🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️

Circus — This appears to be Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for migrants and people of color @ Bailey’s Crossroads. Isn’t it time to put the past behind us and move forward with housecleaning and reforms at EOIR? Ask Judge Garland “What are you thinking, man?” Is this YOUR vision of due process and expert “judging?” — Public Realm

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201912019.pdf

Thamotar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 11th Cir., 06-17-21, Published

PANEL: WILSON, JILL PRYOR and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge

KEY QUOTE:

Visavakumar Thamotar, a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of his application for asylum and grant of withholding of removal. Mr. Thamotar argues that because removal was withheld, federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e)1 required reconsideration of his asylum claim, which the Immigration Judge and BIA failed to give. We agree with Mr. Thamotar that the agency failed to conduct the proper reconsideration. When an asylum applicant is denied asylum but granted withholding of removal, 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(e) requires reconsideration anew of the discretionary denial of asylum, including addressing reasonable alternatives available to the petitioner for family reunification.2 And where the Immigration Judge has failed to do so, the BIA must remand for the Immigration Judge to conduct the required reconsideration.

Here, the Immigration Judge failed to reconsider Mr. Thamotar’s asylum claim under § 1208.16(e). The BIA’s failure to remand on this issue was therefore

1 Mr. Thamotar refers to both 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(e) and 1208.16(e) in his briefing. The two provisions are identical in substance, but § 1208.16(e) specifically applies to the BIA (and Immigration Judges) because of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtits. D, E, F, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov. 25, 2002) (as amended), and the promulgation of final rule 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, effective February 28, 2003. 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, 9824–25, 9834 (Feb. 28, 2003); see Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89, 90 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing this legislative history). For consistency, we will refer only to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e).

2 Because we vacate the BIA’s order on this ground, we do not address Mr. Thamotar’s additional challenges to the order, which included that the BIA erred by affirming the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination, which he contends was not supported by substantial evidence, and relying on his method of entry into the United States when affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision.

2

USCA11 Case: 19-12019 Date Filed: 06/17/2021 Page: 3 of 32

manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. It is clear that neither the Immigration Judge nor the BIA conducted the proper reconsideration because the record contained no information about Mr. Thamotar’s ability to reunite with his family, information that the agency must review under § 1208.16(e). Thus, the BIA should have remanded the case for further factfinding. We grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the Immigration Judge for reconsideration of the discretionary denial of asylum.

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

Lots of work for a bogus asylum denial by EOIR! And the utter nonsense isn’t over! Just a “remand” to give EOIR yet another chance to deny for specious reasons (as they have already done twice). This idiocy will continue until Judge Garland replaces the BIA with real judges who will properly, fairly, and timely apply the law and regulations!

The poor analysis of the IJ, mindlessly affirmed by the BIA, failed to come anywhere close to the “most egregious adverse factors” requirement of the BIA’s own precedent in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357, 367 (BIA 1996):

A grant of asylum to an eligible applicant is discretionary. The final issue is whether the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. The danger of persecution will outweigh all but the most egregious adverse factors. Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467, 474 (BIA 1987).

Get this, folks! The IJ and the BIA both found that meeting the higher standard for withholding of deportation based on probability of persecution somehow was an “adverse factor” that outweighed family separation! That’s right, an “adverse factor!”

I can’t imagine how this gang of so-called “judges, got through law school and admitted to the bar! Maybe “imposters” took their exams for them! THIS is the best American justice has to offer? If not, why are they making life or death decisions and imposing potential permanent family separation on refugees?

Notwithstanding the assembly line climate and lackadaisical approach to law in Garland’s Immigration “Courts,” these are NOT TRAFFIC COURTS! They are more like “death penalty courts” or “courts of last resort” and those humans appearing before them and their representatives deserve better.

Judge Garland and his team should hypothesize that this type of inferior justice were being meted out in life or death cases to THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND LOVED ONES — actual human beings, NOT “just migrants” who, according to Garland’s EOIR, appear to exist in a twilight zone beneath the rest of humanity. That’s what the ongoing “Dred Scottification of the other” still being permitted and promoted by Garland at DOJ is all about!

A fitting celebration of the first Federal Juneteenth Holiday would have been to remove the entire BIA so that they can no longer inflict “Dred Scottification” on migrants of color, their families, their friends, and their communities, among others! Symbolism is only effective if followed by action. And, so far, Garland’s actions on wiping out the “vestiges of Dred Scott at Justice” have fallen woefully short!

This raises serious, unaddressed questions of why such weakly qualified individuals are on the bench in the first place when there are many immigration experts out there who can and would do better. Much better! And it wouldn’t take them years and multiple hearings, appeals, and trips to the Circuit to grant asylum.

This isn’t a “deep” case except that it represents the “deep dodo” 💩 at EOIR, the stench of which is fouling our entire justice system and shaking the foundations of our democracy! This case is about following the Code of Federal Regulations, properly applying precedent, and fairly treating asylum seekers. It’s “Law 101” — things L-1s would have to know to get to L-2! I can’t begin to think what the paper would look like like if one of my students gave me this kind of garbage on a final exam. Fortunately, to date, nobody ever has!

Nor is this a Circuit renowned for critical analysis or holding the Government to a high standards in immigration cases. Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit itself bears some responsibility for this mess! They are well aware of the anti-asylum bias and poor decision-making emanating from the Atlanta Immigration Court, within their jurisdiction, and have chosen to ignore it. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/04/22/11th-circuit-judge-adelberto-jose-jordan-outs-the-atlanta-immigration-court-for-equal-protection-charade-in-a-dissenting-opinion-in-my-view-ms-diaz-r/

Those who want a more complete run down of the ongoing “Atlanta disgrace” — a cancer on our justice system — should just go to the “Atlanta Immigration Court” tab on immigrationcourtside.com. There is more than enough compiled to have triggered an investigation, removals from office, and corrective action in a functioning Government! And my collection is just “the tip of the iceberg” on what has been written about the disgraceful, systemic denial of fairness, impartiality, and justice in Atlanta!

And, why was OIL defending this ridiculous mess in the first place? It’s a “comedy” of errors, questionable ethics, and amateurish legal work that the DOJ should be ashamed of and which Garland should end — NOW! No wonder this ridiculous national embarrassment has created an unnecessary 1.3 million case backlog that continues to grow under Garland!

Don’t let Garland or anyone else in the Administration tell you that this self-created backlog justifies a truncation of due process or more “bogus attempts to expedite” asylum cases. NO! What it requires is for Garland to bring in real judges and experts from the private/NGO sector to fix the Immigration Courts so they comply with due process and fundamental fairness!

Judge Garland, “come on man!” These deadly robed clowns and their “defenders” represent YOU — “the top legal officer in our Executive Branch!” YOU have a responsibility to the American people (NOT just the failed DOJ or the President) to “get out the big hook” and “yank” these anti-due process, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, anti-racial-justice clowns 🤡 off YOUR bench and replace them with competence and fairness. A little (now missing) diversity wouldn’t hurt either! It’s called fulfilling the promises made by Biden and Harris during the election!

It’s not going to improve until Garland replaces the BIA with qualified judges, hires only Immigration Judges who know how to fairly adjudicate asylum cases, (with outstanding public reputations for fairness, scholarship, timeliness, teamwork, and respect), and AAG Vanita Gupta brings in better leadership at OIL to put an end to this tragic, totally unnecessary, disgracefully wasteful abuse of our Federal Judicial system and the resulting human carnage!

NDPA warriors, don’t be fooled or lured into complacency by this week’s long overdue positive developments in A-B- and L-E-A- — things that experts said should have been done by Judge Garland on “Day 1.” Keep showing your total dis-satisfaction and disgust with the glacial pace of reform at DOJ and the myriad of highly unqualified “judges” still being allowed to continue to inflict racial injustice and “worst imaginable practices” on vulnerable individuals (and their lawyers) who are entitled to due process and justice — not a continuing deadly ☠️ clown 🤡 show! Keep letting Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, Biden, Harris, Congress, the Article IIIs, and the American people know that “The EOIR Clown Show Has Got To Go!” NOW! There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all in America (wake up, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke) while Garland operates his “star chamber courts” at EOIR!

Star Chamber Justice — Hi, Judge Garland! This is how “justice” is administered in the 11th Circuit Immigration Cours and at the Bailey’s Crossroads’ Tower. Glad you like it! I guess the screams of the innocent can’t be heard across the river! Not even sure why you would need a law school degree to be “judges” in your EOIR star chambers. It’s really just about dehumanization, degradation, and “productivity!” — Public realm

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Asylum Free Zones,” Never!

PWS

06-19-21

NDPA STALWART JASON “THE ASYLUMIST” DZUBOW 🌟 QUOTED IN AP ARTICLE ABOUT REPEAL OF A-B- & L-E-A-!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=a9dc6320-82bc-4db8-bb6b-cfba11a536cb

AP reports:

The U.S. government on Wednesday ended two Trump administration policies that made it harder for immigrants fleeing violence to qualify for asylum, especially Central Americans.

Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland issued a new policy saying immigration judges should cease following the Trump-era rules that made it tough for immigrants who faced domestic or gang violence to win asylum in the United States. The move could make it easier for them to win their cases for humanitarian protection and was widely celebrated by immigrant advocates.

“The significance of this cannot be overstated,” said Kate Melloy Goettel, legal director of litigation at the American Immigration Council. “This was one of the worst anti-asylum decisions under the Trump era, and this is a really important first step in undoing that.”

Garland said he was making the changes after President Biden ordered his office and the Department of Homeland Security to draft rules addressing complex issues in immigration law about groups of people who should qualify for asylum.

Gene Hamilton, a key architect of many of then-President Trump’s immigration policies who served in the Justice Department, said in a statement that he believed the change would lead to more immigrants filing asylum claims based on crime and that it should not be a reason for the humanitarian protection.

. . . .

In the current fiscal year, people from countries such as Russia and Cameroon have seen higher asylum grant rates in the immigration courts than those from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the data show.

One of the Trump administration policies was aimed at migrants who were fleeing violence from nonstate actors, such as gangs, while the other affected those who felt they were being targeted in their countries because of their family ties, said Jason Dzubow, an immigration attorney in Washington who focuses on asylum.

Dzubow said he recently represented a Salvadoran family in which the husband was killed and gang members started coming after his children. While Dzubow argued they were in danger because of their family ties, he said the immigration judge rejected the case, citing the Trump-era decision among the reasons.

Dzubow welcomed the change but said he doesn’t expect to suddenly see large numbers of Central Americans winning their asylum cases, which remain difficult under U.S. law.

“I don’t expect it is going to open the floodgates, and all of a sudden everyone from Central America can win their cases. Those cases are very burdensome and difficult,” he said. “We need to make a decision: Do we want to protect these people?”

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

Read the full article at the link.

You know for sure you’re doing the right thing when anti-asylum shill and Stephen Miller crony Gene Hamilton criticizes it!

I tend to agree with my friend Jason that under present conditions, asylum cases for women refugees from Central America are likely to continue to be a “tough slog” at EOIR. The intentionally-created anti-asylum, misogynist, anti-Latino, anti-scholarship, anti-quality, anti-due-process culture at EOIR that emerged under Sessions and Barr isn’t going to disappear overnight, particularly the way Judge Garland is approaching it. He needs to “get out the broom,🧹 sweep out the current BIA and the bad, anti-asylum judges, get rid of ineffective administration, and bring in human rights and due process professionals to get this system operating again!

Jason, for one, would be an outstanding judicial choice for building a functioning, fair, efficient Immigration Court; one that would fulfill the long-abandoned vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Under the Trump regime, EOIR was the antithesis of that noble vision!

Cases such as that described by Jason (incorrectly decided by the Immigration Judge) utilizing A-R-C-G- and “family friendly” precedents from the Fourth Circuit were usually well-represented and well-prepared by attorneys like Jason, Clinics, and NGOs like CLINIC, CAIR Coalition, Human Rights First, and Law School Clinics. After review by ICE Counsel, many were candidates for my “short docket” in Arlington where asylum could easily be granted based on the documentation and short confirming testimony.

To their credit, even before the BIA finally issued A-R-C-G-, the Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office was not opposing well-documented asylum grants based on domestic violence under what was known as the “Martin Brief” after former DHS/INS Senior Official, renowned immigration scholar, and internationally recognized asylum expert, now emeritus Professor David A. Martin of UVA Law. I remember telling David after one such case that his brief was still “saving lives” even after his departure from DHS and return to academia.

David Martin — Professor (Emeritus) David A. Martin
UVA Law
PHOTO: UVA Law

Rather than building on that real potential for efficiency, cooperation, quality, and due process, under Sessions those things that were working at EOIR and represented hope and potential for future progress were maliciously and idiotically dismantled. From the outside, throughout the country, I saw DV cases that once would have been “easy short docket grants” in Arlington require lengthy hearings and often be incorrectly decided in Immigration Court and the BIA. Sometimes the Circuits corrected the errors, sometimes not.

At best, what had been a growing census around recognizing asylum claims based on DV became a “crap shoot” with the result almost totally dependent on what judges were assigned, what Circuit the hearing was held in, and even the composition of the Circuit panel! And, of course, unrepresented claimants were DOA regardless of the merits of their cases. What a way to run a system where torture or death could be the result of a wrong decision!

But, it doesn’t have to be that away! Experts like Jason and others could get this system functioning fairly and efficiently in less time than it took Sessions and Barr to destroy it.

However, it can’t be done with the personnel now at DOJ and EOIR Headquarters. If Judge Garland wants this to function like a real court system (not always clear to me that he does), he needs to recruit and bring in the outside progressive experts absolutely necessary to make it happen. At long last, it’s time for “Amateur Night at the Bijou” to end its long, disgraceful, debilitating “run” @ EOIR!

Time for this long-running show at DOJ/EOIR to end! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk
Creative Commons
Amateur Night

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-18-21

🤯THIS IS THE “CHANGE” PROGRESSIVES VOTED FOR? — 🏴‍☠️ GARLAND DEFENDS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMMIGRATION DETENTION AS LOSSES CONTINUE TO MOUNT — U.S. Judge In N.D. Cal. Unimpressed With Biden Administration’s Continued Intransigence!

Judah Lakin — Judah Larkin
Partner, Lakin & Wille
Oakland, CA
PHOTO: Larkin & Wille

Subject: [fedcourtlitigation] Habeas Win on Post-Preap Constitutional Challenge to 236(c)

Dear All:

We wanted to share an exciting decision we received on Friday from Judge Freeman in the Northern District of California on Friday granting our client a bond hearing.

We, together with our co-counsel Jenny Zhao and Monica Ramsy from Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Asian Law Caucus, and Scott Mossman, brought a habeas challenging mandatory detention under 1226(c) for an individual who was arrested by ICE in the community, 6 years after he finished his criminal sentence. Our client is an LPR with an aggravated felony conviction (drug trafficking). We asked for the local ICE office to follow the Johnson memo and release him, but they refused. We elevated it to headquarters and they likewise refused.

As a result, we brought an as-applied constitutional challenge to his detention without a bond hearing—a claim which was expressly left open by the Supreme Court in Preap. He had been detained for about 6 weeks at the time we filed the habeas, so it is a non-prolonged detention case.

Judge Freeman applied the Mathews framework and granted our TRO motion, concluding that the Constitution requires a bond hearing in this case. The bond hearing is scheduled for this week, pursuant to the TRO order, so we are optimistic he will be free soon. We’re also hopeful that this case can be used by others as we continue to work to dismantle mandatory detention.

The TRO decision is attached and is available at: Perera v. Jennings, No. 21-CV-04136-BLF, 2021 WL 2400981 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2021).

Judah Lakin (he/him/his/Él)

Attorney at Law | Lakin & Wille LLP

Here’s a copy of Judge Freeman’s decision, basically a “primer” on Matthews v. Eldridge due process and its blatant violation under immigration bureaucracies of Administrations of both parties.

Judge Freeman’s Order

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

Seems like “Con Law 101” to me! So, how come it’s “above Garland’s pay grade?”

Many congrats to Judah and all others involved to this effort!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-16-21

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️🗽NBC NEWS: IMMIGRATION JUDGES KHAN, MARKS, HONEYMAN, & DORNELL SPEAK OUT ON STRESS, MESS, IN GARLAND’S BROKEN IMMIGRATION COURTS 🆘 🏴‍☠️ — Gabe Gutierrez Reports!

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) — Judge Amiena Khan, President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)

Hon. Diana Leigh Marks — Hon. Dana Leigh Marks
U.S. Immigration Judge
San Francisco Immigration Court
Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges

Hon. Charles Honeyman — Honorable Charles Honeyman
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Honorable Lisa Dornell
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/immigration-judges-speak-out-on-rise-in-u-s-border-crossings-114715205902

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

Judges Khan and Marks are already on the DOJ payroll. Garland should have brought them in to Falls Church, on at least a temporary basis, to start cleaning up the mess and instituting long overdue due process and judicial independence reforms! The NAIJ which they represent should have been reinstated to represent Immigration Judges.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

Recent retirees on the Round Table like Judges Honeyman and Dornell could have been rehired on a temporary basis under available authority to help root out and change the inane quotas, bad precedents, terrible exclusionary hiring processes, and mind-boggling “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that continues to build backlog, deny due process, and promote reactionary White Nationalist policies in the failed and flailing Immigration “Courts.”

The continuing problems at Garland’s DOJ start with EOIR, but by no means end there! Apparently, Garland’s lackadaisical, permissive attitude toward corruption at DOJ under Trump & his cronies doesn’t get the Hill Dems’ attention unless they and their families were personally targeted by the illegality and misconduct. Otherwise, it’s just the lives of immigrants, asylum seekers, and “the others,” mostly people of color and abused women and children, so who cares?

It’s worthy of noting that it has largely fallen to the press and public interest groups to expose the corruption allowed to fester at Trump’s DOJ. Only then does Garland make tardy and half-hearted efforts to investigate or take action. Cleaning up corruption, changing bad and illegal policies, and rooting out those who carried out such abuses should have been “job one” for the incoming Attorney General. Instead, it’s an “afterthought,” at best!

And, of course, good government and ethics aren’t part of the “institutional culture” @ DOJ that Garland is so anxious to defend. Does every Administration have a “right” to have its illegal actions and corruption covered up and defended by its successor? Will it really deter “good government” if you believe that you might be held accountable by the next Administration for acts of unconstitutionality or illegality?

How come using the law as a “deterrent” is fine as applied to migrants of color, but “deterring” present and future DOJ bureaucrats and politicos from abusing the law in support of a corrupt Administration’s illegal policies isn’t?

Sure, I recognize that guys like Sessions and Barr have a perverted view of what’s unconstitutional. But, the object is to make it difficult for horrible opponents of American democracy like them to become Attorney General in the future and to insure that there will be institutional resistance to any future efforts to corrupt our justice system.

“Normalizing” the unprecedented overtly corrupt behavior of theTrump regime is a continuing problem! We need to fight it all levels of our society and government!

Dishonesty appears to be the main “bipartisan institutional value” at DOJ. No wonder it was so easy for Sessions and Barr to get their corrupt agendas carried out by career lawyers and bureaucrats!

Unless and until Congress finally lights a fire under Garland and his team, and creates an independent Article I Immigration Court, that’s unlikely to change.

Our DOJ is quite obviously broken and reeling. Why isn’t fixing it one of our highest national priorities?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-13-21

9TH CIR. FINDS BIA APPLIED WRONG STANDARD TO DENY CAT — Soto-Soto v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/11/20-70587.pdf

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges, and JANE A. RESTANI,* Judge.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.;

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Wallace

* The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

No. 20-70587

Agency No. A209-406-355

OPINION

2 SOTO-SOTO V. GARLAND

SUMMARY** Immigration

Granting Delfina Soto-Soto’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ reversing an immigration judge’s grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding for the Board to grant CAT relief, the panel held that the Board erred by reviewing the IJ’s decision de novo, rather than for clear error, and concluded that the record compelled the conclusion that Soto-Soto met her burden of proof to establish that it is more likely than not that she will suffer future torture if removed to Mexico.

Michoacán state police arrested and brutally tortured Soto-Soto until she confessed to the kidnapping and murder of a five-year old boy. After the Mexican trial court dismissed the charges against her as a result of due process errors during the investigation, she fled to the United States. Mexican prosecutors subsequently conducted a new investigation and filed new charges against Soto-Soto, INTERPOL put out a Red Notice for her extradition to Uruapan in Michoacán, Mexico, which is 67 miles from where Soto-Soto was tortured in Morelia, Michoacán. Relying on Soto-Soto’s past torture, her reporting of the torture to the Michoacán State Commission of Human Rights despite warnings not to do so, the reissued arrest warrant, and country condition evidence showing that indigenous women like Soto-Soto are particularly

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

SOTO-SOTO V. GARLAND 3

vulnerable to torture, the IJ held that Soto-Soto was more likely than not to be tortured again if removed to Mexico. The Board reversed and held that the IJ’s determination was clearly erroneous because he did not acknowledge the Mexican judicial system’s appropriate steps to correct past due process errors, that Soto-Soto was not harmed while in custody for eight months after reporting the torture, and that members of Soto-Soto’s family remain in Mexico unharmed.

The panel concluded that the Board’s decision reflected that it engaged in a de novo weighing of the evidence, rather than clear error review. The panel explained that the Board may find an IJ’s factual finding to be clearly erroneous if it is illogical or implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record, but in this case, the Board failed to explain how the IJ’s decision was illogical, implausible, or without support.

The panel’s majority also concluded that the Board’s view of the evidence was not supported by the record. First, the majority wrote that the record emphatically did not show that the Mexican court took steps to cure the due process errors caused by the state police officers torturing a confession out of Soto-Soto. Further, the majority wrote that even if the record supported the Board’s factual findings, that would not be enough to overturn the IJ’s decision under clear error review, because the IJ’s predictive finding as to the likelihood of torture is entitled to broad deference, which the Board failed to provide. Second, the majority wrote that because Soto-Soto’s human rights commission complaint was not filed until after she was released from custody, and nothing in the record suggested that the state police officers were aware of her report, Soto-Soto’s physical safety while in custody was not probative of the state police officers’

4 SOTO-SOTO V. GARLAND

intent to carry out their threat of future torture. Finally, the majority wrote that the lack of harm to Soto-Soto’s family was irrelevant because threats of such harm hinged on Soto- Soto’s return to Mexico, which had not yet occurred. The panel also observed that the Board failed to discuss the IJ’s other key factual findings, including country condition reports establishing that indigenous women are more likely to be tortured in Mexico than other groups.

Reviewed under the proper standard of review, the majority concluded that the IJ’s decision was not clearly erroneous, and that the record compelled the conclusion that Soto-Soto met her burden of proof to establish that it is more likely than not that she will suffer future torture if removed to Mexico. The majority remanded the petition to the Board with the direction to grant deferral of removal.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Wallace agreed that the Board impermissibly applied de novo review in reversing the IJ’s grant of relief. However, Judge Wallace wrote that he believes that the IJ erred in the likelihood of future torture analysis, and he relatedly disagreed with the majority’s and IJ’s conflation of the various Mexican law enforcement actors in the state of Michoacán into a unitary actor—i.e., the Michoacán state police—in assessing the likelihood of torture. Judge Wallace also highlighted that the IJ found Soto-Soto was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because there are serious reasons to believe that she did, in fact, kidnap and murder the child whenhisfamilyrefusedtopaythedemandedransom. Judge Wallace believed that her likely guilt should have been considered as well because her original criminal case was not dismissed due to factual innocence but due process errors that have been corrected. Judge Wallace concluded that the majority’s direction to the Board to grant CAT relief rather

SOTO-SOTO V. GARLAND 5

than reversing and remanding the petition to the Board for further consideration goes against the court’s ordinary practice, especially because the record did not compel the conclusion that Soto-Soto satisfied her burden of proof.

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

More result-oriented decision making and basic errors on the EOIR deportation railroad.🚂

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-12-21

⚔️⚔️🛡ROUND TABLE SALLIES FORTH AGAIN AS 9TH VACATES GARLAND BIA’S PRECEDENT IN MATTER OF K-S-E-, 27 I&N Dec. 818 (BIA 2020) (misconstruing “firm resettlement” in effort to punish, harm asylum seekers)

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

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Hi all:We filed an amicus brief in the attached case (drafted for us by Sullivan Cromwell) challenging the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of K-S-E- before the 9th Circuit. K-S-E- held that firm resettlement can be found based on the availability of permanent residence in a third country, regardless of the asylum seeker’s unwillingness to pursue such status.

The 9th Cir. yesterday vacated the Board precedent and remanded for the Board to further consider the firm resettlement issue, inter alia.

Best, Jeff

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

To quote one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues:

Excellent news! Should an ethnic Korean from China or Japan be forced to accept an offer of firm resettlement from North Korea? To quote our President, “C’mon, man!”

“C’mon, man,” indeed! For Garland’s BIA it’s just a question of “what can we do to screw asylum seekers today!” The level of absurdity, irrationality, and/or illegality is largely irrelevant.

It’s not like Sessions and Barr had any concern for the law. The BIA knew there would be no meaningful consequences as long as they carried out the White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda of the Trump regime!

But, you could say much the same about Garland! There was more than ample evidence and documentation of anti-asylum bias and deficient decision making to replace of the BIA with “real judges” from among progressive experts on the day Garland was sworn in as AG.

Yet, three months later, nothing much has changed and the assault on asylum seekers and justice at Garland’s EOIR continues largely unabated. Indeed, Garland’s totally inappropriate, due process damaging, appointment of yet more (17) “Barr-picked judges” has further aggravated the problem to a simply astounding degree! It’s like you’re behind by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter and your so-called “head coach” awards your opponents 17 more points for no particular reason! What on earth is going on in Garland’s head?

Real judges on a “Reform BIA” from the ranks of progressive experts would have Matter of K-S-E-, Matter of A-B-, Matter of L-E-A-, Matter of Castro-Tum and a host of other Trumpist garbage “sorted” in no time and the now-dysfunctional EOIR system back on track to due process and functionality. What’s glaringly missing is any semblance of awareness, urgency, and competent progressive leadership from Garland and those surrounding him!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-11-21

😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️: 9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-departure-bar-sua-sponte-reopening-balerio-rubalcaba-v-garland#

CA9 on Departure Bar, Sua Sponte Reopening: Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland

Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland

“This case presents the question whether the departure bar limits an IJ’s ability to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction to review questions of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we conclude that the departure bar does not apply in the context of sua sponte reopening. That is, an IJ’s discretion to reopen a case on his or her own motion is not limited by the fact that a noncitizen has previously been removed or has departed from the United States. Therefore, we grant the petition for review.”

[Hats off to Elsa Martinez!]

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

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201915091.pdf

KELLY SANCHEZ-CASTRO,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _______________________

(June 1, 2021)

Petitioner,

Respondent.

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:

Kelly Sanchez-Castro, a native of El Salvador, petitions for our review after

she unsuccessfully sought relief from removal because a gang targeted her family based on the assumption that her father’s work in the United States made it

USCA11 Case: 19-15091 Date Filed: 06/01/2021 Page: 2 of 15

wealthy. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and substantial evidence supports its decision. Sanchez-Castro is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the gang that targeted her family did so only as a means to the end of obtaining funds, not because of any animus against her family. And she is ineligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture because she has not established that any harm she will suffer if returned to her home country will come with at least the acquiescence of a government official. We deny Sanchez-Castro’s petition for review.

. . . .

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

Woman Tortured — “Tough noogies, Baby! Chief Judge Pryor and his all-male, all White ivory tower panel don’t see any nexus here! So, suffer and die, Baby, suffer and die!” “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

To reach its incorrect and life-threatening endorsement of the BIA’s misconstruction of the nexus requirements (throwing out the normal rules of causation to achieve an anti-asylum-seeker result) the 11th Circuit panel eschewed a much better and more intellectually honest approach by the 4th Circuit in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).

Notwithstanding Chief Judge Pryor’s cavalier attitude about sending Ms. Castro-Sanchez back to possible death or dismemberment at the hands of gangs who operate with relative impunity in El Salvador, these are not “academic exercises.” They are serious life or death matters involving bad law produced by a (non) “court” (the BIA) controlled by a law enforcement official (the Attorney General) that is not comprised of judges who are recognized experts in asylum and immigration laws and has over recent history construed the law against immigrants at almost every opportunity!

These two cases show the difference between this panel of the 9th Circuit that takes judicial review and what’s at stake seriously and the “indifferent to humanity” rubber-stamp approach applied by the 11th Circuit panel. We need better judges, progressives with expertise in due process, human rights, immigration, and racial justice at every level of our Federal Judiciary — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes! Circuits like the 5th and the 11th with long and disgraceful records of relative indifference to the rights and lives of migrants, mostly those of color, are long, long overdue for infusion of better qualified progressive “practical scholars” and advocates.

That makes the progressive outrage over Garland’s totally inappropriate “giveaway” of Immigration Judge positions he controls to Barr-selected, non progressive, candidates who applied under a flawed recruitment process designed to discourage diversity and exclude the best qualified expert candidates from the private sector, along with his failure to address skewed anti-asylum-seeker precedents like L-E-A- and A-B– all the more understandable! It also makes changes that will put more expert, progressive, due-process oriented judges who have experience representing individuals in court all the more urgent!

Cases like this wouldn’t get into the “Article III Life or Death Lottery” if Garland had dealt promptly and properly with L-E-A-, A-B-, and other Trump-era, anti-asylum, anti-migrant, anti-due-process, misogynist precedents!

Judge Merrick Garland — Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — His failure to institute long-overdue and obvious progressive due process reforms @ EOIR is costing Kelly Castro-Sanchez and other vulnerable refugee women their lives while enraging their advocates! It’s not an “academic exercise,” as Garland seems to think. There are real life consequences and irreparable harm from his failure to take due process, human rights, and racial justice seriously @ EOIR!
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Tell the Biden Administration that we need progressives, not more “regressives,” on the Federal Bench, starting with the Immigration Courts! End abusive judging by a non-diverse Federal Judiciary!

PWS

06-04-21

👎🏽🤮”MR. CLEAN” MIA @ DOJ: Garland’s Tone Deaf Defense Of Sleazy “Billy the Bigot” 🦨 Draws Fire From Watchdog, As He Fails To Deliver For Progressives @ Dysfunctional, Ethics-Challenged DOJ!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/watchdog-doj-trump-obstruction-justice-memo-secret_n_60b472d4e4b02a79db8f892c

Mary Papenfuss reports for HuffPost:

A watchdog group has filed a brief opposing the Justice Department’s push to keep secret former Attorney General William Barr’s memo concerning ex-President Donald Trump’s possible obstruction of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

“The DOJ must produce the document, clean up the department, and show that it will not be used for the personal protection of any president,” the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said in a statement Friday after it filed the brief. CREW initially sought release of the memo through the Freedom of Information Act.

At issue is Barr’s decision to ignore any obstruction of justice issues concerning Trump despite strong evidence against him revealed by then-special counsel Robert Mueller. Critics said Barr misled the public by cherry-picking quotes from Mueller’s report to protect Trump. They accused him of making a political decision rather than a legal one.

Barr claimed that justification for the lack of any action against Trump was carefully considered and spelled out in the memo, which had previously only been made public in a highly redacted form.

But according to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who ordered the release of the nine-page memo earlier this month, Barr’s decision was a foregone conclusion. Barr had already made up his mind not to prosecute Trump before considering any of the advice or analysis that he claimed informed his decision, she said in her order.

Jackson added that the memo contained “strategic, as opposed to legal, advice” and that both the writers and the recipients already had a mutual understanding about what the prosecutorial decision would be.

A “review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given,” the judge wrote in the order.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Mary’s article at the link.

If Team Garland has a plan to “clean up the Department,” as advocated by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in their brief, they are certainly keeping THAT a secret.

Nowhere has Garland’s failure to be the long awaited “Mr.Clean” been more notable and harmful to good governance than at EOIR. There, he has inexplicably continued to unconstitutionally promote a charade of a “court” system that lacks fair and impartial judges. Rather than bringing in the necessary expert progressive reformers from the NDPA to clean up the mess, restore due process, create quasi-judicial independence, and institute best practices, the dysfunction continues to get worse, progressive advocacy groups (who helped put Biden/Harris in office) are totally outraged and frustrated, the “same old, same old” deficient recruitment and hiring practices remain in effect, and the totally dysfunctional bureaucratic structure, comprised largely of Trump holdovers and bureaucrats, maintains its “death spiral.”⚰️

Go figure!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-31-21

⚖️🗽4TH CIRCUIT BLASTS GARLAND EOIR’S INDOLENT, “HASTE MAKE WASTE,” DENIAL-CENTRIC ASYLUM ADJUDICATION IN ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ROUND TABLE & DUE PROCESS & ANOTHER “WARNING SHOT ACROSS THE BOW” FOR GARLAND’S FAILURE TO INSTITUTE LONG OVERDUE PROGRESSIVE REFORMS AND REPLACE DEFICIENT JUDGES @ EOIR! 🏴‍☠️☠️— Immigration Judges Have A Duty To Develop the Record, Even When It Slows Down EOIR’s “Deportation Railroad” — AREVALO QUINTERO v. GARLAND!

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action — What are Garland, Monaco, and Gujpta doing to end these atrocities!? So far, nothing!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Arevalo Quintero v. Garland, 4th Cir., 05-26-21, published

PANEL:MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Wynn

CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Motz

KEY QUOTE:

In our country, few populations are as vulnerable as noncitizens facing removal

proceedings who are unable to secure the assistance of adequate counsel. Yet the consequences they may face are severe: family separation, prolonged detention, and deportation to a country where persecution or even death awaits.

We are acutely conscious of the harsh realities of our immigration system faced by thousands of noncitizens each day. These individuals come to our shores in search of sanctuary and a better life. Many are poor, young, uneducated, or (like Petitioner) all three. Of course, we recognize that immigration policies are primarily a concern for the elected branches. But it is our role, and our highest duty, to ensure that those policies are applied fairly and with full regard to our laws and our Constitution.

With these grave concerns in mind, we hold today that under the Immigration and Nationality Act and, where relevant, the United States’ obligations under the Refugee Convention, immigration judges have a legal duty to fully develop the record, which becomes particularly important in pro se cases. We believe this procedural protection is essential for ensuring fundamental fairness and reasoned decision making in removal proceedings.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the immigration judge below failed to fulfill her duty to fully develop the record, thereby depriving Petitioner of a vital statutory protection and a full and fair hearing. In light of this and other errors made by the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, we grant the petition, vacate Petitioner’s final order of removal, and remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals with instructions to remand the case to the immigration judge for further fact-finding and reconsideration of Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief.

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

“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color

How many more of these disasters will it take for Garland to oust the deadwood and the “denial club” from the Immigration Judiciary, make the urgently needed, long overdue progressive reforms, and bring in progressive leaders and judges to restore due process at the totally and disgracefully dysfunctional EOIR? How many more lives will be needlessly be lost or squandered by the unconstitutional parody of a “court” system that Garland is running @ EOIR? What will the cost of his “case of the slows” be to Garland’s reputation and to the Biden Administration? Why is the “EOIR Clown Show”🤡⚰️still engaging in its daily deadly performances more than four months into the Biden Administration?

Also, every additional embarrassing, unprofessional performance like this by EOIR makes Garland’s horrible decision to hire 17 more “less than the best,” non-expert Immigration Judges, who haven’t represented individuals in Immigration Court, look worse and worse! There are lots of experts out there in the NDPA who know asylum law, know how to develop a record fully, and are highly sensitive to the due process needs of asylum seekers and other migrants. The continuation of ignorant, haste make waste, “any reason to get to no” decision making at EOIR, that specifically was encouraged by Sessions and Barr, is totally unnecessary ands highly inappropriate!

Here’s more from Round Table leader Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

Friends, this is a really great win. In a 62-page published decision, a panel of the Fourth Circuit referenced our amicus brief, adopted many of our arguments, and agreed that an IJ has a duty to develop the record in a pro se withholding/CAT claim.

The court actually granted the withholding of removal claim (see pp. 53-54). It also found that the BIA incorrectly applied Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- to a pro se applicant.

While our brief is mentioned in the body of the decision, if you look at footnote 24, the court especially liked the analogy from our brief (the work of our drafter, Steve Schulman of Akin Gump) comparing a pro se applicant’s attempts to formulate a particular social group to a game of Scrabble in which one of the players “does not speak English and cannot spell;” adding that “without help, the respondent could never win, and can’t even meaningfully participate.”

There are also references to Matter of S-M-J- and the UNHCR Handbook.

I think we can be very proud of this one.

Thanks again to Steve Schulman, who has done such an outstanding job in drafting quite a few of our briefs.

Best, Jeff

Just think of what could be accomplished and the resources that would be conserved if the progressive due process experts were on the INSIDE at EOIR rather than perpetually STUCK ON THE OUTSIDE litigating, writing, lobbying, complaining to get Garland to simply do his job! Not rocket science. But, apparently below Garland’s view and beyond his engagement level from the “ivory tower.”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-26-21

⚖️SUPREME UNANIMITY: Immigrant Loses On Collateral Challenge To Legally Incorrect Removal Order! — U.S. v. Palomar-Santiago

U.S. v. Palomar-Santiago, Sup Ct., 05-24-21

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-437_bqmc.pdf

Syllabus by Court Staff:

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 20–437. Argued April 27, 2021—Decided May 24, 2021

Respondent Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican national living in the United States, was convicted in California state court of felony DUI in 1988. At the time, lower courts understood that conviction to be an “aggravated felony” subjecting a noncitizen to removal from the United States. 8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Palomar-Santiago was removed following a hearing before an immigration judge and a waiver of his right to appeal. In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was found in the United States and indicted on one count of unlawful reentry after removal. See §1326(a). The statute criminalizing unlawful reentry provides that a collateral challenge to the underlying deportation order may proceed only if the noncitizen first demonstrates that (1) “any administrative remedies that may have been available” were exhausted, (2) “the opportunity for judicial review” was lacking, and (3) “the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” §1326(d). Palomar-Santiago moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his prior removal order was invalid in light of the 2004 holding in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, that felony DUI is not an aggravated felony. Following Ninth Circuit precedent, the District Court and Court of Appeals held that Palomar-Santiago was excused from proving the first two requirements of §1326(d) because his felony DUI conviction had not made him removable. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Held: Each of the statutory requirements of §1326(d) is mandatory. Pp. 5–8.

