Litigation – Page 10 – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️👩‍⚖️ NAIJ PREZ/EXPERT JUDGE MIMI TSANKOV TAKES YOU “INSIDE EOIR” FOR A LOOK AT THE PROS & CONS OF TELEVIDEO IN IMMIGRATION COURT — A LAW360 Special!

https://www.law360.com/articles/1509443/inside-immigration-court-the-pros-cons-of-remote-hearings

Series

Inside Immigration Court: The Pros, Cons Of Remote Hearings

By Mimi Tsankov | June 2, 2023, 6:05 PM EDT ·

Listen to article

In this Expert Analysis series, immigration judges discuss best practices for attorneys who appear before them and important developments in immigration court practice for cases involving asylum, detention, deportation and adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.

Hon. Mimi Tsankov
President,NAIJ

Mimi Tsankov

The pandemic has reset settled expectations about how we interact in the workplace, and that transformation has hurled the nation’s immigration courts on a technological voyage into the 21st century.

Despite record congressional appropriations over the past few cycles targeted, in part, on technological advances, the court has relied historically on physical files, paper communications and traditional, in-person exchanges.[1]

Although video teleconferencing has been in limited use at the immigration court since the mid-1990s, those hearings were most often in detained settings, relying typically on judges, attorneys, interpreters and legal staff who were physically present in the courthouse.[2]

Not so post-September 2021, when pandemic restraints required the U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, home to the immigration court system, to rethink the basics of how we interact.

During the pandemic, with court staff hamstrung for months, struggling to process mountains of court-paper filings, and judges in some jurisdictions unable to hold hearings, EOIR rolled out about 100 specially equipped laptops with digital audio recording applications installed and connected to a commercially available video conferencing application called Cisco Webex.

These so-called DAR laptops enable the parties, the witnesses, the public and even the judge to appear at hearings virtually because the laptops can digitally record the video hearings in the same way as a judge in a courtroom.[3]

This powerful advance was made all the more effective with the introduction of the EOIR Courts and Appeals System, or ECAS, an online tool for filing and maintaining records of proceeding that is now operational throughout the entire immigration court system.[4]

. . . .

With improvements sure to be made as technological capabilities advance in the years ahead, the OIG has recommended that immigration courts “[c]ontinue the deployment of remote kits to immigration judges to ensure that immigration judges have the equipment necessary to adjudicate hearings efficiently from non-court settings.” This way, judges can more easily assist courts in areas overwhelmed by new cases, and mitigate health- and safety-related court cancelations.

Expansion of the remote judge corps program offers obvious efficiencies, especially if the court is able to speed up and optimize digitization of our backlogged files. Although there are some courts that are reducing reliance on the remote hearing program, as of February that appears to be an anomaly given the overwhelming support nationwide for the program.[14]

With the trial immigration judges poised to adapt and adopt these advances, it will be up to EOIR management to lead the way in determining how quickly and effectively these and other stakeholder-identified challenges can be addressed.

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

Thanks, Mimi, for all you do for due process and American justice! The above link will take you to the full article, complete with citations and disclaimer.

Sadly, my friend, waiting for “EOIR management to lead the way,” is likely to be “Waiting for Godot.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-06-23

☹️ WRONG AGAIN: 1st Cir. KO’s 🥊 BIA On Firearms! — Portillo v. DHS

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis immigration:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-realistic-probability-portillo-v-dhs#

CA1 on Realistic Probability: Portillo v. DHS

May 31, 2023

(1 min read)

Portillo v. DHS

“Gerardo A. Portillo petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming his order of removal and denying his application for adjustment of status. Because we find that a conviction under Massachusetts General Laws (“MGL”) ch. 269, § 11C is not categorically a firearm offense as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings. … Accordingly, without resorting to “legal imagination,” we conclude that MGL ch. 269, § 11C sweeps more broadly than the federal offense, and Portillo need not produce an actual case to demonstrate that overbreadth. … For the reasons stated above, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s opinion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”

[Hats off to Jennifer Klein, Susan Brooks Church and Kathleen Marie Gillespie! Audio of the oral argument here.]

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

Congrats to the NDPA “litigation team” of Klein, Church, & Gillespie!

Notably, the unanimous 1st Circuit did a detailed 24-page analysis to get this one right. This is the type of scholarship and effort one might expect, but doesn’t consistently get, from the BIA.

Remarkably, this case has now been pending for more than six years at EOIR. Now, largely as a consequence of EOIR’s, toxic “how can we get to no” bias, present over the past several Administrations, it’s back to “square one” with no end in sight.

THAT’S how a system builds uncontrollable backlog! Maybe pruning out the “deadwood” and bringing in “practical scholar-experts” as judges at the appellate and trial levels wouldn’t solve all the problems that have been building up for decades at EOIR. But, it sure would be a great start on a better future!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-05-23

⚖️ EMILY GARCIA @ BLOOMBERG: TORTURED LAW: Official Negativity, Captive Courts, Unduly Restrictive Criteria, Subjective Standards Combine To Deny Mandatory Protection In A World Where Torture Is Widespread ☠️— “It’s sort of in the mind of the beholder,” Say I!

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/immigration/more-review-of-torture-claims-good-but-not-enough-advocates-say

The Supreme Court recently removed one procedural hurdle for noncitizens seeking humanitarian relief but the high court’s ruling clears up no substantial issues about a law they’ll make their claims under, immigration attorneys say—allowing some relief seekers to be sent back to torturous conditions.

Estrella Santos-Zacaria, a Guatemalan transgender woman, asked for federal review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision denying her protection under the Convention Against Torture. In a unanimous decision, the justices said federal judges can weigh in on BIA’s decisions before discretionary administrative remedies are exhausted. In Santos-Zacaria’s case, her petition may be sent back to BIA for further review but that doesn’t guarantee relief.

While lawyers are hopeful that earlier review by a federal court will facilitate a smoother process for their clients, they express concerns that immigration judges and the BIA too readily dismiss the risk of torture, and say it shouldn’t be so difficult to get humanitarian relief.

CAT protections, including deferral and withholding of removal, allow noncitizens who aren’t eligible for asylum to remain in the US. To receive protection, a noncitizen must show an immigration judge that if they are deported, it’s more likely than not that they will be tortured with government acquiescence or participation. Unlike asylum, protections under the Convention are mandatory and serious criminal convictions can’t disqualify a noncitizen. But protections are especially difficult to win, said Eleni Bakst, a lawyer at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition.

. . . .

Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge and chairman of the BIA between and 2001, said the process for evaluating claims under the Convention isn’t scientific. There’s no formula to plug in that will tell the odds of someone being tortured. “It’s sort of in the mind of the beholder,” Schmidt said.

. . . .

As an immigration judge, Schmidt said he and other immigration judges relied heavily on country conditions reports published by the US Department of State. Asked if he believed the reports were an adequate representation of a country, Schmidt said “certainly not.”

Bakst said statistics provided by other countries can also be inaccurate. In El Salvador, the government doesn’t allow monitoring bodies into its prisons so data on inmate torture is incomplete.

Pushing back against questionable reports and statistics, immigration advocates are aware that immigration judges and the BIA may dismiss their client’s risk of torture, and their client may be tortured anyway.

Such was the case for Patrick Julney, a client of CAIR Coalition who was denied deferral under the Convention for failure to show that the likelihood of torture was more than 50% and deported to Haiti. Bakst said that “immediately upon his arrival in Haiti, he was imprisoned and tortured.” Julney was denied access to food, water, and medicine.

Estelle McKee, a clinical immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, represented a schizophrenic man from El Salvador who was denied CAT relief. After his deportation, McKee hired a Salvadorean attorney to track down her client.

She said the attorney couldn’t even enter her client’s village because it was gang-controlled.

“I don’t have much hope that he survived,” McKee said.

McKee and other immigration attorneys agree that the Supreme Court’s decision will speed up the humanitarian claims process, though results may vary. Julney’s case was reviewed by the Third Circuit, but his outcome was unchanged.

. . . .

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

Reads Emily’s full, well-written article at the above link.

A Government colleague once remarked to me that “the U.S. should never have signed the CAT.” Obviously, that private view has permeated and driven USG policy on implementing the CAT, particularly at the DOJ where it was immediately treated as “PNG” because of its lack of exclusionary clauses. Even “bad guys” aren’t supposed to be returned to torture (in terms of legal theory, if not reality).

There is no objective evidence that torture is on the decline worldwide. See, e.g., https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/torture/. Yet the mandatory protection required by the CAT remains elusive and quite arbitrary within the U.S. legal system.

One of the best examples of how Government officials who should be insuring that the legal protections under CAT are fairly and reasonably applied to achieve the Convention’s purposes are instead promoting an “any reason to deny” culture is former AG John Ashcroft’s precedent decision in Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006). There, Ashcroft reversed a CAT grant by the IJ and the BIA to an unrepresented respondent. In the process, Ashcroft established the “enhanced test” that to gain CAT protection, the respondent must “establish that each step in the hypothetical chain of events is more likely than not to happen.”

In other words, this is an official invitation, some might say directive, to IJs to “lengthen the chain of causation until it breaks” (which it inevitably will, in most cases) and protection can be denied.

Moreover, many CAT claims, like this one, involve unrepresented respondents. The chances of an unrepresented respondent understanding the “chain of causation” or what it means to prove “each step is more likely than not to occur” are very slim.

Additionally, even if they did understand, since many of the unrepresented respondents are in detention, they would have little or no realistic chance of obtaining the type of detailed, timely expert testimony and comprehensive documentation, far beyond the DOS Country Reports (which, by the way are only available in English), necessary to overcome Ashcroft’s “de facto presumption of denial” and prove that every step of the “hypothetical chain” is “more likely than not” to happen.

Effectively, every problem mentioned by Emily and expert practitioners in this article is essentially (intentionally) magnified by J-F-F- and other anti-CAT administrative precedents.

CAT relief is mandatory, thus suggesting a high obligation on the part of IJs and other Government officials to insure non-return to torture. Yet, Ashcroft chastises the IJ involved in J-F-F- for essentially insuring that the respondent exercised his legal right to apply for CAT and helping him develop the record. Ashcroft even took the extraordinary step of disqualifying this IJ from any “hypothetical” future proceedings involving this respondent.

At the beginning of the BIA’s quest to interpret CAT (ironically at the same time Bush Administration lawyers at DOJ were secretly searching for legal pretexts to justify torture), I dissented from an unduly restrictive BIA precedent Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 304 (BIA 2002), Paul Wickham Schmidt, Board Member, dissenting, joined by Board Members John W. Guendelsberger, Noel Ann Brennan, Cecelia M. Espenoza, and Juan P. Osuna.

There, I stated:

The majority concludes that the extreme mistreatment likely to befall this respondent in Haiti is not “torture,” but merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The majority further concludes that conduct defined as “torture” occurs in the Haitian detention system, but is not “likely” for this respondent. In short, the majority goes to great lengths to avoid applying the Convention Against Torture to this respondent.

We are in the early stages of the very difficult and thankless task of construing the Convention. Only time will tell whether the majority’s narrow reading of the torture definition and its highly technical approach to the standard of proof will be the long-term benchmarks for our country’s implementation of this international treaty.

Although I am certainly bound to follow and apply the majority’s constructions in all future cases, I do not believe that the majority adequately carries out the language or the purposes of the Convention and the implementing regulations. Therefore, I fear that we are failing to comply with our international obligations.

I conclude that the respondent is more likely than not to face officially sanctioned torture if returned to Haiti. Therefore, I would grant his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and the implementing regulations. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.

More than two decades after J-E-, my fears and predictions of officially-sanctioned non-compliance with CAT unfortunately continue to be proved correct.

I also note with pride that our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief before the Supremes in Santos-Zacaria supporting the interpretation that eventually prevailed.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-01-23

🤯 WACKO WORLD OF EOIR: DHS PROSECUTORS DELIVER THE BIG MIDDLE FINGER (“BMF”) 🖕TO GARLAND’S FECKLESS IMMIGRATION “COURTS” — Unilaterally Proclaim They Will No Longer Appear In Every Immigration Court Case (“Selective Appearance”), Apparently Relying On Immigration Judges To Prosecute (In Addition To Being Judge & Jury)! — They Have “Better Things To Do” Than Waste Their Valuable Time In Dem AG’s “Clown Courts!”🤡

PROSECUTORIAL HISTORY: In 897, at the “Cadaver Synod,” Pope Stephen VI appointed himself to prosecute the corpse of his dead predecessor, Pope Formosus. (Spoiler alert: He got a conviction.) In 2023, DHS has decreed that prosecuting cases in person before EOIR is no longer worth their valuable time.
PAINTING: Jean-Paul Laurens (1870) —Public Realm

Provided by a veteran immigration practitioner:

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

Notably, the four categories of “mandatory appearance” described by the Deputy Chief Counsel apply to only an infinitesimally small percentage of the roughly 2 million cases currently pending before the Immigration Courts.

Compare this with the treatment of the private bar who experience:

* Aimless reshuffling and rescheduling of their already-prepared cases, often without notice or with inadequate notice of the new hearing date;

* Arbitrary and capricious denials by some Immigration Judges of reasonable motions to continue;

* Possible disciplinary referrals for failure to appear at a scheduled hearing when listed as counsel of record.

Would the DOJ submit a similar missive to U.S. District Court Judges unilaterally announcing that they would only “selectively appear” in criminal and civil cases where the U.S. Government is a party? I doubt it!

So, what’s an Immigration Judge who does not want to perform DHS’s job for them to do? Contempt of court, you say? After all, the IJ’s authority to hold any party or counsel in Immigration Court proceeding in contempt is right there in plain language in the INA. See, INA section 240(b)(1).

Ah, but there is a catch! A big one! Although the contempt provision was added by Congress more than a quarter of century ago, AGs of both parties have steadfastly refused to promulgate the necessary implementing regulations.

Evidently, the theory is that while IJs might be qualified to issue potential death sentences to migrants in Immigration Court, they can’t be trusted to fairly and reasonably use their contempt authority on lawyers who, after all, are mostly U.S. citizens and whose livelihood might be adversely affected. Essentially, the life of a migrant is worth less than a monetary fine for contempt to a U.S. lawyer.

Additionally, there apparently was a special concern about giving IJ’s authority to regulate the conduct of their “fellow Government attorneys” at INS, and later DHS. After all, that would be interfering with another Government agency’s “sacrosanct” authority to regulate and discipline (or not) its own employees.

In many ways, under Garland, the Immigration Courts are losing what limited public respect the might still have possessed and accelerating the move backwards to an “inquisitorial model” to replace the “adversary model” for decison-making. Ironically, this reverses over a half century of efforts by Congress, reformers, and sometimes the Executive itself to make Immigration Courts function as part of the adversary system — in other words, like “real” courts of law.

As one informed expert commenter stated upon learning of this latest development:

As we have all been saying, (1) EOIR doesn’t view itself as part of an ecosystem which also includes ICE, the private bar, non-profits, law school clinics, interpreters, USCIS, etc.; and (2) EOIR is run at it’s upper level by mindless, gutless people suffering from a complete lack of imagination existing in a bubble.

As a practical matter, I assume ICE is strategically choosing not to appear in hearings before IJs who deny everything? If not, it could actually work in your favor. In truth, the UNHCR model doesn’t envision asylum being heard in adversarial hearings; as Paul has articulately stated, it sees asylum as a collaborative effort between adjudicator and asylum seeker.

For a “practical application” of the “collaborative effort” model promoted by the UNHCR, see Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (BIAS 1997).

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-31-23

⚖️🗽🌟 NDPA SUPERSTAR RAED GONZALEZ STUFFS GARLAND IN 5TH CIR., AGAIN!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/21/21-60195.0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca5-on-defective-nta-luna-v-garland#

“Dagoberto Luna petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to rescind an in absentia removal order. Luna contends he received a defective Notice to Appear that renders the in absentia removal order invalid. We agree. We GRANT Luna’s petition, VACATE, and REMAND for further proceedings.”

[Hats off yet again to superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!]

Raed Gonzalez ESQUIRE
Chairman, Gonzalez Olivieri LLP
Houston, TX
PHOTO: best lawyers.com

—

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

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

When will they learn, when will they ever learn? The ultra-conservative 5th Circuit pays attention when Raed litigates in behalf of individuals seeking due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR. Why doesn’t Garland?

Congrats again, Raed!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-28-23

⚖️ DISSENTING OPINION: Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge Denise G. Brown Says “No” To Colleagues “Go Along To Get Along” With DHS Enforcement Approach To Chevron In Latest “Crime of Violence” Precedent: Matter of POUGATCHEV, 28 I&N Dec. 719 (BIA 2023)

Scales of Justice — The BIA’s approach to statutory interpretation under Chevron tends to be one-sided in favor of DHS Enforcement.
IMAGE: Wikimedia Commons

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) A conviction for burglary of a building under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is not categorically an aggravated felony burglary offense under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2018), because the statute is overbroad and indivisible with respect to the definition of “building” under New York law.

(2) A conviction for displaying what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm while committing burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another and therefore constitutes an aggravated felony crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Yuriy Pereyaslavskiy, Esquire, Albany, New York

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Donald W. Cassidy, Associate Legal Advisor

BEFORE: Board Panel: GOODWIN and WILSON, Appellate Immigration Judges. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: BROWN, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.

GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judge [majority opinion]

Judge Brown’s Dissent:

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION: Denise G. Brown, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically an aggravated felony crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2018). As an initial matter, I have reservations that this case is an appropriate means through which to establish binding precedent on this issue as the Immigration Judge did not reach it. While the parties have had an opportunity to address the issue through supplemental briefing, we lack the benefit of the Immigration Judge’s reasoning. It is our role to “review” questions of law de novo, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2023), but there is no underlying decision regarding whether the respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony crime of violence for us to review here.

Further, I disagree with the majority’s analysis by which it concludes that a violation of section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically a crime of violence. Section 140.25(1)(d) provides that a person is guilty of burglary in the second degree:

when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein, and when

. . . [i]n effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime

…

. . . [d]isplays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm . . . .

N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25(1)(d) (McKinney 2017). A crime of violence under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2018).

I disagree with the majority that second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) includes as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. In my view, second degree burglary under section 140.25(1)(d) does not include any element that requires the presence of a person other than the defendant. In the absence of an element that requires the presence of a person, the majority’s conclusion that this offense is a crime of violence is unavailing. See Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817, 1825 (2021) (“The phrase ‘against another,’ when modifying the ‘use of force,’ demands that the perpetrator direct his action at, or target, another individual.”).

The majority’s analysis heavily relies on case law involving robbery to support its conclusion that second degree burglary under this subsection is a crime of violence. But under New York law, robbery always involves forcible stealing from a person and burglary does not. In United States v. Ojeda, 951 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that it was possible to commit New York first degree robbery with the aggravating factor of the display of an

730

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 719 (BIA 2023) Interim Decision #4063

apparent weapon without the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court held that the defendant’s argument ignored the foundational element being aggravated, i.e., forcible stealing, which is defined in New York to include the use or threatened immediate use of physical force upon another person. Id. at 72. Forcible stealing is an element for every degree of robbery in New York and “that element categorically requires the use of physical force.” Id. Thus, New York robbery always includes as an element the use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of whether an apparent weapon is displayed. Accordingly, the New York robbery statutes are distinguishable from the burglary statute at issue here, and thus the case law relied upon by the majority relating to robbery is not persuasive in this context. For the same reason, the case law cited by the majority relating to assault is likewise unpersuasive.

The majority also relies on the definition of “display” in the New York model jury instructions to conclude that a display of an apparent weapon must be in front of a person. The majority concludes that “display” in the context of section 140.25(1)(d) necessarily means a conscious display of an apparent weapon to a victim. “Display” as described by the model jury instructions does not constitute the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person because, as the Supreme Court explained in Borden, “against the person of another” means “in opposition to” and expresses “a kind of directedness or targeting” rather than being akin to “waves crashing against the shore.” Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1825–26. However, the language of the model jury instructions—i.e., describing display to be “manifest[ing] the presence of an object that can reasonably be perceived” as a weapon—does not require the type of directedness or targeting described in Borden. N.Y. Crim. Jury Instr. & Model Colloquies, Penal Law § 140.25(1)(d) (May 2018). The language instead appears to contemplate that a person be “the mere recipient” of the display. Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1826.

Even if the majority’s conclusion were correct that display of an apparent weapon necessarily contemplates the presence of a person to perceive it and that it necessarily involved conduct directed at another person as contemplated by Borden—a conclusion not supported by the actual language of section 140.25(1)(d)—there is nothing in the statute that requires the person perceiving the display to be the victim of the crime, rather than a bystander or another defendant.

The majority’s conclusion that an offense under section 140.25(1)(d) is categorically a crime of violence also assumes that the crime a defendant intends to commit is necessarily a “confrontational crime.” But there is nothing in the statute that connects the display of an apparent weapon with

731

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 719 (BIA 2023) Interim Decision #4063

the crime the defendant has “intent to commit [in the building],” and thus nothing in the statute that requires the crime a defendant has “intent to commit [in the building]” to be a confrontational crime, as the majority concludes. N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25.

For these reasons, I am not persuaded by the majority’s conclusion that an offense under section 140.25(1)(d) of the New York Penal Law is categorically a crime of violence. I would instead conclude that it is not and that therefore the respondent is not removable as charged.

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

Thanks for speaking out, Judge Brown, against the BIA’s one-sided approach to statutory interpretation that almost always favors DHS over better and more reasonable interpretations offered by individuals. Then, the Article III Courts compound the problem by giving “Chevron deference” to the BIA’s one-sided jurisprudence!

Dissent matters!

Here’s Judge Brown’s official EOIR bio:

Denise G. Brown

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Denise G. Brown as a temporary Appellate Immigration Judge in July 2021. Judge Brown earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the Catholic University of America. From July 2007 to July 2021, she has served as an attorney advisor, Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review. During this time, from March to September 2019, she served on detail as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Virginia, and from January to July 2017, she served on detail as a temporary Immigration Judge at the Headquarters Immigration Court, EOIR. From December 1999 to July 2007, she served as an Associate General Counsel at the Office of General Counsel, Department of the Air Force. Judge Brown is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-23

🤯☠️ 🤮 👎🏽 WHILE TALKING A “GOOD GAME” ABOUT WOMEN’S RIGHTS, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ALLOWS MISOGYNY TO RULE @ EOIR — Why Does It Take A Conservative 11th Circuit To Get VAWA Right??? 🤯

Women find “trial by ordeal” can be the order of the day at Garland’s BIA:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA11 on VAWA, “Extreme Cruelty,” Chevron: Ruiz v. Atty Gen.

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210445.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-vawa-extreme-cruelty-chevron-ruiz-v-atty-gen#

“Esmelda Ruiz, a native and citizen of Peru, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is ineligible for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), a provision whose language was originally adopted as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and that outlines the conditions under which certain “battered spouse[s] or child[ren]” qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal. As relevant here, it requires a petitioning alien to show that she “has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” by her spouse or parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i). Ruiz contends that the Immigration Judge and the BIA made two errors in refusing her cancellation request. First, she maintains that, as a matter of law, they misinterpreted the statutory term “extreme cruelty” to require proof of physical—as distinguished from mental or emotional—abuse. And second, she asserts that, having misread the law, the IJ and the BIA wrongly concluded that she doesn’t qualify for discretionary relief. We agree with Ruiz that the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted § 1229b(b)(2) and thereby applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review and remand to the BIA for further consideration. … For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Ruiz—and hold— that the BIA misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The term “extreme cruelty” does not require a petitioning alien to prove that she suffered physical abuse in order to qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal; proof of mental or emotional abuse is sufficient to satisfy the “extreme cruelty” prong of § 1229b(b)(2)’s five-prong standard. We therefore GRANT the petition in part and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Anabella Trujillo! And listen to the oral argument 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

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

Not only did the supposedly “expert” BIA get the standard completely wrong, but Garland’s OIL continued to throw up specious arguments defending the BIA’s abusive treatment of women!

When you start with “No,” and then “reason” backwards to get there, bad things happen. Frankly, the Biden Administration was elected to “clean house” 🧹 at EOIR and to bring systemic due process, expertise, best practices, and impartiality to our nation’s dysfunctional immigration tribunals — with literally millions of lives and the future of democracy at stake! Why haven’t they done it? How do they continue to get away with it?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-20-23

🤯 BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM JURISPRUDENCE CONTINUES TO TAKE A BEATING IN CIRCUITS — 1st Cir. Rejects Bogus “Changed Conditions” In Guatemala — 3rd Cir. Says No To BIA’s Bogus Jurisdictional Ruling For Asylee!

Kangaroos — Dems control the composition of one of the most consequential Federal Appellate Tribunals, the BIA. Is THIS really the look that they want to project?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:

CA1 on Changed Country Conditions (Guatemala) – Mendez Esteban v. Garland

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1215P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-changed-country-conditions-guatemala—mendez-esteban-v-garland#

“[T]he 2017 report and the testimony from Mendez do not — together or independently — establish that changes in Guatemala have fundamentally altered the specific conditions that gave rise to Mendez’s substantiated claim of political persecution. Accordingly, the BIA’s conclusion that DHS rebutted Mendez’s presumption of well-founded fear is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore find Mendez statutorily eligible for asylum. … [W]e grant the petition for review as to Mendez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition as to Mendez’s claim for CAT protection. We accordingly affirm the denial of Mendez’s CAT claim, vacate the denials of Mendez’s political opinion-based asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the IJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Samuel Brenner, Emma Coreno, Patrick Roath and Rachel Scholz-Bright!]

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

CA3 on Jurisdiction: Kosh v. Atty. Gen.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-jurisdiction-kosh-v-atty-gen#

“Appellant Ishmael Kosh petitions us to review the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that terminated his asylum status and denied his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He maintains that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) improperly sought to terminate his asylum status in asylum-only proceedings because he first entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. Per Kosh, that limiting program no longer applies to him, so he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction removal proceedings instead. In such unlimited proceedings, asylees can raise an adjustment-of-status claim as a defense to removal. We conclude that, if Kosh re-entered the country as an asylee without signing a new Visa Waiver Program form limiting his defenses, he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction proceedings. We thus grant his petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Ben Hooper and Jonah Eaton!]

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

As many practitioners know, the BIA’s continual bogus “fundamentally changed circumstances” findings for countries where the human rights conditions have remained abysmal for decades, certainly NOT materially improving, and in most cases in the Northern Triangle getting worse, are an endemic problem. Following a finding of past persecution, ICE, not the respondent, bears the burden of proof!

If that burden were honestly and expertly applied, considering individualized fear of harm, ICE would rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence in only a minuscule percentage of cases. Certainly, that was my experience over 21 years on both the trial and appellate benches at EOIR.

Moreover, in this and most other cases of past persecution, even if ICE were able to satisfy its burden of rebutting the presumption of future persecution by a preponderance of the credible evidence, the respondent would be a “slam dunk” for a grant of discretionary asylum on the basis of “other serious harm.” It’s not clear that any of the three judicial entities that considered this case understood and properly applied the “other serious harm” concept.

The BIA’s chronic failure to fulfill its proper role of insuring a fair application of asylum and other protection laws and to provide guidance “shutting down” IJs who routinely manufacture bogus reasons to deny is a systemic denial of due process and failure of judicial professionalism. That it continues to happen under a Dem Administration pledged to restore the rule of law and due process for asylum seekers is astounding, deplorable, and a cause for concern about what today’s Dems really stand for!

This case should have been granted by the IJ years ago. An appeal by ICE on this feeble showing should have been subject to summary dismissal.

That cases like Mendez Esteban are still aimlessly kicking around Garland’s dysfunctional system in an elusive search for justice is a serious indictment of the Biden Administration’s approach to asylum and to achieving long overdue, life-changing, and readily achievable reforms that are within their power without legislative action. It also helps explain why Garland has neither reduced backlogs nor sufficiently improved professionalism, even with many more IJs on the bench.

Practical tips for fighting against bogus “presumption rebuttals” by IJs under 8 CFR 208.13:

Insist that the IJ actually shift the burden to ICE to rebut the presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
Use the regulatory definition of “reasonably available” internal relocation to fight bogus IJ findings. For example, countries in the Northern Triangle are “postage stamp sized” and plagued by nationwide violence and corruption. The idea of “reasonably available internal location” under all the factors is prima facie absurd! (A “better BIA” would have already pointed this out in a precedent.)
Argue for a discretionary grant of asylum even in the absence of a current well founded fear based on 1) “compelling circumstances” arising out of the past persecution (“Chen grant”), and/or “other serious harm” under the regulations — a much broader concept than persecution that does NOT require nexus to a protected ground.

Knowing and using the law aggressively to assert your client’s rights, making the record, and exhausting all appellate options are the best defenses to biased, anti-asylum, often disconnected from reality denials of life-saving relief to your clients!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-23

⚖️🗽🛡⚔️ ON A ROLL — ROUND TABLE ON THE WINNING SIDE FOR THE 3RD TIME @ SUPREMES! — Santos-Zacaria v. Garland — Jurisdiction/Exhaustion — 9-0!

Knightess of the Round Table — Somebody’s listening to our message! Too bad the Biden Administration doesn’t! It would save lots of time, resources, and lives if they did!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1436_n6io.pdf

JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under 8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1), a noncitizen who seeks to challenge an order of removal in court must first exhaust certain administrative remedies. This case presents two questions regarding that statutory provision. For the rea- sons explained below, we hold that §1252(d)(1) is not juris- dictional. We hold further that a noncitizen need not re- quest discretionary forms of administrative review, like reconsideration of an unfavorable Board of Immigration Appeals determination, in order to satisfy §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement.1

. . . .

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

Read the full opinion at the link.

So, why is a Dem Administration under AG Garland taking anti-immigrant positions that can’t even garner a single vote on the most far-right Supremes in recent history?

Incredibly, the DOJ made the absurdist argument that, in violation of the statute, an additional unnecessary layer of procedural BS should be inflicted on individuals already dealing with the trauma of a dysfunctional system running a 2 million plus backlog and a BIA with more than 80,000 un-adjudicated appeals at last count! Where’s the common sense? Where’s the competence? Where’s the “better government” that the Biden Administration promised?

Meanwhile, our Round Table continues to put our centuries of collective experience in due process, fundamental fairness, and practical problem solving to use! The Biden Administration might not be paying attention. But, many others, including Article III Judges, are taking advantage and listening.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-12-23

⚖️ SPLIT 6th CR. WHACKS BIA ON LANDOWNERS AS PSG! — Turcios-Flores v. Garland

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action. Garland’s largely “holdover” BIA continues to align itself with Trump’s extreme right, nativist judges, as the progressives and advocates who actually supported Dems in the last two elections are left to stew, along with their dehumanized asylum seeking clients.
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA6 on PSG: Turcios-Flores v. Garland (2-1)

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0094p-06.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-psg-turcios-flores-v-garland-2-1#

“Under the correct analysis, the record here compels a conclusion that Honduran rural landownership in this case is a common fundamental characteristic because Turcios-Flores should not be required to change this aspect of her identity to avoid persecution given the demonstrated importance of landownership to her. Therefore, we remand to the Board for further explanation of whether this group meets the social distinction and particularity requirements as well as the remaining asylum considerations.”

[Hats off to Justin S. Fowles and Samuel W. Wardle!]

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

To reach their wrong conclusion that “rural landowners” are not a “particular social group,” the BIA ignored its own precedent. See, e.g., Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985), modified on other grounds.

The BIA also took an (all too typical) “ahistorical” approach. They ignored the powerful connection between various types of land and property ownership in society and classic historical examples of extermination and persecution. Indeed, millions of dead kulaks persecuted and liquidated by Stalin would be astounded by the BIA’s horribly flawed, “any reason to deny,” analysis. See, e.g., https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiTv6qnsun-AhWARzABHW3rACUQFnoECC4QAQ&url=https://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm&usg=AOvVaw0xlIU36bw6-wmabscwSXT5.

Class warfare and persecution of property owners was at the heart of most Marxist-Leninist Communist dictatorships.

Remarkably, under Garland, the BIA continues to parrot the same biased, restrictionist nonsense spouted by the Trumpist dissenter in this case, Judge Chad A. Readler. He was roundly criticized as unqualified by Democrats and advocates at the time of his nomination. This opposition had lots to do with his biased, anti-immigrant views flowing from his then “boss,” nativist/racist former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions!

For example, it’s worth reviewing the comments of the Alliance for Justice on Reacher’s nomination:

On June 7, 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate a Justice Department official, Chad Readler, to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This announcement was particularly striking for one notable reason: on that very day, Readler had become a leader in the Trump Administration’s fight to destroy the Affordable Care Act and the protections it offers to millions of Americans. Readler, as acting head of the Civil Division, filed a brief to strike down the ACA, including its protections for people with preexisting conditions. If Readler and the Trump Justice Department are successful, the ACA’s protections for tens of millions of people, including cancer patients, people with diabetes, pregnant women, and many other Americans, would be removed.

As the acting head of the Department of Justice Civil Division under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Readler defended the Trump Administration’s most odious policies, including separating immigrant children from their parents at the border, while claiming that “[e]verything that the Attorney General does that I’ve been involved with he’s . . . being very respectful of precedent and the text of the statute and proper role of agencies.”

His track record is equally atrocious in other respects. He has tried to undermine public education in Ohio; supported the efforts of Betsy DeVos to protect fraudulent for-profit schools; fought to make it harder for persons of color to vote; advanced the Trump Administration’s anti-LGBTQ and anti-reproductive rights agenda; fought to allow tobacco companies to advertise to children, including outside day care centers; sought to undermine the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and advocated for executing minors.

Chad Readler’s record of diehard advocacy for right-wing causes suggests he will be anything but an independent, fair-minded jurist. Alliance for Justice strongly opposes Readler’s confirmation.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjp353GtOn-AhWnjLAFHRjxAKYQFnoECCMQAQ&url=https://www.afj.org/nominee/chad-readler/&usg=AOvVaw1vd0ZxlEMALaM-lfJNn6bq

It’s remarkable and infuriating that once in office, Democrats in the Biden Administration have aligned themselves with the toxic views of extreme, nativist right wing judges whose xenophobic, atrocious views they campaigned against! They have done this in a huge “life or death” Federal Court system that they completely control and have authority to reform without legislation!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-10-23

⚖️ AFTER STRING OF CIRCUIT DEFEATS, BIA FINALLY BACKS DOWN ON “EQUITABLE TOLLING” — Sort Of! — Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 2023)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1582681/download

Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 2023)

BIA Headnote:

(1) The Board of Immigration Appeals has authority to accept what are otherwise untimely appeals, and consider them timely, in certain situations because 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) (2022) is a claim-processing rule and not a jurisdictional provision. Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006), overruled.

(2) The Board will accept a late-filed appeal where a party can establish that equitable tolling applies, which requires the party to show both diligence in the filing of the notice of appeal and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mario Salgado, Esquire, San Francisco, California

BEFORE: Board Panel: WETMORE, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; MULLANE and MANN, Appellate Immigration Judges.

MULLANE, Appellate Immigration Judge [Opinion]

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

Notably, but perhaps predictably for those who follow the BIA’s generally “respondent/due process unfriendly” jurisprudence, the “good news” that the BIA has belatedly decided to follow the 2d, 5th, and 9th Circuits on equitable tolling is “tempered” by the result in this case — denial of the motion to reconsider and accept the appeal!

Evidently, among its 82,000+ backlog, the BIA was unable to identify a case where correctly applying equitable tolling would actually BENEFIT the respondent, rather than just requiring a different, largely contrived, analysis to “get to no!” This continues a depressing and highly inappropriate long-standing tendency of the BIA to provide negative examples of how to apply potentially remedial rules.

Presumably, after 17 years of the BIA’s wrong-headed precedent Matter of Liadov, everyone understands that the BIA is “programmed to deny.” What’s needed is “reprogramming” to recognize and grant motions based on “equitable tolling.”

It’s also remarkable that the “highest tribunal” of a dysfunctional organization, notorious for losing files; failing to provide timely, correct notice; cancelling hearings without notice on the hearing date; switching Immigration Judges without notice in a system where the identity of the judge is too often “outcome determinative;” and “cutting” DHS and itself almost endless “breaks” and “exceptions” for their sloppy, lazy, and sometimes ethnically questionable practices sees fit to “pontificate” so self-righteously on what’s “due diligence” and “extraordinary circumstances” for the private bar. The “message” is pretty clear: Denial is the “preferred” (or default, or de facto presumed) result!

If either of the foregoing concepts were applied to EOIR and DHS with the same stringency they are to individuals and their representatives, both agencies would have been forced out of business long ago!

This system is totally screwed up! Dems must ask themselves why Garland and his senior leadership have failed to “unscrew it,” and what can be done to deal with their democracy-and-life-threatening indolence and inattention to quality jurisprudence, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-23

REPORT FROM KC: Round Table’s Judge Sue Roy Demonstrates Direct Examination of “Cinder F. Rella” (AKA Michelle Saenz Rodriguez)

Cinder Rella — Cinder F. Rella Direct
Sharma-Crawford Trial College
Johnson County Community College
May 5, 2023

Trial College Faculty Celebrates Another Day of Teaching Extraordinary Lawyers To Be Strong, Smart, Fearless!
May 5, 2023

Trial College Happy Ending — Trial College Grads Produce Happy Endings and Grateful Clients!

After just three days of intensive study and engagement at the Sharma Crawford Trial College, immigration litigators actually look and feel different!

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

Such an honor and pleasure to be a part of this distinguished and dedicated group.

To quote my faculty colleague Sarah Owings, “The world and the work are less lonely knowing you are all out there!” I think everyone else feels the same way, Sarah, my friend!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-06-23

🤯 FORMER EMPLOYEE’S EXPLOSIVE FEDERAL COURT ALLEGATIONS: NOT EVERYONE IN EOIR MANAGEMENT FOCUSED ON “GUARANTEEING FAIRNESS & DUE PROCESS!”

“Lust and Avarice”
MET DP871968.jpg
Print
Thomas Rowlandson
Creative Commons Zero, Public Domain Dedication

This item was originally reported by Bloomberg Law. From the complaint in Escoto v. Garland, USDC CD CA:

Escoto v Garland

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff CLAUDIA ESCOTO, while working as a Staff Assistant to Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Scott Laurent was subjected to egregious and continual sexual harassment, including Judge Laurent describing in graphic detail other judges and employees he wanted to have sex with, or had sex with, in what positions he wished to have sex and in what manner. Judge Scott Laurent discussed in lurid detail the physical attributes of attorneys who came before him to represent litigants and the government and further discussed attraction to and/or sexual relations with other judges. Judge Laurent regularly subjected Plaintiff to rambling diatribes regarding the breasts, attractiveness and whether he deemed the female attorneys and judges “fuckable.” Judge Laurent also regularly discussed female colleagues and employees in a degrading and sexual manner, discussing in graphic detail who he wanted to have sex with, the physical attributes of female employees and judges. Judge Laurent engaged in this conduct even when in judge’s robes when on the bench. Judge Laurent subjected Plaintiff to graphic description of sexual relations he was having with his wife and other women, including during what was supposed to be work hours.

2. Judge Laurent touched Plaintiff without her consent in a sexual manner, repeatedly placing his hand on Plaintiff’s upper leg when she traveled in a car with him, and ensuring his right arm touched her breasts. This was unwelcome and deeply disturbing to Plaintiff.

3. Judge Laurent further demeaned Plaintiff’s sexual orientation, claiming he could turn her straight (referring to his supposed sexual prowess if Plaintiff had sexual relations with him), referred to Plaintiff’s wife’s breasts and attractiveness and demanded that Plaintiff come “sit on Daddy’s lap,” referring to himself as “Daddy.” He would also proclaim “I can turn you straight, Baby!”

4. Judge Laurent’s conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional impacts, including causing fainting spells, among other severe reactions. Plaintiff requested a medical leave, during which time

Judge Laurent continued to contact Plaintiff to pressure her to work. He denied Plaintiff’s extension of leave, improperly placing her on AWOL status, even though Plaintiff had leave time. Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation of reassignment to a different supervisor where she would not be subjected to this egregious sexual harassment. This request was denied by Defendant. Defendant then acted on Judge Laurent’s recommendation to fire Plaintiff shortly after receiving Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, having taken no actions to address Plaintiff’s complaints, other than to fire her.

5. Judge Laurent’s actions show no respect for the sacred office he holds, demean the entire justice system, and turn what should be a model employment environment into a cesspool, where Plaintiff was made to endure an onslaught of sexual comments and sexual advances, ultimately being fired when she had the bravery to come forward. Plaintiff CLAUDIA ESCOTO, as well as the justice system itself, deserved so much better. Defendant must be held to account.

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

These are only unproven allegations in a court complaint at this point! But, if any of this is true, it would confirm that there are some deep “cultural” issues at EOIR that leadership has not dealt with.

“Expedited/dedicated dockets” and other “haste make waste” nonsense that misses the mark at EOIR aren’t going to solve systemic issues affecting due process and fundamental fairness for the millions whose lives and futures are pending in our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-23

⚖️🗽🇺🇸 TRUTH: YOU’VE HEARD THE ALARMIST NATIVIST MYTHS ABOUT ASYLUM FROM THE GOP & (IRONICALLY) THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION & SOME DEMS: NOW, GET THE FACTS ABOUT ASYLUM & THE BORDER FROM ALIANZA AMERICAS!

“Fear & Loathing”
Inept, disingenuous performances on asylum by the White House, DHS, & DOJ have left the Biden Administration grasping at straws and spreading vile nativist myths about asylum seekers at the border.
PHOTO: Creative Commons

Deterrence and increased enforcement have proven to be failed approaches that do not change the multiple factors that force so many people to flee their countries and only result in pushing people into more dangerous routes that allow criminal organizations to thrive, resulting in the smuggling, trafficking, extortion, and kidnapping of migrants and others.

Download the AA Fact Sheet here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eihlegCrk1Lf-08aDhL8p-fvj_GQGxZ7PYgm-MUcF1s/edit

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

After more than two years of bumbling around, in the process squandering their access to the ideas and problem-solving skills of an un-precedented “brain trust” of immigration experts, the Biden Administration appears to be in “full panic mode” as the inevitable lifting of the Title 42 charade slowly approaches. Notably, a Federal Court ordered the Administration to make good on its (already delayed) promise to end Title 42 back in November 2022. But, the Supremes unethically blocked that order — granting a stay that NO ACTUAL PARTY to the litigation requested, in a simply mind-boggling exercise of politicized, unconstitutional interference with the Executive.

Instead of using the time to 1) work with NGOs, 2) hire and train more expert asylum officers, 3) replace the BIA and anti-asylum Immigration Judges with qualified human rights/due process experts, and 4) drastically ramp up the refugee admission system outside the U.S. (not substituting an inadequate and “jury rigged” numerically limited “parole” program for legal refugee and asylum admissions), the Administration frittered away the opportunity with obstructionist/restrictionist nonsense. Now, they are “running scared” from desperate refugees merely seeking to exercise their legal rights that have been illegally and immorally denied to them for years — by successive Administrations.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-23

⚖️🗽 TWO MORE (PREVIOUSLY) UNHERALDED ASYLUM VICTORIES FOR CENTRAL AMERICAN WOMEN! — From Colorado & NY Immigration Courts!

Pooja Asnani reports from Sanctuary For Families NY:

Hi all,

I wanted to share a recent asylum grant won by my colleagues, Deirdre Stradone, Amalia Chiapperino, and Kelly Becker-Smith, before IJ McKee at the NYC immigration court.

Client is Honduran Garifuna woman who survived DV and gang violence, and, importantly for the grant of asylum, forced sterilization. Below is a quick summary of the case, and I’m highlighting this asylum grant because our team, specifically Deirdre, has been seeing more and more cases of forced sterilization among Central American women.

Respondent is a forty-five-year-old Honduran Garifuna woman who has been the victim of forced sterilization, severe verbal, physical, and sexual violence, robbery and death threats by gang members, and intentional deprivation of law enforcement assistance and medical attention due to her race and gender. Overwhelming evidence affirms the horrific practice of forced sterilization against Garifuna women, as well as the high levels of domestic and gang violence in Honduras that take place with impunity. The evidence shows that government authorities largely fail to respond to complaints of abuse, or when they do respond, fail to do so effectively.

Deirdre has been collaborating with the Mt. Sinai Human Rights program to study the forced sterilization of Central American women, a topic she had encountered over and over again in her asylum cases, with the researchers agreeing that this particular violation of human rights is likely more common than is being research and reported. Deirdre has found several reports and studies conducted regarding indigenous, mainly Garifuna, women living with HIV who have been victims of this practice. As you all probably know, and stemming from the response to China’s one-child policy, forced sterilization is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as “per se persecution on account of political opinion.”

I wanted to share this because we’re realizing that that it may be a more wide-spread practice than we initially thought, and often times, clients don’t even realized they have been sterilized when they come to us. We have been asking specific questions about this in our intakes, and often have been sending our clients to get a medical evaluation to determine whether they have been sterilized. Unfortunately, we have had a several clients discover in the course of our representation that they had been sterilized without their consent, and we believe that many other women may have experienced this without realizing.

While we have worked on several cases with similar facts, but interestingly, this is the first asylum case we have had were the IJ (McKee) granted specifically based on the forced sterilization claim (political opinion), and not on the ARCG DV claim.

Our team at Sanctuary is working to put together a training to help issue-spot, discuss common fact patterns, and how to prepare and brief these cases; stay tuned for more details.

CC’ing the team who worked on this case, including Deirdre, if folks have questions.

Thanks,

Pooja

Deirdre Stradone
Attorney
Sanctuary for Families NY

Kelly Becker-Smith
Attorney
Sanctuary for Families NY

Amalia Chiapperino
Sanctuary for Families NY

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

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/asylum-victory-in-colorado-indigenous-guatemalan#

Christina Brown writes: “I wanted to share the attached decision in case it is helpful to others. IJ Burgie granted the asylum claim of an indigenous Guatemalan applicant finding past persecution based on severe economic deprivation (DHS failed to rebut). She also granted based on a pattern and practice of severe economic persecution of indigenous Guatemalans.”

[ICE did NOT appeal. Hats way off to Christina Brown!]

Christina Brown ESQ

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

Many congrats and much appreciation to all involved!

Even as the Biden Administration and GOP nativists push their “big myth” that most seeking asylum at the Southern Border are “mere economic migrants” not “true refugees,” these results from those fortunate enough to have expert lawyers, fair Immigration Judges, and reasonable time to prepare, document, and present continue to show the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the racially-biased restrictionist claims. Indeed, to get to the “any reason to deny” nonsense, which also is often mis-employed by the BIA, one has to intentionally ignore or misconstrue both the real country conditions in the Northern Triangle and the inclusive “at least one central reason” mixed motive language of the INA.

These are NOT “one offs!” No, they are actually recurring situations! A properly functioning, fair, expert BIA, committed to a correct and generous interpretation of asylum laws, would have incorporated these and other recurring “grant” situations into a series of binding precedents. These, in turn, would allow lawyers, Asylum Officers, IJs, and ACCs to recognize and prioritize these cases for “fast track grants.”

That, in turn, would enable many asylum applicants to be timely admitted in legal asylum status, work authorized, and on the way to green cards and naturalization. Significantly, it would also avoid the largely self-created, self-aggravated, ever-growing EOIR backlogs that seem to “drive” the “haste makes waste,” sloppy, “any reason to deny” decision-making that still exists throughout our broken and biased asylum system.

The REAL problem here its that meritorious cases like or similar to these that require expert recognition, proper preparation and documentation, and officials committed to “protection not rejection,” are likely to be summarily rejected and wrongfully pushed back across the border by the “Biden/Miller Lite” procedures and toxic official attitudes toward asylum now being promoted by both the Administration and the GOP.

It’s disturbingly clear that the needed positive changes in the immigration legal system are NOT “coming from the top” in the Biden Administration. Consequently, in addition to recruiting, training, and mentoring ever more members of the NDPA (including non-attorney accredited representatives), to hold the system accountable, it is ESSENTIAL that we get more NDPA “practical experts” on the Immigration Bench to spread and force due process, fundamental fairness, and best interpretations/practices on a resistant system from the “retail level” — the “grass roots” if you will.

That requires that NDPA experts with the qualifications apply for Immigration Judge vacancies en masse! You can’t be selected if you don’t apply! And, without better Federal Judges at all levels not only will injustice continue to prevail for immigrants, but our entire democracy will be imperiled! Better judges for a better America!

Yes, as I have acknowledged in prior posts, EOIR can be a tough place to work. But, human lives and the future of our democracy depend on our changing the system, from “the bottom up” if that’s the only way. This system is too important, with too much at stake, to be left to the whims and false agendas of tone-deaf politicos and inept, “go along to get along” bureaucrats!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-02-23

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis immigration:

CA1 on Realistic Probability: Portillo v. DHS

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Provided by a veteran immigration practitioner:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Women find “trial by ordeal” can be the order of the day at Garland’s BIA:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA11 on VAWA, “Extreme Cruelty,” Chevron: Ruiz v. Atty Gen.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:

CA1 on Changed Country Conditions (Guatemala) – Mendez Esteban v. Garland

CA3 on Jurisdiction: Kosh v. Atty. Gen.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA6 on PSG: Turcios-Flores v. Garland (2-1)

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 2023)

BIA Headnote:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Download the AA Fact Sheet here:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Pooja Asnani reports from Sanctuary For Families NY:

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: