Judicial Review – Page 16 – immigrationcourtside.com

🎞🎭 MOVIES/DRAMA: “THE COURTROOM” GOES TO TRIBECA!

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

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

I talk all the time about the play “The Courtroom,” for which I served as a consultant, and then actually performed in four times on stage.

The film version (which I am not in) is now an entry in the Tribeca Film Festival, where it can be screened from home over a ten-day window next month. The “script” is entirely taken from the transcript of the Immigration Court hearing of an actual case, and then from the transcript of that same case as argued before the Seventh Circuit (Keathley v. Holder).

Onstage, several actual judges (present and retired) took turns playing the judge in the naturalization scene at the end. Two other retired IJs in addition to myself (Betty Lamb and Terry Bain), and one presently sitting IJ (Mimi Tsankov) performed. But in the film, the actor BD Wong plays Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; the real Judge Chin also performed that same role onstage. We all got to write our own remarks to address the newly naturalized audience. Judge Chin spoke so poignantly about his own family immigration story, and his remarks appear in the film.

In real life, this was another case in which the IJ and the BIA got it wrong. I feel this story is a tribute to those Paul has labeled the “New Due Process Army.” The real life Chicago attorney Richard Hanus had a brilliant legal argument, his very sympathetic client and her US citizen husband maintained faith in both him and in our legal system, and in the end, justice prevailed.

I hope that you will watch the film (Kristin Villanueva, who plays the respondent, was so moving in the role onstage; my wife, no stranger to immigration court, cried the first time she saw it performed), and maybe let others in our community know of it. Waterwell, the performing arts company responsible for this, is comprised of truly wonderful, talented, and caring people dedicated to creating socially conscious works.

https://www.thecourtroomfilm.com/

Skip to Content

The COURTROOM

Current Page:

Home

Watch the Film

”the legal thriller is given a bold and innovative twist”

– Saidah Russell

Stream the Film at Tribeca Film Festival June 16 – 26

Tickets are limited. Buy them HERE.

Watch the Film (password required)

CAST & CREDITS

Directed by Lee Sunday Evans

SCREENWRITER: Arian Moayed

CAST: Marsha Stephanie Blake, Michael Braun, Kathleen Chalfant, Hanna Cheek, Michael Chernus, Michael Bryan French, Mick Hilgers, Linda Powell, Kristin Villanueva, BD Wong

EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: Anne Carey, Ryan Chanatry, Gena Konstantinakos, Lee Sunday Evans, Arian Moayed

PRODUCERS: Damon Owlia, Jonathan Olson

ASSOCIATE PRODUCER: Rebecca Choi

CINEMATOGRAPHER: Daisy Zhou

EDITOR: Cecilia Delgado

PRODUCTION DESIGNER: Emmeline Wilks DuPoise

COSTUME DESIGNER: Junghyun Georgia Lee

COMPOSER: Daniel Kluger

For sales enquiries: United Talent Agency, Jake Carter + Rachel Viola

For press enquiries: Falco

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

I don’t know whether Waterwell has “academic rates” or “specials” for social justice fundraising. This could be a great teaching tool for clinical and other immigration professors as well as a potential fundraiser for clinics and community nonprofits dedicated to social justice.

Thanks, Jeffrey, for highlighting this great work. And thanks for the “mini-review.”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-28-22

🇺🇸🗽⚖️😎🌟🏆NDPA SUPERSTAR LAUREN WYATT WINS AWARD!

Lauren Wyatt Award — NY City Bar
Legal Services Award
Lauren Wyatt

Lauren Wyatt

Lauren Wyatt is an attorney with Catholic Charities Community Services, Archdiocese of New York, where she provides direct representation to immigrants before the Immigration Court, Board of Immigration Appeals, USCIS, and New York family courts. As the Lead Project Attorney for the Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH), she coordinates pro se application workshops, Know-Your-Rights presentations, legal screenings, and pro bono case placements for unrepresented immigrants in removal proceedings. She also prepares and supervises the implementation of specialized ICH programming in response to emergencies (such as family separation) and changes in law and policy (such as in domestic violence- and family-based asylum claims) She recruits and trains volunteers to provide free legal information and assistance to low-income immigrants. She also supervises and mentors pro bono volunteer attorneys in representing clients before the Immigration Court.

Prior to joining Catholic Charities, Lauren was a Program Associate at the Vera Institute of Justice administering the Legal Orientation Program for detained immigrants. Before moving to New York City, Lauren was an Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps Fellow at Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Washington. At Catholic Charities DC, she represented unaccompanied children in immigration and state court proceedings, as well as in affirmative applications before USCIS. She also trained and mentored pro bono attorneys to represent clients in immigration and family court cases.

Lauren is licensed to practice in New York and Maryland, as well as before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She earned her J.D. from Howard University School of Law in 2014, and her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2010. She has studied in Seville, Spain, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Havana, Cuba. She is fluent in Spanish and conversational in Italian.

Refugee Women

SOURCE: I-ARC

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

Congrats, Lauren!😎👍🏼

As we can see, eight years out of law school, Lauren has basically “done it all!” When are we going to see Lauren on the Federal Bench?

Like Vice President Kamala Harris, Lauren is a distinguished grad of Howard Law! So, why hasn’t Harris actively recruited her for a judicial or senior management position at EOIR, where due process, racial justice, practical problem solving, and a positive attitude toward human rights are in total tatters and need “big time” change and redirection?

Why are Dems blowing the opportunity to recognize, promote, and empower “the best and the brightest” that the “upcoming generation” of American lawyers has to offer?

Why is EOIR still a “due process wasteland” rather than a model, due process focused, best practices oriented, “progressive judiciary of the future?”

Somebody with some “pipelines” into the Biden Administration should be asking these questions and insisting on positive progressive actions!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-22

⚖️🗽HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST ON EVERYTHING THAT’S WRONG ABOUT TITLE 42🏴‍☠️! — Also, Positions With HRF Available: Fight The Scofflaws, Nativists, Deniers, Fear-Mongers, & Enablers Who Made Title 42 & Other Degrading White Nationalist Policies Possible, & Those Who “Continue To Defend The Indefensible!”

humanrightsfirst.org

Dear Paul:

After two years of advocacy by Human Rights First and our allies, President Biden announced that his administration would end Title 42 this Monday, May 23. Instead, a suit by attorneys general mirroring the talking points of the Trump administration blocked the end of this inhumane policy.

We will continue to push for the end of the misuse of Title 42 and advocate for fair and just asylum system until we succeed and refugees are welcomed with dignity to the United States.

Taking action on Title 42

The Biden administration had announced a plan to end on May 23 the misuse of Title 42 public health regulations that have barred asylum seekers at the border for the past two years. On Friday a federal court in Louisiana forced the continuation of this egregiously inhumane policy.

Anwen Hughes, Director of Legal Strategy for Refugee Programs responded, “The court’s ruling requires the continuation of a public health policy that public health experts have concluded is not needed, and allows the continued evasion of U.S. immigration and refugee laws.”