(a) The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is incompatible with the text of §1326(d), which provides that defendants charged with unlawful reentry “may not” challenge their underlying removal orders “unless” they “demonstrat[e]” each of three conditions. Section 1326(d)’s first

2

UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO Syllabus

two requirements are not satisfied just because a noncitizen was re- moved for an offense that should not have rendered him removable. The substantive validity of a removal order is quite distinct from whether the noncitizen exhausted administrative remedies or was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review. P. 5.

(b) Palomar-Santiago’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, he contends that further administrative review of a removal order is not “available” for purposes of §1326(a) when a noncitizen will not recognize a substantive basis to challenge an immigration judge’s conclusion that a prior conviction renders the noncitizen removable. The immigration judge’s error on the merits does not excuse the noncitizen’s failure to comply with a mandatory exhaustion requirement if further administrative review, and then judicial review if necessary, could fix that very error. Ross, 578 U. S. 632, distinguished.

Second, Palomar-Santiago contends that §1326(d)’s prerequisites do not apply when a defendant argues that a removal order was substantively invalid. There can be no “challenge” to or “collateral attack” on the validity of substantively flawed orders, he reasons, because such orders are invalid when entered. This position ignores the plain mean- ing of both “challenge” and “collateral attack.”

Lastly, Palomar-Santiago invokes the canon of constitutional avoidance. But this canon “has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity.” United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 494. Here, the text of §1326(d) unambiguously fore- closes Palomar-Santiago’s interpretation. Pp. 5–7.

813 Fed. Appx. 282, reversed and remanded.

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

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

The lesson here for advocates: Exhaust those administrative appeals and judicial review even when your case seems hopeless. Otherwise, your client will be barred from taking advantage of later changes in the case law. After the fact, a “mere showing of fundamental unfairness” is not sufficient! And, you could be charged with malpractice by recommending that appeals and judicial review be waived.

This ought to generate more clogging of the Federal Courts, particularly the way the BIA is deciding cases these days. But, it’s what the Supremes unanimously asked for, so we have to take them at their word!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-24-21

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮

Dan Kowalski forwards these two 2d Circuit reversals on basic “bread and butter” issues: 1) mental competency (BIA unable or unwilling to follow own precedent); 2) credibility; 3) corroboration; 4) consideration of testimony and evidence:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85d225f1-0b15-44a9-8890-80f9027d12b5/3/doc/18-1083_so.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85d225f1-0b15-44a9-8890-80f9027d12b5/3/hilite/

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57161a21-b70c-4b36-9a38-ff6a88d12453/14/doc/19-1370_so.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57161a21-b70c-4b36-9a38-ff6a88d12453/14/hilite/

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

These aren’t “cases of first impression,” “Circuit splits,” complex questions involving state law, unusual Constitutional issues, or difficult applications of treaties or international law. No, these are the “basics” of fair, competent adjudication in Immigration Court. Things most law students would get correct that IJs and BIA Appellate Judges are getting wrong on a daily basis in their “race to deny.”

Don’t kid yourself! For every one of these “caught and outed” by Circuit Courts, dozens are wrongly railroaded out of America because they are unrepresented, can’t afford to pursue judicial review in the Article IIIs, or are duressed and demoralized by unconstitutional detention and other coercive methods applied by the “unethical partnership” between EOIR and ICE enforcement.

Others have the misfortune to be in the 5th Circuit, the 11th Circuit, or draw Circuit panels who are happy to “keep,the line moving” by indolently “rubber stamping” EOIR’s “Dred Scottification” of “the other.” After all, dead or deported (or both) migrants can’t complain and don’t exercise any societal power! “Dead/deported men or women don’t talk.”☠️⚰️ But, members of the NDPA will preserve and tell their stories of unnecessary human suffering and degradation for them! We will insure that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and others in the Biden Administration who ignored their desperate moans and tortured screams in their time of direst need are held accountable!🤮

Unfortunately, these decisions are unpublished. They should be published! It’s critically important that the daily gross miscarriages of justice @ EOIR be publicly documented, citable as precedent, and serve as a permanent record of perhaps the most unconstitutional and corrupt episode in modern American legal history.

It’s also essential to keep the pressure on Garland and his so far feckless lieutenants to fix the problem:

Remove the Trump/Miller holdovers @ EOIR;
Prune out the “go along to get along” deadwood;
Rescind the improper hiring of 17 “Billy the Bigot” judicial selections (including the one absurdist selection by “AG for a Day Monty Python” — talk about a “poke in the eyes with a sharp stick” to progressives);
Bring in top notch progressive practical scholars as leaders and REAL judges at both the appellate and trial levels of EOIR – NOW;
Make the “no brainer” changes to eradicate Trump-era unethical, xenophobic “precedents” and inane “rules” and establish due process and fundamental fairness, including, of course, racial and gender equity in decision making.

So far, Garland has pretended that the “Culture of Denial” flourishing under his nose at HIS EOIR doesn’t exist! It does exist — big time — and it continues to get worse, threaten more lives, and squander more resources every day!

Due process (not to mention simple human decency) requires bold, immediate ACTION. Garland’s continued dawdling and inaction raises the issue of what is the purpose of an Attorney General who allows his “delegees” (basically Stephen Miller’s “judges”) to violate due process every day! There is no more important issue facing the DOJ today. Garland’s silence and inaction raise serious questions about his suitability to serve as the American public’s top lawyer!

🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-24-21

☠️🏴‍☠️⚰️🤮NO JUSTICE @ JUSTICE! — GARLAND ISSUES WEAK-KNEED, PERFUNCTORY “NOTHINGBURGER” PROMISING “ACCESS TO JUSTICE REFORMS” WHILE DAILY MOCKING THEM IN PRACTICE IN HIS DYSFUNCTIONAL, ANTI-DUE PROCSS, INTENTIONALLY “USER UNFRIENDLY” IMMIGRATION “COURTS” — Talk About “Lack of Credibility!”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-launches-review-reinvigorate-justice-department-s-commitment-access-justice

You can read it here in all of its glorious bureaucratic nothingness and hollow rhetoric:

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Attorney General Launches Review to Reinvigorate the Justice Department’s Commitment to Access to Justice

U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today announced that the Justice Department will immediately begin work to reinvigorate its Office for Access to Justice and to restore the Justice Department’s role in leading efforts across government to seek and secure meaningful access to justice.

“Trust in the rule of law – the foundation of American democracy – depends upon the public’s faith that government seeks equal justice for all. That is the Justice Department’s core duty, and the mission upon which it was built. But without equal access to justice, the promise of equal justice under law rings hollow,” wrote Attorney General Garland in a memo to departmental leadership this afternoon.

The Attorney General directed the Justice Department’s leadership offices to immediately begin a review process that will engage all relevant stakeholders, both within the department and beyond. The review will initially explore, among other things, how the Justice Department and partners across federal, state, territorial, and tribal governments can alleviate entrenched disparities in our criminal justice system, address barriers to access in our immigration and civil legal systems, and advance health, economic, and environmental justice efforts. The Attorney General’s memo also charged Deputy Attorney General Lisa M. Monaco and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta with developing recommendations regarding the resources that will be required to reinvigorate the department’s Office for Access to Justice including a staffing strategy and placement within the department in light of its responsibilities.

The Attorney General will submit a detailed plan to the President for expanding the department’s role in leading access to justice initiatives across government within 120 days.

The Justice Department first launched an access to justice initiative in 2010. Building upon that important effort, the Office for Access to Justice was formally established in 2016 to plan, develop, and coordinate the implementation of access to justice policy initiatives of high priority to the department and the executive branch, including in the areas of criminal indigent defense and civil legal aid. However, during the prior administration, the office was effectively shuttered.

In addition to leading this strategic review within the Justice Department, Attorney General Garland will also help to lead access to justice initiatives across government as co-chair of the Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable, which the President reconvened today. That initiative will bring together more than two dozen federal departments and agencies to address the most pressing legal services challenges that low-income communities, communities of color, and many others across our country face today.

Component(s):

Office of the Attorney General

Press Release Number:

21-456

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

As always, actions speak louder than words or bureaucratic promises to “think about it, and get back to you!”

So hopefully somebody will ask Garland how the following things going on in HIS EOIR right now “assist access to justice:”

Continuous, ongoing “Aimless Docket Reshuffling“ at EOIR that generates an astounding, unnecessary, growing, unaddressed by Garland 1.3 million case backlog that generally disadvantages and wears down the private bar;
Elimination of reasonable continuances @ EOIR for the express purpose of favoring the DHS and making it more difficult to represent individuals in Immigration Court consistent with ethical requirements relating to adequate preparation and verification of claims;
“Courts” improperly located in obscure, out of the way DHS detention centers where lawyers are seldom readily available and substandard conditions are intentionally used to duress individuals into giving up viable claims;
Court schedules controlled by unqualified bureaucrats in Falls Church who arbitrarily and capriciously set cases without regard to the needs of parties for preparation time, ethical guidelines, or their workloads;
Unreasonable, shortened, cookie cutter “briefing schedules,” designed to expedite removals at the expense of quality and legal excellence and to artificially “stress out” private attorneys, many serving pro bono or low bono;
Kids and other vulnerable individuals forced to “represent” themselves in Immigration Courts;”
“Judges” who lack immigration expertise and practical experience, therefore forcing already overburdened immigration counsel to “train” these judges, who never should have been appointed in the first place;
Hiring of “judges” at the trial and appellate level renowned for their hostility to asylum seekers (particularly women and those of color) and sometimes with established records of bias, rudeness, hostility, and unprofessional conduct toward the private bar;
Systemic exclusion of private bar immigration, human rights, clinical advocates and experts from the Immigration Judiciary;
Bogus, due-process-denying “deportation quotas” that discourage scholarship and thoughtful complete litigation of life or death cases in favor of meeting artificial production requirements and timelines designed to keep the “EOIR deportation railroad” running;
Promulgation of “operating produces” for Immigration Courts by Falls Church bureaucrats who have never appeared in Immigration Court, without prior consultation with either sitting Immigration Judges or “stakeholders” in the private bar;
Failure after two decades of wasted effort and false starts to implement even a rudimentary nationwide e-filing system, thereby increasing the burden on private practitioners;
Wrong-headed, anti-immigrant “precedents” intended to discourage individuals from pursuing claims in Immigration Court and to require advocates to appeal to Courts of Appeals to have any chance of obtaining justice for their clients;
Following of “worst practices” designed to abuse and increase the stress for advocates in Immigration Court, including failure to follow best health and sanitation practices;
Failure to have any qualified progressive immigration practical scholar “on staff” at DOJ who has actually practiced before the Immigration Courts and could credibly lead the reform effort.

Actually, I’m just getting started! But, I have other things on my agenda today, and you get the point!

Unless progressive immigration advocates “raise hell” with the higher-up in the Biden Administration and on the Hill about Garland’s gross mismanagement of EOIR to date and his lack or expertise or genuine interest in long overdue, badly needed reforms, this is just another Dem “designed to fail” cosmetic effort; yet another insulting attempt by DOJ to fob off immigrants, the private bar, progressives, and their very legitimate needs with more BS “all talk, no action” ineffective policies and plans where immediate, radical progressive, due process reforms are needed, led by progressive experts!

To state the painfully obvious, Vanita Gupta has enough knowledge and enough contacts in the human rights/civil rights community to have gotten someone from the outside in to take control of EOIR, empowered to knock heads, transfer the Trump/Miller anti-due-process “denial club” crowd and their enablers out, and start recruiting and hiring competent administrators, well-qualified progressive judges, and instituting due process enhancing procedures. Things should already be operating much better; and, as many of us told the Biden Transition Team, having “due process take hold and start acting” would send much needed “shock waves” throughout the “go along to get along” bureaucracy at EOIR who assisted Trump and Miller in putting the “final nail in the coffin” of the already-reeling Immigration Courts.

Advocates and members of the NDPA, the first step in vindicating your clients’ legal rights is to insist that your rights, professionalism, and expertise be respected by those in power. Team Garland is effectively “giving you the big middle finger!” 🖕 If you don’t stand up to this outrageous, dismissive treatment from a Dem Administration, how can you make things better for your clients?

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-19-21

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S AGREEMENT TO ALLOW A FEW MORE LEGAL ASYLUM SEEKERS TO BE PROCESSED FALLS FAR SHORT OF RESTORING THE RULE OF LAW @ OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!

Elliott Spagat
Reporter
Associated Press

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-asylum-seekers-restrictions_n_60a3a360e4b014bd0cb0c284

Elliot Spagut reports for AP:

The Biden administration has agreed to let about 250 people a day through border crossings with Mexico to seek refuge in the United States, part of negotiations to settle a lawsuit over pandemic-related powers that deny migrants a right to apply for asylum, an attorney said Monday.

The government also said it would stop flying migrant families from Texas’ Rio Grande Valley to El Paso, Texas, and San Diego to then be expelled to Mexico under pandemic powers, said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has sued in federal court in Washington, D.C. The government has reserved rights to resume flights “if it deems the circumstances warrant.”

The government concessions would dramatically reshape exercise of powers known as Title 42, named for a section of an obscure 1944 law that former President Donald Trump used to let the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention effectively end asylum at the border while it sought to prevent the coronavirus from spreading.

Biden has exempted unaccompanied children from Title 42 but kept it for single adults and many families. He has come under criticism from progressives for keeping asylum off-limits to many and for encouraging some parents to send children across the border alone. Enforcement-minded critics say exempting children traveling alone led to record numbers crossing and that lifting restrictions more will invite many more people to come.

The government and the ACLU agreed to “a streamlined process for assessing and addressing exemption requests brought by particular vulnerable families and other individuals,” Gelernt said. Once fully up and running, an estimated 250 particularly vulnerable individuals will be allowed in daily to seek humanitarian protection through a consortium of nongovernmental organizations. They must test for COVID-19 before entering the country.

About 2,000 people have already been allowed to enter the country, exempted from the pandemic-related powers to pursue asylum or other forms of protection while in the United States, Gelernt said.

“While these concessions will hopefully save lives, they are not a substitute for eliminating Title 42 and restoring asylum processing fully,” Gelernt said.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday night.

. . . .

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

The Administration basically has conceded that the bogus Trump-era Title 42 bar had little to do with public health (never much of a concern for the Trump kakistocracy) and everything to do with eliminating the rights of legal asylum seekers, particularly refugee women and those of color. The Biden Administration’s defense of this travesty is pretty disingenuous.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-18-21

⚖️👍🏼😎LAW YOU CAN USE: Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Tells Us How To Use Niz-Chavez v. Garland To Fight DHS/EOIR’s “Fake Date NTA” Travesty!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/05/another-twist-on-niz-chavez-by-geoffrey-hoffman.html

Geoffrey writes on ImmigrationProf Blog:

Geoffrey Hoffman previously has blogged about the recent Supreme Court decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Here is the sequel.

Another Twist on Niz-Chavez . . . by Geoffrey Hoffman

A fascinating twist on the factual scenario in Niz-Chavez is what to do if your client had an NTA with a so-called “fake date.” The “fake date” problem is one you will remember well if you practice immigration law before EOIR, and it garnered national attention in 2019 when ICE issued these fake dates for thousands of immigrants, many of whom showed up in court only to find that there was nothing on any judge’s docket to indicate they were scheduled for a hearing that day. Reports of fake dates were prevalent in Dallas, Orlando, Miami, Seattle, and I am sure other places as well. See news articles such as this one. In addition, and as a separate matter, there was a well-known so-called “parking date” (November 29) issued on thousands of NTAs and that was also never a “real date” as everyone knew.

There is an interesting theory about why the “fake dates” were issued in the first place: that the government was trying to respond to Pereira v. Sessions itself. Despite its argument in federal court to try to restrict Pereira as much as possible, in practice ICE tacitly was affirming, so the argument goes, that in Pereira the Supreme Court had defined, as we have argued all along, what is and what is not a proper and valid NTA. In an effort to immunize itself from responsibility for defective NTAs without any time or place of hearing, ICE thought it might make sense to input “fake dates” in their NTAs, thus (at least superficially it would seem) immunizing itself from the argument that the NTAs were defective for “lack” of a real date and place. Then the “real date” – according to the argument – could be issued as a follow-up in the form of a notice of hearing by EOIR.

The question now arises whether clients with fake-date NTAs can utilize Pereira and now Niz-Chavez to defeat the “stop-time” effect for cancellation of removal, where such fake NTAs existed, even where there is a subsequent notice of hearing with a “real date” from EOIR. The short answer is “Yes” – and I will discuss in the rest of this article why this should be the case and why it should not come as a surprise for several reasons.

It is arguably a much stronger case for the application of Niz-Chavez because the issuance of a “fake date” that was never intended to be used by EOIR in any way is affirmatively wrong. It is not just mere negligence by leaving “TBA” with a blank date and place of hearing on the NTA. ICE should not be able to hide behind an NTA where the information is filled in on the NTA but the information is patently false and made up or fabricated. Just as an asylum seeker who fabricates a date or other information on their forms cannot benefit from such information in applying for relief before the court, the government should get no benefit either from their incorrect and misleading actions. The counter-argument from the government will be that the NTA was valid “on its face” since it had some “date and place” in the document and therefore (a) stopped time for cancellation purposes and (b) conferred jurisdiction because it was “facially” valid.

This counter-argument is flawed. To embrace such a rationale would exalt form over substance. It also would allow an agency to game the system. It would also defeat the very mechanism that the Supreme Court set out in Pereira and now Niz-Chavez. Respondent should be entitled to reopen their proceedings in all “fake date” cases since a valid NTA was not filed in the immigration court. The only remaining issue will be proof. The respondent and his or her attorney will have to prove there was no hearing that was actually held on that day. If no hearing existed at all, then the stop time rule should not apply and the fake NTA cannot be “cured” by a subsequently issued notice by a different agency, that is EOIR, as per Niz-Chavez.

Finally, in reopening a client’s case it would be helpful if there were a showing of some effort on the part the respondent to check. Proof may be difficult and EOIR FOIA and other investigation will be important. Ideally, the client or the their attorney or both went to court but no hearing was on the docket that day, and there was an effort to check that was documented in some way. If there never was receipt of the NTA at all, whether containing a fake date or not, and an in absentia order was issued, then the question becomes whether jurisdiction could have vested at all in such a case. As I have argued, if the NTA is defective it cannot result in the vesting of jurisdiction. A fake date and place arguably cannot confer jurisdiction, even if the NTA was filed with the court. Since there was no hearing actually scheduled the NTA should be found defective under Pereira and Niz-Chavez.

K[evin] J[ohnson]

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

Sure sounds to me like ‘affirmative misconduct” by the USG that should stop them from relying on the “fake dates. In the “old days,” INS actually used to settle potential “affirmative misconduct” cases, rather than litigate.

By contrast, today’s DOJ seems perfectly willing shamelessly to defend a wide range of legally and ethically questionable conduct and then “blow off” criticism from the Article III Judiciary. Recently, a frustrated U.S. District Judge referred to Bureau of Prisons officials as “idiots.”

One might have thought that would have spurred some type of apology and corrective action from the DOJ. But, that doesn’t seem to have registered with Garland. He just keeps rolling along with Barr’s “Miller Lite” appointments while dissing advice from progressives who actually helped put him in his current job. About the only thing you can count on from Dems is that when it comes to progressive immigraton reforms and EOIR, they’ll blow it!

Thanks, Geoffrey, for your timely and creative “practical scholarship.” Of course with better leadership, the Biden Administration could solve this problem without protracted litigation that often takes years and produces inconsistent results before the Supremes or Congress can resolve them. In the meantime, lives unnecessarily are ruined and the system becomes more inefficient and unfair.

Garland should appoint progressive practical scholars like Geoffrey to the BIA and senior management at EOIR, OIL, OLP, and the SG’s Office and let them “lead from above” — rather than having to fight bad interpretations and worst practices from the outside.

In this case, the DHS/EOIR “fake date policy” was both fraudulent and unethical. Remember that some folks actually showed up at Immigration Court buildings, often with families in tow, after having traveled hundreds of miles, @ 3:00 AM on Sunday mornings (or on a Federal Holiday or some other bogus date) only to find out that the “joke” was on them.

And, let’s not forget folks, that thanks to the BIA’s permissive attitude (when it comes to the Government, but not with individual rights), under the now “being phased out” “Remain in Mexico Program” (a/k/a “let “em Die In Mexico”), folks basically got NTAs with the equivalent of this: “Maria Gomez, somewhere on some Calle in Tijuana, Mexico.” But, the BIA said that this was basically “good enough for Government work.”

We should also remember that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees the individual’s rights against the Government, not the other way around! But, you sure wouldn’t know that from reading BIA and AG precedents issued under the Trump kakistocracy.

Meanwhile, IJs and the BIA under Garland continue to “in absentia” folks for being a few minutes late for a hearing or misreading an NTA in a language they can’t understand. Anybody had a problem with their U.S. Mail lately? We have, in our “upper middle class neighborhood” in Alexandria, VA. Yet, EOIR and some Article IIIs continue to promote the “legal fiction” of a “presumption of proper (and timely) delivery” of notices sent by regular U.S. Mail.

Until, Garland has the backbone to restore ethics and the rule of law at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ, particularly by reassigning or otherwise removing those who “went along to get along” and replacing them with ethical, qualified, experts from the NDPA who will speak truth to power and hold immigration enforcement bureaucrats accountable, our justice system will continue its tailspin!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

O5-15-21

☠️🤮👎🏻⚰️OUTRAGEOUS “MILLER LITE” JUSTICE! — NO WONDER GARLAND WANTED TO KEEP HIS “JUDICIAL PICKS” SECRET! — It’s A “Two Sharp Sticks In The Eyes” Putdown Of The Human Rights/Immigration Advocacy Community That Helped Boost Biden & Harris To Their Jobs! — Tired Of Being Ignored, Disrespected, & Take For Granted? — Had Enough Of The Consistent Stupidity, Mind-Numbing Ineptitude, & Total Contempt For Constitutional Due Process @ EOIR Under Both The Dems & The GOP?

It’s “Miller Lite Time” @ Garland’s DOJ as this Dude gets the last laugh over immigration/human rights/due process advocates and experts who worked for Biden’s election! — Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Every member of the NDPA should be outraged by Garland’s treachery:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1392116/download

Here’s the latest farcical roster of prosecutors, government attorneys, and non-immigration experts to be inflicted on migrants and their attorneys:

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

Phone: 703-305-0289 Fax: 703-605-0365 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov @DOJ_EOIR

www.justice.gov/eoir

May 6, 2021

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced 17 new Immigration Judges (IJs), including one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ) and six Unit Chief Immigration Judges (UCIJs). ACIJs are responsible for overseeing the operations of their assigned immigration courts. In addition to their management responsibilities, they will hear cases. UCIJs serve as IJs in formal judicial hearings conducted via video teleconference and supervise the staff assigned to their virtual courtroom. IJs preside in formal judicial hearings and make decisions that are final unless formally appealed.

After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Megan B. Herndon, Wade T. Napier, Tamaira Rivera, David H. Robertson, Elizabeth Crites, Bryan E. DePowell, Nicholle M. Hempel, Kathy J. Lemke, Martinque M. Parker, David M. Paxton, Bryan D. Watson, Kenya L. Wells, and Mark R. Whitworth to their new positions; then-Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson appointed Adam Perl to his new position; then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen appointed William H. McDermott to his new position; and then-Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Elliot M. Kaplan and Jeb T. Terrien to their new positions.

Biographical information follows:

Megan B. Herndon, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Megan B. Herndon was appointed as an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration court duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Herndon earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Occidental College and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from the University of San Diego School of Law. From 2020 to 2021, she served as Senior Regulatory Coordinator, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State (DOS), in the District of Columbia. From 2018 to 2020, she served as Deputy Director of Legal Affairs, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, DOS. From 2015 to 2018, she served as Chief of the Legislation and Regulations Division, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, DOS. From 2013 to 2015, she served as a Section Chief, Immigration Law and Practice Division, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in the District of Columbia and Falls Church, Virginia. From 2009 to 2013, she served as an Appellate Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Falls

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 2

Church. From 2007 to 2009, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Diego. From 2002 to 2007, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Los Angeles, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Herndon is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and State Bar of California.

Wade T. Napier, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Wade T. Napier was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Napier earned a Bachelor of Science in 2001 from Transylvania University and a Juris Doctor in 2005 from Northern Kentucky University–Salmon P. Chase College of Law. From 2008 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, in Lexington. In 2008, he served as a Staff Attorney for a Trial Court Judge, in Boone County, Kentucky. From 2005 to 2007, he worked in the Claims Litigation Department of Great American Insurance Company, in Cincinnati. Judge Napier is a member of the Kentucky Bar.

Tamaira Rivera, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Tamaira Rivera was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Rivera earned a Bachelor of Science in 1991 from Florida State University, a Juris Doctor in 1995 from California Western School of Law, and a Master of Laws in 2004 from The George Washington University Law School. From 2019 to 2021, she was an Immigration Practitioner with Advantage Immigration PA, in Orlando, Florida. From 2017 to 2019, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Orlando. From 2012 to 2017, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Antonio. From 2010 to 2012, she served as an Attorney Advisor and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Air Force, in San Antonio. From 2009 to 2010, she served as a Senior Democracy Fellow, U.S. Agency for International Development, in the District of Columbia. From 2007 to 2009, she was a Senior Associate Attorney and Program Manager with BlueLaw International LLP, in the District of Columbia. From 1996 to 2006, she served as a U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate, in the following locations: Madrid, Spain; Tucson, Arizona; San Antonio; and Okinawa, Japan. Judge Rivera is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Florida Bar.

David H. Robertson, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

David H. Robertson was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Robertson earned a Bachelor of Science in 1986 from James Madison University, a Juris Doctor in 1989 from the University of Richmond School of Law, and a Master of Laws in 1999 from the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. From 1990 to 2020, he served as a U.S. Army Judge Advocate in various locations throughout the U.S. and Germany. During that time, from 2010 to 2020, he served as a Military Judge in the following locations: Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Kaiserslautern, Germany; and Fort Stewart, Georgia. While serving as a Military Judge, he also presided over trials in Kuwait and Afghanistan. From 2004 to 2006, he served as a Regional Defense Counsel; from 1999 to 2001, as a Senior Defense Counsel; from 1995 to

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 3

1997, as a Prosecutor; and from 1993 to 1995, as a Defense Counsel. From 1995 to 1996, he deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and from 2007 to 2008, he deployed to Kosovo. In 2020, he retired in the rank of Colonel. Judge Robertson is a member of the Virginia State Bar.

Elizabeth Crites, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Elizabeth Crites was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Crites earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005 from Ball State University and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Law School. From 2016 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From 2009 to 2016, she was an Associate Attorney with Broyles, Kight & Ricafort PC, in Chicago. Judge Crites is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Bryan E. DePowell, Immigration Judge, Adelanto Immigration Court

Bryan E. DePowell was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge DePowell earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from the University of Hawai’i at Manoa and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Widener University Commonwealth Law School. From 2019 to 2021, he served as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Felony Trials Division – Office of Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu. From 2018 to 2019, he served as Chief Counsel for the House Minority Research Office, State of Hawai’i, in Honolulu. From 2012 to 2018, he was an Associate Attorney with Crisp and Associates LLC, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Judge DePowell is a member of the Hawaii State Bar and the Pennsylvania Bar.

Nicholle M. Hempel, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Nicholle M. Hempel was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Hempel earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from California State University, Fresno and a Juris Doctor in 2000 from Chicago-Kent College of Law. From 2010 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Los Angeles. From 2003 to 2010, she served as an Assistant State Attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, in Chicago. From 1998 to 2003, she served as a Law Clerk for the First Municipal District, Circuit Court of Cook County, in Chicago. Judge Hempel is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Kathy J. Lemke, Immigration Judge, Portland Immigration Court

Kathy J. Lemke was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Lemke earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1994 from the University of Chicago and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Arizona State University School of Law. From 2019 to 2020, she served as the City Prosecutor for Phoenix. From 2009 to 2019, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, in Phoenix. From 2004 to 2009, she served as an Assistant City Prosecutor for Phoenix. In 2003, she served as a Deputy County Attorney for Pinal County in Florence, Arizona. From 1998 to 2003, she served as a Deputy County Attorney for Maricopa County, in Phoenix. Judge Lemke is a member of the State Bar of Arizona and the District of Columbia Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 4

Martinque M. Parker, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Martinque M. Parker was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Parker earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005, a Bachelor of Science in 2006 from the University of Georgia, and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law. From 2017 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Lumpkin, Georgia. From 2011 to 2017, she served as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Judge Parker is a member of the Arkansas Bar and the State Bar of Georgia.

David M. Paxton, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

David M. Paxton was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Paxton earned a Bachelor of Science in 1998 from Texas State University, a Master of Business Administration in 2004 from the University of Texas at Austin, and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Santa Clara University School of Law. From 2015 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, in McAllen and Corpus Christi. From 2011 to 2015, he served as a Deputy District Attorney for the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office, in San Luis Obispo, California. From 2010 to 2011, he served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Criminal Division of the Northern District of California, in San Jose. From 1997 to 2004, he served as a Systems Engineer for Advanced Micro Devices and Legerity Inc., in Austin, Texas. Judge Paxton is a member of the State Bar of California.

Bryan D. Watson, Immigration Judge, Atlanta – W. Peachtree Street Immigration Court Bryan D. Watson was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Watson earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1993 from the University of Missouri, a Juris Doctor in 1996 from the University of Missouri, a Master of Arts in 2006 from Air University, and a Master of Science in 2014 from the National Defense University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as the Chief Trial Judge of the U.S. Air Force Trial Judiciary, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. From 2017 to 2019, he served as the Commandant of the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School, at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. From 2014 to 2017, he served as the General Counsel of the White House Military Office, in the District of Columbia. From 1996 to 2021, he served as a U.S. Air Force Active Duty Judge Advocate, in the following locations: Moody Air Force Base, Georgia; Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming; Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; Aviano Air Base, Italy; and the Pentagon, White House, Bolling Air Force Base, and Fort McNair, District of Columbia. He retired from the U.S. Air Force in 2021 as a Colonel. Judge Watson is a member of the State Bar of Georgia and the Missouri Bar.

Kenya L. Wells, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Kenya L. Wells was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Wells earned a Bachelor of Science in 2007 from Texas A&M University and Juris Doctor in 2010 from the University of Texas School of Law. From 2017 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. From 2010 to 2016, he served as an Assistant District Attorney with the New York County District Attorney’s Office, in New York. Judge Wells is a member of the New York State Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 5

Mark R. Whitworth, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Mark R. Whitworth was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Whitworth earned a Bachelor of Journalism in 1985 and a Juris Doctor in 1993, both from the University of Texas at Austin. From 2003 to 2021, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Harlingen, Texas. From 2001 to 2003, he served as an Assistant District Counsel with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Justice, in Harlingen. From 1994 to 2001, he served as an Assistant Attorney General and an Assistant Managing Assistant Attorney General for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, in Harlingen. From 1993 to 1994, he was an Associate Attorney with Roerig, Oliveira and Fisher LLP, in Brownsville, Texas. Judge Whitworth is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Adam Perl, Immigration Court, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

Adam Perl was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Perl earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2006 from Florida International University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from St. Thomas University School of Law. From 2018 to 2021, he served as a Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in New York. From 2016 to 2018, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Newburgh, New York; from 2014 to 2016, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, in New York; and from 2011 to 2014, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, in Los Angeles. Judge Perl is a member of the Florida Bar.

William H. McDermott, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

William H. McDermott was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge McDermott earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from Long Island University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. From 2019 to 2021, he served as the Deputy State’s Attorney for Wicomico County, Maryland. From 2011 to 2019, he served as an Assistant State’s Attorney, Deputy State’s Attorney, and Ad Interim State’s Attorney, in Worcester County, Maryland. Judge McDermott is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Elliot M. Kaplan, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Elliot M. Kaplan was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Kaplan earned his Bachelor of Arts in 1998 from Antioch University, a Master of Business Administration in 1982 from Whittier College, and a Juris Doctor in 1982 from Whittier Law School. From 2019 to 2020, he was Of Counsel to Kutak Rock LLP, in Kansas City, Missouri. From 2004 to 2019, he was in private practice, in Kansas City. From 1995 to 2003, he was a Partner and Founder of Daniels & Kaplan PC, in Detroit and Kansas City. From 1991 to 1994, he was Of Counsel to Berman, DeLeve, Kuchan & Chapman LLC, in Kansas City. From 1990 to 1991, he was Of Counsel to DeWitt, Zeldin & Bigus PC, in Kansas City. From 1985 to 1990, he was Of Counsel to Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Cornfeld & Jenkins, in Kansas City. From 1983 to 1985, he was Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Air One Inc., in St. Louis. Judge Kaplan is a member of the Missouri Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 6

Jeb T. Terrien, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Jeb. T. Terrien was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Terrien earned a Bachelor of Science in 1994 from The University of Virginia and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Tulane Law School. From 2009 to 2021, he served as a Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, in Harrisonburg. During that time, from 2014 to 2015, he served as an Assistant Director, National Advocacy Center, Office of Legal Education, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department of Justice, in Columbia, South Carolina. From 2004 to 2008, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, in Cincinnati, and the Northern District of West Virginia, in Martinsburg. From 2000 to 2004, he served as a Regional Drug Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Virginia in Halifax, Charlotte, and Campbell Counties. From 1999 to 2000, he served as an Assistant Attorney General with the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, in Richmond. From 1998 to 1999, he served as an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for the Accomack County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office in Accomac, Virginia. Judge Terrien is a member of the Virginia State Bar.

— EOIR —

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

There’s a powerful message here NDPA! Elections DON”T matter, nor does your expertise, dedication, and hard work! Maybe it will be time to act on that message during the next election cycle. Stephen Miller? Judge “MillerLite?” What’s the real difference?

Here are some “early reactions” from the NDPA:

I just looked quickly, but was there only one new IJ coming from private practice? When I looked up the firm, it doesn’t practice immigration law.

I didn’t recognize any names. Shouldn’t the goal be to hire those with a scholarly understanding of immigration law, including at least some who have demonstrated a creative approach to asylum?

My take is why not put new IJ hiring on pause until the agency has figured out how it intends to move forward? EOIR should have their new Chief IJ in place, have revamped the IJ training, have figured out what AG precedents it intends to vacate, etc. Also, the quotas are still in place.

When new IJs with no immigration law background come on board, should they feel they can’t continue a case to study the law or consult with a colleague because they have to complete 4 cases that day to avoid being fired?

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

Ah, Justice from “Miller Lite” Justice @ Justice. What a “poke in they eyes with a sharp stick” to the immigration/human rights bar!

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

Thanks for sharing Judge Schmidt. In addition to the new hires, it’s deeply concerning that AG Garland’s DOJ is expanding its use of secretive and inaccessible immigration adjudication centers- opening a new location in Richmond, Virginia.

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

Of 14 IJs appointed under Biden (Acting AG Wilkinson or AG Garland), 7 have worked for ICE, 5 have been prosecutors of other types, 2 have worked for ICE and been prosecutors, and 2 have worked as immigration defense attorneys (though these two have also worked for ICE).

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

It is completely baffling. Two working theories: 1) EOIR is just so far down Garland’s radar that he just doesn’t care or have time to care; or 2) he has made a political decision to “hang tough” on immigration for the optics and to stave off Rethuglican encroachment in the mid-terms.

Neither theory speaks well of him.

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

I don’t see how dissing the immigration/human rights bar is the key to success for the Dems in the midterms. I personally know lots of NDPA members who “busted tail” and donated lots of time and money to getting Biden & Harris elected. Don’t think that the “elections don’t matter for human rights/immigration/due process/racial justice” is going to “energize the base” for the midterms.

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

I have essentially lost hope that anything will change….

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

I guess this answers the question of whether establishing an independent, progressive, due process focused Immigration Judiciary within the Executive Branch is possible. Obviously, it isn’t! Litigation and Article I appear to be the only solutions.

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

What is that old adage, “the more things change the more they stay the same”???

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

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! We need to translate Garland’s blatant disrespect, ignorance, and failure to stand up for racial justice, an end to misogyny, and progressive expertise in the Immigration Judiciary into action and resistance to his “Miller Lite” vision for the DOJ!

PWS

05-06-21

Thamotar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 11th Cir., 06-17-21, Published

Get this, folks! The IJ and the BIA both found that meeting the higher standard for withholding of deportation based on probability of persecution somehow was an “adverse factor” that outweighed family separation! That’s right, an “adverse factor!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Asylum Free Zones,” Never!

Related posts:

AP reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s a copy of Judge Freeman’s decision, basically a “primer” on Matthews v. Eldridge due process and its blatant violation under immigration bureaucracies of Administrations of both parties.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Tell the Biden Administration that we need progressives, not more “regressives,” on the Federal Bench, starting with the Immigration Courts! End abusive judging by a non-diverse Federal Judiciary!

Related posts:

Mary Papenfuss reports for HuffPost:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s more from Round Table leader Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

You can read it here in all of its glorious bureaucratic nothingness and hollow rhetoric:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Elliot Spagut reports for AP:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Every member of the NDPA should be outraged by Garland’s treachery:

Here’s the latest farcical roster of prosecutors, government attorneys, and non-immigration experts to be inflicted on migrants and their attorneys:

Here are some “early reactions” from the NDPA:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! We need to translate Garland’s blatant disrespect, ignorance, and failure to stand up for racial justice, an end to misogyny, and progressive expertise in the Immigration Judiciary into action and resistance to his “Miller Lite” vision for the DOJ!

Related posts: