Litigation – Page 23 – immigrationcourtside.com

☹️OFTEN INDIFFERENT OR OVERTLY HOSTILE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL & HUMAN RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS & WOMEN, SUPREMES’ MAJORITY MIGHT GREEN-LIGHT “OPEN SEASON ON HUMANITY” FOR CBP AGENTS!☠️

Lydia Wheeler writes for Bloomberg Law’s Opening Argument:

https://openingargument.substack.com/p/kings-and-queens-of-border-puzzle

‘Kings and Queens’ of Border Puzzle Courts Divided on Liability

Lydia Wheeler

Welcome back to Opening Argument, a column where I dig into complicated legal fights, unpack issues dividing appeals courts, and discuss disputes ripe for Supreme Court review. On tap today: a look at when border patrol agents can be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights.

Border patrol agents allegedly took Anas Elhady’s coat and shoes, and held him in a near-freezing cell without a blanket after he legally crossed the border back into the U.S. from Canada. Robert Boule was allegedly shoved to the ground by a border patrol agent who came onto his property without a warrant to check the immigration status of a guest at the inn Boule owns in Washington.

Can they each sue the agents for damages? The answer right now depends on which court is hearing their case.

The Supreme Court is expected to provide more clarity in a case it’s hearing later this term. Depending on how the justices rule, it could further insulate border patrol agents from liability.

If there’s no way to hold individual agents accountable for their conduct at the border, “then custom agents are kings and queens unto themselves,” said Elhady’s attorney Gadeir Abbas, a senior litigation attorney at the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

A 1971 Supreme Court decision gave people the right to hold federal officials liable when their constitutional rights are violated, but courts have been trying to figure out if or when that applies to immigration officials. So far, they’re coming to different conclusions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said Elhady, who claimed his detainment violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process, didn’t have a right to sue the agents involved. The Ninth Circuit said Boule did.

. . . .

But the Supreme Court specifically refused to consider whether Bivens should be overruled when it agreed to hear the agent’s appeal in the Boule case. The justices will instead decide if you can bring a suit under Bivens for a First Amendment retaliation claim and whether you can sue federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating your Fourth Amendment rights. Oral arguments in the case haven’t yet been scheduled.

“I could imagine a Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito saying something like ‘Yes Bivens still is the law, but we find that in this case involving enforcement of the immigration laws, Bivens claims really don’t fit and don’t belong, and limit Bivens one step further and say immigration cases are different,” said Kevin Johnson, the dean of University of California Davis School of Law.

If the court does that, Johnson, who’s written extensively on immigration law and civil rights, said it would embolden border patrol agents to feel like they can act with a great deal of discretion that will never be questioned.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lydia Wheeler in Washington at lwheeler@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Childers at achilders@bloomberglaw.com; Jo-el J. Meyer at jmeyer@bloombergindustry.com

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

Read Lydia’s full report at the link.

Hard to argue with the analysis of Dean Kevin Johnson, the “most often cited” immigration scholar in America according to a recent survey.

Kevin R. Johnson
Dean
U.C. Davis Law, “Most Cited Immigration Practical Scholar”

The rampant abuses of legal and human rights by the CBP, systemic racial bias, and almost total lack of accountability have been well-documented by civil rights advocates. See, e.g., https://www.southernborder.org/border_lens_abuse_of_power_and_its_consequences

Here’s a telling excerpt from the foregoing report issued by the SPLC in 2020:

The number of deaths resulting from an interaction with CBP officers are indicators of the horrific culture of abuse, corruption, and disregard for human life that plagues the nation’s largest federal law enforcement agency. Unfortunately, these killings are not the only examples of abuse of power and corruption within CBP.

Numerous studies — both internal and external — have shown that CBP is plagued with a culture of impunity, corruption, and abuse. Its systemic problems also run deep. The discovery of a secret Facebook group full of racist, misogynist and xenophobic posts by Border Patrol agents brought to light more evidence of the agency’s culture of abuse. In it, agents routinely made sexist jokes, made fun of migrant deaths, and shared other hateful content. A year later, little action was taken by CBP, again pointing to the lack of transparency and accountability for the agency. Countless other reports have linked CBP to cases of officer misconduct, corruption and a general lack of accountability for criminal conduct and abusive actions.

Doesn’t sound to me like an ideal candidate for freedom from individual constitutional tort liability! Indeed, the reasons for applying Bivens to immigration agents appear quite compelling. Hard to think of a law enforcement agency more in need of “strict scrutiny.”

But, with the current Court majority, who knows? Kevin’s “highly educated guess” is as good or better than anyone else’s. After all, the Supreme’s majority had little difficulty enabling constitutional and human rights abuses carried out by the Trump regime on asylum seekers and other vulnerable migrants — in other words, “Dred Scottification” of the “other!”

Valerie Bauman
Investigative Reporter
Bloomberg
PHOTO: Twitter

Many thanks to Val Bauman over at Bloomberg for bringing this article to my attention. I’ve missed Val’s lively and incisive reporting on the “immigration beat” for her previous employer. Come on back to immigration, Val! We miss you!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-14-21

⚖️🗽NDPA OPPORTUNITY: GET SMARTER FASTER AS YOU PREPARE TO BATTLE FOR DUE PROCESS IN AMERICA’S WORST COURT SYSTEM!

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Cornell Law

Free NYSBA asylum training CLE webinar Dec. 13 1-2 pm ET

Are you considering handling your first pro bono asylum case, but unsure of how to proceed? This free one-hour CLE training sponsored by the New York State Bar Association will orient you to the fundamentals of asylum eligibility and procedure, common issues to consider, and mentorship possibilities. Handouts will be provided.

When: Monday December 13, 2021, 1-2 pm ET

Where: online

Speakers: Victoria Neilson (Managing Attorney, Catholic Legal Immigration Network), Rebecca Press (Legal Director, UnLocal, Inc.), and Steve Yale-Loehr (Cornell Law School)

MCLE credits: 1.0

Cost: free

Event link and registration: https://nysba.org/events/handling-your-first-pro-bono-asylum-case-2/

If you aren’t an NYSBA member, call 800-582-2452 to register.

The CLE will be recorded and available to people who register but can’t attend the live event.

Stephen Yale-Loehr

Professor of Immigration Law Practice, Cornell Law School

Faculty Director, Immigration Law and Policy Program

Faculty Fellow, Migrations Initiative

Co-director, Asylum Appeals Clinic

Co-Author, Immigration Law & Procedure Treatise

Of Counsel, Miller Mayer

Phone: 607-379-9707

e-mail: SWY1@cornell.edu

Twitter: @syaleloehr

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

Thanks, Steve, my friend, for passing this on! I’m grateful for all you do to educate, guide, support, and most of all inspire the NDPA in the never-ending fight to force our Government to make due process and fundamental fairness for all persons in America, regardless of race, creed, or status, a reality rather than the cruel farce it is today!

Never has the need for talented pro bono representation in Immigration Court been greater.

And, the Garland DOJ’s indifference to long overdue due process, quality control, personnel, and best practices reforms in the broken and backlogged EOIR system means that the battle to save lives and force change through aggressive litigation is just beginning and ultimately will succeed!

The good news: Given the endemic lack of expertise, discombobulated administration, and disregard for quality at EOIR, the “talent balance” favors the NDPA! Many deserving lives can be saved and at least some degree of accountability forced on Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR through aggressive, well prepared litigation that makes compelling records, advances correct interpretations and applications of the law, and resists and triumphs over the “race to the bottom” that has destroyed and perverted justice in our Immigration Courts.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-07-21

⚖️🛡⚔️ROUND TABLE CONDEMNS RESTART OF “REMAIN IN MEXICO!”

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

RT Statement – MPP Restart (Final)

December 6 , 2021
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system.
There has been no greater affront to due process, fairness, and transparency than the MPP, or “Remain in Mexico” policy. Instituted under the Trump Administration, it appears to have been motivated by nothing other than cruelty.
Tragically, to comply with a most misguided court order, the Biden Administration, which promised us better, is today not only resuming the program with most of its cruelty intact, but expanding its scope to now apply to nationals of all Western Hemisphere countries.
In 1997, the BIA issued a precedent decision, Matter of S-M-J-, that remains binding on Immigration Judges and ICE prosecutors. In that decision, the BIA recognized our government’s “obligation to uphold international refugee law, including the United States’ obligation to extend refuge where such refuge is warranted. That is, immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done.”1
One of the cases cited by the BIA was Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC,2 a decision which concluded: “We find it astonishing that an attorney for a federal administrative agency could so unblushingly deny that a government lawyer has obligations that might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission.”
The MPP policy constitutes the pounding into submission of those who, if found to qualify for asylum, we are obliged by international law to admit, protect, and afford numerous fundamental rights. The “pounding” in this instance is literal, with reports of those lawfully pursuing their right to seek asylum in the U.S. being subject to kidnappings, extortion, sexual abuse, and other
1 Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 728 (BIA 1997). 2 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

threats and physical attacks.3 This is the antithesis of fairness, in which the parties are not afforded equal access to justice.
Concerning due process, a statement issued by the union representing USCIS Asylum Officers, whose members interview asylum applicants subjected to the program, noted that MPP denies those impacted of meaningful access to counsel, and further impedes their ability to gather evidence and access necessary resources to prepare their cases.4 As former judges who regularly decided asylum claims, we can vouch for the importance of representation and access to evidence, including the opinions of country condition experts, in successfully obtaining asylum. Yet according to a report issued during the Trump Administration, only four percent of those forced to remain in Mexico under MPP were able to obtain representation.5 As of course, DHS attorneys are not similarly impeded, the policy thus fails to afford the parties a level playing field.
As to transparency, one former Immigration Judge from our group who attempted to observe MPP hearings under the prior administration was prevented from doing so despite having the consent of the asylum seeker to be present. A letter from our group to the EOIR Director and the Chief Immigration Judge expressing our concern went unanswered.
Like many others who understand the importance that a fair and independent court system plays in a free and democratic society, we had hoped to have seen the last of this cruel policy. And like so many others, we are beyond disappointed to learn that we were wrong. On this day in which MPP is being restarted, we join so many others both within and outside of government in demanding better.
We urge the Biden Administration to end its unwarranted expansion of MPP; to instead do everything in its power to permanently end the program; and to insure that in the interim, any court-ordered restart of MPP first accord with our international treaty obligations towards refugees, and with the requirements of due process and fairness on which our legal system is premised.
Contact Jeffrey S. Chase, jeffchase99@gmail.com
3 See the compilation of of publicly reported cases of violent attacks on those returned to Mexico under MPP by Human Rights First, available at https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/ PubliclyReportedMPPAttacks2.19.2021.pdf.
4 American Federation of Government Employees, National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council 119, “Union Representing USCIS Asylum Officers Condemns Re-Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols” (Dec. 2, 2021).
5 Syracuse University, TRAC Immigration, “Contrasting Experiences: MPP vs. Non-MPP Immigration Court Cases,” available at https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/587/.

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

Thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for leading this effort. It’s an honor and a privilege to serve with you and our other colleagues on the Round Table!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-06-21

☠️☠️ ☠️TRIPLE HEADER — 10TH CIRCUIT FINDS MULTIPLE MATERIAL ERRORS IN YET ANOTHER DISGRACEFUL WRONGFUL ASYLUM DENIAL BY GARLAND’S BIA!🤮

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca10-corrects-massive-bia-failure-villegas-castro-v-garland#

CA10 Corrects Massive BIA Failure: Villegas-Castro v. Garland

Villegas-Castro v. Garland

“We conclude that the Board erred in three ways. First, the Board erred in overturning the grant of asylum. The Board decided that Mr. Villegas-Castro had not filed a new application. But if he hadn’t filed a new asylum application, he wouldn’t need to show a material change in circumstances. And with the remand, the immigration judge enjoyed discretion to reconsider the availability of asylum. Second, the Board erred in rejecting the immigration judge’s credibility findings without applying the clear-error standard. The immigration judge concluded that Mr. Villegas-Castro’s conviction had not involved a particularly serious crime. For this conclusion, the immigration judge considered the underlying facts and found Mr. Villegas-Castro’s account credible. The Board disagreed with the immigration judge’s credibility findings but didn’t apply the clear-error standard. By failing to apply that standard, the Board erred. Third, the Board erred in sua sponte deciding that Mr. Villegas-Castro was ineligible for (1) withholding of removal or (2) deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Board reasoned that the immigration judge had already denied withholding of removal under federal law and the Convention. But the Board’s general remand didn’t prevent fresh consideration of Mr. Villegas-Castro’s earlier applications. So the Board erred in sua sponte rejecting the applications for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We thus grant the petition for judicial review, remanding for the Board to reconsider Mr. Villegas-Castro’s application for asylum, to apply the clear-error standard to the immigration judge’s credibility findings, and to reconsider the applications for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.”

[Hats off to Harry Larson, formerly of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, Illinois (Andrew H. Schapiro, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, and Keren Zwick and Tania Linares Garcia, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois, with him on the briefs), on behalf of the Petitioner, and Simon A. Steel, DENTONS US LLP, Washington, D.C., and Grace M. Dickson, DENTONS US LLP, Dallas, Texas, filed a brief for Amici Curiae, on behalf of Petitioner!]

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

A prime example of the “any reason to deny culture,” that Garland has allowed to continue, at “work” — although it doesn’t appear the BIA actually did any “work” here beyond insuring that the bottom line in the staff attorney’s draft was against the asylum seeker!

As I raised yesterday, how is it that this fatally flawed group continues to get “Chevron deference” from the Article IIIs?

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/02/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f4th-cir-chief-circuit-judge-roger-gregory-dissenting-castigates-colleagues-on-grantng-chevron-deference-to-bia/

Also, why isn’t every group of legal professionals in America “camped” on Judge Garland’s doorstep @ DOJ demanding meaningful change @ EOIR as the degradation of American justice and demeaning of human lives continue largely unabated?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-03-21

⚖️4TH CIR. — CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE ROGER GREGORY (DISSENTING) CASTIGATES COLLEAGUES ON GRANTNG “CHEVRON DEFERENCE” TO BIA!

Chief Judge Roger Gregory
U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit

Pugin v. Garland, 4th Cir., 12-01-21, published, 2-1 (Chief Judge Gregory, dissenting)

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201363.P.pdf

GREGORY, Chief Judge, dissenting:

The majority concludes that because the phrase “in relation to obstruction of justice”

in § 1101(a)(43)(S) is ambiguous, the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) renewed interpretation of this provision is due Chevron deference. The majority also concludes that the BIA’s interpretation of “reasonably foreseeable”—in the context of before an investigation or proceeding—is reasonable. Because, in my view, the phrase is not ambiguous, the BIA is not due Chevron deference. However, even if § 1101(a)(43)(S) is ambiguous, the BIA’s conclusion that a formal nexus to an ongoing investigation is not required—based solely on the express exception in § 1512 and the catchall provision that it wrongly interpreted—is unreasonable. Thus, I disagree that Petitioner’s conviction of “Accessory After the Fact to a Felony,” under § 18.2–19 of the Virginia Code, is a categorical match with the generic offense of § 1101(a)(43)(S). For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. . . .

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

Of interest:

The “previous interpretation” discussed here, that the BIA subsequently “ditched” in favor of a more pro-DHS one, is Matter of Espinoza- Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. 889 (B.I.A. 1999), a “Schmidt Era” en banc decision written by Judge Ed Grant in which I joined.
64 pages of arcane discussion and citations from three Circuit Court of Appeals’ Judges who cannot agree on the result shows the continuing disingenuous absurdity of a system that claims that “unrepresented” immigrants receive due process — many of these cases require not only lawyers, but great lawyers with expertise in immigration, criminal law, and statutory interpretation to achieve fair resolution;
Both the majority and the dissent “talk around” a major problem in the misapplication of “Chevron deference” to the BIA: In recent years, the BIA invariably adopts “any interpretation” offered by the DHS over better interpretations offered by respondents and their lawyers — this is a “rigged system” if there ever was one. For Article III Courts to “legitimize” the bogus application of Chevron by a non-expert tribunal that views itself as an extension of DHS Enforcement is a disgraceful dereliction of judicial duty!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-02-21

⚖️9TH PANEL LETS IT ALL HANG OUT ON IMMIGRATION CASE — Goulart v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/11/18/19-72007.pdf

From the dissent by U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman, EDNY, sitting by designation:

Goulart is not a sympathetic character. I can understand the desire to remove convicted burglars from this country. Indeed, Judge VanDyke questions why I have bothered to “champion” the cause of a convicted burglar. The answer should be obvious. The judicial oath, which was adopted in the Judiciary Act of 1789, requires us to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” See 1 Stat. 73, 76 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 453). We take such an oath, which derives from biblical teachings, see Deuteronomy 1:17, so as not to be blinded by our like or dislike of the parties. We are not called to decide whether Goulart is a good person, but rather whether a person who has been banished from the United States without legal justification should be permitted to seek to return. The Supreme Court has held that the precise statute under which Goulart was deported violates the Constitution. Principles of law and equity require that he be permitted to move for reconsideration in this case. I respectfully dissent.

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

Wow! Three opinions on a three-judge panel! Been there, done that! Reminds me of my long gone days on the “Schmidt BIA” when we all took our jobs seriously, even if it often didn’t result in “fake unanimity” (the watchword of today’s dysfunctional BIA).

For those who like to apply “ideological analysis” to Article III decisions, this one doesn’t “fit the mold:”

Judge Richard A. Paez (“majority” opinion) is a Clinton appointee.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke (concurring opinion) is a Trump appointee.

Judge Edward R. Korman (dissenting opinion) is a Reagan appointee.

That being said, the majority’s rationale that a deported respondent should have been a “legal clairvoyant,” predicting the eventual Supreme Court decision finding the statute under which he was convicted unconstitutional, is a piece of absurdist legal sophistry. Wonder what the result might have been if the panel majority didn’t look at him as an “alien bank robber,” not deserving of fair treatment or legal rights? Reminds me of what my former “boss” the late “Iron Mike” Inman used to yell at me during heated arguments at the “Legacy INS OGC:” “What did they teach you at that law school!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-20-21

🏴‍☠️👎🏽MORE REBUKES FOR GARLAND’S INEPT BIA, ASHCROFT: 1st Cir. Questions Ashcroft’s Matter Of Y-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 370 (AG 2002) Even As OIL Disavows BIA’s (Non) Analysis — 11th Slams BIA’s Unreasonable Rejection Of Future Persecution, Withholding, CAT For Sri Lankan!

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-puts-a-dent-in-matter-of-y-l–decarvalho-v-garland#

CA1 Puts a Dent in Matter of Y-L-: DeCarvalho v. Garland

DeCarvalho v. Garland

“The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that Janito DeCarvalho’s conviction for possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32A(a), constitutes a “particularly serious crime” that makes him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The BIA also denied DeCarvalho’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). DeCarvalho petitions for review of the BIA’s decisions, principally arguing that the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Y-L- unlawfully presumes that all aggravated felonies involving trafficking in controlled substances are particularly serious crimes. See 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274–75 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 2002). We deny his petition for review insofar as he seeks CAT relief. We grant the petition in part, however, because the immigration judge (IJ) informed DeCarvalho, who was proceeding pro se, that he was eligible for potential relief only under the CAT. In so doing, the IJ treated DeCarvalho’s conviction for drug trafficking as if it were a per se bar to withholding of removal, a position that the government now disavows on appeal. We remand to the agency with instructions to give DeCarvalho a new hearing to determine whether he is entitled to withholding of removal.”

[Hats off to Trina Realmuto, Tiffany Lieu, and Jennifer Klein!]

***********

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-future-persecution-cat-jathursan-v-atty-gen#

CA11 on Future Persecution, CAT: Jathursan v. Atty. Gen.

Jathursan v. Atty. Gen.

“Pathmanathan Jathursan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). The BIA found no clear error in the immigration judge’s findings that Jathursan failed to establish (1) past persecution on account of a protected ground, (2) a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, or (3) that he would more likely than not be tortured in the event he returned to Sri Lanka. Following oral argument, we grant Jathursan’s petition for review in part, vacate the BIA’s order in part, and remand to the BIA for further consideration of his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims based on his fear of future persecution as a Tamil failed asylum seeker. We also vacate and remand on the BIA’s denial of relief under CAT.”

[Hats off to Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran!]

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

What’s the “worst of all worlds?” Let’s try a ”holdover BIA” still channeling Trump/Miller biased nativist restrictionism combined with a Dem AG with infinite tolerance for substandard judging, an anti-immigrant culture, and bad decision making that disproportionately adversely affects people of color! 😎 Add that to an out of control, largely self-created, jaw-dropping 1.5 million case backlog and you get a formula for national disaster!

These “TRAC Lowlights” show a totally unacceptable and inept performance by the DOJ and Judge Garland that should have every American who believes in due process, equal justice, and “good government” outraged and demanding a change at DOJ! https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/?category=eoir

Highlights from data updated today on immigrants facing deportation in court include the following:

Immigration Courts recorded receiving 49,817 new cases so far in FY 2022 as of October 2021. This compares with 21,154 cases that the court completed during this period.

According to court records, only 0.68% of FY 2022 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.

At the end of October 2021, 1,486,495 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.

Los Angeles County, CA, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of October 2021).

So far this fiscal year (through October 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 24.7% of completed cases, totaling 5,232 deportation orders.

So far in FY 2022 (through October 2021), immigrants from Guatemala top list of nationalities with the largest number ordered deported.

Only 20.7% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.

Immigration judges have held 2,011 bond hearings so far in FY 2022 (through October 2021). Of these 714 were granted bond.

You don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see how an undisciplined system run by clueless politicos and bureaucrats (rather than judges and experts) that takes in more cases than it can decide, picks on unrepresented individuals, deports large numbers of Guatemalans to a country that is clearly in crisis, and grants bond to only 1/3 of the custody cases even with a minuscule percentage of so-called “criminal immigrants” in proceedings is failing, miserably, every day.

What’s even worse, is that there is NO credible plan to fix this! NONE! Throwing more bodies into the maelstrom, poorly thought out proposed asylum regulations, dedicated dockets, and misuse of Title 42 to block proper access to those seeking asylum and other forms of legal protection won’t do the trick. No qualified expert would propose any of the foregoing as the solution to fairly and legally reducing backlogs. That tells us all we need to. know about the qualifications of the folks “pulling the strings” on immigration in the Biden Administration.

The message: The GOP hates immigrants, and the Dems disrespect them!

We’ll see whether the Biden Administration’s contemptuous treatment of immigrants, their families, communities, and supporters, particularly their failure to “clean up, clean out, and reform” their wholly owned “courts” at EOIR, proves to be a great political strategy. Frankly, I can’t see how dumping on a key group of supporters from the last successful election proves to be a “winner” in 2022 or 2024!

The extraordinary quality of the work done by the NDPA all-stars 🌟highlighted above by Dan speaks for itself, as does the unacceptably poor quality of the legal work done by EOIR and a BIA that is bogusly presenting itself as “experts.” Obviously, as has been clear from the beginning of the Biden Administration, the wrong people are on the BIA and Team Garland has disgracefully failed to do the serious and gutsy “recruitment and replacement” necessary to fix this dysfunctional EOIR system and save lives!

The absolute disaster for our legal system and the reprehensible result of Garland & Co’s failure to “pull the plug” on the “Miller Lite BIA” and to make wholesale merit-based positive changes in the recruitment, selection, and composition of the Immigration Judiciary will go down as a legacy that not only will reflect ill on Garland and his lieutenants, but will also be a major factor promoting the failure of American democracy.

You can tell a lot about the values of a society by the way it treats the most vulnerable among it. Right now, sadly, that’s “nothing to write home about!”🤮

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-18-21

🤮👎PROPER CAT ANALYSIS A VICTIM OF GARLAND’S “ANY REASON TO DENY” BIA — Arulnanthy v. Garland, 5th Cir.

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60760-CV0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca5-on-jurisdiction-cat-arulnanthy-v-garland#

“The collateral consequences of the BIA’s order ensure that Arulnanthy’s petition for review remains justiciable despite his removal to Sri Lanka. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Arulnanthy was not a credible witness. And the BIA was right to consider Arulnanthy’s lack of credibility fatal to his asylum claim. But the BIA’s refusal to consider his country-conditions evidence in the purely objective CAT context was error. We therefore REMAND the petition as to the CAT claim and DENY it in all other respects.”

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

This isn’t “rocket science” and the 5th Circuit is hardly known as a hotbed of due process and fundamental fairness for migrants!

But, when the BIA starts with “the migrant loses” as the “bottom line,” and then reasons backwards (if they bother reasoning at all, in their usual haste to keep the “deportation assembly line” moving) the “analysis” is likely to be defective. This 5th Circuit panel actually took their job of analyzing the record before them more seriously than Garland “faux expert” BIA!

One would think that a former Court of Appeals Judge would take due process, impartiality, and quality control seriously in his “wholly owned and operated ‘court’ system.” But, that would be someone other than Judge Garland!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Xenophobia, Never!

PWS

11-09-21

⚖️👎🏽LATEST QUAD OF ARTICLE III “BODY SLAMS” SHOWS ENDEMIC PROBLEM OF ANTI-IMMIGRANT BIAS, UNPROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT @ GARLAND’S BIA — Wrong On: PSG, Failure Of State Protection, Internal Relocation, Nexus, Right To Counsel, Statutory Interpretation!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-psg-zometa-orellana-v-garland-unpub

CA6 on PSG: Zometa-Orellana v. Garland (Unpub.)

Zometa-Orellana v. Garland

“Ana Mercedes Zometa-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, suffered regular beatings and rape by her domestic partner. She sought asylum and withholding of removal based both on political opinion and membership in a particular social group. An immigration judge (IJ) denied asylum and withholding of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that ruling. Since then, however, a crucial case on which both the BIA and the IJ relied to assess Zometa-Orellana’s particular social group was vacated by the Attorney General. And the IJ and BIA failed to consider the entire record in determining the El Salvadorian Government’s willingness to respond and Zometa-Orellana’s ability to relocate in El Salvador. For these reasons, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Dr. Alicia Triche!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-nexus-aleman-medrano-v-garland-unpub

CA4 on Nexus: Aleman-Medrano v. Garland (Unpub.)

Aleman-Medrano v. Garland

“Aleman-Medrano’s central argument on appeal is that the agency [EOIR: the IJ and the BIA] erred at the second step of the analysis, improperly rejecting his claim that he was targeted by gang members “on account of” his family ties to his daughter. We agree and, finding no independent basis on which to affirm the agency’s denial of relief, remand for further proceedings. … [W]e are compelled to conclude that Aleman-Medrano’s relationship with his daughter was at least one central reason why he, and not someone else, was threatened by MS-13. … MS-13’s threats to Aleman-Medrano arose “on account of” his family ties and that he thus has met the nexus requirement for both asylum and withholding of removal.”

[Hats off to Abdoul A. Konare!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-2-1-on-right-to-counsel-usubakunov-v-garland

CA9 (2-1) on Right to Counsel: Usubakunov v. Garland

Usubakunov v. Garland

“This is not a case of a petitioner abusing the system or requesting serial delays of his merits hearing—Usubakunov had found an attorney willing to take his case. Although it may be tempting to look for a bright-line rule, we hew to our precedent that the “inquiry is fact-specific and thus varies from case to case.” Biwot, 403 F.3d at 1099. In doing so, we do not suggest that there is “no limit,” Dissent at 19, to the permissible delay for obtaining a lawyer. Our factspecific inquiry here leads us to conclude that the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance violated Usubakunov’s right to counsel. … This case illustrates diligence, not bad faith, coupled with very difficult barriers faced by a detained applicant who does not speak English. Usubakunov sought and identified counsel within the period the IJ originally thought reasonable, but he was stymied by counsel’s scheduling conflict. He had identified by name and organization the lawyer who would ultimately represent him, and Usubakunov thus sought his first continuance of the merits hearing. We conclude that “[u]nder these circumstances, denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion because it was tantamount to denial of counsel.” Biwot, 403 F.3d at 1100. Given these unique circumstances, our grant of the petition will not open the floodgates of continuances, as we apply the same fact-based inquiry we have done for years. That concludes our inquiry, as a petitioner who is wrongly denied assistance of counsel at his merits hearing need not show prejudice. See Gomez-Velazco, 879 F.3d at 993 (citing Montes-Lopez v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012)). In light of the need to remand for a new hearing, we do not address Usubakunov’s other challenges. We grant Usubakunov’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings. PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Bardis Vakili (argued), ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, San Diego, Kristin MacLeod-Ball, American Immigration Council, Brookline, Massachusetts; Mary Kenney, American Immigration Council, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Council; and Laura J. Edelstein, Jenner & Block LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Women’s Refugee Commission!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/natz-victory-slams-matter-of-zhang-melara-v-mayorkas

Natz. Victory Slams Matter of Zhang: Melara v. Mayorkas

Melara v. Mayorkas

“Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019) is not entitled to deference by this Court because it is a dramatic break with past agency interpretation, is in conflict with the Department of State’s current interpretation of the false claim to citizenship ground of inadmissibility, and is a break from Congress’s clearly expressed intent. An agency’s interpretation of an unambiguous statute receives no deference if the interpretation is not in line with Congress’s clearly expressed intent. See, e.g., Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808, 815 (9th Cir. 2016). Matter of Zhang takes a dramatic and unique approach to the knowledge element out of the term “false claim to U.S. citizenship.” See, e.g., Richmond v. Holder, 714 F.3d 725, 729 (2d Cir. 2013) (assuming without deciding that false claim inadmissibility provision has knowledge element); Muratoski v. Holder, 622 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2010) (agency determined that applicant lacked good moral character because he “knew or should have known” that he was not a United States citizen at the time he made that claim); Valdez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 2010) (reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to disagree with agency’s determination that applicant was inadmissible because he “intended to and did make a false claim of United States citizenship”). … The Court finds that Petitioner Antonio Fernando Melara has met his burden of proving each element of naturalization by preponderance of the evidence. Judgment is GRANTED for Petitioner.”

[Hats way off to Sabrina Damast and Patricia M. Corrales!]

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

Individuals are being mistreated! Attorneys are frustrated! Due Process is mocked! Garland is disinterested in fixing the huge structural, personnel, and quality control problems at BIA/EOIR!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-03-21

⚖️🗽TIRED OF BUREAUCRATIC DOUBLESPEAK & BS ON ASYLUM FROM EOIR & DHS? — Get The “Real Skinny” On How U.S. Asylum Should Operate From This Free ABA Seminar Featuring Round Table 🛡⚔️ Experts Judge Joan Churchill, Judge Paul Grussendorf, & Judge Jeffrey Chase On Wednesday, Nov. 10! (Registration Required)

Judge Joan Churchill — Honorable Joan Churchill
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Member Round Table of Retired Judges

Hon. Paul Grussendorf
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member, Round Table of Former IJs
Author
Source: Amazon.com

American Bar Association International Law Section

Program Spotlight: Refugees and Asylum in the U.S.

&

Review of Domestic Interpretations at Odds with International Guidance

Presented by the American Bar Association International Law Section, Immigration & Naturalization Committee, and the International Refugee Law Committee

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

12:00pm ET – 1:00pm ET

Register Today for this Free Program:

This program will review the differences between the Refugee and Asylum processes (which includes Withholding of Removal) in order to provide clarity to new practitioners about the stark contrasts between the two U.S. refugee programs and to inform on international law compliance.

Topic 1: Contrast and compare Refugees and Asylum law and process, and

Topic 2: Compare U.S. domestic interpretations of the legal criteria of Refugees and Asylum seekers with international law and policy.

Moderator and Chair: Joan Churchill (Former Immigration Judge)

Speakers:

Topic 1: The Hon. Paul Grussendorf

Paul Grussendorf has worked with both the refugee and asylum programs in the United States and abroad. He headed a law school legal clinic at the The George Washington University Law School representing asylum seekers, served as an Immigration Judge handling asylum cases, worked as a Supervisory Asylum Officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services [CIS], as a refugee officer with Refugee Affairs Division of USCIS, and as a refugee officer and supervisor with the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency.

Topic 2: The Hon. Jeffrey Chase

Jeffrey Chase is a retired Immigration judge for New York City. He has written extensively about the inter relationship of international law sources with the U.S. national law when administering cases involving asylum and refugee applications.

He has a blog entitled Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law. He coordinates The Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges, an informal group of Retired Immigration Judges from both the trial and appellate level, who weigh in on topics relating to the administration of justice by the Immigration Court. The Round Table files amici briefs, and has issued position papers and testimony on issues affecting due process and the administration of justice by the Immigration Courts.

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

Many thanks to my round table friends and colleagues for putting this fantastic free program together and to the ABA International Law Section for sponsoring it!

In 1980, Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980 to bring the U.S. into compliance with the U.N. Convention & Protocol on The Status of Refugees, to which we are a signatory through the Protocol.

After some steady progress over the first two decades, today, as a result of actions taken by the last four Administrations since 2001, we are further away than ever from the goal of compliance. Bungling bureaucrats at DHS and DOJ wrongfully view large numbers of refugees and asylees as a “threat” to be “deterred,” rather than as the legal obligation and undeniable assets to our nation that they in truth are.

They fail miserably to fix systemic problems, to properly welcome refugees and asylees, and to adjudicate their claims in a fair and timely manner consistent with due process and racial justice. With stunning tone deafness, they eschew the advice of experts like Judges Churchill, Grussendorf, and Chase in favor of cruel, inept, and “bad faith” gimmicks, like gross misuse of Title 42 to suspend the asylum system indefinitely without Congressional approval.

One only has to look at the evening news to see firsthand what a horrible failure these “Stephen Miller Lite” policies have been and how they ruin lives and trash the reputation of our nation. The failure of the Biden Administration to make good on its campaign promises to migrants and refugees is nothing short of a national disgrace!

The first step in holding Mayorkas, Garland, and the others responsible for this ongoing mess accountable and restoring the rule of law is to understand how the system should and could work.

Then, you will have the tools to sue the hell out of the irresponsible public officials and their bumbling bureaucrats, lobby Congress for better protections for asylum seekers, and generate outraged public opinion until the rule of law, common sense, and human decency are restored to our land! And, we can save some lives that are well worth saving in the process!

Knowledge is power! The Biden Administration’s knowledge of how to implement an efficient, practical, legal, successful asylum system would fit in a thimble with room left over! Get the “upper hand” by listening to these Round Experts!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-02-21

☹️👎🏽BUMBLING BIA BADLY BUNGLES BASICS, AGAIN! — Applies Wrong Standard In Seeking To Reverse Valid CAT Grant — Obviously Frustrated 3rd Cir. Reinstates IJ Decision Following BIA’s Inept Attempt @ Appellate Review! — Arreaga Bravo v. A.G.

Woman Tortured — The BIA’s blunders in trying to help out their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement can sometimes seem almost comical. But, they are no laughing matter to those facing persecution or torture as a result! Why is Garland indifferent to life-threatening injustice in his courts?
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203300p.pdf

Key Quote from Judge Greenaway’s decision:

Given the strength and rigor of the IJ’s underlying opinion, along with the BIA having exceeded its proper scope of review, we will vacate the BIA’s final order of removal and remand with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s opinion.

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

There is the good, the bad, the ugly, and the absurdly horrible. This latest BIA travesty falls in the latter category.

Not surprisingly, the Circuit opinion quotes liberally from the BIA’s insipid, mealy-mouthed “bureaucratic double-speak” language! To paraphrase my BIA colleague the late Judge Fred Vacca, thank goodness the 3rd Circuit finally put an end to this “pathetic attempt at appellate adjudication.”

Interesting that rather than remanding to give the BIA a chance to deny again on some newly invented specious basis, the court just reinstated the IJ opinion. There should be a message here! But, Garland and his lieutenants aren’t “getting it!”

This case illustrates deep systemic and personnel problems that Garland has failed to address. Instead of summarily dismissing the DHS’s frivolous appeal with a strong warning condemning it, these types of bad BIA decisions contribute to the unnecessary backlog and both encourage and reward frivolous actions by the DHS.

Additionally, reversing, for specious reasons, a well-done and clearly correct IJ decision granting relief, just to carry out the wishes of DHS Enforcement and political bosses, is intended to discourage respondents and their attorneys while unethically steering Immigration Judges toward a “norm of denial.”

Abused women of color from the Northern Triangle have been particular targets of the EOIR’s seriously skewed anti-immigrant adjudications. This makes the Garland DOJ’s claims to be a “champion of racial justice” ring all the more hollow and disingenuous in every context. There will be no racial justice in America without radical EOIR reform!

What ever happened to our first ever woman of color Veep? Hypothesize that one of the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges responsible for this mess had come before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation. Wouldn’t you have had some questions about judicial qualifications? So, why is it OK to continue to employ them in untenured Executive Branch quasi-judicial positions where they exercise life or death power over many of the most vulnerable among us, overwhelmingly persons of color, many women, lots of them unrepresented! Kamala Harris, where are you?

It’s all part of an improper “culture of denial” at EOIR, led and “enforced” by the BIA. Garland has disgracefully failed to come to grips with the “anti-due process” that he fosters every day that the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” remains in their appellate positions.

For heavens sake, with unnecessary “TV Adjudication Centers” coming out EOIR’s ears, reassign these purveyors of bad law and appellate injustice to those lower “courts” where they can do less cosmic damage and real, better qualified appellate judges can “keep on eye” on them!

I keep thinking (or perhaps hoping) that eventually Circuits will tire of continually redoing the BIA’s sloppy work product and then having the cases come back again, sometimes years later, denied on yet another bogus ground!

On the flip side, Judge Garland seems to have infinite “patience” with well-documented substandard performance and painfully obvious anti-immigrant, pro-DHS bias on the part of his BIA.

Wrongful denial of CAT costs lives and can improperly condemn individuals to gruesome and painful death! This is no way to run a court system! I guess it’s easier to “tolerate” lousy judicial performance when you aren’t the one being unfairly and illegally condemned to torture!

Past time for a “line change” in Falls Church!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-29-21

⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼👩🏻‍⚖️ JUSTICE FOR KIDS IN COURT — ROUND TABLE ⚔️🛡 “WARRIOR QUEEN” 👸🏻 HON. SARAH BURR SPEAKS OUT FOR “FAIR DAY IN COURT FOR KIDS ACT OF 2021!” — “We cannot in good conscience allow any unaccompanied children to appear in immigration court alone.”

Hon. Sarah Burt — Hon. Sarah Burr
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Knightess of The Round Table
Photo Source: Immigrant Justice Corps website

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/578076-why-are-children-representing-themselves-in-immigration-court

From The Hill:

As a retired immigration judge, I have watched with concern reports of the surge of unaccompanied immigrant children crossing the border into the United States. There are many reasons for concern—their housing, their health, their safety. To me, there is an additional, very real, and often overlooked question looming on the horizon: What will happen when these children, even toddlers and babies, appear alone in immigration court?

Yes, alone. While a person in immigration proceedings is entitled to be represented by a lawyer if they can afford it, there is no constitutional or even statutory right to appointed counsel in immigration proceedings. That means those who cannot afford a lawyer must appear in court alone, including children.

While I am pleased to see the Biden administration plans to provide government-funded legal representation for certain immigrant children in eight U.S. cities, this new initiative is still a far cry from the universal representation needed to support children in removal proceedings.

Imagine, if you can, a child — 2 years old, 10 years old or 17 years old — appearing before an immigration judge alone. How does a child, already intimidated and confused by the courtroom setting, understand the nature of the court proceedings and the charges against them? How can a child understand the complexities of immigration law, their burden of proof, and possible defenses against deportation? The short answer is they cannot.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the op-ed at the above link.

The “Fair Day For Kids in Court Act of 2021” is endorsed by the “Round Table” ⚔️🛡 among many other groups in the NDPA!

Here’s a summary (courtesy of Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase):

Senator Mazie Hirono (of [Round Table “Fighting Knightess” Judge] Dayna Beamer’s home state of Hawaii) plans to introduce the attached bill on Thursday, that would provide counsel for unaccompanied children in Immigration Court by:

Clarifying the authority of the federal government to provide or appoint counsel to noncitizens in immigration proceedings;
Requiring the appointment or provision of legal counsel to all unaccompanied children in proceedings unless they obtained counsel independently;
Mandating access to counsel for all noncitizens in CBP and ICE facilities;
Requiring that, if the government fails to provide counsel to an unaccompanied child and orders that child removed, the filing of a motion to reopen proceedings will stay removal; and
Requiring government reporting on the provision of counsel to unaccompanied children.

Here’s the text of the bill, which will be introduced by Sen. Hirono later this week:

Fair Day Text FINAL

Thanks Sarah and Jeffrey! So pleased to be part of the “support group” for this long-overdue and badly needed legislation that would do what to date Congress, the Federal Courts, and DOJ have failed to do: Enforce the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in Immigration Court!

And, of course, we should never forget the ongoing, daily work performed by NDPA Superhero 🦸🏻‍♂️ Wendy Young and Kids in Need of Defense (“KIND”) in ending the disgraceful blot on American justice of unrepresented kids in Immigration Court:

Dear Paul,

I met Maria* in immigration court. The judge sat in his robes behind the bench when he called her deportation case.

A trial attorney from the Department of Homeland Security sat at the front, prepared to argue for Maria’s removal from the U.S.. Maria was by herself without a lawyer by her side.

She was five years old.

She approached the bench, wearing her nicest clothes, clutching a doll. She sat behind the respondent’s desk, barely able to see over the microphone. The judge asked her a number of questions about why she was in the US and about her life here, none of which she could answer. Her eyes grew bigger and bigger as she sat silently, until he finally dismissed her and told her to come back at a later date. As she left the court, he asked her what the name of her doll was. In Spanish, she replied, “Baby Baby Doll.” That was the only question she could answer.

That moment haunts me. I continually wonder about the insanity of asking a five year old to stand alone and defend herself against deportation in a federal courtroom. It should never happen. Which is exactly why KIND has mobilized and trained a powerful group of pro bono attorneys to represent and work with children just like Maria who deserve legal representation in a U.S. immigration court.

This October, KIND is honoring the pro bono attorneys who have helped more than 27,000 children referred to KIND receive legal representation that often means the difference between relief and deportation and, by extension, a child’s safety or danger.

Will you make a tax-deductible donation now to support the children we work with in and out of the courtroom?

Here’s the direct impact your gift today can have for children like Maria:

$75 will support a child’s success and provide a backpack and basic school supplies for a child beginning school in the U.S.

$100 will give nourishment, and provide groceries and essentials to help keep children fed and healthy while they await the outcome of their legal case.

$250 will give a child a voice by helping pay for an interpreter so an indigenous child can tell their story in court.

$500 will allow us to make a life-saving connection and train attorney’s across the country to evaluate and work with refugee children in need of representation and critical social services.

$1500 will help us connect kids to mental health resources, including psychological evaluation and other mental health services for a child seeking asylum in the U.S..

$5000 will provide hope and safety to a vulnerable child by ensuring we have the resources we need to offer comprehensive legal representation and social service needs for however long it takes to win their case.

Paul, these are just a few ways we’ll put your gift to work, but know that your donation in ANY amount is critical to the number of children we can reach, and represent, through the amazing efforts of our pro bono attorney network.

These kids are scared, they are traumatized. They are intimidated. And without the services provided by organizations like KIND, they are all alone.

But that’s why we’re here – and that’s why I hope you’ll consider making a gift today to support this life-changing work. Your donation today will have a direct impact on the lives of refugee children who deserve to have someone in their court.

Thank you so much for your generosity today, and always.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-26-21

☠️👎🏽GARLAND EOIR’S DISTURBINGLY BAD ANALYSIS IN YET ANOTHER ASYLUM CASE “OUTED” BY FIRST CIRCUIT! — Lopez Troche v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1718P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-credibility-lopez-troche-v-garland#

“Mario Rene Lopez Troche (“Lopez Troche”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirms the denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We vacate and remand. … [T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified. The BIA cited to three portions of Lopez Troche’s testimony in support of its determination that the IJ did not clearly err in finding an inconsistency between what Lopez Troche told the asylum officer during his reasonable fear interview and how he testified as to the reporting of past abuse. But, none of those passages supports the BIA’s determination. … Nor is it possible to read either the BIA or the IJ to have inferred from Lopez Troche’s failure to report to the police the specific incidents that he discussed in his testimony that he was asserting in that testimony that did not report any incidents of abuse ever. Neither the IJ’s opinion nor the BIA’s expressly purports to premise its ruling as to adverse credibility on the basis of such inferential reasoning, see Chenery, 318 U.S. at 95, and we do not see what basis there would be for drawing that inference on this record, given that, in his reasonable fear interview, declaration, and testimony, Lopez Troche discussed a series of traumatic physical and sexual assaults that he had experienced that appears to have stretched back to a time when he was eight years old and that thus encompassed many more incidents than those addressed specifically in the portions of his testimony on which the BIA focused. As a result, we must vacate and remand the BIA’s order affirming the denial of Lopez Troche’s request for withholding of removal.”

[Hats way off to PAIR Project Legal Director Elena Noureddine and Staff Attorney Irene Freidel!]

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

Law students and attorneys of the NDPA are out there helping refugees every day. Meanwhile, over at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges strain to improperly “diddle the record” to deny relief to asylum seekers! Then, OIL defends them!

Essentially, in this case, the BIA “made it up and misrepresented the record” in an effort to deny asylum for specious reasons! Then, OIL tried to “blow it by” the Circuit!

“[T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified.” That’s “judgespeak” for: The BIA invented non-existent “inconsistencies” to unfairly deny asylum. Then, OIL defended that fabrication and denial of due process! What does this say about Garland’s leadership at DOJ?

Whatever happened to legal and judicial ethics? Clearly they were “deep sixed” under Sessions and Barr. But, why is Garland continuing to operate DOJ as an “ethics and quality free zone?”

This is a bad system with the wrong folks in too many judicial and leadership positions and presenting an overwhelming need for robust, bold change in how decisions are made and defended in Circuit Court. So far, Garland has not made the fundamental personnel changes and “quality upgrades” necessary to bring due process and some semblance of expertise and order back to his broken Immigration Courts! Why not?

Why are the kind of individuals who should be Immigration Judges and EOIR judicial leaders, talented lawyers like Elena and Irene, still “on the outside” rather than being actively recruited and brought in to replace those unable to perform judicial, administrative, and litigation duties in a fair, expert manner, that enhances due process? Why is EOIR still operating with a “judiciary” the majority of whom were installed by the Trump regime at Justice to “dehumanize, deport, and deter” without regard for due process? Why is OIL continuing to “defend the indefensible?” Why isn’t Congress asking Garland these questions?

Government lacking in expertise, intellectual honesty, professional ethics, and accountability is “bad government.” That’s true no matter which party holds power!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-21-21

🍅MORE ROTTEN TOMATOES FOR GARLAND, SESSIONS: NDPA SUPERSTAR 🦸🏻‍♂️🌟 BEN WINOGRAD CREAMS GARLAND’S BIA, OIL IN 4TH CIR! — Sessions’s Wrong Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B- (Illegally Denying Authority To Terminate) Falls, As OIL Argues Nonsensical Position — Garland’s Continuing Wasteful Failure To Get Control Of Immigration Bureaucracy @ DOJ Squanders Time & Resources, Puzzles Article IIIs, Promotes Arbitrary & Capricious “Justice” @ Justice! — Chavez-Gonzalez v. Garland

Here’s the complete opinion by Judge Thacker, joined by Judges Floyd & Harris:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MwZtKE73ucoEVTR9HOZcqUWxTB6RfyxK/view?usp=sharing

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!

This case was argued on September 21, 2021, more than two months after Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (AG 2021), where AG Garland had refuted Sessions’s legal reasoning! Moreover, the 4th Circuit itself had pointed out the legal flaws in overruling Session’s abominable Castro-Tum, his abuse of AG authority that began this whole sorry episode in American jurisprudence. Yet, OIL argued this case as if nothing had happened and “Gonzo” Sessions were still in charge!

Looking to the character and context of the Government’s litigating position — in stark contrast to its recent regulatory position explained below — we are quite frankly puzzled that the Government currently stands in support of Attorney General Sessions’s decision in Matter of S-O-G-, particularly in light of the fact that Matter of S-O-G- relies heavily on Castro-Tum, which is no longer good law.

To begin with, this court has overruled Castro-Tum in Romero, in which we relied on the broad language of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) to hold that the immigration courts possess the authority to administratively close cases. Indeed, the fact that Castro-Tum has been overruled should not only begin the analysis here, but it should definitively end it.

But, beyond the fact that Castro-Tum is now defunct, Attorney General Garland no longer takes the position set forth in Castro-Tum and has since disavowed the idea that the IJs and BIA cannot administratively close proceedings. In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, Attorney General Garland decided, “Because Castro-Tum departed from long-standing practice, it is appropriate to overrule that opinion in its entirety and restore administrative closure” authority to the agency. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326, 329 (A.G. 2021). In doing so, Attorney General Garland noted “three courts of appeals have rejected Castro- Tum” and held that administrative closure is “‘plainly within an [IJ]’s authority’ under Department of Justice regulations.” Id. at 328 (citing Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen. U.S. of

Am., 997 F.3d 113, 121–22 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656, 667 (7th 18

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1924 Doc: 54 Filed: 10/20/2021 Pg: 19 of 26

Cir. 2020) (Barrett, J.); Romero, 937 F.3d at 292). Indeed, “[o]nly one court of appeals has upheld Castro-Tum.” Id. (citing Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2020). “[B]ut even that court subsequently ruled that [IJs] and the [BIA] do have authority to grant administrative closure in order to permit a noncitizen to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.” Id. (citing Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 999 F.3d 986, 991–93 (6th Cir. 2021)). Attorney General Garland’s position on administrative closure in Matter of Cruz-Valdez (and the reasoning behind it) calls into question the Government’s position in this matter and Matter of S-O-G- that IJs and the BIA do not have the inherent authority to terminate proceedings.3

The obvious answer here is that Garland has failed to take the necessary steps to replace the BIA and bring new leadership to OIL.

This should have been “Week One Stuff” after Garland assumed office! Instead, the EOIR system continues to careen out of control, clog the Article III judiciary with semi-frivolous litigation, and destroy human lives!

How many wrongly-treated respondents are fortunate enough to have Ben Winograd take up their cause, or indeed to have any legal assistance at all? How many can even get to the Court of Appeals to correct Garland’s errors?

The continued dysfunction at EOIR & DOJ is a humanitarian crisis and a threat to our legal system and American democracy! It’s high time for Judge Garland to wake up and treat this mess like the existential crisis it is!

Congrats again to Ben Winograd! Obviously, Garland should have recruited real immigration experts like Ben to be on the BIA or supervise OIL to get this system back on track. Why hasn’t he?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-20-21

🆘⚖️MR. NEGUSIE’S 17-YR ODYSSEY INTO JUDICIAL NEVER-NEVER LAND CONTINUES — GARLAND’S CERTIFICATION OF MATTER OF NEGUSIE, 28 I&N DEC. 399 (A.G. 2021) — A Microcosm Of All That’s Wrong With Our Immigration Court System — 17 Years, 4 Administrations, 5 Different Tribunals, 0 Final Resolution! — Calling Charles Dickens!

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMTEwMTIuNDcyNTU4OTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xNDQxMjYxL2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.5W9gUw8pz8DPzsg7kAN8OnR6-Fn9dKgiW5oNm1UqGzM/s/842922301/br/113790680583-l

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 399 (A.G. 2021) Interim Decision #4029

Matter of NEGUSIE, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General October 12, 2021

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. The Board’s decision in this matter is automatically stayed pending my review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001).

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

This terse decision conceals a total, disgraceful mess in our justice system!

Mr. Negusie, the respondent in this case, filed his asylum application before an Immigration Judge in 2004 — 17 years ago!
In 2005, the IJ denied his application because of the so-called “persecutor bar,” but “deferred” his removal to Eritrea under the Convention Against Torture(“CAT”).
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.
In 2007, the 5th Circuit affirmed the BIA.
In 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the BIA, and remanded the case to the BIA under their “Chevron doctrine” of “judicial task avoidance,” Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009].
- At that time, in separate opinions, five Justices expressed rather definitive views about the substantive legal issue.
- Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito all clearly believed that there should be no “duress exception” to the persecutor bar.
- Justices Stevens and Breyer obviously thought that there was a “duress exception.”
- The other four, Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Souter, & Ginsburg, had obviously studied matter, but rather than resolving the issue, chose to “punt” it back to the BIA for their supposed “expert interpretation” — an unusual “vote of confidence” in an administrative body they had just found to have misinterpreted their prior decisions.
“The Interregnum:” For the next nine years, during which both Administrations and BIA membership changed several times, the BIA “ruminated” on the task assigned them by the Supremes. Finally, in 2018, the BIA issued a precedent decision finding a limited “duress defense.” Matter of Negusie, 27 I&N Dec. 347 (BIA 2018). Nevertheless, the BIA found that Negusie didn’t qualify for that limited defense. So, Negusie lost! But, that was hardly the end of the matter within the convoluted world of the DOJ!
Despite the Government’s prevailing in Negusie’s case, four months later, AG Sessions “certified” that decision to himself.
Two years later, in 2020, another AG, Billy Barr, who had succeeded Sessions, reversed the BIA in a precedent, finding that there was no “duress exception,” however limited, to the “persecutor bar.” Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020). Mr.Negusie lost once again, but this time on a different rationale than employed by the BIA!
The case was returned to the BIA for “background checks,” since Mr. Negusie’s removal had been indefinitely “deferred” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After Mr.Negusie’s background “cleared,” the BIA apparently entered a final order of removal to Eritrea, but “deferred” execution of that order under CAT.
Thereafter, on April 15, 2021, Mr. Negusie exercised his right to seek review in the 5th Circuit for the second time. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/21-60314
But, before that review was complete, AG Garland “certified” the last BIA decision (actually Barr’s 2020 precedent) for review, thus “staying” its effect.
Summary: one IJ decision; three trips to the BIA; two trips to the Fifth Circuit; three AG decisions; one trip to the Supremes = no decision on a 2004 application!
In other words, five different tribunals have had this case before them at least nine times over 17 years without finally resolving the issue!
In the meantime, I can tell you from past experience that this issue arises on a regular basis before Immigration Judges. They, in turn, must resolve it as best they can without definitive guidance from higher judicial authorities, sometimes relying on “precedents” that later are vacated or invalidated.
The solution: How about a BIA made up of real judges: true nationally respected experts and “practical scholars” in immigration, human rights, and due process who will provide timely, legally correct guidance at the initial appeal level?
And, if they do happen to get it wrong, how about Supremes that decide the legal issues coming before them, as they are paid to do, rather than aimlessly “orbiting” legal questions back to the lower tribunals that got them wrong in the first place under the highly problematic “Chevron doctrine of high-level judicial task avoidance?”
Also, in the event such reforms were made, how about Attorneys General, who traditionally have particular expertise in neither immigration nor human rights, keeping their “fingers out of the pie” and letting the real experts do the work? (In this respect, while AG Sessions had a long, disgraceful political history of advancing far right, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic tropes, such that his nomination to become a Federal Judge was rejected by his own party, no recognized immigration/human rights expert would classify Sessions as having either legal expertise in the area or proper qualifications to serve in any judicial capacity including a “quasi-judicial” one, particularly in areas where he had previously and consistently shown extreme bias and intellectual dishonesty in his public statements and actions. Nor did AG Barr have any legitimate expertise that would qualify him to participate in quasi-judicial capacity in immigration and human rights cases. While, ordinarily, a Federal Circuit Judge with long service would acquire some immigration experience and perhaps develop expertise, Judge Garland sat on the DC Circuit, which did not regularly review Immigration Court cases, because there is no Immigration Court sitting in D.C.)
One might also ask why the Supremes would remand to a purportedly “expert agency” for statutory interpretation, only to have the process hijacked by politicos?
Finally, multi-raspberries to Congress who let this disgraceful abuse of both taxpayer resources and our justice system go on, in plain sight, for decades without corrective action. America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court, with judges selected on a merit basis, NOW!
Where’s Charles Dickens when we need him? See, e.g., Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-15-21

Lydia Wheeler writes for Bloomberg Law’s Opening Argument:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Pugin v. Garland, 4th Cir., 12-01-21, published, 2-1 (Chief Judge Gregory, dissenting)

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From the dissent by U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman, EDNY, sitting by designation:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Xenophobia, Never!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA6 on PSG: Zometa-Orellana v. Garland (Unpub.)

CA4 on Nexus: Aleman-Medrano v. Garland (Unpub.)

CA9 (2-1) on Right to Counsel: Usubakunov v. Garland

Natz. Victory Slams Matter of Zhang: Melara v. Mayorkas

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Key Quote from Judge Greenaway’s decision:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From The Hill:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the complete opinion by Judge Thacker, joined by Judges Floyd & Harris:

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: