"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.
Rekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KS
Rekha Sharma-Crawford writes in Linkedin:
The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College Faculty, 2024. Kick ass trial lawyers sharing their wisdom and knowledge to elevate the practice before the immigration courts. Blessed to call them all friends! Thank you my friends!! 🙏🏽🗽⚖️💕
Sharma-Crawford Faculty 2024
Paul Schmidt Lory Rosenberg Elina Magaly Santana Erich Straub Michael Sharma-Crawford Kelli Stump Lindsay Gray David Bell Kelly Driscoll Nathan Dayani Davorin Odrcic Michelle Saenz-Rodriguez Sarah Owings Genevra Alberti Susan Roy Patrick Lewis Angel Marie Graf
********************************
Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College Defensive Asylum Day 2!
Sharma-Crawford 2024 Day 2Sharma-Crawford 2024 Day 2
It’s incredible to witness the dedication and passion of our attendees as they dive into the world of defensive asylum cases.
#TheClinicSCAL #KansasCity #TrialCollege …see more
*********************************
The Clinic @ Sharma-Crawford Law
Immigration Court can, quite intentionally on the part of its “political handlers,” be intimidating, particularly for newer litigators.
Among the many “user unfriendly/due process denying features:”
Arbitrary, “make ‘em up as you go along” rules that apply to individuals, but not to DHS or EOIR;
Cosmically inconsistent adjudications;
Lack of universal asylum expertise among judges at both the trial and appellate levels;
Institutional bias against asylum seekers and failure to follow generous precedents such as Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi;
Shifting political priorities driving “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and creating unmanageable backlogs;
Permissive lack of discipline at DHS in intentionally overloading system;
Grotesque overemphasis of “bogus productivity” over due process, quality, and fundamental fairness;
One-sided “disciplinary procedures” that give DHS counsel a “free pass;” and
A “permissive culture” of racial bias and “any reason to deny” decision-making.
Yet, despite this intentional, unethical “tilting of the playing field’ against migrants, particularly asylum seekers of color, and their representatives, well-represented individuals win their cases against the odds at all levels of this system every day!
The faculty of the Sharma-Crawford Immigration Court Trial College is a unique blend of experienced, hard-nosed, gutsy, immigration advocates, criminal defense attorneys, former prosecutors and judges, teachers, and coaches. We teach skills and instill fearless attitudes that have proven to be successful in criminal, civil, and immigration litigation!
The Trial College now has more the 150 “alumni” nationwide who are using their enhanced talents to force due process on a reluctant system, save lives, and “build America,” one case at a time! The “Class of 2024” was larger than usual and showed exceptional seriousness, dedication, creativity, and commitment to changing the course of American Justice for the better at the oft-ignored but existentially important “retail level.”
I was particularly pleased to be “reunited” on the faculty with my colleagues and “EOIR Alums” retired Judges Lory Rosenberg, Sue Roy, and “new recruit” Ed Kelly! I also appreciate the courtesy of Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jayme Salinardi and the Kansas City Immigration Court in arranging for the students and faculty to observe some Master Calendar hearings.
I am privileged to be part of this amazing and inspiring multi-disciplinary effort! Thanks to Rekha Sharma-Crawford, Michael Crawford, Genevra Alberti, and the Clinic Staff for their leadership in making this happen!😎
Genevra W. Alberti, Esq. The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Kansas City, Mo. PHOTO: The Clinic
We are looking to connect with immigration attorneys who have clients who crossed the border in recent years and have sought asylum in immigration court.
Specifically, we are looking to talk to asylum-seekers who have waited years/months for their cases to be heard in immigration court and are STILL waiting for a final decision.
Please comment or send me a message if you have a client who would be interested in speaking with us.
. . . To tell Hamed Aleaziz at The NYT the truth about the “under the radar” mess at EOIR that is systemically treating those with valid claims and sound defenses unfairly and threatens, with its unrelenting disorder and “deterrence bias,” to destabilize the entire U.S. Justice System! Public Domain
The (largely avoidable), backlog building, due-process-denying mess at Garland’s EOIR is one of the “unsung drivers” of bad immigration policies and myths about migrants, particularly asylum seekers.
To the extent that this glaring problem is covered at all by the so-called “mainstream media,” it’s usually superficial: reference to the 3.5 million case backlog, long delays, and the need for more Immigraton Judges and court personnel.
Here’s your chance to correct that “cosmetic coverage” by giving Hamed input on the overall unfairness, unnecessary inefficiencies, “user-unfriendliness,” and grotesque lack of overall legal expertise, consistency, and common sense in this broken system! It has improperly become a tool of “deterrence” in behalf of DHS Enforcement and has lost sight of its only proper role of insuring Constitutionally-required due process and fundamental fairness for individuals comingbefore the Immigration Courts!
Congrats, my friend, on this well-deserved recognition! Kansas City, here I come! On my way, looking forward to seeing you and the rest of the All-Star 🌟 faculty on Thursday!
The Immigration Clinic Wins Two Asylum Cases in One Day
15APR 2024
Last week, the Immigration Clinic secured two asylum victories in one day for our Afghan allies. These cases spanned two academic years, but both cases were granted by the Arlington Asylum Office on the same day.
In August of 2021, thousands of people went to Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan to flee the Taliban. Among those thousands of people were Ms. S*, daughter of an Afghan government official, and Mr. K*, an Afghan attorney, and his wife Mrs. K*. Luckily, they all managed to get on a plane out of Kabul and were evacuated to the United States. When they were resettled to Hampton Roads, Ms. S, Mr. K, and Mrs. K all reached out to the Immigration Clinic for assistance in their cases.
During the 2022-23 Academic Year, Melissa Box J.D. ’23 worked with Mr. and Mrs. K on their asylum cases. Then during the 2023-24 Academic Year, Sarah Nagle, J.D. ’24 worked with Ms. S on her asylum case.
Below, we share the stories behind these lifechanging victories.
Mr. K and Melissa Box, J.D. ‘23
In Fall 2022, Melissa Box, J.D. ’23, was assigned to work on Mr. and Mrs. K’s asylum case.
Melissa was first assigned to write Mr. K’s affidavit for his asylum case. Asylum affidavits require several interviews and meticulous detail about a client’s case. While an asylum applicant’s testimony can, in theory, be enough to prove their case, the written and oral testimony must be consistent and credible. In order to capture the level of detail necessary for his case, as well as accurately prepare an affidavit in his voice, Melissa worked with Clinic Director Professor Stacy Kern-Scheerer to interview Mr. K. Across many interviews over the course of many months, Melissa learned about Mr. K’s career as an attorney, his passion for his work, and the danger he faced because of it.
Through their interviews, Mr. K and Melissa built a deep and lasting rapport. “I was lucky to have the time to make sure I fully understood Mr. K’s life’s story and gain his trust,” Melissa shared before her graduation last year. “I know Mr. K better than some law students I’ve spent years in class with. I know his mannerisms and was able to advocate for him. It really meant a lot when my client told Professor Kern-Scheerer and me that he thought I knew him better than he knew himself.”
After writing Mr. K’s affidavit, Melissa researched conditions in Afghanistan relevant to Mr. K’s case, including the treatment of attorneys and former government employees in Afghanistan. Melissa worked with Clinic Professor Nicole Medved on finding and preparing the country conditions evidence that would best support Mr. K’s asylum claim. This research was critical to contextualizing Mr. K’s fear of returning to Afghanistan.
After the Clinic submitted Mr. K’s asylum case in March 2023, USCIS quickly scheduled Mr. K and his wife for an asylum interview in April 2023, during the last week of classes of the semester. Clinic Director Professor Kern-Scheerer and Melissa prepared Mr. and Mrs. K for what to expect at the interview, and Melissa prepared her closing argument to present to the Asylum Officer for why Mr. and Mrs. K merit a grant of asylum.
Melissa Box, J.D. ’23 (left) and Professor Kern-Scheerer (right) at the Arlington Asylum Office for Mr. and Mrs. K’s Asylum interview (Spring 2023).
During the last week of class, Professor Kern-Scheerer and Melissa accompanied Mr. and Mrs. K to their asylum interview. After a roughly 3-hour hour interview, Melissa delivered her closing argument to the officer. After the interview had finished, there was nothing left to do but wait for a decision on the case.
Ms. S and Sarah Nagle, J.D. ‘24
Ms. S and her family also reached out to the Immigration Clinic for assistance in their asylum case. Ordinarily, children can be included on their parents’ asylum applications so that if the parent wins asylum, the child wins as well. However, Ms. S was too old to be included in her father’s case. Instead, she would have to meet the high burden of asylum all on her own.
This fall, Sarah Nagle, J.D. Class of 2024, was assigned to work on Ms. S’s asylum case. Sarah’s first task was to write Ms. S’s affidavit. Asylum affidavits are a critical piece of evidence because an asylum applicant’s testimony alone can be sufficient to prove their case. Since interviews with Ms. S about her story had already been completed, Sarah worked with Professor Kern-Scheerer to best capture Ms. S’s voice in her affidavit. “Sarah faced a unique challenge in writing Ms. S’s affidavit,” said Professor Kern-Scheerer. “Her assignment was to capture Ms. S’s personality and convey her fears without having heard her tell the story herself. This also underscored the importance of prior students having kept meticulous notes from previous interviews and discussions. Sarah met this challenge with thoughtful persistence, and wrote an excellent affidavit for Ms. S. ”
“Working on an affidavit was unlike any legal writing I had ever done before,” said Sarah. “Focusing on what was important to Ms. S—family, peace, and a willingness to stand by her convictions—helped anchor me in her perspective. Even though every word of the affidavit was based on her own words, I had doubts about my success until I reviewed the affidavit with her and received a smile, firm nod, and assertive ‘yes’ that I had captured what she wanted to convey. Being entrusted with helping tell someone else’s story was a great honor and fantastic learning experience.”
After completing Ms. S’s affidavit, Sarah next turned to researching conditions in Afghanistan relevant to Ms. S’s case. While it is easier to find evidence about the Taliban’s brutality against former government officials or former members of the military, finding evidence of the Taliban’s violence against their family members is not as simple. Sarah worked with Clinic Professor Nicole Medved next on finding and preparing the country conditions evidence that would best support Ms. S’s claims. This evidence played a critical role in contextualizing Ms. S’s fears of returning to Afghanistan.
In November 2023, after finishing all of the forms, affidavit, and evidence gathering, the Clinic submitted Ms. S’s asylum application to USCIS.
To everyone’s surprise, Ms. S was scheduled for an asylum interview just three weeks later. Sarah and Professor Medved worked closely with Ms. S to prepare her for what to expect at the asylum interview. Sarah also prepared her closing argument for Ms. S, demonstrating how Ms. S’s affidavit and country conditions evidence all prove that Ms. S merits a grant of asylum.
Sarah Nagle, J.D. ’24, reviewing Ms. S’s case prior to her Asylum Interview (Fall 2023).
In December, Professor Medved and Sarah Nagle accompanied Ms. S to her asylum interview in Arlington, Virginia. After Ms. S’s two-hour interview, Sarah delivered her closing argument to the officer.
“Actually getting to speak during a legal proceeding, instead of just observing, was incredible,” said Sarah. “It was really empowering to be trusted with such an important moment in someone’s life, and also reassuring to have Professor Medved right there in the interview with me after having helped me prepare and rehearse the statement!”
After Sarah’s closing argument, all that was left to do was wait. Despite requirements from Congress that her case should be decided quickly, the Clinic’s experience showed that Ms. S would likely wait many more months—or even years—before hearing a decision on her case.
Last week, the Clinic received notice that Ms. S’s asylum case was approved. Ms. S’s case marks the fastest decision ever received on any asylum case the Clinic has submitted.
Then, just hours later, the Clinic received notice that Mr. K’s asylum case was also approved, nearly one year after his asylum interview. With Mr. K’s case approved, his wife Mrs. K was also automatically granted asylum.
Now that their asylum cases have been granted, Ms. S, Mr. K, and Mrs. K can all live in the United States without fear of being forced to return to Afghanistan. They will be eligible to receive lawful permanent residency (their “green cards”) in one year, and eligible to apply for citizenship five years after that.
“My experience at the William and Mary Immigration Clinic was so meaningful,” said Melissa. “I know that I actually had a positive impact on my clients’ lives. It makes me smile when I think of Mr. K calling me his ‘Big Little Sister’ (because I’m taller than him but younger than him). I know my time and work was valued by Mr. and Ms. K.”
“Hearing that my client’s asylum case had been approved was the most incredible, and surreal, experience,” said Sarah. “Because students work in the Clinic for at most two semesters and USCIS usually operates on a timeline far longer than that, I’d gotten very used to the idea that I wouldn’t see the results of my work during my time in the Clinic. But because of the unusually quick turnaround for this asylum case, I got to share the news with Ms. S in an email that contained a lot more enthusiasm than is usually warranted in a legal context. It was a wonderful way to close out my time with this client.”
“We could not be happier for Mr. K, Mrs. K, and Ms. S or prouder of the Clinic students who worked tirelessly to prepare their asylum cases,” said Professor Kern-Scheerer. “Sarah’s and Melissa’s work, and the strong relationships that they built with the clients through their time in the Clinic, is emblematic of the incredible work that our Clinic students do here every day. In this busy season as we wrap up the end of this academic year, we’re grateful for the opportunity to pause and celebrate these lifechanging outcomes.”
Victories like these are made possible by the Clinic’s generous supporters. You can make wins like this a reality for more immigrants in Hampton Roads by donating to the Immigration Clinic.
The Clinic cannot guarantee any particular results for any particular individual or particular case. While the Clinic celebrates our victories, we recognize that each case is unique. Every noncitizen should consult with a licensed attorney about their case if they are concerned about their situation or are interested in applying for any form of immigration relief. The Clinic cannot promise any particular outcome or any timeframe to any client or potential client.
*All client names and initials have been changed for confidentiality and security
*********************
Many congrats to all involved in more great, life-saving work from the Clinic. Once again, representation, scholarship, and exceptional preparation win the day and help the system improve efficiency and deliver justice!
My only question is why hasn’t the Government issued “positive precedent” cases dealing with repetitive situations like this?
“Gagged” Garland’s DOJ has taken extreme steps to stop Immigration Judges from publicly criticizing his dysfunctional Immigration Courts! PHOTO: Public Domain via Creative Commons
Joe Davidson, “Federal Insider,” from p. 2 of today’s WashPost (print edition):
. . . .
In a February email to New York-based immigration Judge Mimi Tsankov, the union president, and Judge Samuel Cole, the union’s executive vice president in Chicago, Sheila McNulty, the chief immigration judge in the department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), said they are prohibited from making public statements “without supervisory approval and any Speaking Engagement Team review your supervisor believes necessary.”
That warning came after Tsankov in October told a Senate Judiciary immigration subcommittee hearing that “Democrat and Republican administrations share the failure of the DOJ’s immigration court management,” saying “immigration courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads, and unacceptable backlogs for many years.” Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), NAIJ’s parent union, cited Tsankov’s congressional testimony as an example of giving “judges a voice” that’s now silenced.
McNulty referred to a controversial and hotly contested Trump administration action that led to the decertification of the immigration judges’ union, when she wrote “any bargaining agreement … that may have existed previously is not valid at present.”
On Nov. 2, 2020, the day before Trump, who waged war on federal unions, lost his reelection bid, the Federal Labor Relations Authority ruled that immigration judges are management employees precluded from union representation. That means, according to McNulty, they cannot speak out as union leaders because she considers their association to be a “group” and not a recognized labor organization. IFPTE has asked the Biden administration to reverse the immigration review office’s “inappropriate and misguided application of the agency speaking engagement policy.”
This must be an embarrassment to proudly pro-union President Biden, who reversed other anti-federal labor organization policies put in place under Trump.
McNulty’s action drew heated reaction from three Republicans who often vote against union interests. “The Committee takes seriously the Department’s effort to silence immigration judges,” wrote Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and its immigration subcommittee, respectively. In a letter to the attorney general, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said any effort “to silence immigration judges … is absolutely unacceptable.”
Grassley also noted that McNulty’s order “failed to include the anti-gag provision as required by law.”
That’s a key point in the Office of Special Counsel’s notice.
. . . .
[IFPTE President Matt] Biggs called the Justice Department office’s policy “an outrageous act of censure and an attack on freedom of the press and transparency.”
“Intentionally or not,” he added, the directive “resulted in a not-so-subtle message to rank-and-file immigration judges to think carefully before talking to congressional lawmakers as whistleblowers or otherwise.”
*********************
Hon. Mimi Tsankov President, NAIJ — She “blew the whistle” on the continuing “bipartisan due process mess at EOIR” during recent Congressional testimony. Her “DOJ handlers” were not amused!
Read Joe’s complete column at the above link.
Both Parties, Congress, the Executive, and the Article III Courts share blame for the current untenable mess at EOIR, where Due Process, fundamental fairness, quality control, expertise, and practical efficiency are mere afterthoughts, at best! Although there is no sign that it will happen in the near future, the answer is clear and has been for decades: Congress must put aside partisan differences, stop “jockeying for advantage,” and create an independent Article I Immigration Court with a merit-based selection system for judges and professional court administration. Then, let the system work and the chips fall where they may!
You can’t “run” a court system like a “Vatican-style” bureaucratic agency! How many times does that have to be proved for Congress to finally act? Yes, it’s a “big deal!’ Probably the biggest, most widely ignored, most achievable, most important (millions of lives and futures are literally at stake here) piece of solving the “immigration puzzle!”
Due Process is a true team effort! PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center
Maria Daniella Prieshoff writes on LinkedIn:
Maria Daniella Prieshoff Managing Attorney Tahirih Justice Center Baltimore, MD PHOTO: Tahirih
Want to level up your #advocacy skills for your #genderbased #asylum cases in #immigrationcourt?Want to learn from a real immigration judge the basics of presenting your case before the immigration court?Then join me for Tahirih Justice Center’s”Advancing Justice: Gender-Based Violence Asylum Litigation in Immigration Court” webinar series!
Part 1 of the series is on April 23, 12-1:30pm. It will focus on the case law and strategy you’ll need to present your best gender-based asylum case, including how to handle credibility, competency, and stipulations.Monica Mananzan from CAIR Coalition will join me in this webinar. To register for Part 1: http://bit.ly/3xvwPyt
Honorable Lisa Dornell U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired) Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Part 2 of the series is on April 25, 12-1:30pm. Retired Immigration Judge Lisa Dornell will explain the best practices of litigating gender-based asylum cases before an immigration judge, as well as recommendations for direct examination, cross-examination, and how to handle issues with a client’s memory, trauma, or court interpretation.To register for Part 2: https://bit.ly/3PXJqRn
Please share with your networks!Our goal for this webinar series is to help pro bono attorneys and advocates enhance their the advocacy for #genderbasedviolence to have #immigrationjustice – we’d love for you to join us!
Wonderful learning opportunity! Many thanks to everyone involved in putting it together!
Litigating gender-based asylum cases can still be an “ordeal” at EOIR, despite some decent precedents. Learn how to avoid this fate for your clients! 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Wonder whatever happened to the “gender-based regulations” that Biden ordered to be drafted by Executive Order issued shortly after taking office? At this point, given his “lobotomized/running scared/retrograde/Trumpy Lite” position on asylum seekers and immigrants’ rights, probably just as well that they died an unheralded bureaucratic death (just as similar assignments have in the last three Dem Administrations over a quarter century).
Outside of a few Immigration Judges, who, because they understand the issue and have worked with asylum-seeking women, would never be asked anyway, I can’t really think of anyone at DOJ who would actually be qualified to draft legally-compliant gender-based regulations!
GOP are misogynists. Dem politicos are spineless and can’t “connect the dots” between their deadly, tone-deaf policies and poor adjudicative practices aimed at women of color in the asylum system and other racist and misogynistic polities being pushed aggressively by the far right! While, thankfully, it might not “be 1864” in the Dem Party, sadly, inexplicably, and quote contrary to what Biden and Harris claim these days, it’s not 2024 either, particularly for those caught up in their deadly, broken, and indolently run immigration, asylum, and border enforcement systems!
Nevertheless, Cruz argues correctly that Isidro-Zamorano, 25 I. & N. Dec. 829, leaves open the possibility for adjudication of the merits of a cancellation application where the qualifying relative aged out of qualifying status because of undue procedural delays. As explained below, the facts are unclear as to why briefing and decision were delayed. As such, we remand for the BIA to address in the first instance whether the delays on appeal in this case were undue and attributable to the agency, and if they were, for the BIA to review the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal in the first instance.
**********************************
This is yet another in a long list of examples of how the Circuit actually did a better job than the BIA of locating, understanding, and following binding BIA precedent potentially favorable to the respondent!
I wouldn’t bet on today’s BIA adopting on remand an interpretation favoring the applicant, even though, as pointed out by the Second Circuit, such an interpretation would be legally possible. Perhaps, this is a case where amici need to “weigh in” before the BIA on remand.
In my mind, it also raises questions of whether the numerous unnecessary delays, backlogs, and confusion caused by the BIA’s failure to follow the statutory language on the “stop time rule” for 42B cancellation, as twice found by the Supremes, could be categorized as “unnecessary — and totally foreseeable — delay?” Both courts and advocates warned the BIA — in vain — that ignoring the clear language of the statute was a huge mistake that would create more unnecessary disorder in the already dysfunctional EOIR system! But, in their haste to rule in favor of DHS Enforcement, the BIA once again ignored the experts.
🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!
PWS
04-07-24
******************************
ADDENDUM FROM “SIR JEFFREY:”
“Thanks, Paul (and hi to everyone!), but credit to Ray Fasano for flagging this.
Best, Jeff”
Thanks, Ray!
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
Becky Wolozin Senior Attorney, National Center For Youth Law PHOTO:Linkedin
Becky Wolozin, Senior Attorney, National Center For Youth Law, posted on LinkedIn:
I feel so privileged to have been part of this, to do something a good thing for people in this cruel world. Immensely proud of the advocates, migrants, and colleagues who worked together to hold the government to account and protect immigrant children caught in the fray of politics and an uncaring immigration system. It is a professional dream come true to be a member of Flores Counsel with National Center for Youth Law!
“Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late!” ~ Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett
Thanks, Becky, for your talent, dedication, and humanity, all of which stand in sharp contrast to border bureaucrats, DOJ Attorneys, and scofflaw nativists who have “weaponized” myths, dehumanization, dereliction of legal duties, and abdication of moral responsibility! This is a great example of the type of expertise and teamwork to get the job done that is all too seldom seen from the Administration, Congress, and the Judiciary in today’s toxic and too often fact- and morality-free immigration (non) debate! I’m glad that Judge Gee saw through the Garland DOJ’s pathetic attempt to evade legal responsibilities by making arguments that easily could’ be characterized as frivolous!
You can check it out yourself as quoted from the above NYT:
In response, lawyers for the Department of Justice argued that because the children had not yet been formally taken into custody by American customs officials, they were not obligated to provide such service. They did not dispute that the conditions in the encampments were poor.
Come on, man!👎🤯
Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot,” and “Theater of the Absurd,” perhaps surprisingly, have continuing relevance to today’s “off the rails” immigration “debate.” Naseer’s Motley Group in The Rose Bowl Merlaysamuel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg Copy [[File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg|Waiting_for_Godot_in_Doon_School]] Copy December 8, 2011I also loved the quote from “Waiting for Godot!” As Courtside readers may know, the “Theater of the Absurd,”Samuel Beckett, and “Waiting for Godot” have previously found their way into my postings about Garland’s incredibly lackadaisical approach to “justice @ Justice!” See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/22/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-followng-scathing-report-on-abuse-of-kids-in-immigration-court-eoir-announces-some-reforms-rekha-sharma-crawford-reports/.
Today [April 2] at 1:15 in the afternoon the heart of a giant of jurisprudence stopped beating. He alludes to the lawyer defending human rights, civil rights and constitutional law, the great friend of Mexico and Latin American immigrants, lawyer Peter Schey. He was 77 years old.
Schey was born in the Republic of South Africa, on March 23, 1947. He came with his parents, who emigrated to the United States. Upon graduating from high school in 1966, he applied for and was admitted to pursue a bachelor’s degree in psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, where he graduated in 1970. Additionally, in 1973 he completed his studies in law school at the California Western School. of Law.
His career as a jurist began in 1973. He practiced law at the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, where he had legal representation of low-income immigrants, until 1978, when he moved to the City of Los Angeles, where he founded the National Immigration Law Center.
Desire for justice motivated him to move from San Diego to LA
The main reason that prompted him to leave the City of San Diego was related to the arrest of Mexican activist José Jacques Medina. He had been arrested and imprisoned by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Due to his undocumented status, the FBI handed him over to the Department of Immigration and Naturalization (INS) to immediately deport him to Mexico. Jacques Medina’s wife, Rosario Moreno, traveled from Los Angeles to San Diego to ask Schey to assume the legal defense of her husband.
He immediately accepted and took on the defense with passion and professionalism, which would last for a dozen years until in 1989 or 1990 his case was closed because Jacques Medina requested and obtained his immigration regularization through the “Amnesty Law” of 1986. During that period, the defense stopped his deportation under consideration of the defendant’s right to asylum. He argued that if he were returned to Mexico his life was in danger.
Founded legal institution of historical significance
In 1980, Schey founded and became president and CEO of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law. He remained at the head of this important institution for 44 years and 4 months.
In these four decades, Schey filed Class Action lawsuits in favor of the constitutional rights of millions of immigrants from various parts of the world, but especially Mexicans and Latin Americans. I will mention three examples:
1.- In 1994, the Californian political extreme right adopted a fascist, racist and cruel policy against undocumented immigrants and created Proposition 187, which was approved by a majority of the state electorate in November of that year. This resolution denied medical care, social services and education to people suspected of having entered California irregularly.
However, the day after its approval, this ordinance was stopped in court by a lawsuit led by Peter Schey and known as League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson. After a severe legal battle, this very important lawsuit prevented said proposal from being implemented, which meant a major offense to the migrant community. In July 1999, Democratic Governor Gray Davis reached an agreement with leaders of pro-immigrant organizations and his lawyers and gave up appealing the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that had declared it unconstitutional. And therefore, this disastrous Proposition was canceled without it ever being able to be implemented.
2.- Another legal case, known under the title Flores v. Reno established a minimum standard of quality of life for undocumented immigrant children detained in the United States and recognized the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law as the only nongovernmental organization authorized to certify that detention centers housing any undocumented minor met the agreed minimum standards and also established the prompt release of the minors and that they could be delivered to relatives residing in the United States as soon as possible.
3.- I cannot close this remembrance of Schey without mentioning the case known as Plyler v. Doe. Schey participated in this lawsuit and it was filed because in 1977 the State of Texas ordered that in the public school system, children who did not provide proof of being citizens of the United States would have to pay the school district, to which their school belonged, one thousand dollars. or would not be allowed access to the instruction.
In 1982, the US Supreme Court ruled that ‘a state cannot prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school.’
With these three examples, among many others that could be cited, it is clear that millions of undocumented girls and boys and workers must be eternally grateful to benefactor Peter Schey because thanks to his efforts in the courts, today they enjoy legal protections.
In short, thanks to his social education, his effort, persistence and tenacity as a general of immigration laws and constitutional law, as our great colleague Peter Schey undoubtedly was, countless immigrants can enjoy a decent life.
*Juan José Gutiérrez is executive director of the Full Rights Coalition for Immigrants based in Los Angeles.
***************************
Needless to say, I butted heads with Peter a number of times during my tenure in the Office of General Counsel at the “Legacy INS” (1976-87).I always had the greatest respect for his legal talent, courage, dedication, and persistence! He will be missed! But, his contributions to the law and the organizations he founded live on.
Paulina Vera and Alberto Benítez joined Alexander Love, a former client of the Immigration Clinic at GW Law, for his naturalization ceremony—“the happy part of immigration cases,” in Vera’s words. (Contributed photo)
Comedies often end with a wedding, and there’s a marriage in this story, but it’s not a comedy. This is an immigration story, and it ends in a naturalization ceremony, with some painful, dramatic scenes along the way. It begins in the Soviet Union with a gay boy called Sasha, and ends in the United States with a gay man named Alexander. They’re the same person, with a lot of credit for that transformation due to students and faculty of the Immigration Clinic at GW Law.
Alexander Love, as he is now known, was born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union. His family moved to suburban Moscow, where he grew up and was expected to become highly educated. As a young teen, he realized he is gay, but he came out only to a few trusted friends and, aged 18, began serving in the Soviet Army. After being discharged in 1991, just as the Soviet Union was breaking apart, he went back to school.
“I was artistic and the majority of my subjects were things like physics, chemistry and mathematics,” Love said. “The only classes I passed were English classes.” Following his passion for working with textiles, he quit school and began sewing clothes for himself and for friends who ordered garments from him. He also taught English.
In these years just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union dissolved and Mikhail Gorbachev, then the Russian president, instituted major reforms. Gay bars and clubs opened (and have since closed) and Western values were embraced. Love befriended Americans living in Moscow and realized how different his life was from theirs. Though Russian society was more relaxed in this period, it could still be very difficult and even dangerous for LGTBQ individuals. In 1998, Love visited the United States for the first time, returning in 1999 and again in 2000, when he first came to Washington, D.C.
“I had been to Spain a few times, so I knew how different it was for gay people outside of Russia,” he said. Gay life at home, even in the more open climate at that time, was risky. “Verbal and physical harassment was always there. You could be stopped on the street or followed by a police car, mostly for the bribes. Sometimes they put some kind of powder in your car.” In taxis, on public transportation, even in gay clubs, he said, people were harassed just because they looked different.
Today, Love prefers not to dwell on the worst abuses he suffered. In 2001, he came to GW Law’s Immigration Clinic for help with his asylum application. Applicants fleeing persecution of LGBTQ people in their home countries need to prove past persecution or that they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Though ill treatment of LGBTQ individuals in Russia is well documented, Love’s application was denied.
Faculty and students in the Immigration Clinic didn’t give up. They assisted him in getting a work permit that allowed him to stay in the United States while they worked on his case. Because he was a clothing designer who had worked with singer Mariah Carey and other persons of note, he was approved for a work permit based on his special skills. But fate quickly intervened.
“Unfortunately,” Love said, “I was diagnosed with HIV, and at that time, you could not apply for a work visa if you had HIV.” (A year later, the law was changed.)
Years passed, and GW Law students came and went with the natural rhythm of matriculation and graduation, but professor Alberto M. Benítez, director of the Immigration Clinic, was a steady presence. So was the man Love said brought stability to his life, his boyfriend (now husband) Michael Love. When same-sex marriage was legalized in 2013, they had been together for eight years. Benítez told Alexander (whose last name then was Sozonov) that if he and Love were married, the clinic could work on obtaining a marriage-based adjustment to his request for permission to remain in America. The partners eagerly wed, but to get their marriage recognized as legitimate in the eyes of the immigration system, both men had to make many court appearances.
A high-stakes version of ‘The Newlywed Game’
Marriage to an American citizen did not automatically mean Love could be granted status as a permanent resident and issued a green card. Sydney Josephson, J.D. ’14, was one of the students who worked on his case. One of her significant contributions to Love’s case was filing a motion to get an approved marriage-based immigrant petition establishing that his union was made in good faith.
Sydney Josephson, J.D. ’14, is flanked by Alexander Love and Michael Love in April 2014 on the day of their interview in support of their marriage-based immigrant petition, which was approved soon after. (Contributed photo)
The process of gaining such recognition can be tricky, according to Josephson, who now practices immigration law with the Fragomen firm in Atlanta. “Sometimes they’ll put people in separate rooms,” she said, “and ask questions like, ‘What color is your fridge?’ One person will say white and the other person will say black. And immigration officials say, ‘This isn’t a good faith marriage. You don’t live together.’”
But Love’s application went smoothly. He and his husband did not go through interviews in separate rooms. They had been together for so long by then that there was little doubt about the nature of their marriage.
Some applicants see less happy results, Josephson said. “A colleague told me about a woman who was asked, ‘What does your husband wear to sleep in?’ She said, ‘Pajamas,’ and the man said, ‘I sleep in gym shorts and a T-shirt.’ And that was one of the reasons they were denied because the officer didn’t think they actually lived together. But I think someone who grew up in another country may think of sweatpants and T-shirt as pajamas.”
Working in immigration law can be extremely rewarding, according to Josephson, because it feels good to help people like Love.
“He’s an amazing person,” she said. “He has a beautiful relationship with Michael, and they’re wonderful people.”
Love was granted status as a permanent resident of the United States in 2016. He enjoys working as a textile librarian for the Washington Design Center.
“It’s a library, but instead of books you have tons of fabrics, trims, leathers and wallpapers,” Love said. “You have to know where everything is at and how to handle them. I’m very happy in this position.”
Clients from around the world
Alumna Paulina Vera, B.A. ’12, J.D. ’15, is a professorial lecturer in law and a supervising attorney of the Immigration Clinic. Since returning to GW seven years ago, she has supervised the students working on Love’s case and others.
“I actually was a student in the Immigration Clinic in my third year at GW Law,” Vera said. “I went to law school because I wanted to be an immigration attorney. I’m the daughter of two immigrants. My mom is from England; my dad, rest in peace, was from Peru. I grew up in Tucson, an hour away from the U.S.-Mexico border. So, immigration has always been a pretty big part of my personal life.”
The Immigration Clinic at GW Law started in 1979 and has helped countless people seek asylum or resist deportation. Clinic members have assisted victims of trafficking as well as DREAMers and youth covered by the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. They have worked with clients from El Salvador, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, Indonesia, China and elsewhere. Recently, they helped a returning client—a woman they successfully represented in her application for asylum in 2018—bring her four children to the United States from Honduras.
Benítez and Vera currently have a cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to review the decision of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Moisés Cruz Cruz, an undocumented Mexican man living in Virginia. During a routine traffic stop, a police officer asked Cruz his name. In a nervous moment, Cruz combined his own name with his brother’s name. Though he immediately corrected his mistake and wrote his correct name and date of birth on a piece of paper, the officer charged him with false identification, a misdemeanor. On the advice of a lawyer, Cruz entered a guilty plea, and as a result he is now facing deportation. Three of his children are U.S. citizens.
“To me,” Vera said, “this case is very indicative of the overarching immigration consequences that fairly minor criminal convictions can have. Are we going to separate a man from his family of five who has a partner who’s not from Mexico, so could not go back to Mexico with him, over something that stemmed from a traffic stop?”
Benítez said the Immigration Clinic staff unsuccessfully tried, through a different lawyer, to get Cruz’s guilty plea withdrawn. The case hinges on the question of whether Cruz committed a “crime involving moral turpitude,” which justifies deportation in immigration cases. Such crimes are typically defined as depraved acts involving child pornography, rape and other violent crimes such as murder.
“He did plead guilty, and he is in violation of the Virginia state code,” Benítez said. “We’re not disputing that. But is it an immigration violation? We hope that the Supreme Court agrees with us that it is not. State criminal law and federal immigration law are two different things. If the Supreme Court agrees with us, Moisés would be eligible to apply for—not necessarily get—a remedy that we call an immigration law cancellation of removal. That is for long-term residents of the United States who have no status, who establish ties to the United States and establish that they are good citizens.”
‘These folks are not criminals’
Growing up in Buffalo, New York, as the child of Mexican parents, Benítez never discussed immigration with them. His interest in immigration law was piqued when he was in college and learned that applications for asylum were processed with political rather than humanitarian concerns uppermost at play. He went to law school during the Reagan years and has taught at GW since 1996. After practicing immigration law for decades, Benítez said he knows at least one thing for sure.
“There is no border crisis,” he said. “These folks are not criminals. They do not bring disease. They are people trying to save themselves and save their kids. And the way that certain elements in our society demonize them is just plain wrong.”
There is never a shortage of clients at the Immigration Clinic, he said. On the contrary, they sometimes have to make wrenching decisions about which cases to take and which to decline. On average, he estimates that the clinic helps about 50 people per year, including the family members of clients. The clinic’s efforts on behalf of clients, Love among them, can stretch over several years.
“As long as the clients are prepared to continue fighting,” Benítez said, “we are prepared to continue fighting. The student attorneys that I’ve supervised, including Paulina, are the best. Whatever they lack in experience, they make up for in zeal, intelligence, professionalism and empathy.”
Love’s gratitude for the students who helped him remains undimmed.
“The students were the stars of my case,” he said. “I should frame their pictures. I’m thankful to all of them.”
The closing scene in Love’s immigration story takes place at his naturalization ceremony in 2020. Benítez and Vera were present to congratulate him on becoming a U.S. citizen.
*******************
I was privileged to have the GW Law Clinic appear before me in the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court during my 13 year tenure there. Professor Alberto Benítez is a long-time friend, neighbor, and fellow dog walker! I’m also proud that Professor Paulina Vera is an alum of the Arlington Internship Program and a “charter member” of the New Due Process Army. Additionally, Attorney Sydney Josephson, JD-‘14, instrumental in this case, now practices with Fragomen, a firm where I was a partner from 1992 until my appointment as BIA Chair in 1995.
Congrats to the GW Clinic on 45 years of spectacular success, leadership in the legal profession, and many lives saved!
“On April 1, 2020, the Department of Justice (“the Department” or “DOJ”) published an interim final rule (“IFR”) with request for comments that amended its regulations relating to the organization of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) by adding two Board member positions, thereby expanding the Board to 23 members. This final rule responds to comments received and adds five additional Board member positions, thereby expanding the Board to 28 members. The final rule also clarifies that temporary Board members serve renewable terms of up to six months and that temporary Board members are appointed by the Attorney General. DATES: This rule is effective on [April 2, 2024].”
[Note: Applicants are encouraged to apply NOW on the theory that spillover from the applicant pool for the current openings here and here might be considered for the additional five slots.]
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
*****************
Ironically, particularly for those of us directly affected, the BIA had 23 authorized members a little over two decades ago!
Then, the infamous “Ashcroft purge” cut that number back to 12, citing bogus “efficiency grounds” to cover a scheme that ousted those BIA Judges who consistently stood up for due process, fundamental fairness, and migrants’ legal rights!
That sent the EOIR system into a tailspin which shook the Circuit Courts when almost immediately flooded with a tidal wave of deficient EOIR decisions, particularly relating to erroneous “adverse credibility rulings.”
The emasculated BIA, of course, rapidly proved too small to function in even a minimally competent manner. To “cover up” the adverse effects of Ashcroft’s political scheme, and to conceal the institutional failures of DOJ to protect individual rights of migrants, particularly those of color, Administrations of both parties resorted to the “gimmick” of quietly appointing “Temporary Board Members” from among BIA senior staff to keep the ship (sort of) afloat. Temporary Board Members were not allowed to vote at en banc conferences, had uncertain tenure, and had every incentive not to dissent or otherwise “rock the boat” if they wanted to compete for future “permanent” vacancies. (Although, arguably, the whole point of the Ashcroft purge was that all BIA judges were essentially “temporary” in the eyes of a GOP AG).
Over the decades following the purge, the DOJ gradually added permanent BIA Judge positions, without ever publicly acknowledging Ashcroft’s politicalscheme and its debilitating effects.
The clinic assisted M, a lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) from Fiji who has lived in the United States with his family for the past 21 years. M had some minor brushes with the criminal justice system as a young adult, and DHS alleged that the government could deport M based on a 1999 conviction. M’s removal case was dismissed after the clinic submitted a brief on his behalf to immigration court arguing that M’s 1999 conviction could not lead to his deportation under Ninth Circuit case law.
Melinda Koster (’11) and Shira Levine(’11) moved to dismiss the deportation proceedings against M arguing that DHS failed to meet its burden of proof under the federal immigration laws. After extensive strategic thinking, legal research and consultation with their client, Melinda and Shira submitted a legal brief to the immigration court arguing that M’s 1999 conviction could not lead to his deportation under Ninth Circuit case law. The Immigration Judge agreed with Melinda and Shira’s reasoning and ruled that the government cannot deport M. This victory built on the success of Orion Danjuma (’10) and Jenny Kim (’11), who previously defeated DHS’s initial charge that M.A. was removable as an “aggravated felon,” a classification that would have resulted in almost certain deportation to Fiji.
*******************
No possible way an unrepresented individual could have prevailed! It would have been a “slam dunk” for DHS.
Yet Article IIIs, Congress, the Administration all insist that due process doesn’t require representation like this! What total BS💩!
Pass Immigration 101? Understand “mixed motive” and how it should be used to protect, not reject? Willing to stand up for due process and the legal and human rights of migrants? Prepared to promote justice and resist the evil culture of “any reason to deny?” We need YOU on the BIA today! “Revolution by evolution” is a crock. We need an aggressive “Due Process Revolution” from within EOIR NOW! Public Domain
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 23-1443
AMGAD SAMIR HALIM KHALIL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Gelpí, Howard, and Rikelman,
Circuit Judges.
Saher J. Macarius, with whom Audrey Botros and Law Offices of Saher J. Macarius LLC were on brief, for petitioner.
Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, with whom Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, were on brief, for respondent.
Julian Bava, with whom Adriana Lafaille, Sabrineh Ardalan, Tiffany Lieu, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc., and Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical Program, were on brief, for amici curiae.
March 29, 2024
RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge.
. . . .
We turn, then, to Khalil’s argument that the factual record compels the conclusion that religion was at least one central reason for his beating. We review the factual finding
– 15 –
against Khalil on this issue under the substantial evidence standard. Pineda-Maldonado, 91 F.4th at 87.
Here, a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Khalil’s religion qualifies as a central reason for the beating. Khalil’s attackers demanded he convert, beat him when he refused to do so, demanded again that he convert, and beat him more intensely when he again refused. The attackers’ own statements show that, regardless of whatever else prompted the beating, Khalil would not have been harmed had he agreed to convert. See Sanchez-Vasquez v. Garland, 994 F.3d 40, 47 (1st Cir. 2021) (deeming perpetrators’ statements essential to the nexus determination); Ivanov v. Holder, 736 F.3d 5, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2013) (determining persecutors were driven by a religious motive that they “recognized and gave voice to” during their attack of the applicant); Singh v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2008) (explaining that perpetrators’ statements “are a crucial factor” for determining the central reason for harm); cf. Esteban-Garcia v. Garland, 94 F.4th 186, 194 (1st Cir. 2024) (finding no nexus because persecutors “didn’t say anything” about the applicant’s protected ground).
The attackers’ demands that Khalil convert to another faith and their increased violence in response to his refusal to do so make this case unlike Sompotan v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2008), which the IJ relied on in finding that the beating was
– 16 –
the result of a personal dispute only. In Sompotan, we held that the record did not compel the conclusion that those who robbed the petitioners and their restaurant while yelling “Chinese bastard, crazy Christian, crazy Chinese” were motivated by religious and racial animus rather than by a desire to rob because “[t]he fact that [robbers] would stoop to the level of using racial slurs is, unfortunately, not surprising.” 533 F.3d at 70. By contrast, the attackers here did not make just a passing reference to Khalil’s religion. Rather, they made religious demands on him during the attack and beat him more vigorously when he refused to cede to those demands.
The arguments the government offers as to why substantial evidence supports the agency’s no-nexus determination do not alter our conclusion. The government emphasizes that Khalil recounted his attackers’ demands that he convert only in his asylum interview and written declaration attached to his asylum application, but not in his testimony before the IJ. But in evaluating whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion, we are tasked with reviewing “the record as a whole.” Barnica-Lopez, 59 F.4th at 527. Further, at his hearing, Khalil described the beating exclusively during the government’s cross-examination, and the government strategically asked him only one question about what his attackers said during the beating: Did they reference the blood test results? The framing of the
– 17 –
government’s questions on cross-examination does not change our assessment of the record as a whole. The government also contends that, because Khalil testified that the imam had no issue with him until the imam found out about the blood test results, religion did not motivate the attack. But that argument ignores the attackers’ own words and actions.
For all these reasons, we find that the record compels the conclusion that Khalil’s religion played more than an incidental role in his beating. We therefore grant the petition for review as to Khalil’s asylum claim premised on mixed-motive persecution.5
. . . .
********************
Many congrats and much appreciation to the NDPA team involved in this litigation!👏🙏
Oh yeah, the BIA also screwed up the CAT analysis! 🤯
This is another classic example of deficient scholarship and an “any reason to deny culture” that Garland, inexplicably, has allowed to flourish in some parts of EOIR on his watch!
This is the REAL “immigration crisis” gripping America, and one that obviously could be solved with better-qualified judges and dynamic due-processed-focused leadership at EOIR!
“Revolution by evolution” is a meaningless piece of bureaucratic gobbledegook I sometimes heard during Dem Administrations to justify their often gutless, inept, and dilatory approach to due process at EOIR! What total poppycock! EOIR needs a dramatic “Due Process Revolution” from within! And, it needs it yesterday, with lives and the future of American justice on the line!
There’s an opportunity, open until April 12, 2024, to become a BIA Appellate Judge and start improving the trajectory of American justice at the “retail level!”
“Singh experienced multiple physical attacks and death threats over an eight-month period, from November of 2014 to June of 2015. No reasonable factfinder would conclude that Singh did not experience serious harm rising to the level of persecution. … For all these reasons we find that the record compels a finding that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. … [T]he BIA did not independently analyze relocation and determine that the government met its burden. Rather, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasons for finding that internal relocation was safe and reasonable. In doing so, the BIA adopted the IJ’s flawed relocation analysis, which did not afford Singh the presumption of past persecution or shift the burden to the government to prove that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate within India. … In sum, because the BIA erred in its relocation analysis, we grant Singh’s petition to review his claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for consideration in light of Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654. … For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT Singh’s petition in part and REMAND to the BIA to consider (1) whether Singh is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of statutorily protected grounds by the government or individuals whom the government was unable or unwilling to control; (2) if so, whether the DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (3) whether Singh is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications for his ability to support his qualifying relatives through work in El Salvador. … The BIA’s decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
—Daniel M. KowalskiEditor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
******************
What if a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon were routinely engaging in “surgical malpractice?” Wouldn’t it be a cause for grave concern?🤯
Almost every week, sometimes multiple times, the BIA mishandles the basics in potential “life or death” cases. Yet, Garland somehow shrugs it off! This not only adds to the “dehumanization” of migrants (their lives don’t count), but also badly skews the statistical profile that undergirds much of the misguided immigration (non) dialogue.
If the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, huge “over-denial” problem at EOIR were addressed with better qualified judges and adjudicators, it would become apparent that many more, probably a majority, of those caught up in the dysfunction at EOIR and the Asylum Office are qualified to remain in the U.S. in some status. And, proper positive precedents would guide practitioners, ICE Counsel, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to correct results without protracted litigation that eventually burdens the Courts of Appeals, causes avoidable remands, fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and contributes mightily to the mushrooming EOIR backlog!
As a result, these cases could be prepared, prioritized, granted, and individuals could get on with their lives and maximize their human potential to help our nation — just as generations before them have done including the ancestors of almost all Americans! How soon some of us forget!
The real, largely self-created, “immigration crisis,” is NOT insufficient “deterrence, detention, and cruelty” at the border! It’s the grotesque failure of all three branches of Government to insist on a fair, timely, well-staffed, professionally-managed, due-process-compliant adjudication, review, and resettlement system for asylum seekers and other immigrants. It’s also the ongoing attempt to “cover up” and minimize our Government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, particularly those asserting their legal right to apply at our borders and in the interior regardless of status!
The racially-driven “targeting” of asylum seekers at the border is a ruse designed to deflect attention from the realities of human migration, what drives it, and the failure of governments across the board to come to grips with them and to fulfill their legal responsibilities to treat all persons fairly, humanely, and in accordance with correct interpretations and applications of the law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s additional commentary on Singh from my Round Table ⚖️⚔️ colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
The IJ was really determined to deny on this one. And I guess Vandyke had filled his quota of once in a lifetime for finding fault with the government, and thus had no choice but to dissent.
How would YOU like to face a system “determined to deny” with your life on the line? How would Garland like it?
Actually, under the generous “well-founded fear” standard applicable to asylum (Cardoza-Fonseca/Mogharrabi) and the authoritative guidance in the U.N. Handbook on adjudication, applicants like Singh who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Garland has, quite improperly, like his immediate predecessors, allowed this key humanitarian legal principle to be mocked at EOIR! Instead, as cogently pointed out by “Sir Jeffrey,” here the IJ and the BIA actually went the “extra mile” to think of “any reason to deny” — even totally specious ones!
Also, half-baked, legally deficient “reasonably available internal relocation analysis”is a long-standing, chronic problem at EOIR, despite a regulation setting forth analytical factors that should be evaluated. Few, if any, such legitimate opportunities are “reasonably available” in most countries sending asylum applicants!
Moreover, once past persecution is established, the DHS has the burden of showing that there is a reasonably available internal relocation alternative, something that they almost never can prove by a preponderance of the evidence! Indeed, in my experience, the DHS almost never put in such evidence beyond rote citations to generalized language in DOS Country Reports!
The “judicial competency/bias” problems plaguing EOIR are large and well documented. Yet, Garland pretends like they don’t exist!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
A federal appeals court late Tuesday ruled against Texas in its bitter clash with the federal government, deciding that a law allowing the state to arrest and deport migrants could not be implemented while the courts wrestled with the question of whether it is legal.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has a reputation for conservative rulings, sided in its 2-to-1 decision with lawyers for the Biden administration who have argued that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and decades of legal precedent.
The panel’s majority opinion left in place an injunction imposed last month by a lower court in Austin, which found that the federal government was likely to succeed in its arguments against the law.
Sarah Nagle, J.D. ’24, reviewing Ms. S’s case prior to her Asylum Interview (Fall 2023).