Human Rights First joined 57 partner organizations in an amicus brief in this case detailing the human costs of using this policy at the border. Our most recent report, authored with allies Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance, underscored how extending Title 42 escalates dangers to asylum seekers, exacerbates disorder at the border, and magnifies discrimination in the system.

Courtesy Reuters

Migrants expelled from the U.S. are sent back to Mexico over the Paso del Norte International border bridge.

“Every day that the Title 42 order remains in place is a day when the United States is turning away people seeking refuge to places where their lives are in danger.”

Eleanor Acer appeared on Al Jazeera Friday night to discuss the continuation of Title 42.

Human Rights First President and CEO Michael Breen joined Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Mary Kay Henry, International President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Marielena Hincapié, Executive Director of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), in a press call on Monday, the day that should have marked the end of the use of Title 42.

Speakers called for the end of this cruel policy and reiterated the need for a fair and humane asylum system that centers the dignity of all people.

“It is encouraging that the Justice Department quickly filed an appeal to the Louisiana court’s ruling, which extends the use of a policy, ostensibly based on public health, that public health experts have concluded is not needed. Now it is critical that the administration take all necessary steps to defend the CDC’s decision to end the use of Title 42,” said Breen.

A recording of the press event is available here.

Finally, two key members of our refugee protection research team, Kennji Kizuka and Associate Attorney for Refugee Protection Julia Neusner are at the border this week, reporting on the impact of Title 42 and Remain in Mexico on asylum seekers. Please follow their up-to-the-moment reports on Twitter — @JuliaNeusner and @KennjiKizuka.

Introducing new members of our team

Yesterday, Human Rights First was pleased to announce the addition of two critical new members of our program addressing extremism, Erin E. Wilson as the Senior Director for Extremism and Human Rights and Elizabeth Yates, Ph.D. as Senior Researcher on Antisemitism.

Over her 20-year career, Wilson established herself as an expert on domestic extremism, serving as a senior policy strategist and analyst in the U.S. Government’s executive and legislative branches. She has extensive experience with stakeholders in communities around the world as well as federal, state, local agencies and law enforcement partners to address extremism using a rights-centered approach.

Erin E. Wilson

Senior Director of

Extremism & Human Rights

Elizabeth Yates, Ph.D.

Senior Researcher

on Antisemitism.

Yates served at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland, contributing to their work on domestic extremism and hate crimes. She co-authored numerous reports and articles on topics including extremism in the U.S. military, the growth of anti-Muslim terrorism, mass casualty hate crimes, and disengagement from right-wing extremism. Her analysis and commentary have regularly been featured on local and national news.

“Domestic extremism and antisemitism are two sides of the same coin, and Human Rights First is working to take that currency out of circulation,” said Michael Breen. “We are certain that as Human Rights First works to counter white supremacist extremism and the existential threat it poses to American democracy, the experience and tenacity Erin Wilson and Elizabeth Yates have long shown on these issues will be great resources.”

Join our Spring Social

We are thrilled to welcome Segun Oduolowu as emcee at our Spring Social!

Oduolowu joined PEOPLE (The TV Show!) as a correspondent this year after hosted the nationally syndicated television show, The List. With Bounce TV network, Segun executive produced Protect or Neglect, a documentary focused on police brutality in underserved communities.

He was co-host of See It/Skip It, a weekly Facebook Live show produced by Rotten Tomatoes and he has appeared on Access Hollywood, The Wendy Williams Show and contributed to international programs for CNN, the BBC and Deutsche Welle.

The emcee for our June 8

Spring Social, Segun Oduolowu

Please join us and Segun Oduolowu for cocktails on the roof of the Bryant Park Grill in New York City on June 8 from 5:30 to 8pm EDT to honor the work of human rights defenders & highlight our work responding to the crises in Ukraine and Afghanistan.

Get your tickets now for what promises to be a great evening!

Returning to Afghanistan

If you missed our live webinar “Tenets and Terrors: The Ideology and Violence of the Taliban in Afghanistan,” an in-depth look at the key factors, background, and worldview that motivates the Taliban, you can still participate in this important event by watching our recording or reading the transcript here.

Human Rights First is hiring

Human Rights First seeks passionate team members who are interested in changing lives, impacting policy, and moving public opinion.

Please check out our careers page and apply to join us today.

Watch for more news as our work for human rights continues. And please stay in touch on social media:

PLEASE MAKE HUMAN RIGHTS A PRIORITY IN YOUR LIFE

The work we do would not be possible without your donations

Unsubscribe

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

Not surprisingly, things have gone downhill for the Biden Administration on multiple fronts since their initial failure to hit the ground running with a strong condemnation and revocation of the Title 42 travesty!

Here’s a chance for the “new generation” of theNDPA to “sign on” with HRF and fight nativist racism on all levels! There is no end in sight for the need for actions to force the Biden Administration, the U.S. Government, Federal Courts, and state and local governments to comply with the law and our (not yet completely and equally implemented) Constitutional guarantees. Fight the “good fight” to end “dehumanization of the other” which, shockingly, has become SOP for the GOP right and their enablers!

Check out the link to the HRF Careers Page above!😎👍🏼⚖️🗽

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-22

⚖️THE GIBSON REPORT — 05-23-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney, National Immigrant Justice Center — Contrary To Myth, Vast Majority of Released Migrants Appear For Hearings; Trump Judges Continue Cruel, Illegal, Racially Motivated Programs!

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

NEWS

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

RESOURCES

EVENTS

NEWS

Judge Orders Government to Continue Migrant Expulsions on Border

NYT: A federal judge on Friday blocked the Biden administration from lifting a pandemic-related health order whose scheduled expiration on Monday would have thrown open the doors of the United States to asylum seekers at the border for the first time in more than two years.

LA judge considers Border Patrol’s agreement to settle migrant children case

Spectrum: In the proposed settlement, filed over the weekend in Los Angeles federal court, the border patrol agrees to protocols requiring that detained minors be held in safe and sanitary conditions, not be separated from relatives, and have access to medical evaluations and prompt medical treatment when needed.

Court ruling extends uneven treatment for asylum-seekers

WaPo: The U.S. government has expelled migrants more than 1.9 million times under Title 42, denying them a chance to seek asylum as permitted under U.S. law and international treaty for purposes of preventing the spread of COVID-19. But Title 42 is not applied evenly across nationalities. See also Title 42 has no bearing on decision to cross border, Venezuelan asylum-seeker says; DHS hasn’t seen a ‘significant decrease’ of migrants at the US-Mexico border amid ongoing efforts, Mayorkas tells CNN.

12,212 migrant children reentered U.S. border custody alone in 2021 after being expelled

CBS: Over a 12-month span beginning in October 2020, U.S. Border Patrol agents processed 12,212 unaccompanied migrant minors who had been previously expelled under Title 42, according to internal Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Most people released by immigration authorities do attend their court hearings

Politifact: The in absentia rate for fiscal year 2021 was 10%; for the first quarter of 2022, October to December 2021, it was 18%.

Push For Gov’t-Funded Deportation Defense Gains Steam

Law360: Programs that provide government-funded attorneys to noncitizens facing deportation are becoming more common in cities and states across the country, and immigration advocates hope to harness that momentum to scale up those initiatives to the federal level.

ICE chief defends proposed cut in immigration detention beds

RollCall: The administration asked Congress to provide funding for just 25,000 detention beds — down from the current level of 34,000 — and requested an $87 million increase in funding for programs allowing for alternatives to detention.

DHS watchdog: Migrants weren’t tested for COVID before transport on domestic commercial flights

CBS: The watchdog noted that “without clear COVID-19 testing policies and controls in place to enforce these policies, ERO may transport COVID-19–positive migrants on domestic commercial flights.” The report said the failed policy “risk[ed] exposing other migrants, ERO staff, and the general public to COVID-19.”

Texas educators fear Abbott’s effort to kick undocumented children out of school

Yahoo: According to Higher Ed Immigration Portal, there are 1,644,000 students enrolled in public schools in the state of Texas, 58,255 of them undocumented. The United States as a whole is home to more than 427,000 undocumented students.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

La. Judge Slams Brakes On Biden’s Title 42 Repeal Effort

Law360: A Louisiana federal judge ordered President Joe Biden to keep intact a Trump-era order allowing for the swift expulsion of migrants amid the COVID-19 pandemic, ruling Friday that two dozen states would likely prove they weren’t provided enough notice when the administration announced plans to end the policy.

Flores Settlement News

LexisNexis: A court filing on Saturday May 21, 2022, seeks U.S. Judge Dolly M. Gee’s preliminary approval of the settlement. The border patrol has agreed to a wide range of protocols requiring that detained minors are held in safe and sanitary conditions, not be separated from relatives, and have access to medical evaluations and prompt medical treatment when needed.

If You Say You’re Filing A BIA Brief, File It, 3rd Circ. Says

Law360: Petitioners before the Board of Immigration Appeals don’t have to file a brief supporting their appeal, but if they say they will and do not, the board can dismiss the case, the Third Circuit ruled Friday in affirming the dismissal of a Salvadoran man’s asylum request.

5th Circ. Raps Judge’s Credibility Ruling, Revives Asylum Bid

Law360: The Fifth Circuit revived claims that an asylum-seeker feared police brutality in Cameroon, saying that an immigration judge wrongly deemed him untruthful based on government reports that had never been “identified, referenced or discussed” during his court hearing.

7th Circ. Wary Of Reviving Ill. Counties’ Immigration Law Fight

Law360: A Seventh Circuit panel seemed unconvinced Wednesday by two Illinois counties’ argument that they should be able to pursue a constitutional challenge to a law Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed last year, which blocks immigration detention contracts with the federal government.

ICE, GEO Group Sued Over Suicide Of Man Detained In Calif.

Law360: The daughter of a man who died by suicide in an immigration detention facility is suing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, GEO Group Inc., which runs the facility, and the city of McFarland, California, saying they ignored the man’s mental illness and tortured him by putting him in solitary confinement, leading to his death.

Legal advocates sue US over Iranian-born scholar’s treatment

AP: The civil rights complaint alleges that Customs and Border Protection officers denied Shamloo and her husband entry to the U.S. based on their Iranian birth and violated procedures by demanding DNA samples. They and their two children are Canadian citizens.

DOS Announces Reinstatement of the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program

AILA: DOS announced plans to reinstate the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program (CFRP) and increase capacity for consular services in Cuba. Limited immigrant visa processing will resume in Havana, but most immigrant visa cases will still be processed at the U.S. Embassy in Georgetown, Guyana.

DHS Notice of Designation of Afghanistan for TPS

AILA: DHS notice of the designation of Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, effective 5/20/22 through 11/20/23. (87 FR 30976, 5/20/22)

DHS Notice of Special Student Relief for Afghanistan

AILA: DHS notice suspending certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Afghanistan and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a result of the situation in Afghanistan. (87 FR 30971, 5/20/22)

DOS Provides Guidance for Ukraine Nationals

AILA: DOS provided updated guidance for nationals of Ukraine seeking to enter or entering the United States. The guidance clarifies information on the Uniting for Ukraine program, nonimmigrant visas, immigrant visas, humanitarian parole, refugee status, and more.

DHS/ALL/PIA-094 Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) Case Request System

DHS: The MPP Case Request System provides an avenue for individuals to initiate a review of their enrollment in MPP if they believe they should not be included in the program.

Social Security Administration Notice of New Matching Program with DHS

AILA: Social Security Administration (SSA) notice of a new matching program with DHS that sets forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which DHS will disclose information to SSA to identify noncitizens who leave the U.S. voluntarily and noncitizens who are removed. (87 FR 30321, 5/18/22)

DOS Announces Suspension of National Visa Center Public Inquiry Telephone Line

AILA: The National Visa Center has suspended its public inquiry telephone line, effective May 23, 2022. Contact information and information on common NIV and IV inquiries are available.

RESOURCES

NIJC RESOURCES

Commentary on New Asylum Rules with Flowchart

GENERAL RESOURCES

AILA Shares Key Takeaways from USCIS Engagement on Uniting For Ukraine

CGRS Multi-User Access: CGRS is excited to announce that our Technical Assistance (TA) Library now supports multiple-user access. If you are working with others (e.g., clinic students, pro bono mentors, or others at your organization) on an asylum case registered with CGRS, you can now share the TA case with them and access the same curated resource library.

DHS OIG: ICE Did Not Follow Policies, Guidance, or Recommendations to Ensure Migrants Were Tested for COVID-19 before Transport on Domestic Commercial Flights

End SIJS Backlog Coalition: Frequently Asked Questions About USCIS’s SIJS Deferred Action Policy

USCIS: Readout of National Public Engagement on Backlog Reduction

USCIS: Notes from Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting

EVENTS

NIJC EVENTS

6/2/22 The Detention Landscape: The Impact of the Illinois Way Forward Act and Castañon-Nava

6/28/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 1

6/30/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 2

GENERAL EVENTS

5/23/22 EOIR Public Forum on Immigration Court and BIA Practice Manuals

5/24/22 Current Issues in Afghan Asylum Claims

5/24/22 Obstacles to TPS Eligibility

5/24/22 Advanced FOIA Techniques

5/25/22 Hybrid Workshops: Exploring Workshop Innovations and Considering the Future of the Group Application Assistance Model

5/26/22 LSP Roundtable on Afghan Asylum Interviews

6/6/22 Strategies for Maximizing CGRS Technical Assistance in Fear-of-Return Claims

6/7/22 Asylum and Employment Authorization

6/7/22 Webinar Series: Overview of Citizenship: Acquisition, Derivation and Naturalization

6/8/22 ASISTA: Immigration Practice & Policy for Survivors: What’s New & What’s Next

6/8/22 Naturalization for People with Disabilities

6/10/22 Representing Immigrant Survivors During & Post-Covid: Considerations for Attorneys and Advocates

6/14/22-6/15/22 NIPNLG 2022 Annual Pre-AILA Crimes & Immigration Seminar

6/15/22 Preparing Your Client to Testify & for their USCIS Interview

6/20/22 NIPNLG’s Removal Defense Course

6/20/22-6/29/22 NIPNLG’s Removal Defense Course

6/22/22 Introduction to Immigrant Visa Consular Processing

7/5/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

7/13/22 CGRS Using Universal Expert Declaration in Immigration Court

8/31/22 What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

9/26/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Thanks, Elizabeth.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

O5-24-22

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️NOLAN RAPPAPORT @ THE HILL: THE EOIR BACKLOG IS GETTING WORSE — GARLAND DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE THE ANSWER — I’m Quoted In The Article!

Nolan Rappaport
Contributor, The Hill

Immigration courts are overrun with cases, and it’s only getting worse

Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor

The immigration court has a backlog of more than 1.7 million cases. This means that the number of people waiting for a hearing is larger than the population of Phoenix, Ariz., or of Philadelphia, Pa., the fifth and sixth largest cities in the United States.

This isn’t a new problem, but it has gotten much worse recently. According to TRAC, a data distribution organization at Syracuse University, the growth of the backlog has been accelerating at a breakneck pace since the start of the Biden administration when it was “only” close to 1.3 million cases.

What is the administration doing to reduce the backlog?

Hiring more judges: Recent administrations have prioritized hiring more judges to lower the backlog. From fiscal 2014, to fiscal 2021, the number of judges has more than doubled, rising from 249 to 559. At the end of the first quarter in fiscal 2022, there were 578.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the backlog probably would continue to grow even if 100 more judges were hired. An additional 200 could reduce the backlog to just under 1.1 million, but it wouldn’t reach that level until fiscal 2031. It would take an additional 500 judges to eliminate the backlog entirely, and it wouldn’t happen until fiscal 2030.

Accelerated dockets: In May 2021, DHS announced a “dedicated docket” program to “more expeditiously and fairly” render decisions in the cases of certain families who are apprehended after making an illegal entry.

These families are placed in removal proceedings and then released into the interior of the country under the “Alternatives to Detention” program. This program currently is monitoring more than 227,508 families and single individuals.

The Florence Project claims that the Obama and Trump administrations attempted these “dedicated dockets” to reduce the backlog and it not only failed, but led to widespread due process violations and undermined access to legal counsel.

The Vera Institute of Justice opposes the program because it “forces newly arriving, asylum-seeking families through rushed ‘rocket docket’ court proceedings without guaranteeing legal representation for all, depriving families of fairness and due process.”

In any case, it just speeds up the processing of new additions to the immigration court caseload. It does nothing to reduce the size of the backlog, and it is very unfair to migrants who have been waiting for a hearing for up to five years.

It also may hamper efforts to reduce the backlog. Georgetown law school professor Paul Schmidt points out that when dedicated docket judges are not available for cases on the general docket, it places extra burdens on their judicial colleagues who are handling the general docket cases.

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3492751-immigration-courts-are-overrun-with-cases-and-its-only-getting-worse/

Published originally on The Hill.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com

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

Go over to The Hill at the above link to read the complete article.

Thanks Nolan for continuing to “shine the light” on this critical issue that might appear to be “below the radar screen” but actually threatens the stability of our entire legal system!⚖️

As I’ve said many times, Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”), engaged in to some extent by Administrations of both parties, is NOT the answer. It’s a huge part of the problem!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-21-22

🏴‍☠️SCOFFLAW NATION! — TRUMP US JUDGE, GOP NATIVIST AGs CONTINUE TO DUMP ON ASYLUM SEEKERS, ☠️ HANDING HUMAN SMUGGLERS A HUGE VICTORY!🤮

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA Times:

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=80d73090-8dd0-48a7-a802-afbc852fc2f8

. . . .

A family in Tijuana who wanted to request asylum and advocacy groups including Innovation Law Lab sought to intervene in the lawsuit. They argued that a court order keeping Title 42 in place should only apply to states involved with the suit. Summerhays denied their request.

Alicia Duran Raymundo, her partner and their 6-year-old daughter fled El Salvador after gang members threatened to torture and kill them. She said in a news release from her lawyers last week that they wanted to live with extended family in California while pursuing asylum, but instead joined the thousands of migrants living in Mexican border towns while they wait for the U.S. to reopen its doors.

“We’ve tried many times to ask for asylum but they just tell us the border is closed,” Duran said.

Seeking asylum is a legal right guaranteed under federal and international law, regardless of how someone arrived on U.S. soil. Some of those turned away are fleeing persecution, while others pushed out by turmoil in their home countries seek jobs and security.

Though migrants can’t seek asylum under Title 42, they can still be screened under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. But those screenings are more difficult to pass.

Lee Gelernt
Deputy Director
ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Program
PHOTO: ACLU

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s immigrant rights project, noted that regardless of Friday’s decision, a prior ruling in Washington, D.C., District Court taking effect Monday prevents Title 42 from applying to families who face persecution or torture if they are expelled. Gelernt is lead attorney in that case.

“Hypocritically, the states that brought this lawsuit seemingly care about COVID restrictions only when they involve asylum seekers,” he said. “The lawsuit is a naked attempt to misuse a public health law to end protections for those fleeing danger.”

. . . .

Migrants have been removed from the U.S. nearly 2 million times since Title 42 was first used in March 2020, in some cases to dangerous situations in which they’ve been tortured or raped.

. . . .

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
Policy Counsel
American Immigration Council
Photo: Twitter

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, predicted that Title 42 is likely to stay in place until at least next year.

Summerhays’ decision signals that while the Biden administration can establish a policy under emergency conditions, terminating it requires a rulemaking comment period that could take six months to a year.

Louisiana and the other states are not arguing that the policy can never end, Reichlin-Melnick said, but they’re imposing judicial roadblocks to delay it. The CDC is likely to try to end the policy again while satisfying the judge’s demands, he said.

In the meantime, he said, “we’re going to see an ever higher number of repeat crossings. Look at the border and tell me Title 42 works.”

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

The case is Louisiana v. CDC, WD LA, 05-20–22. Here’s a link to the opinion:

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/LouisianaetalvCentersforDiseaseControlPreventionetalDocketNo622cv/7?1653080541

Read Andrea’s full report at the above link!

Of course Title 42 doesn’t work! But, it’s never been about a “working” border asylum policy. NO, it’s always been about cruelty fueled by nativist racism!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-21-22

🏴‍☠️ASSEMBLY LINE INJUSTICE @ EOIR! — MOST CONSERVATIVE U.S. CIRCUIT COURT FAULTS BOGUS ASYLUM DENIAL FOR CAMEROONIAN, THAT GARLAND’S DOJ DEFENDED! — Nkenglefac v. Garland, 5th Cir., 05-18-22, published

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60647-CV0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca5-on-due-process-credibility-nkenglefac-v-garland#

“Petitioner Giscard Nkenglefac, a native and citizen of Cameroon, applied for admission into the United States on May 9, 2018. The immigration judge (“IJ”), Agnelis Reese, denied Nkenglefac’s application for relief from removal and ordered him removed to Cameroon after determining that Nkenglefac was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) subsequently affirmed the IJ’s determination, and Nkenglefac was removed to Cameroon. Nkenglefac now petitions for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the IJ’s denial of application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Nkenglefac challenges the IJ’s reliance on his U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and asylum credible fear interviews that were not entered into the hearing record of the removal proceeding, nor, indeed, raised in that hearing at all, to make an adverse credibility finding. … Nkenglefac argues that the IJ erred as a matter of law by drawing negative credibility inferences from summaries of his CBP and credible fear interviews because neither interview was submitted into the record during his proceeding, much less adverted to. Nkenglefac also argues that he did not waive this argument because he could not have raised the issue before the IJ given that he had no notice the IJ would rely on these documents prior to issuance of her decision. … [A]t no point during the hearing before the IJ was Nkenglefac provided with the opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistencies or dispute the accuracy of the records in question, or cross examine the individuals who prepared the interview summaries, much less object to their introduction, or offer views on weight to be given to the evidence. Inspection of the hearing record confirms that Nkenglefac was not given the opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies in the government summaries of his prior uncounseled interviews.5 Indeed, the voluminous testimonial record, including extensive government cross-examination and IJ direct inquiry, gives no indication that Nkenglefac had previously made any inconsistent statements, yet the IJ, three months later, determined that “inconsistencies and omissions . . . undermine critical parts of Respondent’s claim” to such an extent that the court denied “Respondent’s application based on lack of credibility.” … The BIA majority—affirming the IJ’s decision—also determined that Nkenglefac’s argument regarding the absence of the CBP and credible fear interviews from the record was “waived” because “the [trial] transcript reflects that [Nkenglefac’s] former counsel never requested that these records . . . be made a part of the record.” However, we fail to understand why Nkenglefac’s counsel should have introduced these government summaries into the record to anticipate and explain later-perceived inconsistencies when they were never identified, referenced, or discussed. It is also worth noting that there is no evidence—beyond the statement of the BIA majority—that Nkenglefac’s counsel failed to preserve this issue on appeal. The issue was discussed at length in Nkenglefac’s appeal brief to the BIA and again in his brief to this court. Furthermore, this observation stands in contravention to existing BIA law that “an adverse credibility determination should not be based on inconsistencies that take an alien by surprise.” Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724, 726-29 (BIA 2019) (quote at 726). Notably, the Government’s brief on appeal does not argue that Nkenglefac has waived this argument. … We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND this case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats waaaayyyy off to Homero López, Jr., who reports that he is in touch with his client and is hopeful of bringing him back to the USA. Audio of the oral argument is here.]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Once again, credibility, the problematic issue in this case, is not a profound legal concept. It’s supposedly the “bread and butter of Immigration Judging.” Yet, both the IJs and the BIA continue to often get it wrong. Perhaps “dead wrong” in the cases of asylum seekers! Why isn’t this fundamental flaw at the all-important “retail level” of our justice system receiving the necessary attention and corrections from Garland and the Biden Administration?

As one “Courtside Commenter” said:

I think this is the IJ who retired with a 100% asylum denial rate [actually it was 99.4%, denying 155 of 156 claims she “heard” — but didn’t listen to — over a career that lasted far too long]!And Cameroon is now a TPS country.

This decision is proof perfect of EOIR’s deportation assembly line approach.And I’ve mentioned a number of times the alarming problems with CBP arrival statements noted by the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, an internal government component, which has repeatedly flagged the fact that the resulting “statements” are not the verbatim transcripts they appear to be, and often contain questions that were never actually asked of the respondent.

How bad was this now retired Judge who has been the subject of frequent adverse publicity? See, e.g., https://www.topic.com/your-judge-is-your-destiny; https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/07/inside-the-courtroom-where-every-asylum-seeker-gets-rejected/.

As pointed out in the above comment, Cameroon is now a TPS country. Additionally, one of the “five top nationalities” that came before this “asylum denial machine” were asylum seekers from Eritrea. Although they found no success with her, the EOIR statistics for FY 2022 show that that every “merits decision” on Eritrean asylum was granted. There were exactly ZERO, “0” merits denials. See https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/download.

Thankfully, Judge Reese has retired. But the endemic problems she symbolized, the lack of effective appellate review, and disdain for due process for asylum seekers by the BIA remain overarching problems that Garland has stubbornly failed to effectively address.

Additionally, in another “under the radar yet highly significant problem,” Garland’s OIL within the USDOJ Civil Division continues to “defend the indefensible” coming out of the BIA. This wastes Government and private sector litigation resources, not to mention precious Article III Court time. It also turns due process and immigrant justice in the U.S. into a random game of chance.

Obviously, there is a severe lack of leadership all over the USDOJ under Garland. Moving toward the “halfway point” in the Biden Administration, there still is no appointed and confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-20-22

🤮INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE/DEFECTIVE COURTS — 3rd Cir. Exposes Massive Due Process Failure @ Garland’s EOIR! — St. Ford v. A.G.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/211729p.pdf

From Judge Roth’s opinion:

The need for effective assistance of counsel applies in immigration law just as it does in criminal law. Aliens, many of whom do not speak English and some of whom are detained before their immigration hearings, can be particularly susceptible to the consequences of ineffective lawyers.

Petitioner Arckange Saint Ford paid a lawyer to represent him in removal proceedings, but Saint Ford’s requests for relief from deportation were denied after the lawyer failed to present important and easily available evidence going to the heart of Saint Ford’s claims. Saint Ford retained new counsel, and his new lawyer asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen his case because of his former attorney’s ineffective assistance. The Board declined to do so. Because Saint Ford presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand.

And concurring Judge Ambro had a harsh assessment of the IJ, the BIA, and most of all A.G. Garland, who has been remarkably “tone deaf” about correcting the grotesque expertise and due process problems in his “wholly owned, astoundingly dysfunctional” Immigration “Courts:”

Arckange Saint Ford will get a second shot at canceling the Government’s order of removal—that’s what matters. The majority is remanding because of his former counsel’s deficient performance at Saint Ford’s removal hearing. I agree with that and concur in full.

But former counsel was not the only one who made significant missteps at the hearing. The Immigration Judge did as well. I therefore would have granted Saint Ford’s initial petition for review and remanded on that basis. I write separately to explain these errors in the hope that similar ones will not be made at Saint Ford’s new hearing.

. . . .

