"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.
Let me tell you about some recent events in my office.
We had two cases set for individual hearings this week. Both cases involve noncitizens who have been waiting years for their decisions, both have family members abroad who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their claims are successful, and both have strong cases for asylum.
For the first case, we prepared and submitted evidence earlier in the pandemic, but the case was postponed at the last minute due to Covid. We were hoping that the new date would stick, given that restrictions are easing and the court now has a system to do cases remotely (called Webex). As the date approached, we filed additional evidence and scheduled two practice sessions for the client. We also regularly checked the Immigration Court online portal, which lists our court dates, to be sure the case was still on the docket.
“Your asylum case is cancelled. Again.”
The second case has also been pending for years. The respondent (the noncitizen in court) is from Afghanistan, and such cases are supposedly receiving priority treatment. So at the Master Calendar Hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) asked us to be sure to talk to DHS prior to the hearing, presumably in the hope that we would come to an agreement about relief. The IJ also scheduled the hearing for a relatively short time slot in anticipation of a possible uncontested hearing. As with the first case, we filed all the evidence and scheduled the practices.
Both respondents had been in touch with their families overseas and both had talked to their relatives about hopefully reuniting soon.
Then – surprise! – we checked the Immigration Court portal and noticed that both cases had disappeared from the docket. Since the portal pages are sometimes screwy, and since court dates are constantly changing, we decided to wait a bit to see whether the dates reappeared. Informing clients about court delays is always fraught, and can even be traumatic for the clients and their families, who have a lot invested in these dates. So it is better not to inform the client until we are sure a date is canceled.
After some hours, we decided to tell the first client. We had a practice session scheduled for that afternoon, and it would waste time to prepare for a hearing that was not going forward. I called the client and informed him, and as I have often experienced before, he was upset and confused. Why had the case been postponed? Was it something about him or his case? Or was it something about the Court? I could at least inform him that we had two cases canceled on the same date (from two different IJs), and so he should understand that the cancellation was not related to him personally. That is obviously cold comfort, but I guess it is better than nothing. I know it was very upsetting for him to receive this news. It was emotionally exhausting for me as well.
For the next two days, this client kept checking the online court system to see whether anything changed. Then – surprise again! – the case re-appeared on the docket for the same old day and time!
I called the court to confirm, and the clerk told me that the case had been removed by accident, and that it was back on! How lucky! The client told me how upset he had been. He hadn’t been able to sleep or eat. He did not even inform his family back home, as he feared they would not understand or would not believe him. We rescheduled the two practice sessions and mentally re-prepared to go forward.
The next day – surprise again again! – I received a message from the court. The case was definitely off. The clerk apologized for the confusion, and told me that the matter would be set for a date in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to publish here the words that came from my mouth after receiving this message, but let’s just say that I was somewhat agitated. I called the clerk and left a message informing the court how harmful this whole process had been to the respondent, how upset he was, and how he had not seen his family members for years. I also mentioned how upsetting the experience had been for me.
I should say that I do not blame the clerk. He is actually very nice and very responsive (he actually called back and said he will try to get us a new date as soon as possible). The problem is “the system” and complaining to the system is about as effective as punching the ocean. No one is ever responsible, and so there is no one who can be held accountable.
As for client number two, at least he did not suffer the on-again, off-again fate of our first client. But he and his family members were also very upset, and given the IJ’s intention of scheduling the hearing quickly because the respondent is Afghan, it is particularly frustrating that a likely approval should be pushed off until who-knows-when.
What now? For both cases, we will wait a bit to see if new dates appear. Maybe they will. If not, we will file motions to advance, and we will try to get earlier dates. All this is more expense and wasted time for the clients, more work for us, and more work for the court, which will have to review our filings. Last year, I wrote about the harm caused by cancelled hearings, and–despite the easing pandemic and the wide-spread availability of Webex–the problem persists. I’ve mentioned just two cases here, but we see this again and again and again. Not in every case, but it’s common enough that we can never be confident that any particular case will go forward, which makes it much more difficult for respondents and attorneys to prepare for court.
While the situation is bleak, I should mention that the news is not all bad. We are still having some successes. For example, over my Spring Break, I litigated a Syrian case (remotely, with very questionable internet, and in what I believe is the first Immigration Court case in the history of Shickshinny, Pennsylvania). Although it was a close case and DHS generally opposed relief, the IJ explained his reasons for granting and DHS agreed not to appeal. And just yesterday, my client from Pakistan received asylum after a contested hearing. DHS did not appeal.
So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.
*******************
Thanks, Jason, for your clear and compelling description of the toxic human and systemic effects of Garland’s continuing “ADR” at EOIR!
Contrary to the “nativist false narrative” promoted under Administrations of both parties, those suffering in the inexcusable EOIR backlog are NOT “evading deportation.” Many, probably the majority, are individuals who are eligible to, and should be granted, the ability to remain in the U.S.
This is particularly true of asylum applicants. Even with a system improperly skewed against them, asylum applicants were winning the majority of their EOIR court cases as recently as FY 2012.
Despite worsening conditions since then in almost all “sending countries,” that rate cratered by about 50% during the Trump regime. It’s fairly obvious that the increased denial rates resulted from perversions of the law, ADR, and an intentional “dumbing down” of both the administrative law and EOIR personnel at all levels.
Garland has taken, at best, “baby steps” to improve the Immigration Courts. He’s merely “nibbling at the edges” where radical house cleaning 🧹and progressive reforms ⚖️ were absolutely necessary, recommended by experts, and achievable — at least had Garland “hit the ground running!”
EOIR should long ago have been replaced with an independent Article I Immigration Court based on the principles of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, and most of all, an overriding unswerving commitment to due process and best practices. Judges and administrators should be selected competitively, with private bar input, and exclusively on a merit basis from among those who have demonstrated expertise in immigration and human rights.
As long as EOIR inappropriately continues to reside in the U.S. Department of Justice, there should never, NEVER, again be another Attorney General who does not possess significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court — the fundamental “retail level” of our entire justice system. Garland ‘s failure to “get the job done for due process and equal justice” — not even close — is “Exhibit A” in what happens when the wrong person is appointed to oversee the Immigration Courts!
At a time when America needed enlightened, inspirational, informed, and courageous legal and ethical leadership for the Immigration Courts, Garland has been “MIA!” American justice, at all levels, is paying the heavy price!☹️
Merrick Garland: “What, me worry? I’ve spent my entire law career in the ‘ivory tower.’ What’s ‘aimless docket reshuffling?’ Who cares about asylum seekers?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“This case arises out of an in absentia order against two Petitioners who allege to have arrived one hour and five minutes late to their individual hearing scheduled for several hours. Neither the immigration judge (“IJ”) nor the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) addressed this argument. For the reasons that follow, we find that the BIA abused its discretion when it made no mention of the alleged late arrival in its decision to dismiss the motion to reopen proceedings on appeal. Thus, we reverse and vacate the BIA’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Petitioners’ motion to reopen. In doing so, the BIA should determine whether Petitioners arrived late, and if so, whether the surrounding circumstances show that this late arrival constitutes a failure to appear for the purposes of the statute’s preclusive effect.”
Unfortunately, you have to get “down to the fine print” (page 13 of 20) find the paragraph that should be the “centerpiece of restoring the rule of law” — a functional legal asylum processing at ports of entry that would encourage refugees to present themselves there for fair and humane processing rather than seeking irregular entry with the help of smugglers.
Port of Entry Processing
The imposition of the Title 42 public health Order severely restricted the ability of undocumented noncitizens to present at POEs for inspection and processing under Title 8. The closure of this immigration pathway for much of the time Title 42 has been in effect has driven people between POEs at the hands of the cartels. Returning to robust POE processing is an essential part of DHS border security efforts. Beginning in the summer of 2021, DHS restarted processing vulnerable individuals through POEs under Title 8, on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian reasons, pursuant to the exception criteria laid out in CDC’s Title 42 Order. These efforts, which we have recently expanded, offer individuals in vulnerable situations a safe and orderly method to submit their information in advance and present at POEs for inspection and subsequent immigration processing under Title 8. We also have enhanced Title 8 POE processing through the development of the CBP One mobile application, which powers advanced information submission and appointment scheduling prior to an individual presenting at a POE. We will make this tool publicly available and continue to expand its use to facilitate orderly immigration processing at POEs.
13 of 20
**************************************
The failure of Garland to appoint a new, expert BIA committed to due process and providing fair, practical positive guidance on the generous application of asylum law foreshadowed by INS v. Cardoza Fonseca a quarter of a century ago, but never realized in practice, is likely to become a millstone around the Administration’s neck. There is no substitute for due process and fundamental fairness. The current dysfunctional, mismanaged, and inappropriately staffed EOIR is not capable of providing the necessary leadership, consistency, and accountability.
Also, in light of U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays’s“off the wall” decision in Arizona v. CDC, it’s not clear that Title 42 will ever be lifted.
So, the DHS can’t make advance preparation for orderly resumption of legal processing for asylum seekers? Clearly fabricated “harm” over human lives and human rights? Ignoring the well-documented record of deadly harm inflicted on those seeking asylum by lawless Title 42 enforcement? Racist actions by a U.S. District Judge specifically directed against Hispanic migrants from the Northern Triangle? No realistic connection whatsoever to “public health?” Obviously this is a scheme by an unqualified Federal Judge and White Nationalist GOP state AGs to end asylum law at the border!
A federal judge in Louisiana says he intends to block the Biden administration’s plans for rescinding Title 42, siding with GOP-led states that had asked for the courts to force the White House to temporarily retain the pandemic-era border policy.
The decision from Judge Robert Summerhays, an appointee of former President Trump, will prevent the Biden administration from carrying out its plans to end Title 42 on May 23 and once again allow migrants to seek asylum.
The order, though temporary, is a victory in a suit initially filed by Louisiana, Missouri and Arizona that now includes some 20 GOP-led states.
It’s not yet clear what the terms of the order will be, as a summary of the hearing — which was not open to the public — said “the parties will confer regarding the specific terms to be contained in the Temporary Restraining Order and attempt to reach agreement.”
. . . .
*************
Read the complete report at the link.
What’s wrong with a system where scofflaw judges undermine, rather than stand up for, the rule of law and the most vulnerable among us? The word “cowards” comes to mind!
“In a decision dated May 21, 2020, an Immigration Judge found the respondent to be removable as charged, denied her application for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2018), and ordered her removed from the United States. On appeal, the respondent contests the Immigration Judge’s determination that her Virginia conviction for distributing a controlled substance renders her ineligible for a section 212(h) waiver, arguing that a State court issued a nunc pro tunc order reflecting that she was not convicted of distributing a substance controlled by Federal law. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) opposes the appeal. Because the nunc pro tunc order reflects the respondent has not been “convicted” of an offense relating to a controlled substance within the meaning of the INA, the respondent’s appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded for further proceedings.”
Many congrats, Ben!😎 A rare win for the rule of law and the “good guys” at the BIA. And, give the BIA panel (Judges Goodwin, Gorman, & Greer) credit for rejecting the ICE position and getting this one right under the categorical approach.
**********************************
Hello all,
Just wanted to share some good news! A client had her merits hearing yesterday afternoon in Seattle. Her asylum claim was based on her PSG of being an immediate family member of a police officer. She had been threatened by some maras and approached because the maras knew her husband was an officer. She fled within 2 weeks. The judge granted and DHS surprisingly did not put up much of a fight.
Sincerely,
Ramon Trujillo
—
Ramon Trujillo
Law Offices of Ramon Trujillo
********************
Many congrats, Ramon! Clearly the correct result under Matter of Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988). A former policeman is a PSG; so, undoubtedly the immediate family is also. And certainly, that relationship was “at least one central reason” for the persecution.
Imagine what a “Better Immigration Court” could look like if everyone had the awareness and integrity of the group in court for this case. Justice is a “team effort,” and it sounds like that’s what happened in your case.
That’s what should happen every day in every case at EOIR!
Also, I’ll bet there are more cases like this that were unfairly “locked out of our refugee/asylum system” by abusive use of Title 42 by the Trump and Biden Administrations.
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
NIJC: On Friday (4/8) we learned from the government that it would not file an appeal in AsylumWorks v. Mayorkas. This means, happily, that the EAD Rules that delayed and in some cases denied access to EADs for asylum seekers are fully vacated. The vacatur applies to both the 30-day adjudication rule and the larger rule that had more than a dozen changes to EAD eligibility for asylum seekers.
NY EOIR Asks ICE to Submit PD Stance 3 Days Before Hearings
EOIR: In an effort to reduce our interpreter non-usage and our continuance rates, the New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court has asked DHS that PD positions be provided to the court on matters scheduled for a hearing at least three days before the hearing. This would allow cancellation of the interpreter order without cost to the court, and would permit another previously scheduled case to be advanced into the open hearing slot. In addition, the court is endeavoring to identify cases already scheduled which are likely to be granted PD based upon DHS guidelines. We have requested DHS’s assistance in this endeavor. [It is unclear whether other courts will request the same.]
NYT: The C.D.C. finally announced at the beginning of April that it would lift its public health border restrictions on May 23, around the time of the year when migration typically increases. But this past week, the issue of Title 42 flared up again as Senate Republicans and some Democrats in Congress held up Covid funding in an effort to protest the administration’s decision to lift the health rule and tensions over the issue flared in both parties. See also The Democratic revolt over Biden’s border policy.
Hill: Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told The Hill that they want to bring together a group of senators interested in trying to revive immigration discussions — a perennial policy white whale for Congress — after a two-week recess.
NPR: Visitations at federal and state prisons have largely resumed. Last year, for example, the Washington state Department of Corrections determined it was safe to reinstate visitations. But those who want to talk to loved ones in ICE detention must still rely on old-fashioned phone calls or video.
WaPo: Although the Florida Keys have been an entry point for refugees fleeing communist Cuba since the 1960s, officials say the increase in arrivals of migrants by boat represents a shift in migration patterns. Since the start of the year, more than 800 Haitians have landed in the 113-mile-long Florida Keys, made up 1,700 small islands. Two of the landings occurred in Ocean Reef, an exclusive gated community near Key Largo that is home to some of nation’s wealthiest residents, officials said.
WaPo: Cuban migrants are coming to the United States in the highest numbers since the 1980 Mariel boatlift, arriving this time across the U.S. southern land border, not by sea.
AP: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday delivered new orders along the U.S.-Mexico border and promised more to come as former Trump administration officials press him to declare an “invasion” and give state troopers and National Guard members authority to turn back migrants.
Reuters: U.S. appeals court on Wednesday said federal agencies properly withheld documents related to how they vet applicants for immigration benefits with the aim of uncovering possible terrorist ties, reversing a judge who ordered their disclosure.
Law360: The Third Circuit declined to halt the deportation of a man from India claiming he suffered political persecution there, reasoning that the immigration judge was correctly skeptical of his inconsistent accounts of the violence he claimed to have experienced.
CA5: [W]hether an applicant’s subjective belief that authorities would be unwilling or unable to help them is sufficient for asylum eligibility when paired with country condition evidence supporting that belief, notwithstanding that the underlying events do not support that conclusion. We think not… When she checked in, the police informed her “that the process would take at least two weeks.” She fled before those two weeks expired, and there is no evidence of what happened with the claim. Thus, the evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Sanchez-Amador “successfully reported one incident with the gang member to the police, but did not pursue the issue.”
LexisNexis: “Petitioner Jose Santos Boch-Saban, a citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing, as untimely, his appeal of an immigration judge’s order denying, as time and number barred, his motion to reopen and dismiss. We VACATE the Board’s decision and REMAND the case for consideration in the first instance of the issue of equitable tolling.”
DHS: Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas is a lawsuit that relates to the U.S. government’s use of “metering” at land ports of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border. The Court in this lawsuit issued a Preliminary Injunction(PI) prohibiting the U.S. government from applying a rule known as the “third-country transit rule”(TCT)to certain people who were subject to “metering” before the rule took effect on July 16, 2019.
AP: Pennsylvania State Police settled a federal lawsuit alleging troopers routinely and improperly tried to enforce federal immigration law by pulling over Hispanic motorists on the basis of how they looked and detaining those suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, officials announced Wednesday.
NYT: Clients paid fees up to $30,000 as part of the yearslong scheme, an affidavit said. Some applications falsely claimed the clients had been abused by their spouses, prosecutors said.
Law360: The city of San Antonio, Texas, has agreed to pay the state $300,000 to settle both allegations lodged by the state’s attorney general that it was violating the state’s “anti-sanctuary city law,” and a subsequent lawsuit seeking to remove the police chief from office for the alleged violations.
Law360: People who were banned from the U.S. under now-defunct Trump-era travel restrictions urged a California federal judge to order the Biden administration to revisit their denied visa applications, saying the administration’s attempts to redress the harm don’t go far enough.
Law360: A D.C. federal judge extended the stay of his order directing the State Department to issue more than 9,000 diversity visas while the Biden administration appeals to the D.C. Circuit, but he unfroze his directive for the department to update the technology for processing the visas.
Law360: The House Judiciary Committee voted to advance a bill that would eliminate the Immigration and Nationality Act’s per-country cap for employment-based visas and raise similar caps on family-based visas, aimed at trimming immigration backlogs.
AILA: On 4/1/22, CDC released an order to terminate its Title 42 public health order on 5/23/22. The document assesses the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic, provides legal considerations, and describes plans for DHS to mitigate COVID-19 and resume use of Title 8. (87 FR 19941, 4/6/22)
AILA: On 3/11/22, CBP issued a memo to its Office of Field Operations stating that noncitizens in possession of a valid Ukrainian passport or other valid Ukrainian identity document, and absent national security or public safety risk factors, may be considered for exception from Title 42.
AILA: USCIS is issuing individual notices to certain TPS Syria beneficiaries whose applications to renew Form I-766 are pending. The notices extend the validity of their EADs until September 24, 2022. Guidance on filing Form I-9 is available.
DHS: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Unified Immigration Portal (UIP) provides agencies involved in the immigration process a means to view and access certain information from each of the respective agencies from a single portal in near real time (as the information is entered into the source systems). CBP is publishing this Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) to provide notice of implementation of the UIP and assess the privacy risks and mitigations for the UIP.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a policy update to adopt a risk-based approach when waiving interviews for conditional permanent residents (CPR) who have filed a petition to remove the conditions on their permanent resident status.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
The issue in Sanchez-Amador is whether a reasonable person in her position would believe that the Government of Honduras is “unwilling or unable” to protect her. On the facts set forth in the court’s decision, any reasonable person in her position would hold such a objectively reasonable view. Therefore asylum should have been granted.
The Honduran Government is so totally corrupt, inept, and disinterested in protecting its citizens, particularly women, that recent past “President Juan Orlando Hernandez [is] on the United States’ Corrupt and Undemocratic Actors list, under Section 353 of the United States–Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act.” https://www.state.gov/u-s-actions-against-former-honduran-president-juan-orlando-hernandez-for-corruption/
Ricardo Zuniga, the U.S. Special Envoy to Central America recently said: “‘All we’re trying to do now is halt the slide’ of democracy and accountability, Zúniga said in an interview with The [L.A.] Times, ‘so that we can have some place to build from.’” https://apple.news/A9FpzsjRAQ2OoAyQZzHZm1A.
In other words, any a semblance of the rule of law and honest, minimally effective government in the Northern Triangle has long disappeared. Conditions are rapidly getting worse, rather than better. Conditions are so bad, that a better Administration or a better BIA could probably establish a “rebuttable presumption of failure of state protection in the Northern Triangle,” thus properly shifting to the DHS the burden of establishing, against all odds, that “state protection” against gangs and other basically uncontrolled third-party actors would actually be effective in a particular case.
This common sense action would also facilitate rapid, efficient, consistent, and correct approval of many credible, valid asylum claims now stuck in the endless, largely self-inflicted, backlogs at the Asylum Office and in Garland’s dysfunctional courts, not to mention at the border following two years of illegal suspension of our asylum laws. That’s as opposed to the unseemly “Institutionalized Refugee Roulette” now being played by Garland and his subordinates.
According to the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA itself in Matter of Mogharrabi, asylum law is supposed to be generously applied to grant protection even where persecution, although reasonably possible, is significantly less than likely. But, in Garland’s dysfunctional “courts,” the current reality for vulnerable asylum seekers has moved far, far away from those supposed “norms.”
Although most asylum applicants come from nations with well-established records of serious endemic human rights abuses, “asylum denial rates” at EOIR range from 10% or less to a beyond outrageous 98% or more denials! Cases with basically the same facts might be routinely granted in one courtroom while being uniformly denied, usually for specious reasons, in the next.
Moreover, while the overall nationwide grant rate of around 37% appears unreasonably low but perhaps still within the outer bounds of “plausibility,” most of those grants are “concentrated” in a relatively small number of Immigration Courts, basically in the Northeast and in California. A disturbing number of IJs and courts are allowed, perhaps even encouraged, by Garland and his denial-oriented, Trump-holdover BIA to establish “asylum free zones.” In other words, Garland has looked the other way while some of “his courts” have basically become de facto “asylum death squads.”
Back to Ms. Sanchez-Amador. Under the circumstances shown by Ms. Sanchez-Amador, a “reasonable woman” would not expect any effective protection from the Honduran Government. The respondent has shown that her “expectation of no protection” was “fulfilled” in this case.
The respondent credibly testified that a gang member said she had a week to either pay him money or become “his woman,” join the gang, and have involuntary sex with him, that is, he threatened to rape her. When she dutifully reported this to the police (despite their well-deserved reputation for indifference to attacks on women), she was told that they would investigate but that it would take two weeks, and offered her no other protection or options in the interim.
In other words, in response to an imminent, credible threat of harm, the police told the respondent that they would do nothing to stop the harm that would be inflicted upon her in a week. By the time the police “investigated,” assuming they ever did which seems doubtful in light of conditions in Honduras, the respondent would be either extorted or raped and forced to join a gang against her will. While police in Honduras might have a well-deserved reputation for corruption and ineffectiveness, gangs, on the other hand, have a reputation for being ready, willing, and able to carry out their threats against women, usually with impunity.
Elementary asylum law tells us that it is neither reasonable nor required that a refugee wait to actually be persecuted before fleeing to safety. That’s exactly what a “well-founded fear” is!
Yet a panel of male, right-wing judges of the Fifth Circuit nonsensically and disingenuously concludes that “one would be hard-pressed to find that the authorities were unable or unwilling to help her [because] she never gave them the opportunity to do so.” Poppycock!
The police failed to offer the respondent any semblance of effective protection. Given the conditions in Honduras, and the credible threats the respondent had received, a reasonable woman in the respondent’s position would flee to safety at the first opportunity rather than waiting for the gang to carry out its credible threat of harm and for the police to, perhaps, but likely not, investigate after the fact!
Indeed, it’s no stretch to say that under the facts of this case, NO reasonable woman would have remained in Honduras if able to escape. Moreover, NO reasonable factfinder would conclude that she lacked a reasonable possibility of persecution there!
The panel judges have perverted, perhaps intentionally, the criteria for asylum, the standard for review, and misconstrued the record to deny legal protection to this refugee woman. But, there is an even deeper problem here. And, it goes to Attorney General Garland and his mismanagement of the entire, broken Immigration Court system.
I daresay that NO asylum expert would have handled this potentially perfectly grantable case the way this Immigration Judge and the BIA did. This whole process documents an ongoing, biased, unprofessional, designed-to-deny asylum system that unfairly attacks and threatens “the most vulnerable among us” — targeting women of color in a particularly racist-misogynistic way!
I hope that this particular example of injustice, inhumanity, and unprofessionalism at all levels of the judiciary isn’t what awaits long suffering asylum seekers if and when the Administration finally lifts the illegal “Title 42 Blockade/Charade” on May 23. But, I have little reason for optimism.
Beyond long overdue reversals of several Sessions/Barr bogus anti-asylum, anti-immigrant “precedents,” neither Garland or Mayorkas has shown much inclination to actually get asylum law right. Nor have they empowered or employed the human rights and due process experts who could lead them out of the wilderness in which their entire “denial and deterrence-oriented” system now wanders.
Perhaps ironically, the all-too-often lawless Fifth Circuit refuses to acknowledge even those modest actions by Garland to correct the law, notwithstanding the supposed “great deference” they claim to show the Executive in the area of immigration. Like much that the Fifth Circuit does these days, that “deference” appears reserved for White men and is not applied to vindicate the rights of “persons” who happen to be migrants, women, or people of color.
“Dred Scottification” of “the other” is NOT a legitimate legal theory. No, it’s part of the “anti-democracy activism” that threatens to destroy our legal system and take our nation down with it! ☠️
Whatever the merits of Liadov were at the time it was issued, the Supreme Court has since made quite clear that only statutes that are set forth to be construed as jurisdictional are, in fact, jurisdictional. See, e.g., Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017) (“‘[M]andatory and jurisdictional’ is erroneous and confounding terminology where, as here, the relevant time prescription is absent from the U.S. Code.”). Among others, the Second and Ninth Circuits have held, subsequent to Liadov, that the thirty-day BIA appeal filing rule is non-jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling. See Attipoe v. Barr, 945 F.3d 76, 78–80 (2d Cir. 2019) (“Liadov is at odds with precedent in this Circuit and in others, as well with the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition not to treat claim-processing rules—such as the filing deadline in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38—as jurisdictional.”); Irigoyen-Briones v. Holder, 644 F.3d 943, 946–48 (9th Cir. 2011). We agree with, and adopt, these courts’ reasoning. The BIA has the jurisdiction to hear the case if Boch-Saban establishes equitable tolling, an issue that the BIA should address in the first instance. For these reasons, we remand this case to the BIA to determine whether Boch-Saban proved entitlement to equitable tolling.
**************************
Case started 17 years ago. R has been married to USC for 9 years. 5 years ago, the DHS agreed that the case should be terminated to allow the respondent to pursue an IV.
What if IJs routinely granted joint motions like this?
What if they were encouraged to do so?
What if the “best practice” in Immigration Court were to encourage maximum use of joint agreements by the parties?
What if the BIA actually encouraged and enforced “best practices?”
What if long residence and being eligible for legal immigration were consistently treated as“compelling equities.”
Wouldn’t those be “painless methods” for reducing the 1.7 million case backlog without gimmicks or stomping on anyone’s rights?
What if “practical scholar-litigators” like Stacy (a “complex litigation specialist”), who understand and have experienced the “dynamics” of Immigration Courts, were selected to become Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges?
Gabe Ortiz Staff Writer The Daily Kos PHOTO: dailycos.com
Gabe Ortiz in the Daily Kos:
. . . .
Republicans will use Title 42’s rollback “to fearmonger in an election year, using nativist talking points based on falsehoods,” The Boston Globe columnist Marcela García writes. “An invasion is coming! Expect chaos at the border! Yet those sound bites ignore the fact that Title 42 utterly failed even as a border management mechanism: Data show that migrant encounters surged to a record high during the policy.”
Marcela Garcia Associate Editor and Columnist Boston Globe PICTURE: bostonglobe.com
“For Biden and the Democrats, the end of this disastrous policy should not be framed as a political headache, butas an opportunity to demonstrate that it is possible and suitable to process asylum applications in an orderly, legal, and humane way at the US-Mexico border,” she continued, noting new policy intended to speed up asylum processing, and a plan “that includes directing more resources and personnel to the southern border.”
What a mess. Everyone is now openly admitting Title 42 has nothing to do with public health and speaking of it purely in terms of an immigration deterrent—which it isn’t. Title 42 drove up apprehension numbers! There have been 750,000 repeat crossings thanks to Title 42.
Marianne LeVine
@marianne_levine
Tester:”Ending Title 42 is expected to cause a significant increase of migration to the United States and put more pressure on an already broken system. These problems do not only affect the southern border, but put more strain on those working to secure the northern border”
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
@ReichlinMelnick
The amount of lies and misinformation about Title 42 is hitting a fever pitch. Title 42 has been an abject failure. It’s not about public health and it’s a terrible deterrent.
It’s shut down the asylum system at the ports of entry and forced desperate people into crossing.
García is right. For as long as we can successfully keep this policy from continued use, it should be framed as a huge step forward for U.S. asylum law and a victory for vulnerable people who have been blocked from their U.S. asylum rights for more than two years. Isn’t restoring asylum law, especially in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, undoubtedly a good thing? And why shouldn’t it be a win for the president, too, comporting to his pledge for a more humane immigration system?
It’s past time for ALL Dem pols and EVERYONE in the Biden Administration to stop enabling racist false narratives about refugees and asylum seekers (and, for Garland to stop “defending the indefensible”)! And, that means that one way or another, the Biden Administration needs to get off their tails and put in place a system to “process asylum applications in an orderly, legal, and humane way at the US-Mexico border.”
It’s very possible! And, it’s no less than what Biden and other Dems promised when they ran in 2020 andsolicited the votes of the human/rights, racial justice communities!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
ICE: On April 4, 2022, Principal Legal Advisor Kerry E. Doyle issued a memorandum to the OPLA workforce titled Guidance to OPLA Attorneys Regarding the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Laws and the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion (Doyle Memorandum), which will take effect on April 25, 2022. The Doyle Memorandum is consistent with DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas’ September 30, 2021 memorandum titled Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law, which took effect on November 29, 2021. Upon its effective date, the Doyle Memorandum rescinds OPLA’s prior PD guidance.
Reuters: The Biden administration on Tuesday released a final rule expanding a program that allows applicants for various employment-related immigration benefits to pay up to $2,500 to speed up the process, in a bid to ease massive backlogs at the agency. See also USCIS Announces New Actions to Reduce Backlogs, Expand Premium Processing, and Provide Relief to Work Permit Holders (USCIS continues to make progress toward a temporary final rule currently named “Temporary Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Renewal Applicants.”).
Law360: Immigrant rights, community and legal advocacy organizations (including NIJC) asked Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Tuesday to abandon attempts to undermine local policies limiting cooperation with DHS agencies and instead terminate enforcement agreements with cities and counties.
Intercept: The privately run facility where Argueta Anariba was held was one of several new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in Louisiana. The implications of caging thousands of people in a state that’s notorious for extreme weather crystallized with the intensifying wind.
NYT: The visa program being expanded, known as the H-2B visa program, allows American businesses to hire foreign workers for seasonal nonagricultural jobs like mowing lawns, cleaning hotel rooms, staffing amusement parks and waiting tables. Industries like landscaping, hospitality and tourism are particularly reliant on foreign nationals to meet high demand during the busy summer months.
BIA: A finding of guilt in a proceeding that affords defendants all of the constitutional rights of criminal procedure that are applicable without limitation and that are incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment is a “conviction” for immigration purposes under section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Law360: The Second Circuit ruled Monday that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services failed to weigh the full facts when denying an Afghan national’s application for permanent residence because he fought opposition forces under duress after being abducted by the Taliban.
Justia: The BIA also did not address Cruz-Garcia’s challenge to the IJ’s alleged failure to permit Lesley to testify, but that may have been because the BIA erroneously concluded that Cruz-Garcia had not challenged the IJ’s discretionary determination and therefore did not “reach . . . the arguments raised on appeal.”… Because the BIA failed to address an exhausted argument that ultimately challenges the IJ’s determination that he was not entitled to cancellation of removal, remand is warranted.
CA5: In his credible-fear interview, Muminov did not describe his alleged 2016 protest of the confiscation of his passport or the beating that he incurred thereafter… Given these discrepancies, a reasonable factfinder could conclude, as the IJ and BIA did, that Muminov’s testimony about politically motivated attacks “was too inconsistent”… He cites his testimony about extortionate fees that he was forced to pay to live in Moscow and the harassment and discrimination that he faced there. This testimony may well support a restricted-residence exception, but we cannot say that the IJ and BIA were compelled to conclude that…
Law360: A Venezuelan mom must return her children to South America, the Sixth Circuit ordered in a published but split decision, ruling that an incident of domestic violence she said was committed by the father and witnessed by the children was too minor for the court to refuse a Hague Convention petition for their return.
Law360: An Eighth Circuit panel declined Wednesday to review a Somali man’s petition to avoid deportation, saying the immigration judge who looked at the case properly determined that even if the man’s testimony were found credible, he still wouldn’t likely face torture in Somalia due to his Christian beliefs.
Washington Blade: “Any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find a pattern or practice of persecution against transgender women in Honduras,” reads the 10th Circuit ruling.
Law360: A California federal judge has approved a settlement between a class of unauthorized immigrants and the federal government that prohibits judges from setting unreasonable bond amounts for those detained without considering their ability to pay.
An Arizona federal judge on Friday dismissed the families putative Bivens class action regarding family separation against 15 high-ranking Trump Administration officials but rejected the federal government’s motion to dismiss as to the families’ FTCA claims against the United States.
Law360: An Ohio federal judge refused to shelve his earlier ruling blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from following a Biden administration mandate narrowing immigration enforcement priorities when making custody decisions while DHS appeals his order.
Law360: A Connecticut federal judge dismissed a Honduran immigrant’s claims that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer raped and blackmailed her with the threat of deportation for seven years, finding that her claims are all time-barred.
AILA: CDC released an order to terminate its Title 42 public health order on May 23, 2022. The document assesses the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic, provides legal considerations, and describes plans for DHS to mitigate COVID-19, provide vaccinations to migrants, and resume use of Title 8.
AILA: USCIS announced actions to reduce caseloads and processing times. These include setting new internal cycle time goals, creating premium processing availability of Form I-539, Form I-765 and Form I-140 in FY2022, and working toward a temporary final rule for streamlining EAD processes.
DOJ OIG: In May 2018, eight members of Congress asked the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to investigate allegations that after January 2017, offers for Immigration Judge and Board Member positions were withdrawn or delayed for political or ideological reasons. While we were engaged in assessing these allegations, we received additional allegations that other candidates may have been favored in the hiring process because of their connections to the Trump administration, or perceived political affiliation or ideology. The DOJ OIG did not find sufficient evidence based on an assessment of the allegations to warrant opening a full investigation. However, during the course of our assessment, we identified concerns about the Immigration Judge and Board Member hiring process.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
On its face, the “Doyle Memo” on PD looks good. But, as is always the case with ICE, it all depends on how it is interpreted, used, and applied on the “Field Office Level” and before the Immigration Courts.
On Title 42, interestingly, GOP states that were fine with the Trump regime’s racist attacks on the rule of law now are apoplectic about the Biden’s Administration’s long overdue effort to restore law, order, and human rights to the border.
It will also be telling to see how Federal Courts (particularly the 5th Circuit) that happily facilitated the Executive’s scofflaw, racist assaults on the Constitution and immigrants’ rights during the Trump era react to the Biden Administration’s efforts to restore at least some semblance of asylum laws and due process.
Experts like Blaine Bookey, Legal Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Eleanor Acer, Director of Refugee Protection, Human Rights First; Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, and many others have pointed out that the “Trump/Miller Title 42 Blockade” was an illegal (not to mention immoral) pretext “from the git go.”
We can only hope that Garland does a better job of defending the termination of Title 42 than he did with the equally illegal and immoral “Remain in Mexico” program. However, having made the bad decision to rely upon and defend Title 42 for the last year, and fecklessly standing by while it was illegally invoked by the Biden Administration over a million times to deny migrants their legal rights, Garland might find some of his best legal arguments foreclosed by his own actions.
It’s also possible that given the unconscionable delay, lack of enthusiasm, and lack of effective planning within the Biden Administration for the termination of Title 42 and for vindicating the rights of immigrants of color in general, some of those in influential positions would not be unhappy if a “Trumpist Federal Court” forced them to keep illegally turning back refugees at our border forever!
NQRFPT = “Not Quite Ready For Prime Time” — Unfortunately, it’s a more than apt descriptor for the Biden Administration’s overall inept and tone-deaf approach to due process and immigrants’ rights in the beyond dysfunctional and unjust “Immigration Courts” under EOIR @ Garalnd’s DOJ.
Mike LaSusa Legal and Natioanl Security Reporter Law369 PHOTO: Twitter
Influx Of Solo Kids Poses Challenge For Immigration Courts
By Mike LaSusa
Law360 (March 31, 2022, 2:44 PM EDT) — Unaccompanied minors arriving in increasing numbers at the southern U.S. border are likely to face a tough time finding legal representation and navigating an overwhelmed immigration court system that has no special procedures for handling their cases.
The number of unaccompanied children encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection has risen sharply over the past year, to an average of more than 10,000 per month, according to CBP data. Those kids’ cases often end up in immigration court, where they are subject to the exact same treatment as adults, no matter their age.
“Nobody really thought of this when the laws were enacted,” said retired Immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, now an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law. “Everything dealing with kids is kind of an add-on,” he said, referring to special dockets for minors and other initiatives that aren’t expressly laid out in the law but have been tried in various courts over the years.
About a third of the immigration court cases started since October involve people under 18, and of those people, 40% are 4 or under, according to recent statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which operates the courts.
It’s unclear how many of those cases involve unaccompanied children and how many involve kids with adult relatives, and it’s hard to make historical comparisons because of changes in how the EOIR has tracked data on kids’ cases over the years.
But kids’ cases are indeed making up an increasing share of immigration court dockets, according to Jennifer Podkul, vice president of policy and advocacy for Kids in Need of Defense, or KIND, one of the main providers of legal services for migrant kids in the U.S.
“The cases are taking a lot longer because the backlog has increased so much,” Podkul said. Amid the crush of cases, attorneys can be hard to find.
. . . .
The immigration courts should consider “getting some real juvenile judges who actually understand asylum law and have real special training, not just a few hours of canned training, to deal with kids,” said Schmidt, the former immigration judge.
. . . .
***************************
Those with Law360 access can read Mike’s complete article at the link.
For what seems to be the millionth time with Garland, it’s not “rocket science.”🚀 He should have brought in Jen Podkul, her “boss,” Wendy Young of KIND, or a similar qualified leader from outside Government, to kick tail, roll some heads, clean out the deadwood, and set up a “Juvenile Division” of the Immigration Court staffed with well-qualified “real” judges, experts in asylum law, SIJ status, U & T visas, PD, and due process for vulnerable populations.
Such judicial talent is out there. But, that’s the problem with Garland! The judicial and leadership talent remain largely “out there” while lesser qualified individuals continue to botch cases and screw up the justice system on a regular basis! Actions have consequences; so do inactions and failure to act decisively and courageously.
And, of course, Garland should have replaced the BIA with real judges — progressive practical scholars who wouldn’t tolerate some of the garbage inflicted on kids by the current out of control, undisciplined, “enforcement biased,” anti-immigrant EOIR system.
Instead, Garland employs Miller “restrictionist enforcement guru” Tracy Short as his “Chief Immigration Judge” and another “Miller holdover” David Wetmore as BIA Chair. No immigration expert in America would deem either of these guys capable or qualified to insure due process for kids (or, for that matter anyone else) in Immgration Court.
Yet, more than a year into the Biden Administration, there they are! It’s almost as if Stephen Miller just moved over to DOJ to join his buddy Gene Hamilton in abusing immigrants in Immigration Court. (Technically, Hamilton is gone, but it would be hard to tell from the way Garland and his equally tone-deaf lieutenants have messed up EOIR. Currently, he and Miller are officers of “America First Legal” a neo-fascist group engaged in “aiming to reinstate Trump-era policies that bar unaccompanied migrant children from entering the United States,” according to Wikipedia.)
Meanwhile, the folks with the expertise to solve problems and get the Immigration Courts back on track, like Jen & Wendy, are giving interviews and trying to fix Garland’s ungodly mess from the outside! What’s wrong with this picture? What’s wrong with this Administration?
We’re about to find out! Big time, as Garland’s broken, due-process denying “court” system continues it’s “death spiral,” ☠️ taking lots of kids and other human lives down with it!
Yup, it’s a great settlement! But, only for those in the CDCA or who don’t understand how totally screwed up, unfair, directionless, visionless, and out of control Garland’s “Clown Courts” 🤡 are!
So, Garland agrees that “his judges” will comply with the Constitution, but ONLY in the CDCA. In the other 95% of Immigration Courts nationwide, they evidently are free to choose to act in a “normal” arbitrary and capricious unconstitutional manner. Nice!
Of course, by initially setting no bond or more than $10K in any case, DHS can unilaterally invoke the “regulatory clamper” (8 CFR 1003.19(i)(2)) to defeat any release on bond pending appeal. Since the BIA routinely holds bond appeals until the detained merits cases are complete, then dismisses them as “moot,” the Administration retains lots of tools to act unconstitutionally.
Another nice touch!
Does anyone truly understand how completely screwed up and unconstitutional Garland’s “star chambers courts” are?
This is what “justice” looks like in 21st Century America, in a Dem Administration no less? Gimmie a break?
A better BIA might have imposed Constitutional due process requiring consideration of ability to pay nationwide, thus preempting the need for more Article III Court litigation and inconsistent decisions affecting the fundamental human right of liberty!
A “better BIA” might have properly limited the DHS’s unconstitutional authority to use the “clamper” to block release on bond, rather than reducing Immigration Judges to a “clerical” role. See, e.g.,Matter of Joseph (“Joseph I”), 22 I&N Dec. 660, 674 (BIA 1999) (Moscato, Board Member dissenting, joined by Schmidt, Chair, and Heilman, Villageliu, Guendelsberger, Rosenberg, Jones, Board Members).
A better AG might have eliminated the unconstitutional “clamper” that gives ICE counsel unfair leverage in bond cases.
For all the world, it looks like the BIA just signed off on a “canned language, rote denial” that had little or nothing to do with the actual record and the arguments raised on appeal. Apparently, as long as the bottom line is to “dismiss” the respondent’s appeal, what goes above it is largely irrelevant to the “Deniers’ Club” that Garland employs as “appellate judges.”
In a system already struggling with a largely self-inflicted backlog of 1.7 million cases, unnecessary remands caused by poor BIA performance are NOT a “no harm, no foul” proposition. Moreover, how in good faith can Garland propose to “expedite” asylum cases at the border when many of his trial judges possess neither the expertise nor the temperament to fairly and efficiently decide asylum claims and the Trump holdover appellate body charged with providing guidance, enforcing best practices, and guaranteeing fairness is itself a major part of the problem? That’s what “designed for disaster” is all about!
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have an AG who made due process, fundamental fairness, correct results, and careful, “practical scholarly” analysis the touchstone of “his courts” and who cared enough about our justice system to appoint a BIA of real, expert judges — “practical scholars, if you will, of which there are plenty outside of EOIR — capable of focusing on and achieving the foregoing values?
Apparently, in his comfy 5th floor office at DOJ where he thinks great thoughts and does little to achieve them, Garland can’t put himself in the unnecessarily frustrating position of actual human beings and their lawyers who are subjected to EOIR’s incompetent nonsense and “judicial malpractice” on a regular basis! He doesn’t even seem capable of relating to the Courts of Appeals Judges who are constantly called upon to correct fundamental mistakes and clear injustices that Garland ignores and his DOJ attorneys mindlessly defend! Perhaps this “blind spot” is because on the DC Circuit, Garland was absolved from the task of reviewing individual petitions for review emanating from the dysfunctional Immigration Courts that he inherited from his White Nationalist predecessors.
Whatever the reason for his lackadaisical performance, America needs and deserves an AG who takes immigrant justice, racial justice, due process, and equal justice for all seriously!
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
The attached is the final “as filed” version of our latest brief in Chavez-Chilel v. Garland, in support of the motion for rehearing/rehearing en banc. This one is very “all in the family,” as Sue Roy is our counsel, Sue and I drafted the brief, and decisions from Miriam Hayward and Charles Honeyman are attached as exhibits.
There is also an amicus brief by law school professors, and joining NJ attorney Ted Murphy as petitioner’s counsel is Paul Hughes, who argued Kisor v. Willkie before the Supreme Court (as well a Nasrallah v. Barr, a Supreme Court victory in which we were amici).
“Kelly Gonzalez Aguilar is a transgender woman from Honduras. She came to the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal. In support, Kelly claimed • past persecution in Honduras from her uncle’s abuse, • fear of future persecution from pervasive discrimination and violence against transgender women in Honduras, and • likely torture upon return to Honduras. The immigration judge denied the applications and ordered removal to Honduras. In denying asylum, the immigration judge found no pattern or practice of persecution. Kelly appealed the denial of each application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal. The dismissal led Kelly to petition for judicial review. We grant the petition. On the asylum claim, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find a pattern or practice of persecution against transgender women in Honduras.”
Imagine what it would be like if we had an AG with the guts and decency to appoint a BIA of real judges — asylum experts who would adhere to due process and fairly, properly, and consistently interpret asylum laws rather than spewing out specious, life-destroying, bogus denials? Backlogs might even start decreasing!
Remarkably, even the Trump-appointed dissenting Circuit Judge Joel M. Carson concedes that EOIR easily could have decided this case in favor for the respondent and perhaps should have.
No doubt a person could view the record before us differently—the majority does so today—and I might on de novo review.
He then willingly gets lost in a forest of bogus reasons for abusing “standards of review” as an excuse for Article III Judges to avoid responsibility for life-threatening miscarriages of justice.
In stark terms, a reasonable judge could have saved this respondent and probably should have. But, this IJ and the BIA chose not to. So, who cares because it’s only a brown-skinned asylum seeker whose life is so insignificant that we should relegate it to the realm of chance and happenstance. Next case, please!
Asylum law, according to the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca is supposed to be interpreted generously in favor of protection. If legal protection from persecution or death is one possible outcome, it should be the the only acceptable outcome! Saying that some humans should potentially die while others be protected basically depending on a Federal Judge’s personal philosophy and mood on a particular day isn’t just legally wrong and a denial of due process and equal protection — it’s immoral!
The point is obvious. Better qualified judges at the BIA would put an end to this treatment of life or death decisions as a “crap shoot” — dependent on which IJ is drawn, the composition of the BIA “panel,” the Federal Circuit in which the case arises, the “luck of the draw” on the Circuit panel, and probably the “day of the week.” This is no way to run a justice system. And, Garland and his complicit lieutenants know that!
A better AG would long ago have installed a better BIA. It’s classic “Refugee Roulette” ☠️⚰️ being promoted by a Dem Administration! Instead of putting an end to this disgraceful “intellectual game of chance with human lives” being played by ivory tower bureaucrats and judges who have “immunized” themselves from the traumatic real life consequences of their bad decisions, Garland has chosen to “play along”
When he’s not carrying out Stephen Miller’s anti-asylum policies @ EOIR with Miller’s holdover acolytesas “judges” and “senior executives,” Garland is busy helping Trump and his fellow GOP insurrectionists “run out the clock” on the House Jan. 6 Panel!
