DOJ in the notable case of Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-52n. That case is basically a compendium of why EOIR is failing, both legally and operationally.
Heather Axford Director Central American Legal Assistance Brooklyn, NY
Yet, disgracefully, rather than “tapping into” the expertise and organizational talents of Heather, Anne, and their NDPA colleagues, Garland and his team are presiding over the “death spiral” of EOIR — endangering our entire U.S. justice system and threatening and degrading human lives!
I’m proud to say that Heather “got her start” practicing before the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court with the Law Offices of Alan M. Parra following her graduation from UVA Law! I know that Heather will carry on and build upon Anne’s humanitarian legal legacy and leadership example at CALA!
Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it! Public Domain
Excerpts:
Now, those of you who read my blog immigrationcourtside.com or have heard me speak before, or both, know that I am an outspoken critic of the last four Administrations’ gross mismanagement and misdirection of our Immigration Courts. So, you might well ask why I am here recruiting YOU to become part of a court system that I have consistently lampooned and characterized as dysfunctional, FUBAR, and badly in need of long-overdue reforms.
A better question might be why AG Garland, VP Harris, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, and Associate AG Vanita Gupta AREN’T here today actively recruiting you to apply to become Immigration Judges in their system. It’s a hugely important court, perhaps the largest in the Federal Government, that cries out for excellence, practical immigration scholarship, and badly needs a much more diverse, representative, and expert judiciary to achieve equal justice for all in America.
The short answer is because I CARE, and THEY DON’T! I have a vision of a model court system unswervingly dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, great practical scholarship, best judicial practices, fantastic public service, and equal justice for all! THEY DON’T!
After two largely fruitiness and frustrating years of the Biden Administration’s bungling immigration and social justice mis-steps, it’s painfully clear that the needed management, personnel, operational, and expertise reforms needed at EOIR AREN’T going to come from above.
But, if you have been in Immigration Court and thought “Hey, there is a better, more informed, more efficient, more just way to run this railroad, why isn’t it happening,” THIS is YOUR chance to get on board and change the direction of EOIR and the millions of lives and livelihoods that depend on it! See that the next generations of dedicated immigration lawyers won’t face some of the unnecessary and counterproductive roadblocks and bad experiences that you have had to deal with in seeking justice for your clients before EOIR!
. . . .
Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates dropped precipitously during the Trump years. Although they have rebounded some under Biden, they still remain below the 2012 levels. It’s certainly not that conditions have substantially “improved” in major “sending countries.” If anything, conditions are worse in most of those countries than in the years preceding 2012.
So, if the law hasn’t changed substantially and country conditions haven’t improved, what has caused regression in asylum grant rates at EOIR? It comes down to poor judging, accompanied by inadequate training, too much emphasis on “churning the numbers over quality and correctness,” and a BIA that really doesn’t believe much in asylum law and lacks the expertise and commitment to consistently set and apply favorable precedents and end disgraceful inconsistencies and “asylum free zones” that continue to exist.
Some of the most disgraceful, intentional asylum misinterpretations by Sessions and Barr now have been reversed by Garland. Unfortunately, he failed to follow-up to insure that the correct standards are actually applied, particularly to recurring circumstances. It’s one of many reasons that the Biden Administration struggles to re-establish a fair and efficient legal asylum system at the Southern Border — notwithstanding having two years to address the problems!
But, it doesn’t have to be this way! Recently, as I noted earlier, a number of notable “practical scholar experts” have been appointed to the Immigration Judiciary. When such well-qualified jurists reach a “critical mass” in the expanding EOIR, systemic changes and improvements in practices and results will happen.
The “dialogue” among Immigration Judges from government backgrounds and those from the private/NGO sector will improve. Lives will be saved. Life-threatening inconsistencies and wasteful litigation to correct basic mistakes at all levels of EOIR will diminish. The EOIR system will resume movement toward the former noble, but now long abandoned, vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
. . . .
So, warriors of the NDPA, check out USA Jobs, make those applications for EOIR judgeships! Storm the tower from below! Make a difference in the lives of others, stand up for due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, and help save our democracy! Become better judges for a better America! If not YOU, then who?
You can watch my full webinar here:
AILA Webinars shared the following meeting recording with you.
Topic: How to become an EOIR judge
Date: Jan 11, 2023 11:42 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
The Biden administration has long been saying that it wants to get rid of Title 42.
Why, then, has it been expanding use of this policy?
“Title 42” is shorthand for what is effectively an abuse of a public health authority to circumvent U.S. asylum laws. Beginning in March 2020, the Trump administration used an obscure public health statute to automatically expel migrants without allowing them to first apply for asylum, as is their right under U.S. law and international treaty;PresidentDonald Trump’s pretext was that these immigrants might spread covid-19.
Apparently, Trump considered covid a liberal media hoax except when useful for punishing foreigners.
Human rights advocates and public health experts alike criticized the policy as probably both illegal and lacking a credible epidemiological purpose. Whatever its intentions, it didn’t reduce stress at the border; instead, it increased attempted border crossings, as many people expelled without consequence or due process turned right around and tried again to enter the United States.
That is, if they weren’t kidnapped, tortured, raped or otherwise violently attacked first. This happened in more than 10,000 cases of expelled migrants, as documented by Human Rights First.
As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden pledged to restore the integrity of the asylum system. He promised that anyone qualifying for an asylum claim would “be admitted to the country through an orderly process.” As president, though, Biden dragged his feet in terminating Title 42. He finally agreed to end the program this past spring. But termination has since been delayed by complicated court rulings, which Biden officials seem to have fought only half-heartedly.
This week, the Supreme Court determined that Title 42 must remain in place at least until the court decides a related issue (probably in the coming months). Given the Biden administration’s claims of wanting to end Title 42, the president should theoretically be mad about the delay.
Instead, Biden officials seem to have seized the opportunity to make yet more immigrant groups subject to automatic expulsions. “The administration has taken the position in court that they can no longer justify keeping Title 42 in place, given the lack of any public health justification,” said Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging the expulsion policy. “If you look at the administration’s actions, however, it’s clear they’re fine with Title 42 remaining in place.”
. . . .
Americans often complain that immigrants should come here “the right way,” but for many migrants, showing up at the border unannounced and turning themselves in is the only legal pathway available. If given options to come here that don’t require paying gangs and crossing deserts, people would gladly take them — which would in turn alleviate stress at the border.
To its credit, the Biden administration has taken baby steps on that last recommendation.
Its Uniting for Ukraine program, for instance, has vetted and “paroled in” more than 82,000 Ukrainians and their immediate relatives abroad, which has discouraged Ukrainians from showing up en masse at our southern border (as had been the case early in the war). A similar but much more restrictive program was created for Venezuelans, whose numbers are capped at 24,000; a parallel program is reportedly in the works for Cubans, Nicaraguans and Haitians.
But again, these additional legal pathways can be created while still upholding the ability to apply for asylum at our borders. That’s what U.S. law requires — and what Biden has, repeatedly, promised to do.
***********************
Read Catherine’s full article at the link. “If you look at the administration’s actions, however, it’s clear they’re fine with Title 42 remaining in place.”So true! So outrageous!
Contrary to much of the blather from both parties, refugee and asylum laws are an integral part of our LEGAL immigration system — one that is now being grossly misapplied and under-utilized!
Creating additional legal avenues for immigration by legislation is by no means inconsistent with maintaining robust, well-functioning refugee and asylum programs!
There are lots and lots of improvements that the Biden Administration could and should have made to the legal refugee and asylum programs that already exist under the law! Indeed, I suggest that many of the bogus “gimmicks” and counterproductive, wasteful, unfair “deterrents” devised and implemented by the Biden Administration, including expanded use of Title 42, were in direct or indirect response to Garland’s failed Immigration Courts. Because they are backlogged, inefficient, and dysfunctional, bureaucrats and politicos dream up ways to evade them (as opposed to fixing them so they work)!
It’s all wrong! There are “tons” of cases rotting inGarland’s ever-expanding EOIR backlog that could be granted or otherwise disposed of with relative ease and without stomping on anyone’s due process rights! There are ways of providing proper notice, better scheduling, and a new system for initial adjudications of non-LPR cancellation cases that do NOT require legislation; just better leadership and personnel at DOJ, DHS, and the White House!
The lack of scholarly, progressive, due process oriented precedents and implementation of best judicial practices by the BIA cripples justice in both the Immigration Courts and the USCIS Asylum Offices, even extending to the Refugee Program and other forms of USCIS adjudication of benefits.
For example, the ridiculous, largely self-created, backlogs in USCIS work authorizations is at least partially fueled by never ending backlogs in Immigration Court. Also, bad judicial decisions at EOIR create large amounts of unnecessary litigation in the Article III Courts and promote inconsistencies by allowing too many important issues, including proper application of some of the BIA’s own precedents favorable to respondents, to be resolved by the Circuits.
The system is a godawful mess! Yet, Dems inCongress didn’t even consider pressing for long-overdue Article I legislation, already introduced by Chair Lofgren, as part of their “lame duck push.” Thus, a key part of the immigration and justice systems continues to flounder and fail in Garland’s DOJ!
The need for so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” does not in any way minimize the responsibility of the Biden Administration for failing to reform the leadership and bureaucracies at DOJ and DHS to produce fairer, more efficient, expert, professional results!
Some cowardly Dem politicos and many Biden officials “run” from the immigration issue; yet, addressing and fixing the parts they control, like EOIR, could well have given them success to tout during the mid-term campaign.
And, as many experts suggest, it might also have helped address labor shortages, inflation and improved the economy. Rather than just “holding off disaster,” by acting more boldly on immigration the Dems might even have maintained and expanded their political control by demonstrating both the competence to solve immigration problems, even without comprehensive legislation, and the benefits of a fair, efficient, functional immigration system to America as a whole.
With the GOP taking over the House, expect many Dems to continue bellyaching that “nothing can be done about immigration.” It’s not like they did much of anything when they controlled both Houses!
There are still things that can be done to make the system fairer, more efficient, and more responsive to the common needs of America. Progressives should not let Dem “naysayers” off the hook!
The myths — or, rather, convenient lies — that some politicians keep circulating about the U.S.-Mexico border have resulted in another disappointing congressional session for immigration reform.
Instead of crafting much-needed solutions to address the fate of young immigrant “Dreamers,” the backlog of cases in immigration courts or any of the myriad problems caused by outdated immigration laws, policymakers spent most of their time wrangling over Title 42, a public health order invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to manage border crossings.
Disinformation prevents policymakers from having honest discussions and enacting sensible solutions. The complex U.S.-Mexico border region is a confluence of cultural, social and economic communities whose problems need sophisticated solutions not easily summarized by sound bites. Yet many people continue to peddle misconceptions about the border and engage in partisan theater such as dispatching migrants to Vice President Kamala Harris’ home or creating a wasteful wall of shipping containers, as the Arizona governor has done.
The debate on immigration and border control is likely to intensify in early 2023, when the GOP takes control of the House. Though there’s little expectation of significant legislation in a divided Congress, the constant arrival of migrants at the border is sure to keep the topic in the news. Because it’s important to look beyond sound bites, we’re fact-checking the misconceptions about the U.S.-Mexico border you are likely to hear in the coming months.
. . . .
**********************
Read the complete editorial at the link.
The lies and myths are largely pushed by GOP nativist politicos, and some right wing activist Federal Judges, although disgracefully some Dems have adopted, enabled, or gone along with certain aspects of them.
NGOs, communities, and advocates are about the only ones acting with urgency on the truth of this solvable humanitarian crisis. In doing so, they too often face roadblocks or lack of competence, honesty, and urgency from government officials at all levels.
The temporary stay doesn’t address the merits. It just allows the full Court to consider the the State GOP AG’s frivolous challenge to reinstitution of the rule of law at the Southern border which was set to take effect on Wednesday, Dec. 22.
Frivolous as the challenge might be, it’s unclear how the current GOP-dominated Supremes will react to this latest right-wing abuse of our legal system and war on human rights and the rule of law!
A HOLIDAY MESSAGE FROM US POLITICOS OF BOTH PARTIES TO LEGAL ASYLUM SEEKERS: “Suffer & Die!” Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Here are some relevant portions of Judge Sullivan’s opinion in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, D.D.C., Nov. 22, 2022, to keep in mind as the bogus claims and misleading reporting continue to mushroom ahead of the Dec. 22 (Wednesday) date for re-establishing the rule of law @ our Southern Border:
It is unreasonable for the CDC to assume that it can ignore the consequences of any actions it chooses to take in the pursuit of fulfilling its goals, particularly when those actions included the extraordinary decision to suspend the codified procedural and substantive rights of noncitizens seeking safe harbor. See Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 724-25 (describing the “procedural and substantive rights” of aliens, such as asylum seekers, “to resist expulsion”); cf. Regents, 140 S. Ct. at 1914-15 (holding that agency should have considered the effect rescission of DACA would have on the program’s recipients prior to the agency making its decision). As Defendants concede, “a Title 42 order involving persons will always have consequences for migrants,” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 147 at 42, and numerous public comments during the Title 42 policy rulemaking informed CDC that implementation of its orders would likely expel migrants to locations with a “high
29
probability” of “persecution, torture, violent assaults, or rape.” See Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 27; see also id. at 27- 28 (listing groups subject to expulsion under Title 42, including “survivors of domestic violence and their children, who have endured years of abuse”; “survivors of sexual assault and rape, who are at risk of being stalked, attacked, or murdered by their persecutors in Mexico or elsewhere”; and “LGBTQ+ individuals from countries where their gender identity or sexual orientation is criminalized or for whom expulsion to Mexico or elsewhere makes them prime targets for persecution” (citing AR, ECF No. 154 at 28-29, 47, 153) (cleaned up)). It is undisputed that the impact on migrants was indeed dire. See, e.g., Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 734 (finding Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if expelled to places where they would be persecuted or tortured).
The CDC “has considerable flexibility in carrying out its responsibility,” Regents, 140 S. Ct. at 1914, and the Court is mindful that it “is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009). But regardless of the CDC’s conclusion, its decision to ignore the harm that could be caused by issuing its Title 42 orders was arbitrary and capricious.
30
3. The Title 42 Policy Failed to Adequately
Consider Alternatives
Plaintiffs also argue that the Title 42 policy is arbitrary and capricious because CDC failed to adequately consider alternatives and the policy did not rationally serve its stated purpose. See Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 10-11.
(29-31)
However, despite the above, Defendants have not shown that the risk of migrants spreading COVID-19 is “a real problem.” District of Columbia v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 444 F. Supp. 3d 1, 27 (D.D.C. 2020) (citing Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC, 468 F.3d 831, 841 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). “Professing that an agency action ameliorates a real problem but then citing no evidence demonstrating that there is in fact a problem is not reasoned decisionmaking.” Id. (cleaned up); see Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 735 (“[W]e would be sensitive to declarations in the record by CDC officials testifying to the efficacy of the § 265 Order. But there are none.”). As Plaintiffs point out, record evidence indicates that “during the first seven months of the Title 42 policy, CBP encountered on average just one migrant per day who tested positive for COVID-19.” Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 22 (citing Sealed AR, ECF No. 155-1 at 23). In addition, at the time of the August 2021 Order, the rate of daily COVID-19 cases in the United States was almost double the incidence rate in Mexico and substantially higher than the incidence rate in Canada. See 86 Fed. Reg. at 42831 (noting 137.9 daily cases per 100,000 people in the United States, compared to 68.6 in Mexico and 8.0 in Canada). The lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the Title 42 policy is especially egregious in view of CDC’s previous conclusion that “the use of quarantine and travel restrictions, in the absence of evidence of their utility, is detrimental to efforts to combat the spread of communicable disease,” Control of Communicable Diseases, 82 Fed.
39
Reg. 6890, 6896; as well as record evidence discussing the “recidivism” created by the Title 42 policy, which actually increased the number of times migrants were encountered by CBP, see AR, ECF No. 154 at 45 (commenter describing recidivism); AR, ECF No. 155-1 at 4 (January/February 2021 statistics showing nearly 40% of family units DHS encountered in January-February 15, 2021 were migrants who had attempted to cross at least once before).
(39-40)
Particularly in view of the harms Plaintiffs face if summarily
expelled to countries they may be persecuted or tortured, the Court
42
therefore vacates the Title 42 policy. Cf. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262–64 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Randolph, J., concurring) (“A remand-only disposition is, in effect, an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of the court’s decision and agencies naturally treat it as such.”).
(42-43)
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs have presented evidence demonstrating that the rate of summary expulsions pursuant to the Title 42 policy has nearly doubled since September 2021. See Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 30 (“At the time of this Court’s original decision, approximately 14% of
45
families encountered at the southwest border were being summarily expelled pursuant to the Title 42 policy. . . . Now, the rate of expulsions is nearly twice as high, reaching 27%.”); see also Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 149-1 at 31 (“[I]n the month of July 2022 alone, 9,574 members of family units encountered at the southern border were summarily expelled pursuant to the Title 42 policy.”). And “[i]n Mexico alone, recorded incidents” of “kidnapping, rapes, and other violence against noncitizens subject to Title 42” have “spiked from 3,250 cases in June 2021 to over 10,318 in June 2022.” Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 30 (citing Neusner Decl., ECF No. 118-4; Human Rights First, The Nightmare Continues: Title 42 Court Order Prolongs Human Rights Abuses, Extends Disorder at U.S. Borders, at 3-4 (June 2022)). Accordingly, even if the Court accepts Defendants’ unsupported statement that the “situation for class members has improved,” the evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs continue to face irreparable harm that is beyond remediation. See Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 733 (“[T]he record is replete with stomach-churning evidence of death, torture, and rape.”).
N
(45-46)
Because “there is an overriding public interest . . . in the general importance of an agency’s faithful adherence to its statutory mandate,” Jacksonville Port Auth. v. Adams, 556 F.2d 52, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1977); the Court concludes that an injunction in this case would serve the public interest, see A.B.-B. v. Morgan, No. 20-cv-846, 2020 WL 5107548, at *9 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2020) (“[T]he Government and public can have little interest in executing removal orders that are based on statutory violations . . . .”).
Moreover, Defendants do not contend that issuing a
permanent injunction would cause them harm or be inconsistent
with the public health. Indeed, “CDC recognizes that the current
public health conditions no longer require the continuation of
47
the August 2021 order,” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 147 at 44; see also Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 30, in view of the “less burdensome measures that are now available,” 87 Fed Reg. at 19944; id. at 19949–50. The parties also do not dispute that Plaintiffs continue to face substantial harm if they are returned to their home countries, notwithstanding the availability of USCIS screenings. See, e.g., Human Rights First, The Nightmare Continues: Title 42 Court Order Prolongs Human Rights Abuses, Extends Disorder at U.S. Borders, at 3-4 (June 2022). As the Supreme Court has explained, the public has a strong interest in “preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 436.
(47-48)
***********************************
So, when you hear guys like Abbott, Ducey, DeSantis, Manchin, Cuellar, Gonzales, GOP nativist AGs, and the like use this holiday season during which we are supposed to be celebrating messages of hope, faith, mercy, and “goodwill toward men” to extol the virtues of illegal expulsions under Title 42, remember what their are REALLY saying:
“I want the US to continue violating domestic and international laws protecting refugees and asylum seekers, to continue to knowingly violate the human rights and human dignity of asylum seekers, and to place our fellow humans in danger zones where they will suffer stomach-churning episodes of death, torture, and rape. I don’t believe our nation is capable of complying with our duly-enacted laws to protect refugees and asylum seekers that have been in effect since 1981 until 2020 when they were illegally suspended by the Trump Administration using a public health pretext, as found by a Federal Judge. I urge the Biden Administration, which has already illegally expelled hundreds of thousands of migrants with no due process, to continue committing grotesque violations of the law and human rights and to increase the violations so that more men, women, and children will suffer rape, torture, an dearth as a consequence. This is my holiday season message to America and humanity: Peace on earth and goodwill toward all mankind, EXCEPT those seeking legal asylum by applying at our Southern Border. To them: rape, torture, and death without due process!
Title 42 expulsions of asylum seekers are a clear violation of Judeo-Christian ethics. To be advocating for its continuing application at any time, let alone during this season, is the height of hypocrisy; so is characterizing the largely self-inflicted mess at the Southern Border as a “humanitarian emergency” and then proposing to “solve” it by sending legal asylum seekers back to rape, torture, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, and death in Mexico and other nations in turmoil without any type of process to determine whether they have a “credible fear” of persecution, as required by law.
******************
It’s possible that the nativist AGs will try the Supremes. But, a stay at this point seems unlikely.
The next issue is that the Biden Administration has shown little enthusiasm for actually ending Title 42 (despite nominally professing a desire to do so) and no apparent confidence that they can competently restore the rule of law for asylum seekers. Maybe, advocates and the asylum seekers themselves will save the Administration from itself once again. But, that’s a tall order.
“Oscar Aguado-Cuevas, a Mexican national, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision affirming a denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons below, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND this case for further consideration of Aguado-Cuevas’s petition for CAT protection. … Aguado-Cuevas filed an application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), arguing that his uncles and cousins in Mexico were cartel members who would kill him if he returned. In September 2020, Aguado-Cuevas, his father, and an expert witness testified in support of Aguado-Cuevas’s CAT application. … Aguado-Cuevas signed a cooperation agreement and began cooperating with federal authorities. Aguado-Cuevas’s cooperation, including his agreement to testify against Adolfo Jr. and CJNG, was leaked to the media and publicized online. … [A]n expert witness testified that Aguado-Cuevas’s chances of potential risk or torture upon returning to Mexico were “[e]xtremely high to [a] near certainty” due to his informant and debtor status. … [T]he BIA erred by not applying the correct legal framework in which it must show that it meaningfully considered “relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims.” … Although we remand primarily for the BIA to reconsider the state involvement prong of the CAT analysis, we note that both parties acknowledge that the BIA’s likelihood of torture analysis suffers from similar deficiencies. Accordingly, to the extent that the BIA finds that Aguado-Cuevas has shown the requisite level of state involvement upon remand, we order the BIA to also consider the likelihood of torture prong under the proper legal framework. … Aguado-Cuevas claims that he will be murdered by CJNG as punishment for being an informant and debtor following his drug-related activities in the U.S. Concerning the likelihood of torture, Aguado-Cuevas argues—and the Government agrees—that the BIA should have more closely considered evidence of Aguado-Cuevas’s actions in the U.S. that could characterize him to CJNG as an informant and debtor. Specifically, the BIA did not properly consider evidence that (1) Aguado-Cuevas owed CJNG $120,000 after his botched deal; (2) Aguado-Cuevas was identified by the media as an informant in the prosecution of a CJNG member; (3) a text message identified Aguado-Cuevas as a potential target of the CJNG; (4) a residence where Aguado-Cuevas stayed was ransacked; and (5) CJNG routinely kills debtors and informants. Such evidence goes directly to Aguado-Cuevas’s arguments of likelihood of torture as an informant and debtor; such a theory hinges not on events in Mexico but on his actions in the U.S., making him a particular target for torture by CJNG. The BIA failed to properly consider these pieces of evidence. … The complete lack of discussion of the aforementioned evidence suggests that the BIA has not met this standard. As before, the BIA should remand to the IJ for additional factfinding if necessary.”
Many congrats and thanks Carla! There is an”epidemic” of botched CAT cases being “outed” by the Circuits. This one was so horribly mishandled, that even OIL couldn’t defend it!
Yet, the “downbeat goes on” as Garland feigns ignorance of the institutionalized injustice @ EOIR being carried out in his name! On his watch, the BIA has gone from “any reason to deny” to “no reason whatsoever for denying.”
Apparently, as long as the BIA staff attorney drafts the decision so the individual loses, it really doesn’t matter to the “signatory appellate judge” at the BIA what goes above the “bottom line.”
It’s a heck of a way to “run the railroad” 🚂 with human lives at stake and an ever growing, out of control, 2 million case backlog! After 2.5 years bouncing around the EOIR system, this particular case is headed back to the IJ in a never ending quest for competent judging, due process, and fundamental fairness. All three of the foregoing are elusive qualities at Garland’s EOIR!
Garland’sso-called “dedicated dockets” gimmick has been a total failure from a due process and fundamental fairness standpoint. See, e.g.,https://trac.syr.edu/reports/704.
The only “dedicated docket” that Garland REALLY needs at EOIR is one dedicated to getting the results right in the first instance! But, that readily achievable objective (althoughNOT without major, long over due personnel changes in “management,” the BIA, and among some IJs) appears of little interest to Garland or the Biden Administration. Thus, the latest Dem Administration appears content to let the dysfunctional EOIR system limp on spewing injustice, bad law, and insurmountable backlogs on its downward spiral!
<div class=”player-unavailable”><h1 class=”message”>An error occurred.</h1><div class=”submessage”><a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpQH–gTPoA” target=”_blank”>Try watching this video on www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>
Migrants should be welcomed with dignity and compassion—not turned away or treated inhumanely.
Finally, after over two years, a district court has ruled that the Title 42 expulsion policy- which has blocked most migrants from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum- violates U.S. law and ordered the Biden administration to end it.
This anti-immigrant policy has led to hundreds of thousands of people deported back to dangerous conditions or stranded in makeshift camps. Other migrants have been forced to take dangerous routes through deserts, mountains, rivers, and the ocean—facing extreme heat, violence, even death.
The termination of the policy goes into effect at the end of December, unless the administration attempts to delay this. That is why we are calling on the Biden administration to end this policy IMMEDIATELY and to not accompany this with the expansion of detention.
Sign our petition to speak out against this cruel policy today!
Letter to President
Dear President Biden:
I believe that people fleeing dangerous situations in their home countries should be welcome to the United States with compassion—not dealt overwhelming obstacles to seeking asylum.
That is why I am relieved to hear that after over two years, a district court has ended the cruel and unnecessary use of Title 42. This anti-immigrant policy has led to hundreds of thousands of people deported back to dangerous conditions or stranded in makeshift camps. Under this cruel policy, Black and Brown migrants have suffered disproportionately while some others have been able to seek asylum—evidence of the racism that drives our immigration enforcement policies.
That is why I am calling on the Biden administration to end Title 42 immediately and to not replace it with other inhumane and xenophobic policies that cause similar harm. Additionally, your administration must not accompany this with the expansion of immigration detention. Any efforts to uphold this policy actively supports more family separations, trauma, and violence against Black, Brown, and immigrant communities.
All people—regardless of where they were born, the color of their skin, their culture or religious affiliation—should be able to seek refuge and be welcomed with the compassion, dignity, and respect we all deserve. I urge your administration to do all that you can to end Title 42 immediately—and ensure all migrants can exercise their right to seek asylum.
Take future action with a single click.
Log in or Sign up for FastAction
Contact Information
First Name
Last Name
Postal Code
Email
Mobile Phone (Optional)
Sign me up for SMS messages.
By submitting your cell phone number you are agreeing to receive periodic text messages from AFSC. Messages may include ways to get involved and fundraising requests. Msg freq varies. Text HELP for more information. Text STOP to quit. Msg and data rates may apply. Privacy Policy
Remember me so that I can use FastAction next time.
Show your support
with a single click
Autofill forms quickly and securely with FastAction
American Friends Service Committee is a Quaker organization devoted to service, development, and peace programs throughout the world. Our work is based on the belief in the worth of every person, and faith in the power of love to overcome violence and injustice.
The regime that employed this monster to abuse and persecute asylum seekers was voted out of office more than TWO YEARS AGO! Long past time for the Biden Administration to STOP defending, expanding, and carrying out his illegal and immoral policies that inflict “DIRE HARM” on vulnerable LEGAL asylum seekers! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
”BIDEN DOJ HALL OF SHAME” — Those Who Have Defended or Enabled Stephen Miller’s “Crimes Against Humanity:”
Merrick Garland, Attorney General
Lisa Monaco, Deputy Attorney General
Vanita Gupta, Associate Attorney General
Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Elizabeth Prolager, Solicitor General
When these guys eventually “come out” of their cushy political positions, and are looking for jobs in the “real world” they now blithely ignore, progressives, human rights, and racial justice advocates should remember where they stood and what they did or failed to do when human rights and the rule of law were “on the line!”
But special master appointments are rare, and judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit expressed concern at oral arguments that Cannon’s decision set a troubling precedent: allowing the target of a search warrant to go into court and request a special master that could interfere with an executive branch investigation before an indictment is ever issued.
The judges did not back down from that stance in their written opinion Thursday, saying they could not issue an order that would “allow any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant.”
“Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so,” the Thursday opinion read. “Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.
. . . .
*****************
I imagine every criminal defendant in America would be delighted to have the benefit of “Judge Loose’s” incredible ruling that the subject of a criminal investigation, basically caught “red handed” with contraband after a lawfully executed search warrant, could block an ongoingcriminal investigation.
It’s notable that all three 11th Circuit panel judges were GOP appointees, two of them Trump appointees like Judge “Loose!” Unlike “Loose,” they actually take the Constitution and their oaths of office to uphold it seriously, at least in this case!
The saga of Trump’s frivolous abuse of our justice system isn’t yet over. He can request review from the Supremes. However, since he lost to Biden, the Supremes’ GOP majority has shown less willingness to bail out the insurrectionist ex-Prez in his dilatory personal battles to avoid accountability for his actions!