Here, though it was reasonable to request Saint Ford corroborate his testimony about the identity and motive of his harassers, the IJ did not tell him what corroboration she needed or give him a chance to present that evidence. There is no indication she engaged in the Abdulai inquiry as required before skipping straight to “hold[ing] the lack of corroboration against [Saint Ford].” Id. (alterations adopted). She went from first to third across the pitcher’s mound. Our Abdulai inquiry is there to ensure these important corners aren’t cut.

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

What’s wrong with this picture? Going on two decades after the enactment of the REAL ID Act, this IJ gets basic corroboration wrong on a life or death asylum case. Then, she compounds the error by failing to apply a two-decades old circuit precedent. The case sails through the BIA. Then, Garland’s OIL defends the indefensible. “Corner cutting” has become institutionalized, permitted, and even encouraged in today’s broken EOIR!

Meanwhile, it’s left to Circuit Judge Ambro to do the jobs of Garland, his failed BIA, and an IJ badly in need of remedial training! This is an expert tribunal? This is justice? This is due process? Gimmie a break!

This is squarely on Garland! He enables and defends defective, due-process-denying decisions by EOIR. His grotesque failure to appoint and empower a BIA that will end this nonsense and insist on competent legal performance from ALL Immigration Judges in these life or death cases is disgraceful!

Cases like this also “give lie” to the bogus claims that today’s EOIR is comprised of “experts” who can be trusted to remedy due process defects, model best practices, or (perhaps most absurdly) insure that the rights of all respondents, including the unrepresented, are protected. Why is a Dem Administration running a “due process denial machine?” Why is OIL defending the indefensible? Why is Garland still the AG, despite showing little interest and scant skill in creating a due process/fundamental fairness oriented tribunal at the “retail level” of our staggering justice system!

You don’t have to be a “rocket scientist” to trace the disrespect for the Constitutional, statutory, and human rights of migrants, largely individuals of color, to hate crimes, misogyny, curtailment of voting rights, and disrespect for equal justice and racial justice throughout our nation. The stunningly poor performance of the U.S. Immigration Courts under Garland also sets an unfortunate tone for the staggering and highly politicized Federal Court system from bottom to top!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-19-22

😢SUPREMES SLAM DUNK ON ADJUSTMENT APPLICANTS WITH “NO JURISDICTION” RULING, OVER SPIRITED DISSENT FROM JUSTICE GORSUCH! — Patel v. Garland (5-4)

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch — Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch; photograph by Franz Jantzen, 2017.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf

Held: Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of dis- cretionary-relief proceedings under §1255 and the other provisions enumerated in §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Pp. 6–17.

From Justice Gorsuch’s dissent (joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, & Sotomayor):

The majority concludes that courts are powerless to cor- rect an agency decision holding an individual ineligible for relief from removal based on a factual error, no matter how egregious the error might be. The majority’s interpretation has the further consequence of denying any chance to cor- rect agency errors in processing green-card applications outside the removal context. Even the government cannot bring itself to endorse the majority’s arresting conclusions. For good reason. Those conclusions are at war with all the evidence before us. They read language out of the statute and collapse the law’s clear two-step framework. They dis- regard the lessons of neighboring provisions and even ig- nore the statute’s very title. They make no sense of the statute’s history. Altogether, the majority’s novel expan- sion of a narrow statutory exception winds up swallowing the law’s general rule guaranteeing individuals the chance to seek judicial review to correct obvious bureaucratic mis- steps. It is a conclusion that turns an agency once account- able to the rule of law into an authority unto itself. Perhaps some would welcome a world like that. But it is hardly the world Congress ordained.

***********************
Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion.

Interestingly, neither the Respondent nor the Solicitor General defended the 11th Circuit’s decision. So, the Court appointed Taylor A.R. Meehan as amicus to defend that decision. Her “no jurisdiction” statutory argument prevailed.

Looking at rulings like this, the makeup of the Supremes, and the bleak prospects for Article I in an ideologically divided Congress, the composition of the Immigration Courts and the BIA becomes even more significant.

As Justice Gorsuch points out, in many important cases, even the most obvious and egregious mistakes from EOIR Judges will go uncorrected by the Article IIIs. So, getting the results right in the first place and having higher quality appellate review at the BIA becomes even more “life determining.”

As judicial vacancies arise, it’s critical that NDPA members who are eligible to apply do so in large numbers! That also goes for the U.S. Magistrate Judges and the Article IIIs!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-16-22

🤮☠️DUE PROCESS DISASTER IN 4TH CIR! — Trump Judges Strip Individuals In “New American Gulag” ⚰️ Of Constitutional Rights & Human Dignity — Dissenter, Chief Judge Urbanski (WD VA) The Only Panel Member To Follow Constitution!

The case is Miranda v. Garland, and it’s published:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201828.P.pdf

Quote from Judge Marvin Quattlebaum’s wrong-headed decision, joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Julius Richardson:

QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:

8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) permits the Attorney General to detain aliens1 pending their

removal hearings. And the Attorney General has adopted procedures for making that discretionary decision. Under those procedures, an alien is given notice and three opportunities to seek release by showing they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.

A district court determined that a class of aliens had a likelihood of establishing that those procedures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That court then issued a preliminary injunction ordering, on a class- wide basis, that to continue detaining an alien under § 1226(a), the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. The district court also required immigration judges, again on a class-wide basis, to consider an alien’s ability to pay any bond imposed and consider alternatives to detention.

However, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief that enjoined or restrained the process used to conduct § 1226(a) bond hearings. As for the individual relief issued by the district court, the detention procedures adopted for § 1226(a) bond hearings provide sufficient process to

1 We realize that the use of the term “alien” has been the subject of some debate. See e.g., Martinez Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 20-13201, 2021 WL 2836460, at *7 (11th Cir. July 8, 2021). We use the term because Congress used it in the text of the applicable statutes, and the same term is used in the applicable regulations. Our use of the term “alien” is not intended to express any opinion, pejorative or otherwise, about the plaintiffs in this action or others challenging their detention under our immigration laws.

3

satisfy constitutional requirements. For that reason, the aliens are unable to establish a likelihood of success on their due process claims. Nor have they shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor or that an injunction is in the public interest. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction order.

A better quote from the only Panel Judge to get it right, Chief Judge Michael Urbanski of the WDVA, (an Obama appointee) sitting by designation:

While I am mindful of the executive’s vast authority over immigration, it must still

comport with constitutional safeguards. With this balancing in mind, requiring a detained noncitizen to prove he is not a danger to the community or risk of flight is unconstitutionally onerous on an already vulnerable group of defendants and violates due process. In sum, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Due Process Clause requires the government to bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) detention hearings and remand the case to the district court for consideration of § 1252(f)(1) and the availability of class-wide declaratory relief.

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

Well, at least one judge got it right!

The Round Table ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case. Additionally, Round Table Member Judge Denise Slavin filed an affidavit (cited by the USDJ) before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. There, Hon. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge, correctly ruled for the respondents. The Trump DOJ appealed, and Garland decided to continue to advance the prior Administration’s anti-due-process position before the Fourth Circuit.

Gosh, and Dem politicos wonder why it’s hard for them to gin up enthusiasm for the midterms!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-15-22

⚖️9TH CIR. SLAMS IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY FOR DEFICIENT FOIA RESPONSE ON DEATH OF TRANSGENDER ASYLUM APPLICANT IN “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” (“NAG”)!

From Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/12/20-17416.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-foia-transgender-law-center-v-ice#

“At the heart of this case is an effort by advocates to learn about the circumstances of an asylum-seeker’s tragic death in federal custody. The Freedom of Information Act exists for just such a purpose—to ensure an informed citizenry, promote official transparency, and provide a check against government impunity. Yet here the advocates’ FOIA requests met first with silence and then with stonewalling; only after the advocates filed suit did the government begin to comply with its statutory obligations. Our task is to discern whether the government’s belated disclosure was “adequate” under FOIA. We conclude that it was not. … REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Irene Lax, Kimberly A. Evans and R. Andrew Free!]

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

As Andrew Free ;pointed out to me, the 9th Circuit suggested some potential “bad faith” at work here in footnote 2 (p. 22):

2 Our conclusion is strengthened by evidence that the Government withheld information under this exemption in an overbroad manner. For instance, ICE redacted a portion of Hernandez’s credible fear interview under Exemption 7(E), but when TLC received an unredacted version from the CoreCivic production, the redacted text read as follows: “I left because my life was threatened by the Maras gang. A group of Maras raped and tried to kill me I was afraid for my life and left Honduras.” This statement from Hernandez could not possibly fall under the category of techniques, procedures, or guidelines. Such a redaction suggests that the agencies may have invoked Exemption 7(E) in an effort to shield prejudicial information. See Pulliam v. EPA, 292 F. Supp. 3d 255, 260 (D.D.C. 2018).

This raises the additional questions of 1) why is this going on in a Dem Administration that promised to restore the rule of law to immigration; and 2) why is Garland’s DOJ defending this nonsense and incredibly shoddy process in Federal Court?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-22

🙁“CAT-ASTROPHE” — GARLAND’S EOIR FLUNKS “CAT 101” — Coast-to-Coast Failures in 9th and 1st Cir Show A “Judiciary” With Life or Death ☠️ Authority Lacking In Basic Legal Skills & Competence!🤮

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

An immigration judge ordered a gay Nigerian man deported over a minor discrepancy. The Ninth Circuit just reversed in a fiery ruling https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/An-immigration-judge-ordered-a-gay-Nigerian-man-17151459.php

When a local security brigade in Nigeria learned Peter Udo and his boyfriend were seen having sex in a hotel room, they seized and beat the couple for six hours and later told Udo he should be put to death.

Udo’s mother used her family savings to enable him to flee the country and he wound up in California, where an immigration judge rejected his plea for asylum and ordered him deported because his description of the events gave a false name for the hotel where he had been captured. That order has now been firmly rejected by a federal appeals court.

The judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the deportation order, failed to give any “reasoned consideration” to the evidence Udo presented, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday in a ruling requiring the board to review his claim that he would be tortured if returned to Nigeria.

That evidence included an “excommunication notice,” signed by leaders of the community’s Council of Traditional Rulers, notifying Udo and his family that anyone engaging in homosexual acts is “subjected to public execution” and that his mother and five other relatives were no longer considered citizens of the community.

“Remarkably, the (Board of Immigration Appeals) did not reference the excommunication notice at all” in its ruling that would have returned Udo to Nigeria, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said in the appeals court’s 3-0 decision, which included a copy of the notice.

Udo’s lawyer, David Casarrubias, said the ruling was a victory for asylum seekers.

“The opinion stands for the proposition that although Congress may enact laws that make it harder for asylum seekers to prevail as a result of minor discrepancies in their applications, there are other international laws like the Convention Against Torture that still have teeth,” Casarrubias said.

. . . . .

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

Read the rest of Bob’s article at the link.

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

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1296P-01A.pdf

. . . .

The government does again urge us to construe the BIA as having merely affirmed a finding that it attributed to the IJ

10 For this reason, we need not resolve whether, as Ali contends, the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) by failing to consider all relevant evidence through the way the IJ treated the evidence from Harper in her testimony and March 2020 declaration that bears on Ali’s “security forces”-related ground for CAT-based deferral of removal.

– 30 –

regarding whether it was “more likely than not” that Ali would be subject to abuse severe enough to constitute torture rather than a finding that it attributed to the IJ regarding the limited severity of the abuse that Ali had shown that he was likely to suffer. But, as we explained in connection with Ali’s challenge to the BIA’s “other private actors”-related ruling, the IJ did not make that finding either. And, in any event, as we have noted, that is a strained reading of the BIA’s opinion, given that the opinion expressly quotes only from the portion of the relevant regulations that purports to define how severe abuse must be to constitute torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . .”), rather than a regulation concerning how “likely” it must be that the noncitizen will be subjected to abuse that is severe enough to constitute torture, see, e.g., id. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), (4).11

Finally, the government contends that we still must affirm the BIA’s ruling because, although Harper described violence, “she did not describe the injuries to the Somalis she

11 To the extent that the government means to argue here, too, that the BIA itself considered the Harper evidence in question because of the portion of the BIA’s opinion in which the BIA states, “after considering the risk of torture from all sources in the aggregate,” we cannot agree. That statement concerns only what the BIA determined that the IJ considered in making the finding about the severity of the abuse that Ali would face that the BIA attributed to the IJ. But, as we have explained, the IJ made no such finding.

– 31 –

witnessed being beaten or kicked . . . such that the agency could reasonably conclude she provided insufficient detail to show that such abuse by Somali security forces rose to the level of torture or that Ali was at risk that it likely would rise to the level of torture.” But, the IJ did not find that Ali had failed to meet his burden to show that he would likely be tortured by security forces in Somalia on any such basis. Rather, the IJ rejected his “security forces”-related ground for requesting deferral of removal pursuant to the CAT solely because the IJ found that “Harper indicated that the main motivation” of the security forces who “mean to do the respondent harm” is “they are either too busy to protect themselves and therefore they cannot protect other people” or to “harass people based on cultural differences,” such that they would not be acting “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” in visiting any abuse on Ali.

. . . .

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

These are complicated cases. Indeed, the 1st Circuit spent 33 pages analyzing this particular case.

By contrast, a supposedly (but, clearly not) “expert” BIA appears to have taken about 5 minutes to “rubber stamp” the clearly defective denials prepared by staff attorneys in these life or death matters! How is this due process or fundamental fairness? No way!

If this were a law school exam, rather than a life or death “court” case, the BIA’s effort probably would have received a “D-“ or an “F.” Yet, Garland finds this ridiculously deficient level of performance acceptable where “only” the rule of law, constitutional due process, and human lives are at stake!

One might expect this from a GOP AG. But, is this really what human rights advocates and progressives elected Biden to churn out?

I say “No.” This is NOT acceptable performance by the BIA! Nor is it acceptable professional performance by Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the other members of the “Clueless Crew” supposedly in charge of the DOJ!

⚖️Due process for migrants is due process for all in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-22

🥊EOIR PUMMELED, AGAIN! — Normally “DHS Friendly” 5th Cir. Rejects More Defective NTAs, As EOIR Continues To Reel Under Garland!

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60617.0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/defective-nta-remand-at-ca5-urbina-urbina-v-garland#

“This is a consolidated petition seeking review of three orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming decisions from an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioners’ motions to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the BIA decision and REMAND for reconsideration. … Statutory notice is the central issue in this case. All three family members argued before the BIA that they did not receive proper notice of the removal hearing, and thus that they should not have been removed in absentia. … The reasoning relied on by the BIA in its holding is now foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. In Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021), we held that “in the in absentia context,” an NTA must consist of “a single document containing the required information” regarding the removal hearing. Id. at 355. Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case because here, as in Rodriguez, the initial NTAs did not contain the date and time of the removal hearings. Id. And here, just as in Rodriguez, the BIA concluded that the deficiency was cured by a “subsequent notice of hearing specifying that information.” Id. The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021. … Accordingly, we VACATE the three BIA decisions and REMAND the three cases for reconsideration in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021).”

[Hats off, yet again, to Raed Gonzalez!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Many congrats to fearless NDPA Superstar 🌟 Raed Gonzalez!

Is this just the “tip of the iceberg” 🧊 for rebukes of EOIR’s lousy “jurisprudence” that continues to be an ungodly mess under Garland?

Count on it! As Raed tells me:

Lots out there, and IJ’s keep on issuing in absentias with defective NTA’s. More lawsuits will be coming soon because of the fake dates and times in an attempt to go around Pereira and Chavez. Can’t wait!

It’s what happens when Dem Administrations mindlessly put the wrong folks in charge and and fail to give potential progressive judicial talent — brilliant, practical minds committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices — a chance to straighten out the law and bring order, consistency, and integrity to what certainly is the most important (and currently most dysfunctional) “retail level” judicial system in America!

Compare the available, spectacular progressive judicial talent Biden and Garland HAVEN’T appointed to the “Immigration Bench” with the out of bounds, far right, ignore the Constitution and the law, “turn back the clock” poppycock being spewed forth by Justice Alito and his radical right, GOP, Federalist Society trained buddies on the Supremes and elsewhere! The Biden Administration’s failure to bring long overdue, achievable, beneficial reforms and a wave of better judges to EOIR is a stunning “missed opportunity” that now threatens the very foundations of our democracy!

To put it bluntly: If folks like Raed and other “practical scholars and intellectual powerhouses” from the NDPA were in charge of EOIR and on the “Immigration Bench” these problems wouldn’t exist and real progress would be made in reducing the backlog while enhancing due process!

Folks coming before the Immigration Courts would be receiving justice — rather than blithering nonsense — and our country and the world would be better for it!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-06-22

⚡️ZAPPED AGAIN: 4TH CIR. TELLS EOIR TARDY IS NOT ABSENT! — NDPA Superstar 🌟 Helen Parsonage, Esquire, Comes Up Big For The Good Guys, Again! — Salomao v. Garland

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201856.U.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-in-absentia-order-tardy-does-not-mean-absent—salomao-v-garland

“This case arises out of an in absentia order against two Petitioners who allege to have arrived one hour and five minutes late to their individual hearing scheduled for several hours. Neither the immigration judge (“IJ”) nor the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) addressed this argument. For the reasons that follow, we find that the BIA abused its discretion when it made no mention of the alleged late arrival in its decision to dismiss the motion to reopen proceedings on appeal. Thus, we reverse and vacate the BIA’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Petitioners’ motion to reopen. In doing so, the BIA should determine whether Petitioners arrived late, and if so, whether the surrounding circumstances show that this late arrival constitutes a failure to appear for the purposes of the statute’s preclusive effect.”

[Hats off to Helen Parsonage!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Congrats, Helen!

Anybody have a guess as to how many of these “bogus in absentias” are out there right now? Haste makes waste!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-22

SOUTHERN BORDER: BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FINALLY REVEALS PLAN FOR LIFTING TITLE 42 — Long On Enforcement, Deterrence, Punishment, Notably Short On Humanitarian Reforms, Positive Legal Guidance, Cooperation With NGOs, States, & Localities Who Welcome Refugees & Asylum Seekers !

Here it is:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/22_0426_dhs-plan-southwest-border-security-preparedness.pdf

Unfortunately, you have to get “down to the fine print” (page 13 of 20) find the paragraph that should be the “centerpiece of restoring the rule of law” — a functional legal asylum processing at ports of entry that would encourage refugees to present themselves there for fair and humane processing rather than seeking irregular entry with the help of smugglers.

Port of Entry Processing

The imposition of the Title 42 public health Order severely restricted the ability of undocumented noncitizens to present at POEs for inspection and processing under Title 8. The closure of this immigration pathway for much of the time Title 42 has been in effect has driven people between POEs at the hands of the cartels. Returning to robust POE processing is an essential part of DHS border security efforts. Beginning in the summer of 2021, DHS restarted processing vulnerable individuals through POEs under Title 8, on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian reasons, pursuant to the exception criteria laid out in CDC’s Title 42 Order. These efforts, which we have recently expanded, offer individuals in vulnerable situations a safe and orderly method to submit their information in advance and present at POEs for inspection and subsequent immigration processing under Title 8. We also have enhanced Title 8 POE processing through the development of the CBP One mobile application, which powers advanced information submission and appointment scheduling prior to an individual presenting at a POE. We will make this tool publicly available and continue to expand its use to facilitate orderly immigration processing at POEs.

13 of 20

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

The failure of Garland to appoint a new, expert BIA committed to due process and providing fair, practical positive guidance on the generous application of asylum law foreshadowed by INS v. Cardoza Fonseca a quarter of a century ago, but never realized in practice, is likely to become a millstone around the Administration’s neck. There is no substitute for due process and fundamental fairness. The current dysfunctional, mismanaged, and inappropriately staffed EOIR is not capable of providing the necessary leadership, consistency, and accountability.

Also, in light of U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays’s “off the wall” decision in Arizona v. CDC, it’s not clear that Title 42 will ever be lifted.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-29-22

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Lauren Wyatt

Congrats, Lauren!😎👍🏼

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Check out the link to the HRF Careers Page above!😎👍🏼⚖️🗽

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA Times:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Judge Roth’s opinion:

And concurring Judge Ambro had a harsh assessment of the IJ, the BIA, and most of all A.G. Garland, who has been remarkably “tone deaf” about correcting the grotesque expertise and due process problems in his “wholly owned, astoundingly dysfunctional” Immigration “Courts:”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Justice Gorsuch’s dissent (joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, & Sotomayor):

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

The case is Miranda v. Garland, and it’s published:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here it is:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: