"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.
Some Article III Judges recognize that “deport at any cost” at EOIR is a “bad look” for American justice! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
In this case, involving a woman and her two children, EOIR engaged in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by unilaterally moving the respondents hearing to an earlier date — arguably a due process denial in and of itself given the coordination and preparation necessary to competently present merits cases in Immigration Court. Then, EOIR failed to give legally sufficient notice of the arbitrarily accelerated hearing — a common occurrence in this dysfunctional and poorly administered system, as most practitioners would tell you.
Indeed, the defective notice was returned to EOIR, so the IJ knew that the respondent was never properly notified of the hearing. Nevertheless, ICE improperly moved for an in absentia order and the the IJ erroneously granted it.
Upon learning of the illegal “in absentia” order entered against her, the respondent promptly moved to reopen, providing unrebutted evidence of non-receipt of notice. The IJ erroneously denied the motion.
On appeal, the BIA compounded this farce by wrongfully affirming the IJ’s clearly wrong decision. Instead of confessing error, OIL advanced frivolous arguments for dismissal, falsely claiming dilatory action by the respondent, even though there is no “time bar” on a motion to reopen for defective notice.
The Ninth Circuit summarily reversed in an (unfortunately) unpublished decision. Circuit Judges Friedland and Paez, obviously and justifiably upset by this totally preventable travesty, were motivated to enter a separate concurring opinion commenting on the unprofessional “clown show” 🤡 operating at EOIR:
FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judge PAEZ joins, concurring:
When the date of a removal hearing changes, the Government is required to provide a Notice of Hearing (“NOH”) containing the new date and time. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A). If a person fails to appear for her hearing, she shall be removed in absentia only “if the Service establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice [of the hearing] was so provided.” Id. § 1229a(b)(5)(A).
Here, when Ontiveros Lozano’s removal hearing date was moved up, the Government mailed her an NOH, but it was returned as undeliverable over a month before her scheduled hearing. Ontiveros Lozano therefore indisputably did not receive the required notice, and the Government knew this. Yet the Government requested and received an in absentia removal order against Ontiveros Lozano when she did not appear for her scheduled hearing. In doing so, the Government violated the explicit statutory requirement in § 1229a(b)(5)(A).
The Government now argues that Ontiveros Lozano’s removal proceedings should not be reopened because she was not diligent in discovering the Government’s conduct and because she has forfeited her challenge to the entry of the in absentia removal order.
The Government’s duty should be to seek justice, not to deport people at any cost. In my view, it lost sight of that duty here.
The full ugliness and dysfunction of EOIR and the DOJ are on display here:
Aimless Docket Reshuffling in action;
Defective notice;
Violation of statutory requirements;
Defective administration of justice;
Unethical actions by ICE counsel in requesting an in absentia order knowing full well that the respondent had never received notice;
Stunningly poor trial judging (2X);
Horrible appellate judging;
Frivolous defense of an unjust decision by OIL.
This system is broken! It’s promoting injustice and clogging the Article III Courts with poor quality work product by USG “judges” and attorneys who aren’t up to or well-qualified for their jobs. The focus on “removal at any cost” rather than due process and justice is unconstitutional and unethical. It comes from poor leadership from the Attorney General on down! The only question is why isn’t anybody in charge motivated to fix it!
A quarter century ago, the “EOIR vision” was a noble one: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” It was even posted on the website! Not only has that noble vision disappeared, both literally and figuratively, but over the last two decades Administrations of both parties have degraded justice and functionality at EOIR — some intentionally, some negligently, sometimes a toxic combination of the two.
In the absence of Article I legislation, what EOIR and the DOJ immigration bureaucracy need is a thorough housecleaning, new dynamic, due-process-focused expert leadership, and better judges at both levels. Letting EOIR continue its “death spiral,” as the Biden Administration has done, is totally unacceptable!🤯
Many thanks and appreciation to one of our newest Round Table 🛡️ members, Judge Sandy Hom, recently retired from the New York Immigration Court, for spotting this unpublished opinion and forwarding it! It’s the kind of common purpose, collegiality, and teamwork that is largely absent from today’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Three Lemons By Auguste Renoir (1918} Public Realm The BIA pulls three lemons on an epic judging fail that left a sour taste in the mouths of Fifth Circuit Judges!
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Although we owe deference to the BIA, that deference is not blind. Here, where the BIA misapplied prevailing case law, disregarded crucial evidence, and failed to adequately support its decisions, we are compelled to grant the petition for review, vacate the immigration court decisions, and remand to BIA for further proceedings.”
[Hats way off to Alison Lo, Jonathan Cooper and Chuck Roth!]
Congrats to this all-star NDPA litigation team. Once again, the expertise and scholarship in asylum and immigration law is on the “outside,” the NDPA, rather than at EOIR where it is so much needed!
Judge Higginbotham is a Reagan appointee. Judge Graves was appointed by Obama. Judge Douglas is a Biden appointee.
Here’s what the “coveted trifecta of bad judging” looks like:
The BIA:
1) misapplied prevailing case law,
2) disregarded crucial evidence, and
3) failed to adequately support its decisions!
My only question is: Did they manage to get the ”A#” right?
Golden nugget: The 5th Circuit recognizes that under the Supremes’ decision in Cardoza-Fonseca:“A ‘reasonable degree’ [for establishing a “well founded fear”] means a ten percent chance.” This “seminal rule” is violated by BIA panels and Immigration Judges across the nation on a daily basis. It is also widely ignored by many Circuit panels.
Unlike the BIA, Judge Higgenbotham carefully and clearly explains how threats other than physical injury can amount to persecution — another “seminal rule” that too many EOIR adjudicators routinely ignore.
By characterizing MS-13’s threats against Argueta-Hernandez and his family as
solely extortion, BIA disregards that he needed only to present “‘some
particularized connection between the feared persecution’” and the
protected ground in which his application for relief relies. . . . Such a rigorous standard would largely render nugatory the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).”).
Precisely! Ignoring Cardoza-Fonseca and their own binding precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi is what the BIA does frequently in “manipulating the nexus requirement” to deny meritorious claims to qualified refugees who face real harm! It’s all part of the toxic anti-asylum bias and “any reason to deny culture” that still permeates EOIR under Garland!
The BIA is not allowed to “presume,” as they effectively did in M-R-M-S-, the lack of qualifying motivation in “family based” psg cases and place an undue burden on the respondent to “prove” otherwise.
The panel also reams out the BIA for failure to follow basic rules and precedents requiring a separate CAT analysis.
Unlike the legal gobbldygook, obfuscation, doublespeak, and “canned” language that plagues many BIA opinions, Judge Higginbotham offers a clear, understandable, clinical explanation of asylum law and how it should be applied to what is actually a recurring situation in asylum law!
Reading this very clear opinion, I couldn’t help but feel that it was a panel of “general jurisdiction” Federal Judges from a so-called “conservative Circuit” who understood the complexity and nuances of asylum law, while the BIA Appellate Judges were the “rank amateurs.” This reflects a criticism oft made by my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chasethat EOIR’s asylum training is grotesquely substandard — far below that readily available in the “private/NGO/academic” sector! What possible excuse could there be for this ongoing travesty at DOJ?
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. His consistent, outspoken criticism of EOIR’s poor asylum training is proving all too true on a daily basis!
AG Garland continues to show a truly (and disturbingly) remarkable tolerance for poor judicial performance by his subordinates at the BIA. At the same time, he shows little, if any, concern for the deadly devastating impact of that bad judging on human lives and the way it corrodes our entire legal system!
The glaring, life-threatening legal and operational problems at EOIR are solvable. We should all be asking why, after three years in office, a Dem Administration has made such feeble efforts to bring long overdue leadership, substantive, and operational changes to “America’s worst court system?” Well into what was supposed to be a “reform” Administration, EOIR remains a steeped in the “culture of denial and bias against asylum seekers” actively furthered by the Trump Administration and NOT effectively addressed by Garland (although he concededly has made a few improvements)!
The agency is still considering referred applicants from the previous announcement posted September 25, 2023, under announcement number, IJ-12116877-23-VG. If you applied under that announcement and were referred for consideration, you need not reapply under this announcement.
This is an Excepted Service position. Upon completion of the required trial period, the position will be permanent. Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
This position is in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. EOIR seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals who serve as immigration adjudicators in this important Agency.
EOIR plays a pivotal role in the administration of the Nation’s immigration system. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases fairly, equitably, and efficiently at the trial and appellate level, governed by due process and the rule of law. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and other administrative hearings, applying the immigration laws while ensuring that adjudicators are impartial, that laws are applied humanely and equitably, that all parties are treated with respect and dignity, and that cases are resolved expeditiously and in accordance with the Administration’s priorities and all applicable laws and regulations.
EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the numerous immigration courts located throughout the United States where immigration judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of the immigration judges’ decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases. EOIR’s Headquarters is located in Falls Church, Virginia, about 10 miles from downtown Washington, DC.
As the federal agency whose mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, the Department of Justice is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. To build and retain a workforce that reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the American people, we welcome applicants from the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, religions, and cultures of the United States who share our commitment to public service.
Job Description
Immigration Judges preside in formal, quasi-judicial hearings. Proceedings before Immigration Judges include but are not limited to removal, and bond adjudications, and involve issues of removability as well as applications for relief such as asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status.
Immigration Judges make decisions that are final, subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In connection with these proceedings, Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law, and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions. Immigration Judges may be required to conduct hearings in penal institutions and other remote locations
Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the following minimum qualifications:
Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., J.D., or LL.M. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)
AND
Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)
AND
Experience: Applicants must have seven (7) years of post-bar admission experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing court or administrative agency proceedings at the Federal, State or local level. Qualifying trial experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court or administrative agency, or a charging document (e.g., indictment, notice of violation, or information) was issued by a court, administrative entity, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority. Relevant administrative experience includes cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body.
NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated only after bar admission.
IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE. If your resume does not support your assessment questionnaire answers, we will not allow credit for your response(s). Ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, email address, and employment information. Each position listed on your resume must include: From/To dates of employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY or MM/YYYY to Present); agency/employer name; position title; Federal grade level(s) held, if applicable; hours, if less than full time; and duties performed. In addition, any experience on less than a full time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
Additional information
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
Alternative work schedule options are available. Immigration Judges’ tour of duty may include Saturdays and Sundays.
There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to Immigration Judge appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in Immigration Judge hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must claim their status when completing their application in the online application process and attach supporting documentation. (See the “Required Documents” section.)
Many vacancies (see below vacancy link for locations): Location Negotiable After Selection
Travel
50% or less – You may be expected to travel for this position.
Relocation Expenses
Not authorized
* * *
Department Policies
Equal Employment Opportunity: The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex – including gender identity, sexual orientation, or pregnancy status – or because of age (over 40), physical or mental disability, protected genetic information, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, or any other non-merit based factor. The Department of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from persons with physical and mental disabilities. The Department is firmly committed to satisfying its affirmative obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that persons with disabilities have every opportunity to be hired and advanced on the basis of merit within the Department of Justice. For more information, please review our full EEO Statement.
Reasonable Accommodations: This agency provides reasonable accommodation to applicants with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application and hiring process, please notify the agency. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Outreach and Recruitment for Qualified Applicants with Disabilities: The Department encourages qualified applicants with disabilities, including individuals with targeted/severe disabilities to apply in response to posted vacancy announcements. Qualified applicants with targeted/severe disabilities may be eligible for direct hire, non-competitive appointment under Schedule A (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)) hiring authority. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to contact one of the Department’s Disability Points of Contact (DPOC) to express an interest in being considered for a position. See list of DPOCs.
Suitability and Citizenship: It is the policy of the Department to achieve a drug-free workplace and persons selected for employment will be required to pass a drug test which screens for illegal drug use prior to final appointment. Employment is also contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation. Congress generally prohibits agencies from employing non-citizens within the United States, except for a few narrow exceptions as set forth in the annual Appropriations Act (see, https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/non-citizens/Links to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link.). Pursuant to DOJ component policies, only U.S. citizens are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Trustee’s Offices, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unless otherwise indicated in a particular job advertisement, qualifying non-U.S. citizens meeting immigration and appropriations law criteria may apply for employment with other DOJ organizations. However, please be advised that the appointment of non-U.S. citizens is extremely rare; such appointments would be possible only if necessary to accomplish the Department’s mission and would be subject to strict security requirements. Applicants who hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ employees are subject to a residency requirement. Candidates must have lived in the United States for at least three of the past five years. The three-year period is cumulative, not necessarily consecutive. Federal or military employees, or dependents of federal or military employees serving overseas, are excepted from this requirement. This is a Department security requirement which is waived only for extreme circumstances and handled on a case-by-case basis.
Veterans: There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to attorney appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in attorney hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must include that information in their cover letter or resume and attach supporting documentation (e.g., the DD 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and other supporting documentation) to their submissions. Although the “point” system is not used, per se, applicants eligible to claim 10-point preference must submit Standard Form (SF) 15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference, and submit the supporting documentation required for the specific type of preference claimed (visit the OPM website, www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF15.pdfLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. for a copy of SF 15, which lists the types of 10-point preferences and the required supporting document(s). Applicants should note that SF 15 requires supporting documentation associated with service- connected disabilities or receipt of nonservice-connected disability pensions to be dated 1991 or later except in the case of service members submitting official statements or retirement orders from a branch of the Armed Forces showing that their retirement was due to a permanent service-connected disability or that they were transferred to the permanent disability retired list (the statement or retirement orders must indicate that the disability is 10% or more).
USAO Residency Requirement: Assistant United States Attorneys must reside in the district to which appointed or within 25 miles thereof. See 28 U.S.C. 545 for district specific information.
* * *
This and other vacancy announcements can be found under Attorney Vacancies and Volunteer Legal Internships. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of information contained in this vacancy announcement. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information.
Updated December 1, 2023
*****************
Yes, I’ve been highly critical of EOIR, particularly the BIA. But, to change the system for the better, we need the “best and brightest judges” at the “retail level” — the U.S. Immigration Courts!
In the process of denying asylum to a family targeted by gangs in Mexico, the BIA says:
The Immigration Judge’s finding that the cartel was motived by a desire to control the respondents’ land rather than their family membership is a permissible view of the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
This negative finding by the IJ was “permissible,” not “compelled.” That language admits that other fact-findings on the same evidence could also be “permissible.” Much depends on the individual Immigration Judge’s frame of reference and willingness to look for “reasons to protect” rather than defaulting to “reasons to reject.”
So, what if the IJ were able to see and understand asylum from the standpoint of the applicant, rather than defaulting to the EOIR “any reason to deny” approach? Fairer fact-findings below would require more careful review by the BIA. Rather than just being able to mindlessly affirm adverse findings below, the BIA would basically be legally bound to uphold more positive findings unless “clearly erroneous.”
Of course in their haste to deny some BIA panels are prone to violate the “clearly erroneous” standard to “get to no.” But, that increases the chances of Circuit reversal. See, e.g., Crespin Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (my case from Arlington).
Additionally, DHS can’t and doesn’t appeal every asylum grant, particularly when they are “fact bound.” I actually had ICE Assistant Chief Counsel say on the record in waiving appeal that while they respectfully disagreed with my fact-findings, they recognized that they were not “clearly erroneous” for purposes of appeal. (Other times they actually agreed after I had stated my detailed findings and analysis, sometimes actually repeating during closing arguments the basic analysis I would have reached on the record we had just made.)
Better judging below can actually cut off and discourage backlog building “let’s spin the bottle” appeals by DHS encouraged by the BIA’s systemic failure to consistently uphold the rights of asylum seekers and their “unduly restrictive” interpretations of asylum law!
Buried amongst the morass of poor administration and bad appellate judging at EOIR, many “true expert” IJs are making great decisions and saving lives on a daily basis. One of the “best kept secrets” at EOIR — often intentionally obscured by both EOIR and the media (not to mention GOP White Nationalist nativists) — is that as of this summer over half of all those who passed “credible fear” — 55% — received asylum grants if they were actually able to get to merits hearings at today’s backlogged EOIR!See, e.g., https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Asylum-grant-rates-fact-sheet-August-2023.pdf.
That’s an impressive rate, given that the system is stacked against asylum applicants! It also highlights the total insanity of today’s discussions on the Hill of how to artificially heighten standards to bar asylum seekers and promote more arbitrary wrongful denials of life-saving protection. What’s needed is better judging and more realistic and humane policies, NOT more cruelty and misapplications of asylum law!
As I have pointed out along with others, asylum grant rates would be much higher with better judges at EOIR and better precedents from the BIA. Better guidance would mean more cases granted at the Asylum Office and Immigration Court levels and a more timely and efficient system that advances and promotes due process, rather than inhibiting it!
But, it can’t all be done “from the outside!” Better Immigration Judges — true asylum experts with “hands on” experience representing applicants before EOIR and the Asylum Office — are essential to rebuilding EOIR as a functional court system.
For example, one of the expert recommendations from the very recent Women’s Refugee Commission study of asylum reception, resettlement, and processing was that: “One pro se assistance goal is to incentivize immigration judges to take a closer look at pro se asylum cases.”
But, this laudable goal presupposes Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum law and able to “work their way through” some of the inherent barriers to justice in pro se Immigration Court cases rather than submitting to the “artificial production pressures and any reason to deny culture” that still exists at much of EOIR. Sadly, not all current IJs have this ability. Moreover, the BIA has provided defective leadership and guidance. EOIR judicial training on asylum does not measure up to much of that readily available in the private/NGO sector. See, e.g.,VIISTA Villanova.
Many practitioners who have contacted me here at “Courtside” lament that their lives and their client’s futures would be better if they only were appearing before Immigration Judges who actually understood asylum law from a protection standpoint. They are frustrated by having their fine presentations and great arguments “shrugged off” with “predetermined boiler plate denials” citing negative language from the BIA — often ignoring what actually happened or was proved at trials.
Instead of being destined to forever be frustrated by EOIR’s shortcomings, YOU now have a chance to “be that judge” — the one who understands asylum law, has seen the defects in EOIR decision-making, who doesn’t view denial as “preordained,” and will require both parties fairly to meet their burdens. (Ironically, there are many places where the asylum regulations still place the burden of proof on DHS, even if many IJs and BIA panels are unwilling to enforce them.)
So, get in those applications for EOIR judgeships! It’s a great way to show leadership by improving the system from the inside while saving lives in the process! Better judges for a better America — starting at the “retail level!”
Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, died at age 93, the court announced Friday.
The woman who often referred to herself as FWOTSC (First Woman on the Supreme Court) was a justice for 26 years, serving as the swing vote in cases addressing abortion and affirmative action. (O’Connor, however, hated the term “swing vote,” saying it suggested a person who made their rulings on a whim.) She retired from the court in 2006.
“My appointment just opened the doors, and it was not only in the United States,” O’Connor said in 2012. “It immediately had an effect in other parts of the world, with opportunities for women. It was quite amazing to see.”
. . . .
************
Read the rest of the tribute at the link.
She was a pioneer and a legal giant who put thoughtful judging, fairness, problem solving, and collegiality above ideology. She changed America for the better. Not many judges today can say that!
Interestingly, Justice O’Connor’s story is similar to that of one of my law professors at U.W. Law (1970-73), Hon. Shirley Abrahamson who went on to serve as Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Despite graduating at the top of her class at Indiana Law, like Justice O’Connor, Chief Justice Abrahamson got no job offers other than as a legal secretary. Like Justice O’Connor, Chief Justice Abrahamson refused to accept the arrogant, misogynistic “verdict” of the then male-dominated legal system “establishment.” Like Justice O’Connor, she fought her way the top of our profession by virtue of her intellectual excellence, performance, and persistance.
While opening doors for many, unfortunately, as she herself acknowledged, Justice O’Connor is also symbolic of a bygone era — one where practical experience and common sense in our judges was valued over ideology. It’s impossible to imagine any candidate for the Supremes being unanimously confirmed by the Senate, as it is that any future Republican President would even consider someone like Justice O’Connor for the job.
Professor Mary Holper Associate Clinical Professor Director of the Immigration Clinic Associate Dean for Experiential Learning Boston College Law PHOTO: BC Law
Here’s the brief expertly prepared for us by NDPA All-Star Mary Holper and her team of student attorneys at Boston College Legal Services LAB Immigration Clinic:
As we argue, the BIA’s action here violated their own precedent in Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. 714 (BIA 2023). As stated in our brief:
In Morales-Morales, the case in which the BIA first held that it could equitably toll a notice of appeal deadline, the BIA stated that the quintessential example of an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling is when “a party uses a guaranteed delivery service, and the service fails to fulfill its guarantee.” See Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 717. When presented with exactly those facts, however—FedEx’s Priority Overnight service failed to deliver Ms. Diaz-Valdez’s notice of appeal on time, violating its guarantee—the BIA arbitrarily and capriciously refused to equitably toll the deadline.
One could well ask why Garland is spending Government time and resources defending the BIA’s erroneous and unjust actions. No wonder EOIR can’t help building more and more backlog — much of it through poor quality, anti-immigrant decision-making that causes unnecessary delays, confusion, gross inconsistencies, and contributes to the dreaded “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — an endemic problem at EOIR!
Thanks again to Mary and her team for their outstanding help. Also, as pointed out in the intro to the brief, I joined in my individual capacity, NOT as a representative of the Round Table, Georgetown Law, or any other group or entity with which I am associated.
Estrella Santos-Zacaria has come a long way from San Pedro Soloma, Guatemala, a village nestled in the Sierra de los Cuchumatanes mountains and known as El Valle del Ensueño, or the Valley of Dreams.
For years, Santos-Zacaria dreamed desperately — of escape.
In 2008, she attempted to immigrate to the U.S., fearing that the violence she had experienced because of her sexual orientation and identity as a transgender woman could get her killed. Since then, she has been deported twice.
But in January, her case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on May 11, Santos-Zacaria won the right to further challenge her deportation — and the potential to start a new life in the U.S. Other immigrants facing deportation could benefit, as well, because the ruling helps clear a procedural obstacle for noncitizens seeking judicial review of rulings by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body within the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Supreme Court’s decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, also marks a notable step in its acknowledgment of transgender people. Santos-Zacaria’s chosen name, Estrella, was referenced alongside her former given name, and her proper pronouns were used throughout.
The case was the first initiated by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative (SIFI) to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. SIFI provides pro bono legal representation to asylum seekers who are being held at immigrant detention centers in the Deep South.
“What Estrella’s won is the right to keep fighting,” said Peter Isbister, senior lead attorney for SIFI. “And that would not have been possible without her team of volunteer attorneys. Cases and clients like Estrella are why SIFI believes so deeply in having a pro bono program.”
In her case, both the BIA and the 5th Circuit had gone out of the way NOT to meaningfully review life or death mistakes made in the Immigration Court. In doing so, they tossed aside the realities and roadblocks facing those seeking justice in Immigration Court and their representatives (if any, in a glaringly unfair system).
This case shows the critical importance of pro bono immigration assistance. These lower court Federal Judges focused not on constitutionally required due process and fundamental fairness, or on the vulnerable human life at stake, but rather on inventing ways NOT to provide fair hearings in some of the most important, perhaps the most important, cases coming before the Federal Justice system.
Pro bono representation levels the playing field and exposes the poor performance of those whose sole focus should be individual justice, rather than “institutional task avoidance!”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase does the hard, dirty work of sifting through the legal muck for golden nuggets of hope and enlightenment! “The First Pan” By by W. Sihmedtgen. Public Realm
“Sir Jeffrey” writes:
In spite of the petition being denied, there is useful language on what constitutes persecution for a child, and in fn 6 on an IJ’s obligation to assist in delineating a PSG, whether or not the applicant is pro se.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Even when the final result passes Circuit review, the BIA’s too often sloppy “any reason to deny” approach should be of grave concern to all who advocate for due process and fundamental fairness for asylum seekers.
Is this REALLY the “look” that Dems want at the “retail level” of the U.S. justice system. What if Garland and his lieutenants had to face this every day of their professional careers?
Received in the “Courtside mailbox:”
Hello. I just came across your page. What great work you are doing. This is awesome. I have a few topics that it would be nice to see a discussion about regarding IJ demeanor and how immigration lawyers are treated by IJs:
1. IJs are unchecked in many instances. When a lawyer is sick and unable to appear, there is no established method for informing the court.You just hope that the IJ has a responsible and reliable legal assistant [note: high turnover and understaffing of legal assistants is a chronic problem at EOIR] who will inform the IJ of your illness. Oftentimes, IJs become enraged that you do something human like “become too sick to appear.” They take it out on the respondent who has courageously appeared, without a lawyer, to avoid an in–absentia order. They oftentimes display bullying and rude behavior towards the client and the office staff of the lawyer when they learn that the lawyer cannot appear, even in instances where the lawyer or lawyer’s staff members have taken measures to inform the court of said illness. This bullying behavior may cause the client to lose faith in the attorney’s representation.
In years past, I can probably count upwards of several dozen occasions when I have traveled over 2 hours for a PreCovidafternoon individual hearing only to find out that the IJ was out sick. [“Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”) in action.] No one called to inform my office, and there was no recourse or reimbursement of travel funds. It would have been inappropriate to express any anger at the time I was informed at the pre-COVID hearing. Yet some IJs take it out on lawyers, the respondent, and the lawyers’ staff for the being too ill to appear. There is no human response. This behavior pressures some lawyers to perform even in instances where they may not be competent to perform. Yet IJs cancel court hearings, from the privacy of their homes, by calling out of work, providing lawyers and respondents with absolutely no notice or explanation.
2. Some IJs are unreasonably denying Webex hearings. How can the private bar join the DHS to make a statement regarding their newest fight to challengeIJs seeking to force them to travel from other states and far-away locations for hearings?
3. IJs need to stop yelling, rolling eyes, bullying, and mistreating lawyers and respondents.
4. One time I appeared in court with high fever and a bad cough, and asked for a continuance. Instead, the judge forced me to conduct the 3-hour individual hearing anyway. I was surely not competent to represent the respondent that day.
5. OPLA apparently is now being forced by EOIR to appear in person at the court. OPLA’s position is that its attorneys shouldn’t be forced to travel hours each way to and from to conduct hearings, and that it is essentially a waste of resources when WebEx is available. I believe that the private bar should join OPLA in its battle to preserve the ability to appear by WebEx, since it concerns us too.
6. We should not be arbitrarily and capriciously dragged in to court for in person appearances when technology affords otherwise. We have been using virtual technology for almost four years now, with the lesson of efficiency at the forefront. Traveling numerous hours each way is costly and ultimately unproductive for both the government and private bar members not living in close proximity to courts. With the advent of WebEx, attorneys get more work done by cutting down the number of hours sitting in traffic, leaving more time for case management and preparation. Most importantly, the benefit of WebEx hearings is an improvement of mental health of attorneys on both sides. It is important to mention that the pressure associated with dealing with temperamental adjudicators, a lack of productivity from daily travel, and overwhelming pressure to perform one’s duties for fear of being found ineffective ultimately leads to depression and anxiety.
7. One can also imagine the overall benefits for IJs and EOIR personnel. Having an efficient process for disposal of cases also gives IJs more time for case review and case management. One might also surmise that IJs may find relief in having fewer people in their courtrooms.
****************************
This unduly harsh treatment of the legitimate needs of private attorneys by some IJs contrasts sharply with the recent “policy position” of OPLA that, essentially, ICE attorneys only have to appear in cases where “they feel like it.” https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/opla/prosecutorial-discretion.
I can testify from years on the bench that there are many occasions when as an IJ, I needed information and positions that only the Assistant Chief Counsel could furnish. This basically contemptuous approach to Immigration Court by DHS effectively converts IJs into Asylum Officers, perhaps less than that because IJs don’t have ready access to key information in the DHS databases. Moreover, I actually learned useful things about the strengths or weaknesses of a case by having an opportunity for a face-to-face dialogue with bothcounsel.
I wonder if OPLA would dare conduct business in this highly insulting and unprofessional manner if the DOJ had actually implemented the statutory contempt authority granted to IJs by Congress decades ago but improperly withheld by DOJ over Administrations of both parties.
This isn’t to minimize the observations of the anonymous attorney who related their experiences above that both counsel, and the cause of justice, suffer from lack of minimum professional judicial standards at EOIR.
I wonder how AG Merrick Garland and his political lieutenants would like it if, rather than moving on to cushy jobs after their DOJ tenure, they were required to spend the rest of their careers making a living representing individuals before the dysfunctional and irrationally “user-unfriendly” courts that they thus far have failed to materially reform? Until the Immigration Courts are finally removed from DOJ into an independent Article I structure, the appointment of AGs who lack significant “hands on” experience representing individuals before EOIR will remain problematic for justice in America. In the interim, Garland could and should make reforms administratively! Why hasn’t he?
On August 30, 2023, Judge Leo A. Finston of the Newark Immigration Court granted asylum to a Cravath pro bono client persecuted by gang members in El Salvador.
Cravath’s client overheard the murder of his neighbors by a Salvadoran gang and, fearing retaliation from the gang, subsequently refused to provide police with information. Even so, he was repeatedly attacked and continued to receive threats to “cooperate with the gang.” He fled El Salvador and arrived at the Texas border in December 2017, turning himself in to United States immigration officials and requesting asylum. He was detained, and Human Rights First represented him before the Immigration Court in Newark, New Jersey.
In September 2018, Judge Finston denied the application for asylum, finding that, while the man was credible and had suffered PTSD from the events in El Salvador, “complaining witnesses against major Salvadoran gangs” were not a “particular social group” for purposes of asylum, and there was not sufficient probability that he would be tortured upon his return to El Salvador. In March 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the initial appeal. Cravath became involved at this stage, briefing and arguing the appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 17, 2020, the Third Circuit issued a precedential opinion (see related news item here) granting the client’s petition for review, vacating the BIA’s removal order and remanding the case to the BIA for further proceedings. The Court held that “persons who publicly provide assistance against major Salvadoran gangs do constitute a particular social group” for purposes of asylum, and that the BIA erred in denying relief under the Convention Against Torture, finding that “it is clear to us, viewing the record as a whole, that [he] suffered torture”. The Court remanded the case to the BIA, and in December 2021, the BIA remanded the matter to the Newark Immigration Court for further proceedings.
By that time, Cravath’s client was living in hiding in El Salvador, and the Cravath team spent the next year and a half trying to secure his return for a new merits hearing, consistent with the Third Circuit’s opinion.
On July 20, 2023, at a Master Calendar Hearing before Judge Finston, the Cravath team argued the man had a meritorious case and constitutional due process and statutory rights to be present at his merits hearing, but the Department of Homeland Security took the position that it had no obligation to allow him to return. On August 30, 2023, the Cravath team appeared on the client’s behalf at a second Master Calendar Hearing, where Judge Finston found that, in light of the Third Circuit’s opinion and based on the record before him, it was clear the man qualified for asylum and no further proceedings were necessary.
The Cravath team was led by partner Wes Earnhardt and included associates Brian P. Golger and Ana C. Sewell.
******************
Many congrats to Cravath!
I told the BIA that witnesses were a PSG more than a decade ago! They wouldn’t listen, but the Fourth Circuit did! See Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F. 3d 171 (4th Cir. 2011). When will they ever learn?
With proper guidance from a competent BIA, this case should have been a “slam dunk grant” five years ago. This also illustrates the absurdity of those who disingenuously claim that asylum applicants can receive due process without competent representation! It also shows the legal and moral bankruptcy of “expedited docket gimmicks” that attempt to rush cases to denial and deportation without a realistic chance to get representation and prepare!
The U.S. asylum system would work much more fairly and efficiently with a BIA of recognized asylum experts! They are out here! Why hasn’t Garland reformed and reconstituted the BIA to get the job done?
Lives and the future of American law are at stake here!
It’s a huge deal! Dems must “lose” the arrogant “it’s only immigration” attitude that has prevented Dem Administrations from doing the correct, courageous (and smart) thing on immigration, human rights, social justice, and civil rights! Migrants’ rights are human rights are civil rights are everyone’s rights!
Judge Finston did the right thing on remand from the Circuit. I’d like to believe that with better guidance from the BIA he would have done it five years ago. The human impact of the abject failure of the BIA to provide positive leadership on GRANTING asylum in recurring situations is an incomprehensible drag on our justice system at many levels.
Better judges for a better America! And, it starts at the “retail level” with EOIR!
Appearing before EOIR courts can be highly stressful — not everyone survives the ordeal! Here, a 3-judge panel deliberates the fate of an asylum seeker using traditional methods.Jeremy McKinney, Esquire Greensboro, NC AILA President
As Congress returns to action after House Republicans were finally able to elect a speaker of the House following a weekslong impasse, one area they seem determined to address is border policy. Unfortunately, there seems to be much less interest in tackling one of the most important parts of our immigration system: immigration courts.
To put it mildly, there are a lot of misunderstandings about immigration court, and how things work or don’t work. As someone who’s been working in immigration courts for 25 years, I can say there are a myriad of ways things can and should be better.
First, the distances between immigration courts and the people who need to use them are often vast. My office is in Greensboro, North Carolina; my immigration court is in Charlotte. My clients typically travel from two to five hours to appear in court.
I once represented two children—a brother and sister from Central America—in immigration court proceedings. They had been sold by their father into domestic servitude and then abused by the people who trafficked them. The children escaped and reached the United States.
To prove they deserved asylum under our laws, they had to share what happened to them. The brother was so young, he struggled to articulate the horrors he experienced, while his older sister bore the deep scars of trauma, ones so severe that she had attempted to take her own life while her case in court was pending.
As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the countless examples of ways in which the bureaucracy fails to inform people what their obligations are.
Before filing their asylum applications, I had to send a copy to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to trigger biometrics appointments for their criminal and security background checks. Some judges have ordered people removed for not having the biometrics done even though there isn’t anything they can do except request an appointment. Without a competent attorney working with you, it is impossible to make your way through all these pitfalls; errors at any of these stages could have resulted in them losing their asylum case—a devastating consequence and really a matter of life or death.
Prior to the hearing, I tried to contact the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney in their case to narrow down the legal issues. But the ICE attorney never responded, which is unfortunately common. In fact, ICE has recently instructed their attorneys that they don’t even need to appear in court. In any other court, if the trial attorney didn’t show up, the case would be dismissed. But not in immigration court.
Ultimately these siblings won their case because at the time, fear of persecution on account of kinship and domestic abuse was recognized as a valid basis for asylum. But several years after they won, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed asylum law using his unusual power to override immigration court decisions and tried to block kinshipand abuse cases as bases for gaining asylum.
The simple truth is that immigration courts are not real courts. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, is an arm of the Department of Justice headed by a political appointee, the attorney general. The attorney general has total authority over EOIR—including the power to hire the judges and re-adjudicate any case they decide. In an appeal, the attorney general represents the government in seeking to deport the person instead of remaining the neutral decision-maker. Given their very structure, the courts are not fair.
. . . .
*****************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Notably, the notice issue, such as the lack of a hearing date, time, and place, as required by statute, has reached the Supremes for the third time. A better BIA would have followed the statute and held DHS accountable right off the bat.
This is just one of many problems that, in the absence of long-overdue Congressional action to establish an independent Article I Court, as urged by Jeremy and other experts, Garland has failed to address with administrative reforms and needed personnel changes within his sole authority!
Because an appeal accepted under section 460.30 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law is classified as a direct appeal, a respondent with a pending appeal under this section does not have a final conviction for immigration purposes. Brathwaite v. Garland, 3 F.4th 542 (2d Cir. 2021), followed.
While a welcome victory for the respondent, notably, this precedent only happened because the Second Circuit had reversed and remanded the BIA’s incorrect application of the finality standards!Brathwaite v. Garland, 3 F.4th 542 (2d Cir. 2021). Without great pro bono lawyering on his side, this respondent would have joined the many others wrongfully removed by EOIR’s sloppy approach to the law and justice for persons who happen to be migrants.
In other words, the “good enough for government” approach, despite some improvements in judicial hiring, still infects EOIR under Garland. Rather than pouring more money into walls, prisons, false “deterrents,” and trying to strip rights from migrants, Congress and the Administration should be focused on solving these glaring due process and quality control issues in the current system!
As I say over and over, unlike some aspects of human migration, this is a solvable problem! It’s not rocket science! 🚀 It’s just good government, dynamic, courageous leadership, and common sense! Better judges 👩🏽⚖️ for a better America!🇺🇸
Many congrats to NDPA star attorney John Peng of Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York!
John Peng Esquire Staff Attorney Prisoners’ Legal Services of NY PHOTO: PLSNY
John is a terrific example of the importance of immigration clinical education and the Immigrant Justice Corps! Here’s his bio:
John Peng, Federal Litigation & Appellate Staff Attorney
John joined the Immigration Unit in August 2019 as an Immigrant Justice Corps Fellow. He received his J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. There, John was an active participant in the Transnational Legal Clinic and focused his coursework on immigration and international human rights law. John was admitted to practice law by the New York State Bar in January 2020.
Approximately four years out of law school, John is establishing legal precedents, saving lives, and leading the way for others! This type of “impact leadership by example” is exactly the vision that led to the establishment of the Immigrant Justice Corps! It’s also why aspiring lawyers who “want to make a difference” right off the bat should consider careers in immigration, human rights, and social justice!
WASHINGTON — An immigration judge and lawyer told a U.S. Senate Judiciary panel on Wednesday that an independent immigration court would help ease a backlog of more than 2 million pending cases.
Because the immigration court system is an arm of the U.S. Justice Department — the Executive Office for Immigration Review — each presidential administration has set immigration policy, and often those courts are subject to political interference, said Mimi Tsankov, an immigration judge, and Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney.
In the immigration court system, judges hold formal court proceedings to determine whether someone who is a noncitizen should be allowed to remain in the United States, or should be deported.
“Every administration has interfered with the courts. This undermines the courts’ integrity, and many of the executive branch’s manipulations of judges and their dockets simply backfire,” said McKinney, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said in order to alleviate the backlog of immigration court cases, Congress should establish an independent immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
. . . .
“An independent board will begin the process of healing this broken system,” she said.
The witnesses also argued that many people going through the immigration system lack legal representation, which can greatly impact their outcome.
The top Republican on the Senate panel, John Cornyn of Texas, argued that most cases are without merit, as opposed to asylum cases, which are based on a credible fear of death or harm. He said that people are “clogging the courts” and are aware the severe backlogs will allow them to stay in the country. Some courts have backlogs until 2027.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, pushed back.
“People who have attorneys are 10.5 times more likely to be granted relief,” she said. “So it is when they have attorneys that they can proceed with their asylum claims.”
She added that another issue is that many children who are unaccompanied, even some toddlers, are expected to legally represent themselves.
“There is no guarantee that children will also have a lawyer, and this is alarming because children are some of the most vulnerable people in our immigration system,” she said.
Cornyn said he did not believe that “the taxpayer should be on the hook” for paying for legal fees and representation.
McKinney said that those who have representation and are not detained are five times more likely to gain relief. Immigrants who are detained and have legal representation are 10 times more likely to be granted relief than those who do not have representation.
“The point is that representation ensures due process,” he said. “It also makes the system more efficient when all the parties know the rules and know how to present a case. Cases move faster.”
***********
Read the full article at the above link. You can also check out the full video of the hearing here:
In his opening statement, ranking GOP Sen. Cornyn made it very clear that fixing the Immigration Courts is a nonstarter for the GOP.
Instead of engaging on this critically important initiative, he wasted much of his introduction disingenuously repeating the oft-debunked claim of a connection between asylum seekers and fentanyl smuggling. See, e.g., “Who is sneaking fentanyl across the southern border? Hint: it’s not the migrants,”https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1191638114/fentanyl-smuggling-migrants-mexico-border-drugs.
Obviously grasping at straws, in the absence of any empirical support for his nativist “scare scenario,” Cornyn went so far as to suggest — of course without a shred of evidence — that perhaps “go-arounds” were smuggling fentanyl.
This theory appears particularly questionable in light of evidence that most fentanyl is successfully smuggled through ports of entry by U.S. citizens and legal residents. Why would cartels abandon proven successful methods of port of entry smuggling to entrust their cargos to individuals who might not even survive the border crossing and, if apprehended, would certainly be searched? Cornyn had no answer.
What does seem likely is that by concentrating border law enforcement largely on “apprehending” and fruitlessly trying to “deter” those merely seeking to turn themselves in to exercise legal rights, the USG has diverted attention and resources from real law enforcement like an anti-fentanyl strategy. That almost certainly would require undercover infiltration of smuggling rings — dangerous and sophisticated law enforcement operations far removed from “apprehending” folks who WANT to be caught because they were forced to leave their home countries, are unsafe in Mexico, and can’t wait to schedule asylum appointments at ports of entry through the badly flawed and inadequate “CBP One App!” Building a fair and efficient asylum system should even help CBP apprehend more of Sen. Cornyn’s “go arounds!”
But, Cornyn’s misdirection isn’t just a distraction; it’s actually dangerous! As the GOP has shown over and over, if you repeat a lie or myth enough times, folks start to believe it. Witness the demonstrably totally frivolous claims of election interference that drive much of the GOP’s agenda and has become “truth” for their misguided “base.”
A case in point is the outrageous political boondoggle recently carried out by Virginia’s right-wing Governor Glenn Youngkin. In response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s White Nationalist plea, Youngkin wasted two million taxpayer dollars on a bogus detail of the National Guard to the Texas border, ostensibly to “protect Virginians from the scourge of fentanyl.”
What if Youngkin had spent the same amount of money supporting NGOs in Virginia struggling to resettle and represent migrants aimlessly bussed to the DMV by Abbott and DeSantis as part of a political stunt? Community social justice NGOs generally use funds more carefully and efficiently than GOP blowhards like Youngkin and co.
The GOP claim that most asylum claims are frivolous also is misleading. For those who can actually get a merits hearing on asylum at EOIR — often in and of itself no mean feat given the prevalence of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — TRAC statistics for FY 2022 show that 46% are granted. Seehttps://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.221129.html#. And, this is in a system that is still heavily tilted against asylum seekers. EOIR still has many “holdover judges” from the Trump years who were hired not because of their expertise, qualifications, or reputations for fairness, but because their backgrounds indicated that they were likely to be unsympathetic to asylum seekers!
Admittedly, the manner in which EOIR keeps asylum statistics can make meaningful analysis difficult. For example, more than half of asylum “dispositions” are listed as “other” — which covers“abandoned, not adjudicated, other, or withdrawn,” a facially, at least partially, circular definition! Seehttps://www.justice.gov/media/1174741/dl?inline.
Moreover, since EOIR procedures generally require that all potential relief be stated at the time of pleading or presumptively be waived, prudence requires that the right to appply for asylum be protected, even if it is unlikely that the case will proceed to the merits on that application.
Also, it’s worth remembering that the Government already has a powerful tool for both identifying and quickly tossing frivolous asylum claims and expeditiously granting clearly meritorious claims to keep them out of the Immigration Court. It’s called the Asylum Office at USCIS! That despite much ballyhooed regulatory changes, DHS has failed to obtain “maximum leverage” from the credible fear/Asylum Office process is not a reason for eschewing EOIR reform!
What we can tell from the available data is that, rather than wasting more money on expensive and ineffective “deterrence gimmicks,” the best “bang for the buck” for the USG would be to invest in representation for asylum seekers and in a better, professionally-managed EOIR with better, independent judges, acknowledged experts in asylum law, who could “keep the lines moving” without denying due process or stomping on individual rights.They could also set helpful precedents for the Asylum Office. That’s what Congress and the Administration should be investing in.
Reforming the Immigration Courts and creating an independent Article I Court should be a high national priority. While no single action can bring “order to the border” overnight, fixing EOIR is an achievable priority that will support the rule of law and dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of justice at the border and throughout the U.S.
As Chairman Padilla (D-CA) said, this should be a bipartisan “no-brainer.” Just don’t look to today’s White-Nationalist-myth-driven GOP for help or rational dialogue on the subject.
EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) — EOIR and their DOJ handlers imposed designed-to-fail “dedicated dockets” on the public over the objections of advocates. Now they need the same experts they “blew off” to help them save their “due-process-denying rocket dockets!” By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov
www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR
Oct. 17, 2023
EOIR to Host National Stakeholder Meeting Seeking to Increase
Pro Bono Representation for Immigration Courts with Dedicated Dockets
SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) invites immigration law school clinical communities and pro bono organizations to attend a national stakeholder meeting for an open discussion on how to increase pro bono representation in immigration courts with Dedicated Dockets.
At this meeting, EOIR seeks input and recommendations on how the agency can better encourage and facilitate pro bono advocacy, either in person or remotely, at the following immigration courts with established Dedicated Dockets: Boston, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles – N. Los Angeles Street, Miami, New York – Broadway, New York – Varick, Newark, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. See EOIR’s Policy Memorandum 21-23 for more details on this initiative.
EOIR continues to work to increase the representation rate and the number of practitioners available to represent noncitizens in immigration proceedings. Practitioners who volunteer their time to help those unable to afford counsel are a critical part of that effort.
Please join us for a targeted discussion with the goal of strengthening pro bono representation for the Dedicated Dockets.
DATE: TIME: LOCATION:
Oct. 26, 2023
1 p.m. – 2 p.m. Eastern Time
Live via Webex – Meeting Registration
All media inquiries should be directed to pao.eoir@usdoj.gov.
In reality, these ill-conceived and poorly-planned dockets have been “dedicated” to maximizing denials, minimizing due process, impeding effective representation, and developing an unfriendly atmosphere that will discourage asylum seekers from fully exercising their legal rights.
Some DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats must belatedly be worrying about their “legacy,” future employability, or eventually being held accountable for plotting to deny due process to thousands of the most vulnerable humans! As usual, the immigration bureaucracy creates unnecessary problems, then leaves it to the NGO/advocacy community to bail them out!
It’s a deadly, counterproductive, wasteful, frustrating “downward cycle” that needs to stop! Why not “cut out the nonsense” by putting in charge those with the comprehensive knowledge, creative ideas, advanced skills, moral courage, and realistic foresight to solve these problems BEFORE they become self-created “crises?” Those needed leaders and judges are primarily OUTSIDE the USG right now. They need to be brought on board to solve the problems that are demonstrably beyond the ability, will, and skill set of the current immigration bureaucracy at DOJ and DHS!
Only those Immigration Judges granting at or above the (already substantially suppressed) national average should be allowed to hear asylum cases.
Reassign those BIA Appellate Judges who are not recognized asylum experts, and replace them with qualified asylum experts committed to providing and enforcing some positive guidance and best practices for asylum adjudication.
Identify and promptly grant the hundreds of thousands of meritorious asylum cases now moldering in the EOIR backlog (many victims of EOIR’s ADR) so that these refugees can get on with their lives and contribute fully to American society and our economy.
Dems have the power to reform EOIR — a huge “Federal Court system” that they exclusively control! Why are they afraid to use that power “to promote justice and resist evil?”
In the meantime, please take advantage of this chance to “enlighten” EOIR bureaucrats about what it’s really like to attempt to provide pro bono representation on “dedicated dockets” while dealing with their ADR on already-prepared cases that could and should have been granted long ago. Hopefully, some members of the media will also tune in to get a dose of the challenges of trying to fight for justice in America’s worst and least-user-friendly “courts!”
Honorable Mimi Tsankov U.S. Immigration Judge President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)Hon. Samuel B. Cole Executive Vice President NAIJ PHOTO: NAIJ
Federal immigration judges Mimi Tsankov and Samuel B. Cole to address immigration courts backlog at Headliners Newsmaker, Oct. 18
October 16, 2023, 5:13 pm
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Judges Mimi Tsankov, a federal immigration judge in New York City, and Samuel B. Cole, a federal immigration judge in Chicago, will speak Wednesday, Oct. 18 at 10 a.m. at a National Press Club Headliners news conference about the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB LOGO. (PRNewsFoto/NATIONAL PRESS CLUB) (PRNewsfoto/National Press Club) (PRNewsfoto/National Press Club)
An unprecedented surge in migration has created a backlog of 2.6 million cases in the nation’s immigration courts resulting in long waits for hearings. Among other topics, the judges will address the recent assignment of judges to areas along the border. They will provide an update on the judges’ union efforts to restore rights lost during the previous administration.
Federal immigration judges are generally barred from speaking out on issues that affect their courts. Tsankov and Cole will speak in their capacity as president and executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), an affiliate of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE).
The National Press Club is located on the 13th Floor of the National Press Building at 529 14th St., NW, Washington, D.C.
PRESS CONTACT: Cecily Scott Martin for the National Press Club; cscottmartin@press.org; (202) 662-7525
Yet, the mainstream media, Democrats, Civil Rights organizations, and commentators often pay scant attention to the outrageous dehumanizing chaos in our Immigration Courts. One contributing factor is that the DOJ has “muzzled” Immigration Judges from speaking out publicly about what’s happening in their courts, a questionable 1st Amendment suppression that a Federal District Judge recently “shrugged off.” See, e.g., https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/naij-v-neal.
This is a rare opportunity for the public to get insights on this critically important yet “below the radar screen court system” from two sitting judges. They apparently have “sidestepped” the DOJ’s censorship by appearing “solely in their capacity as officers of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”).” (Full disclosure: I am a retired NAIJ member.)
The NAIJ strives to provide professional training, encouragement of best practices, more independence, better working conditions, and more cooperation with parties appearing before the Immigration Courts. These positive efforts, among the few happening at EOIR, earned the NAIJ a “decertification” of their status as a union representing Immigration Judges during the Trump Administration.
Ironically, although the Biden Administration touts itself as the most “union-friendly Administration in history,” three years in, the NAIJ has yet to regain full recognition as a union.
As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the 
