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

🏴‍☠️👎🏻🤮“HOUSTON, WE’VE STILL GOT A PROBLEM!” — A HUGE AND GROWING ONE — Garland’s Failure To Restore “Justice @ Justice” Reverberates Throughout Our Nation!🆘

Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for immigrants @ Justice:

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

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 5, 2021

This just in from a NDPA stalwart in Houston, TX:

Houston we still have a (huge) problem! Luckily we also have some great immigration advocates and members of the due process army.

. . . .

Houston EOIR is still closed for non-detained. They have just built a third immigration court here, “Greenspoint”, with over 30 brand new judges, just collecting dust (although that’s probably a good thing as it would only serve as a deportation mill). If you can believe the absurdity, you have to file a motion for change of venue + a motion to consolidate, to join family members whose cases have been placed in different courts all here in Houston. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I believe Houston now has the 2nd largest backlog after New York City now, in large part due to the mismanagement by EOIR HQ.

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

From coast to coast, from the Rio Grande to the Great Lakes, Courtside followers and NDPA warriors are making it clear: Garland’s failure to take due process and racial justice in Immigration Court seriously and his disregard and disrespect for immigration/human rights experts is furthering havoc in the American justice system!

Is it “malicious incompetence” or just plain old incompetence and disregard for the due process rights of “the other” by Garland? Does it make any difference?

What will make a difference is flooding the Article IIIs with litigation challenging this ongoing constitutional nonsense and squandering of taxpayer funds! Overwhelm EOIR with applications for judicial positions and “bore out” the rotten foundations of this system from the inside with the tools of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Also, inundate your Congressional representatives with demands that this blot on American justice be removed from the DOJ forthwith! Write those op-eds and keep informing your local media about the unmitigated, unnecessary, unconscionable, unconstitutional continuing disaster at Garland’s EOIR and how it destroys human lives on a daily basis! Shine the beacon of due process and justice on the dark, secretive, unconstitutional “Star Chambers” Garland operates in the guise of Immigration “Courts.”

Star Chamber Justice — Progressives must put an end to Garland’s Star Chamber Style “Justice” @ Justice. Demand REAL courts with independent, progressive, expert judges who have actually represented human beings in Immigration Court! No more “plants,” “insiders,” and “go along to get along” appointments to America’s key human rights and racial justice judiciary. No more bureaucratic incompetence, assembly line justice, anti-immigrant misogynist culture, and “deportation adjudication centers” masquerading as “courts!” Open up this secretive, closed, unjust bureaucracy to the light of justice and the NDPA! Due Process Forever!

NDPA legions, don’t be content to “wander in the wilderness” while clueless politicos and bureaucrats @ Garland’s DOJ destroy your sanity and the lives of the humans you represent! Stand up to institutionalized racism, continuing incompetence, disgraceful misogyny, intransigence, and ongoing “Dred Scottification” of communities of color by the Garland DOJ! End the DOJ’s anti-immigrant culture and disrespect for the defenders of due process and American democracy that goes on Administration after Administration as if your clients’ lives and your professional expertise were “chopped liver!” Enough is enough! Fight back against “Miller Lite Justice!”

My fellow warriors for justice, YOU are again being ignored, shut out, marginalized, abused, looked down upon, dehumanized, insulted, and scorned by yet another Dem Administration that YOU helped put in office! Time to stand up and be heard for YOUR rights, the rights of the people YOU represent, and the future of our Federal Judiciary and our American Democracy!

NO MORE “MILLER LITE @ JUSTICE!” ASK YOURSELVES: WHO WON THE LAST ELECTION? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “WIN” IF GARLAND CONTINUES TO RUN THE IMMIGRATION COURTS LIKE STEPHEN MILLER IS STILL IN CHARGE?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-06-21

🏴‍☠️👎🏻MORE INFO ON AG’s “STEALTH IJs” — Some Will Be “Union-Busting Unit Chief IJs,” Others Will Staff “Video Star Chambers,” As Garland Quickly Sinks To “New Low” In Relationship With EOIR “Stakeholders!”

An anonymous source writes to Courtside:

but yesterday the Director’s message indicated that the 17 new judges were – In April, we welcomed 17 new Immigration Judges (IJs), including one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, six Unit Chief Immigration Judges, and ten IJs. They will serve in the following locations: Adelanto, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, New York, Portland, and Richmond

A thought to share – I suppose one who is familiar with the above courts could check out each court website listing the judges snd see who is new. Then some web searching can get backgrounds. Takes time, yes, but perhaps more fruitful than waiting for EOIR to respond.

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

So, EOIR “welcomed” new IJs in April without bothering to introduce them to the community whose lives and professional futures will be in their hands. This is how Garland intends to “do business” with those in the advocacy community who helped put him in his job! Nice touch, Judge G!

Heck, even Sessions & Barr were willing to announce publicly the names and backgrounds of those with whom the were “packing” their Immigration Courts. They actually were quite proud of their anti-due-process, anti-progressive, non-expert picks that they could “shove down the throats” of the advocacy community (“dirty lawyers” as Gonzo Sessions called them) and their clients — the “other” in our society, not worthy of the legal and human rights conferred on “real persons.”

But, Team Garland is neither as honest nor as forthcoming. “Get it though the rumor mill” or find out the day of your “star chamber proceeding” is apparently the new attitude of contempt at DOJ/EOIR for the NDPA!

Obviously, expansion and staffing of the “Richmond VTC” — a “kangaroo court” arrangement opposed and panned by most immigration and human rights experts is a slap in the face to ethnic communities and activists who helped put Biden and Harris (and indirectly Garland, Monaco, and Gupta) in office.

Fortunately, the NDPA knows a thing or two about how to “speak through litigation and political agitation” if that’s the game the Biden Administration wants to play. It’s now becoming clear that any positive changes and due process in the Immigration Courts over the next four years will come from outside the Administration.

So be it! It might not bode so well, though, for the Biden Administration when they come around seeking support from the immigration/human rights/civil rights communities for the next election!

The GOP treats the immigration advocacy community with consistent contempt. With Dems, the contempt is also pretty consistent — but with an exception every fourth year during Presidential campaigns.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-05-21

EOIR WRONG AGAIN: BIA’s Attempt To Limit Its Own Jurisdiction To Grant Waivers Thwarted By 4th Cir. — Jiminez-Rodriguez v. Garland

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community K(ILC)

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-waivers-jimenez-rodriguez-v-garland#

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA4 on Waivers: Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland

Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland

“Reading the broad language of §§ 1003.10(b) and 1240.1(a)(1)(iv), we conclude that these regulations give the IJ the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to grant a § 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) waiver. … [W]e grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s final removal order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Brad Banias!]

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

Seldom has a supposed quasi-judicial tribunal worked as hard as the current BIA to find limits on its ability to solve legal and humanitarian problems. That leaves the work to the Circuits, as in this case.

So, why have EOIR at all? The system clearly is unconstitutional because it lacks fair and impartial adjudicators and even minimally competent administration of due process. If Garland, Monaco, and Gupta have no interest in fixing these glaring problems, then why not just transfer EOIR’s functions to the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Magistrate Judges under the supervision of the Courts of Appeals?

Dems talk big about the need for a more progressive Federal Judiciary to achieve racial justice. But, given the chance actually to create one, they sit on their hands!

Not so the GOP! Restrictionists, nativists, reactionaries and White Nationalists recognize the repressive power of a captive and co-opted Immigration Judiciary and act accordingly. “Act” — that’s the operative word that doesn’t appear to be in the Dem’s vocabulary when it comes to building a better Federal Judiciary for a better America.

Progressives might initially have cheered the appointment of these three to top leadership posts @ the DOJ. But, to date, they have shown no interest in rescinding Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist immigration policies or replacing Miller’s nativist judges with progressive expert judges @ EOIR.

Judge Merrick Garland — Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

Lisa Monaco
Deputy AG
Official USG Photo, Public Realm

Vanita Gupta
Associate Attorney General
Photo: Brookings Institution, Paul Morigi, Creative Commons License.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-02-21

⚖️🇺🇸🗽👍🏼👨🏻‍⚖️JUSTICE GORSUCH LEADS 6-3 SUPREMES’ MAJORITY IN HANDING MIGRANTS HUGE VICTORY OVER DHS & EOIR INTRANSIGENCE/INCOMPETENCE IN “STOP TIME RULE” CASE — Niz-Chavez v. Garland — “Round Table” Amicus Plays A Role In Success! — “A single notice—rather than 2 or 20 documents!”

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch — Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch; photograph by Franz Jantzen, 2017.

Niz-Chavez v. Garland, U.S. Supreme Court, 04-20-21

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-863_6jgm.pdf

SYLLABUS BY COURT STAFF:

Syllabus

NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 19–863. Argued November 9, 2020—Decided April 29, 2021

Nonpermanent resident aliens ordered removed from the United States under federal immigration law may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. 8 U. S. C. §1229b(b)(1). But the so- called stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the pe- riod of continuous presence “shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear” in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). The term “notice to appear” is defined as “written notice . . . specifying” certain information, such as the charges against the al- ien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held. §1229(a)(1). A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Ses- sions, 585 U. S. ___. Here, the government ordered the removal of pe- titioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing Mr. Niz-Chavez with the time and place of his hearing. The government contends that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” Mr. Niz-Chavez’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document.

Held: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individ- ual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Pp. 4–12.

(a) Section 1229b(d)(1) states that the stop-time rule is triggered by serving “a notice,” and §1229(a)(1) explains that “written notice” is “re- ferred to as a ‘notice to appear.’ ” Congress’s decision to use the indef- inite article “a” suggests it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a

2

NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND Syllabus

discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. While the indefinite article “a” can some- times be read to permit multiple installments (such as “a manuscript” delivered over months), that is not true for words like “notice” that can refer to either a countable object (“a notice”) or a noncountable abstrac- tion (“sufficient notice”). The inclusion of an indefinite article suggests Congress used “notice” in its countable sense. More broadly, Congress has used indefinite articles to describe other case-initiating plead- ings—such as an indictment, an information, or a civil complaint, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7(a), (c)(1), (e); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3—and none suggest those documents might be delivered by installment. Nor does the Dictionary Act aid the government, as that provision merely tells readers of the U. S. Code to assume “words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1 U. S. C. §1. That provision means only that terms describing a single thing (“a no- tice”) can apply to more than one of that thing (“ten notices”). While it certainly allows the government to send multiple notices to appear to multiple people, it does not mean a notice to appear can consist of mul- tiple documents. Pp. 4–9.

(b) The IIRIRA’s structure and history support requiring the govern- ment to issue a single notice containing all the required information. Two related provisions, §§1229(e)(1) and 1229a(b)(7), both use a defi- nite article with a singular noun (“the notice”) when referring to the government’s charging document—a combination that again suggests a discrete document. Another provision, §1229(a)(2)(A), requires “a written notice” when the government wishes to change an alien’s hear- ing date. The government does not argue that this provision contem- plates providing “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the “consequences . . . of failing . . . to attend such proceedings” in separate documents. Yet the government fails to explain why “a notice to ap- pear” should operate differently. Finally, the predecessor to today’s “notice to appear” required the government to specify the place and time for the alien’s hearing “in the order to show cause or otherwise.” §1252(a)(2)(A). The phrase “or otherwise” has since disappeared, fur- ther suggesting that the required details must be included upfront to invoke the stop-time rule. Indeed, that is how the government itself initially read the statute. The year after Congress adopted IIRIRA, in the preamble to a proposed rule implementing these provisions, the government acknowledged that “the language of the amended Act in- dicat[es] that the time and place of the hearing must be on the Notice to Appear.” 62 Fed. Reg. 449 (1997). Pp. 9–13.

(c) The government claims that not knowing hearing officers’ avail- ability when it initiates removal proceedings makes it difficult to pro-duce compliant notices. It also claims that it makes little sense to re- quire time and place information in a notice to appear when that in- formation may be later changed. Besides, the government stresses, its own administrative regulations have always authorized its current practice. But on the government’s account, it would be free to send a person who is not from this country—someone who may be unfamiliar with English and the habits of American bureaucracies—a series of letters over the course of weeks, months, maybe years, each containing a new morsel of vital information. Congress could reasonably have wished to foreclose that possibility. And ultimately, pleas of adminis- trative inconvenience never “justify departing from the statute’s clear text.” Pereira, 585 U. S., at ___. The modest threshold Congress pro- vided to invoke the stop-time rule is clear from the text and must be complied with here. Pp. 13–16.

789 Fed. Appx. 523, reversed.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.

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

This is the type of case where I had hoped that Justice Gorsuch would “stick to his interpretative guns” by stopping the Government from basically redesigning clear statutory requirements “willy nilly” to suit their own purposes and disadvantage respondents. And, he came through! Big time! I’ve been critical of Justice Gorsuch in the past and am likely to be so again in the future. But, in this case, he did the right thing, and I, for one, am grateful!

Most encouraging, Justice Gorsuch “got” the way that the DHS and EOIR, with the deck already unfairly stacked in their favor, manipulate clear legal requirements for their own nefarious purposes and to the disadvantage of those struggling for justice in an inherently unfair system. There is absolutely no doubt that receiving “piecemeal notice” — incomplete and often sent to incorrect addresses or “personally served” without the proper reading and explanations — works to further disadvantage respondents.

Indeed, illegal, ineffective notices — some setting hearings on “phantom dates” and “imaginary times” — lead directly to an over abundance of “in absentia” orders and consequent illegal removals. Some unrepresented individuals understand how to reopen their hearings for lack of notice — but many are clueless; the Government system strives to keep them that way to “jack up the numbers,” meet “quotas,” and improve stats. Worse yet, Congress sometimes uses the “bogus stats” generated by DOJ and DHS to write legislation, conduct oversight, and establish policy. This is an astoundingly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair system — a disgrace to our entire justice system and our national conscience each day it is allowed to continue to operate in its abusive ways!

The majority in this case was both very interesting, and at least mildly encouraging, for those of us who believe in due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, including migrants, under law. In addition to Trump appointees Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, another GOP conservative appointee, Justice Thomas, joined Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority!

And, although this case has (incorrectly) seemed “hyper technical” to some Supremes’ watchers unfamiliar with immigration, it will have huge impact — forcing reopening and “redos” in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases in the already backlogged (1.3 million cases) Immigration Court. That will be the direct result of poor jurisprudence by the BIA, lousy court administration by EOIR, and horrible policy decisions by DHS.

Just another prime example of how “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks continue to cause unnecessary chaos in the system. Why not just appoint progressive experts as Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges. Qualified jurists who will understand immigration law, due process, and “get in right” in the first instance? Certainly seems like a reasonable approach. What is Judge Garland waiting for?

This, in turn should add to the already loud cries (from virtually everywhere outside Judge Garland’s universe and the restrictionist right) for sensible, readily available backlog reductions and accelerated movement toward better judges and independence in the Immigration Courts, not to mention better management in the DHS enforcement programs.

Here’s my favorite quote from Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion:

In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then pro- ceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calcula- tion plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to ap-pear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 docu- ments—does just that.

*

At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms en- sure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit is

Reversed.

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

And, here’s some “immediate commentary” by Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

Victory! This was the case in which our Round Table amicus brief was specifically referenced in oral argument.

Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-29-21

🏴‍☠️☠️HOW RACIST DISTORTIONS & ABROGATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION & DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION LAW FEED & REINFORCE INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM IN AMERICAN LAW GENERALLY! — New Scholarship By Carrie Rosenbaum Highlights An Old Problem That Is Destroying American Law & Ripping Apart Our Society!🤮👎🏽

James “Jim” Crow

“Jim Crow” is still alive and well @ EOIR. To date, Judge Garland & his team seem to think that the rest of us won’t notice what’s happening in “his” Immigration Courts and how it undermines every aspect of his claim to be restoring faith in the DOJ and the American justice system. A progressively-oriented, independent, expert Immigration Judiciary is a prerequisite for finally achieving racial justice in 21st Century America. So far, Judge Garland has NOT enunciated any plan to “get there,” nor has he even publicly acknowledged the many disgraceful problems plaguing EOIR!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/04/immigration-article-of-the-day-unequal-immigration-protection-by-carrie-rosenbaum.html

From ImmigrationProf Blog:

(Un)Equal Immigration Protection by Carrie Rosenbaum, 50 Sw. L. Rev. 232 (2021)

ABSTRACT

This article will contribute to immigration equal protection jurisprudential discussions by highlighting the way in which the plenary power in immigration equal protection cases creates a barrier parallel to the intent doctrine—both prohibit curtailment of government action resulting in racialized harm. The scant recognition of the double duty done by plenary power and the intent doctrine reflects the banality of what may appear as a mere redundancy at first glance. However, the insidiousness of the double-barrier all but ensures that equal protection challenges to facially race-neutral immigration laws with disparate impact will fail. Plenary power is effectively duplicative of the intent doctrine because the intent doctrine already results in great deference to lawmakers.

. . . .

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

Read the full abstract at the link.

Unquestionably, immigration jurisprudence has intentionally misread the due process and equal protection clauses to achieve racist immigration policies. Getting rid of these perversions — analogous to the legal and judicial gobbledegook used by White men to make the 14th and 15th Amendments (and to a large extent, the 13th Amendment) “dead letters” for African Americans following Reconstruction — isn’t a matter of complicated legal thinking. It’s a matter of better Federal Judges and better legislators. And, the mess @EOIR — our Immigration “Courts” — is the best and most logical place to begin the long overdue task of instituting constitutional compliance and equal justice for all.

To date, Judge Garland’s failure to demonstrate a commitment to eliminating unconstitutional racism and misogyny (not to mention poor quality decision-making which also disproportionately affects individuals and communities of color) in his Immigration “Courts” threatens to destroy our legal system and “kneecap” American democracy.

We are in the perilous position we are today because past Administrations, to the extent they have even tried to address systemic racism (obviously, the Trump Administration sought the exact opposite — to deepen, protect, and promote racism and hate), have intentionally or negligently ignored the clear link between immigration law and racism in the rest of our legal system.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-26-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🆘GARLAND, MAYORKAS FAIL TO CORRECT GROSS ABUSES OF DUE PROCESS CAUSED BY MPP SYSTEM! — Reopening All Of The Unconstitutionally Denied MPP Cases Should Be A “No Brainer” For Competent Officials & “Real” Judges! — Tell Judge Garland His Unconstitutional & Abusive Immigration Courts Can’t Wait To Be Fixed! — Lives Are Being Lost & Suffering Continues While He Diddles!

Four Horsemen — Judge Garland & Secretary Mayorkas continue to abuse asylum seekers at the Southern Border & in the U.S.
Albrecht Dürer, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Kevin Sieff
Latin American Correspondent, Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/04/24/mexico-border-migrant-asylum-mpp/

By Kevin Sieff

April 24 at 11:16 AM CT

MATAMOROS, Mexico — Carolina had memorized the date, but she triple-checked her documents just to make sure. For months, her life had revolved around the court hearing at which she could finally make her asylum claim.

Like tens of thousands of asylum seekers who reached the U.S. border during the Trump administration, the 36-year-old from Honduras had been sent to wait in Mexico for her immigration hearing. She was told to return to the border on her court date.

So on Feb. 26, 2020, she woke up early and put on her best blouse. She said a short prayer. But not long after her bus left for Laredo, Tex., gunmen stopped the vehicle. They kidnapped Carolina and her 15-year-old daughter, took them to a stash house packed with other kidnapped migrants and demanded thousands of dollars in ransom.

By the time they were released a few days later, Carolina had missed her day in court.

Her asylum case, it turned out, had been closed in absentia because she hadn’t shown up. Of the 68,000 asylum cases processed under the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols, the policy also know as “Remain in Mexico,” 28,000 were closed for the same reason: Because asylum seekers didn’t present themselves.

. . . .

“MPP deprived people of due process and fundamental fairness,” she said. “In order to restore access to asylum in a meaningful way, the Biden administration needs to reopen cases for people ordered removed under MPP and allow them to pursue their claims safely from within the United States.”

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

Read Kevin’s full article at the link.

The last statement, from Haiyun Damon-Feng, the director of the Adelante Pro Bono Project and assistant director of the William H. Gates Public Service Law Program at the University of Washington School of Law, sums it up. It’s not rocket science! It’s basic “Con Law 101” with some common sense and human decency thrown in! It’s also an essential part of the Biden Administration fulfilling basic campaign promises! Folks like Damon-Feng are the ones who should be running this system, solving the problems, and reconstructing the legal asylum system!

In what kind of “court” system are kidnapped individuals, some of them minors and children, further penalized and the Government allowed to get away with not keeping accurate addresses of individuals in their process and of knowingly sending them into danger zones? The victims remain in limbo and suffering while the perpetrators of these illegal outages — both current and former government officials — have not been held accountable. This is a national disgrace compounded by the fact that neither Judge Garland nor Secretary Mayorkas have taken corrective actions. Nor have they cleaned out the deadwood from their own legally and morally bankrupt systems and put competent individuals in charge!

Qualified Immigration Judges and competent administrators at the DOJ and DHS could have started solving these problems beginning the day after the inauguration. That 100 days into the Biden Administration this system is still operating illegally and taking a human toll is both a betrayal of campaign promises and an abuse of humanity! It’s also horrible and clearly illegal policy!

How does an Administration that is actively engaged in “Dred Scottifying” people of color at the border and in their wholly owned Immigration “Courts” — actually modern day “Star Chambers” — have any “legitimate voice” on racial justice in America?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Human lives matter! The Constitution matters! Asylum law matters!

PWS

04-26-21

🤮BIDEN/GARLAND APPEAR HEADED FOR “VICTORY” @ SUPREMES OVER LONG-TIME RESIDENTS SEEKING GREEN CARDS — Progressives, Immigration Advocates, Dems Rebuffed As Biden Administration Goes “Full Stephen Miller” On Couple With Two Decades’ Residence, USC Child! — Only Justice Sotomayor Speaks Up For “Better” Interpretation Of Statute, Immigrants Rights, Common Sense In The Law!

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-supreme-court-doubts-green-cards-some-protected-migrants-2021-04-19/

Andrew Chung reports for Reuters:

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared reluctant to let people who have been allowed to stay in the United States on humanitarian grounds apply to become permanent residents if they entered the country illegally.

The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a married couple from El Salvador who were granted so-called Temporary Protected Status of a lower court ruling that barred their applications for permanent residency, also known as a green card, because of their unlawful entry.

The case could affect thousands of immigrants, many of whom have lived in the United States for years. President Joe Biden’s administration opposes the immigrants in the case. The dispute puts Biden, who has sought to reverse many of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, at odds with immigration advocacy groups and some of his fellow Democrats. read more

A federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act generally requires that people seeking to become permanent residents have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States. At issue in the case is whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status, which gives the recipient “lawful status,” satisfies those requirements.

. . . .

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Justice Department lawyer Michael Huston, “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”

. . . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

Garland helps Biden deliver “tough noogies, go pound sand, your lives don’t matter” message to immigrants like Jose and Sonia and their supporters who might have had the illusion that better times were on the horizon with Biden’s election! Progressives find that when push comes to shove, Biden & Garland can be just as cruel, dumb, and counterproductive as Trump & Miller!

Any hope that advocates might have had of help, sympathy, or understanding for their green-card-qualified clients with decades of residence and citizen family members goes down the tubes early in Dem Administration. Biden-Harris humane rhetoric and promises prove just another illusion for progressives in Administration’s first High Court test!

But for Justice Sotomayor, the thinness of the Justices’ understanding of both immigration law and the human issues involved was alarming, yet basically predictable. What do a bunch of highly privileged, above the fray, judges who have never personally dealt with the stupidity, arbitrariness, and trauma of our immigration system, and never represented clients in Immigration Court, care about shutting hard working American residents, people of color, like Jose and Sonia, out of our system and disenfranchising them for no particular reason. The worst, most racially discriminatory “interpretations” are “available” to those judges, so why not use them? For them, it’s a wooden academic exercise played out with human lives that don’t matter because they are “the other.” Except for Sotomayor, going for the best, most practical, humane interpretation evidently never crossed the minds of these Justices.

As Justice Sotomayor correctly said: “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”

It’s not rocket science. Just common sense, humanity, and a clear understanding of the effect of legal interpretations on human lives. At the Supreme Court level, most decisions represent a “choice” rather than a “mandate.” That’s where having Justices who neither care to understand nor have to live with the consequences of their decisions really hurts people of color, immigrants, asylum seekers, and others not in the “power structure!” Better judges for a better America!

Meanwhile, advocates and progressives should never underestimate the ability of Dem Administrations to screw up immigration policy.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-20-21

⚖️🗽I SPEAK OUT ON BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S STUPID POSITION BEFORE THE SUPREMES IN SANCHEZ V. MAYORKAS! — John Fritze reports for USA Today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/16/supreme-court-debate-tps-immigration-case-biden-confronts-border/7110295002/

WASHINGTON – Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez have lived in the United States legally for two decades under a program that lets immigrants from nations enduring natural disasters and armed conflict temporarily avoid returning to their native countries.

But when the New Jersey couple applied for green cards – which would let them remain permanently – they were denied because they initially entered the country illegally.

The Salvadorans sued in 2015 and the Supreme Court will hear their appeal Monday in a case that has drawn little attention in Washington even as it has raised significant questions about the Biden administration’s approach to immigration – not to mention the status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants living in a state of limbo.

. . . .

“Look, this is a no brainer,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a Georgetown University law professor and former immigration judge. “Why waste time on it? The administration has indicated they’d like to regularize many [TPS beneficiaries] and…instead they’re defending a gimmick cooked up by Stephen Miller,” Trump’s onetime policy adviser.

. . . .

“Integrate them into our society rather than leaving them in permanent limbo – in theory, that’s what the Biden administration says it wants to do,” said Schmidt, the former immigration judge. “Only here’s their first chance to make it happen and they don’t connect the dots.”

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

Read John’s complete article at the above link.

Yeah, I know this brain-dead position originated in the Obama Administration. I’d never accuse the Obama Administration of overall having a wise, informed, or consistent approach to immigration. But, the “precedents” at issue here were issued under Trump. See Matter of H-G-G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 617 (AAO 2019); Matter of Padilla Rodriguez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 164 (BIA 2020).

Any time you see folks like Ira Mehlman @ FAIR or Christopher Hajec @ Immigration Reform Law Institute endorsing a position you can bet that there is a link to the cruel, White Nationalist policies of Stephen Miller and his cronies in the Trump Administration. If you had any doubt that the position being taken by the Garland DOJ was stupid policy, Mehlman’s and Hajec’s endorsements, and the organizations they represent, should resolve them.

Ignoring your potential friends and supporters; embracing the “racist right.” Interesting way to get started on what was promised to be a “smarter, kinder, more humane” approach to immigration policy. Can anyone really tell me what Judge Garland is doing over @ DOJ? The once highly regarded jurist who testified before Congress and was only a Mitch McConnell away from a seat on the Supremes seems to have all but disappeared into a bureaucratic fog of incompetence, bad lawyering, and missed opportunities @ the DOJ!

Look, after four years of senselessly, wastefully, and disgracefully trying to dump on long-time, contributing members of our society in TPS, like Jose & Sonia, the Trump Administration (thankfully for America) never removed any of them. The idea that the Biden Administration will do so is absurd.

So these folks are here for the duration. With Congress in deadlock, the most practical, legal, readily available way of getting tens of thousands of hard-working residents like Jose and Sonia fully integrated into our society and on their way to citizenship is simply by following the clear statutory language as other Circuit Courts have done. These are individuals who actually have met all the criteria of our legal immigration system! Most now have families with U.S. citizens. Why on earth would we want to keep those we should welcome in limbo? It’s cruel, counterproductive, and stupid!

For a much more scholarly and nuanced approach to DOJ’s wrong-headed handling of this case, check out this article in Just Security by my friend, renowned immigration expert, former senior executive in the Clinton and Obama Administrations (we actually met while working on the Refugee Act of 1980 in the Carter Administration — back when we were young), emeritus Professor David A. Martin:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/03/14/%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F%F0%9F%97%BDprofessor-david-a-martin-explains-how-biden-administration-could-advance-its-immigration-agenda-by-abandoning-their-wrong-headed-position-before-the-supremes/

I also note with pleasure that counsel of record for Jose and Sonia is Jamie W. Aparisi, who appeared before many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.

All this being said, the Supremes still might preserve this couple’s future and save the Garland DOJ from themselves. In past cases, faced with clear statutory language, the Supremes have required the Government to do something radically sensible: follow the law! See, e.g., Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018) (notice to appear).

So, who knows? Justice (not to be confused with the Department of “Justice”) as well as common sense and human decency could again prevail!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-16-21

🇺🇸🗽⚖️FIGHT MISOGYNY INFLICTED ON FEMALE REFUGEES OF COLOR @ EOIR WITH TIMELY NEW SEMINAR — Get The Facts To Combat The Institutionalized Lies, Intentional Misrepresentations, Bias, Cruelty Inflicted On Vulnerable Women Asylum Applicants In Immigration Court! — Featuring NDPA Superstars 🌟 Alberto Benitez & Paulina Vera From The GW Law Immigration Clinic!

Here’s the Zoom link:

https://zoom.us/j/97070084525

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

Congrats to Professors Benitez and Vera and GW Law!

Woman Tortured — “Is there some problem here?” “Random violence?” “Mere common crime?” “Reasonable state protection?” Does Attorney General Merrick B. Garland share the views of one of his predecessors, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions that lives of of brown-skinned refugee women don’t matter? Is that why Garland hasn’t revoked Matter of A-B-? Is that why Trump/Miller “plants” with notorious records of anti-asylum misogyny directed at Central American women continue to serve as “Appellate Judges” on Garland’s BIA even as refugee women continue to be turned back to “death without due process” at our borders?
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

If YOU were a refugee woman pleading for YOUR LIFE in Immigration Court, who would YOU want as the Judge?

This Stephen Miller clone holdover from the Trump Administration:

Grim Reaper — “Appellate Immigration Judge” approved by Stephen Miller to find the “final solution” for female refugees of color
Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License

Or these internationally-renowned practical scholar-experts in gender based asylum:

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Professor Deborah Anker
Director, Harvard Law Immigration & Refugee Clinic
PHOTO: Harvard Law

This might also be a good time to watch (or re-watch) the following video short featuring the “real” Ms. A-B- (and her lawyers) who was arbitrarily targeted by White Nationalist “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions to receive an unwarranted “death sentence” in violation of due process!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/about.php

So why is Judge Garland retaining the “Trump-Miller-Sessions-Barr BIA” rather than replacing them with much better qualified immigration/human rights experts dedicated to due process like, for example, Alberto Benitez and Paulina Vera?

👍🏼🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For Refugee Women! Tell Judge Garland To End Institutionalized Misogyny @ EOIR!☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻Remove Anti-Asylum Zealots & Those Unwilling To Stand Up For Due Process For All Asylum Seekers From The BIA! Appoint Real Judges To Restore Due Process!

PWS

04-13-21

👎🏻BIA BOMBS 💣AGAIN IN 11th Cir. — Cuban Journalist Latest Victim Of BIA’s Sloppy Work, 🤡Anti-Asylum Bias ☠️— Cabrera-Martinez v. Att’y Gen. — “Heck, the only ‘refugees’ Garland is protecting are Stephen Miller’s ‘burrowed in cronies’ @ EOIR, including the Sessions/Barr ‘Asylum Denial Society’ hiding out in the ranks of ‘Appellate Judges’ at the BIA!”🤮🏴‍☠️

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-cuba-journalists-well-founded-fear-cabrera-martinez-v-atty-gen

Dan Kowalski reports in Lexis-Nexis Immigration Community:

CA11 on Cuba, Journalists, Well-Founded Fear: Cabrera Martinez v. Atty. Gen.

Cabrera Martinez v. Atty. Gen.

“Because the IJ and the BIA failed to provide reasoned consideration of Martinez’s evidence of his well-founded fear of future persecution based on a pattern or practice of persecution toward dissident journalists in Cuba, we grant in part his petition, vacate the BIA’s decision in part, and remand this case for further proceedings.”

[There was also a good dissent by Judge Martin. Hats off to Derek M. Stikeleather!]

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

Congrats, Derek! Thanks, CLINIC!

And, here’s a little more insight from Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC on how the NDPA is making a difference in people’s lives, even as our public officials of both parties try to sweep the lawless and unprofessional behavior of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts under the carpet.

Greetings,

Thanks, Dan, for circulating this decision! This is actually a CLINIC BIA Pro Bono Project case represented by Derek Stikeleather of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP. In this published decision, the Eleventh Circuit held that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to a Cuban asylum seeker’s claims that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court noted that the IJ and BIA ignored evidence that the petitioner was persecuted for being a political journalist. Congratulations to Derek Stikeleather and thank you to our BIA Pro Bono Project Attorney Rachel Naggar for guiding and mentoring Derek on this case!

As Judge Martin, concurring and dissenting, cogently explains, the BIA actually got everything wrong in this case.

Mr. Martinez has made the case that he suffered two years of threats and abuse at the hands of the Cuban government because he is a journalist for a dissident magazine (Convivencia) that is critical of the government. Although the immigration officials who heard Mr. Martinez’s account found him to be credible, they gave him no relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) said Mr. Martinez must be returned to Cuba because the story he truthfully told did not sufficiently show either that he had been persecuted in the past, or that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Cuba in the future.

Now the majority opinion gives Mr. Martinez relief on one of the grounds rejected by the immigration authorities, but not the other. Maj. Op. at 2. The majority says the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to Mr. Martinez’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 16–20. I agree and join in that part of the opinion. However, I would give Mr. Martinez broader relief because I think Martinez’s experiences as he tried to live and work in Cuba show that he suffered past persecution as well. I therefore respectfully dissent.

The dissent highlights the real ongoing problem here: A system with unqualified judges, particularly the BIA’s Appellate Judges, searching for specious reasons to deny compelling, well-documented asylum claims!

EOIR is NOT dispensing expert adjudication that complies with the due process clause of our Constitution! Not by a long shot, as any real expert in immigration and human rights laws would tell you!

Yet, the farce and perversion of justice goes on, day after day, case after case @ EOIR. Only by “Dred Scottification” — viewing asylum applicants and migrants, mostly people of color, as something other than “persons” entitled to fair and respectful treatment under the law, can we explain failures such as this!

So far, Judge Garland has neither recognized the fundamental problems in his courts nor shown any serious interest in providing justice for asylum seekers and other migrants. Heck, the only “refugees” Garland is protecting are Stephen Miller’s “burrowed in cronies” @ EOIR, including the Sessions/Barr “Asylum Denial Society” hiding out in the ranks of “Appellate Judges” at the BIA! Disgusting, but true!

Garland’s failure to take an interest in due process for migrants has come to the attention of some of the folks @ EOIR who actually believe in due process, fundamental fairness, and human decency. There is a growing sense of outrage and betrayal as they watch neo-Nazis and incompetent, biased restrictionists continue to draw fat salaries and abuse migrants courtesy of “Team Garland,” while asylum seekers continue to suffer and their attorneys are treated like dirt by EOIR! The folks who should have been put in charge of aggressively reforming and rebuilding this disgrace to American justice are still on the outside looking in, while “Clowns 🤡and political hacks (incredibly, holdovers from the “Trump regime”) rule!”

Kangaroos — “‘Pattern or practice of persecution?’ ‘Benefit of the doubt for credible asylum seekers?’ Never heard of ‘em. And, fortunately, I don’t think Judge Garland has either! ‘Any reason to deny and deport,’ that’s the ‘BIA vision’ that Little Stevie Miller, Jeffy Gonzo, and Billy Bigot told us to follow! We’re ‘above the law” here at EOIR!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Garland’s ancestors were fortunate. Today’s refugees and asylees, not so much. But, hey, no need to “pay It forward” once “you’ve got yours” and your life is no longer subject to the institutionalized bias, racism, and grotesque inconsistencies of America’s immigrant “justice” system.

There is hope here! Through the continuing outstanding efforts of folks like Derek, Michelle, CAIR, and the rest of the NDPA, we can eventually grind Garland’s Deadly Clown Courts 🤡to a halt! No matter how much you “turn up the dial” or expand these dysfunctional and fundamentally unfair courts to railroad folks out, every reversal, remand, and injunction that the NDPA gets will further clog the 1.3 million case pipeline while saving individual lives in the process and setting favorable precedents that can be used to combat the current assault on justice and mistreatment of people of color and women by DOJ and EOIR.

Additionally, if the pace keeps up, Circuit Courts, even the most conservative ones, like the 5th and 11th Circuits, might tire of serving as a substitute BIA. There won’t be much else on their dockets.

Maybe they will finally take a serious look at the clear unconstitutionality of the system. That will throw a monkey wrench unto Garland’s apparent plans to pretend like institutionalized racism, unprofessionalism, bias, and gross unfairness aren’t operating under his auspices. Ideally, at some point he will decide that it’s easier to fix the mess than to try to pretend that it’s not happening.

Also, if Garland chooses to go with the same gang of DOJ attorneys who got beaten up in court on a fairly regular basis by the NDPA, the NDPA is likely to continue to feast. That’s particularly true because Garland shows every sign of stubborn determination to keep “the best due process lawyers in America” off his team, and therefore dedicated to opposing his attempt to run the Immigrtion Courts as if “elections don’t matter.”

Sure doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me. But, hey, what do I know? I’ve only been practicing law for about the past 50 years.

At any rate, it’s important for the NDPA to adjust from the short-term mindset that things might be better under the Biden Administration and ramp the litigation, public critique/exposure, immigrant assistance, and “resistance to evil” machines into even higher gear.

Vulnerable human lives and the future of our democracy are at stake. The Biden Administration to date has demonstrated neither capacity nor interest in addressing the real, festering problems in American justice in a constructive manner.

That’s highly unfortunate. As little as they wish to recognize it, the Administration’s racial justice efforts will go nowhere as long as Garland continues to operate a “court system”where institutionalized racism, intentional perversion of the law, and degradation of humanity are the operating principles. Certainly enlightened, competent leadership on Immigration Court reform is conspicuously absent!

Sometimes, the only way to get attention from the tone-deaf folks in charge is to break their entire corrupt system by using the tools still available under the law strategically and effectively to end scofflaw behavior and force constructive, long, long, long overdue change.

😎⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-12-21

☠️END MISOGYNY 🤮@ EOIR, NOW! — Gorelick & Miller-Muro Are Right, But Abused Refugee Women’s Lives⚰️ Can’t Wait For Congress! — Judge Garland Must Bring Justice ⚖️ To Dysfunctional EOIR Now! — It’s Not Rocket Science! 🚀

Jamie Gorelick
American Lawyer & Public Servant
PHOTO: Creative Commons

Layli Miller-Muro
Founder & Executive Director, Tahirih Justice Center
PHOTO: Creative Commons

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/07/us-asylum-law-must-protect-women/

Jamie Gorelick is a partner at Wilmer Hale. Layli Miller-Muro is founder and CEO of the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that serves immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Both were involved in Fauziya Kassindja’s asylum case in 1996: Gorelick was deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration and Miller-Muro was Kassindja’s student legal counsel, representing her in immigration court and at the Board of Immigration Appeals.

With the issue of migration in the news again, a glaring omission in U.S. asylum law should get more attention: The statute does not name gender as a possible ground for protection.

To be granted asylum in the United States, an applicant must be facing persecution by their government or someone that government cannot or will not control. The applicant must show that the persecution is on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in “a particular social group.” Persecution on account of gender is not included.

This makes sense when considering that the global treaty that obliges state parties to protect refugees was adopted 70 years ago, in 1951, when the legal rights of women were barely recognized. The treaty — called the Refugee Convention — says that countries have an obligation to protect those who have no choice but to flee or risk death in the face of injustice.

It is unsurprising that the needs of women facing persecution were not considered in 1951. It is also not surprising — though it is disappointing — that Congress wrote this outdated framework into the Refugee Act of 1980.

In the mid-1990s, some light was shined on this problem. Fauziya Kassindja, a 17-year-old from Togo, sought protection both from forced polygamous marriage to a much older man and from female genital mutilation. She was granted asylum after proving that she was a member of a “particular social group” — and thus covered by the Refugee Act. We were both involved in this case, which helped to crack open the door for women to argue that gender-based asylum claims should be granted under the “particular social group” category in the statute.

But progress for women has been slow and painful under a statute that does not explicitly recognize gender-based persecution. It took 14 years for the United States to grant asylum to a Guatemalan woman, Rodi Alvarado, who endured unspeakable brutalization by her husband, a former soldier. Regulations proffered by then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 2000 to protect women under the social-group category were never finalized, leaving women in the lurch. So much variance exists in the likelihood of success from court to court that filing a claim can feel like playing Russian roulette.

. . . .

This situation has been made much worse in recent years. Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, decades of progress were nearly wiped out by the stroke of a pen. Because the highest immigration court is part of the Justice Department, he was able to single-handedly reverse key legal precedents favorable to women’s claims and issue guidance to judges limiting gender-based asylum. As a result of these changes, the safety of many immigrant women hangs by a thread. The Refugee Act urgently needs to be changed to clearly protect women who would otherwise meet the stringent requirements for asylum.

. . . .

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

Read the full op-ed at the link.

The Rest of the Story

I wrote the decision granting asylum in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). Jamie Gorelick was the Deputy Attorney General during part of my tenure (1995-2001) as Chair of the BIA. Layli Miller-Muro worked for me as a BIA Attorney-Advisor for a time.

Following Kasinga, some of my colleagues and I put our careers on the line to vindicate the statutory, constitutional, and human rights of refugee women who suffered egregious persecution in the form of domestic violence. One of those cases was Rodi Alvarado (a/k/a “Ms. R-A-“), where we dissented from our majority colleagues’ misguided denial of protection to her following grotesque, clearly gender-based persecution. Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 906, 928 (BIA 1999) (Guendelsberger,Board Member, dissenting with Schmidt, Chair, Villageliu, Rosenberg, and Moscato, Board Members). Alvarado had properly been granted asylum by an Immigration Judge, building on Kasinga, before being unjustly stripped of protection by the majority of our colleagues.

The incorrect decision in R-A- was vacated by Attorney General Reno. Finally, after a 14-year struggle, Ms. Alvarado was granted asylum in an unpublished, unappealed decision based largely on the rationale of the dissenters. In the meantime, the “gang of four” dissenters (minus Moscato) had been exiled from the BIA by Attorney General John Ashcroft, assisted by his sidekick, Kris Kobach (the infamous “Ashcroft Purge” @ the BIA).

In 2014, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), the BIA finally recognized domestic violence based on gender as a form of persecution. They did so without acknowledging the pioneering work of the R-A- dissenters 15 years earlier. By this time, domestic violence as a basis for asylum had become so well established that it wasn’t even contested by the DHS (although, curiously, the case was remanded by the BIA for additional findings on issues that were beyond reasonable dispute)!

In the meantime, at the Arlington Immigration Court, my colleagues and I had consistently granted domestic violence asylum cases based on a DHS policy position known as the “Martin Memo,” after former INS General Counsel and later DHS Deputy General Counsel Professor David Martin (who, incidentally, argued the Kasinga case before the BIA in 1996 — famous gender-based asylum expert Professor Karen Musalo argued for Kasinga). Most of those grants were unappealed by DHS. Indeed, many were so compelling and well documented that DHS joined Respondents’ counsel in moving for asylum grants following brief testimony. These cases actually became staples on my “short docket,” promoting efficiency, fairness, and becoming one of the few “working parts” of the Immigration Courts.

Tahirih Justice Center, founded by, Layli Miller-Muro, was counsel in some of these cases and served as an essential resource and inspiration for attorneys preparing domestic violence cases. It also functioned as a training center for some of the “new all-stars” of the New Due Process Army. For a time, the progress in recognizing, documenting, and vindicating the rights and humanity of female asylum seekers, at least in the Arlington Immigration Court, was one of the few shining examples of the courts, DHS, and the private/NGO bar working cooperatively to improve the quality and efficiency of justice in Immigration Court. It should have been a model for all other courts!

Sadly, in 2018, Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, unilaterally intervened and undid two decades of progress for women refugees of color with his grossly incorrect and disingenuous decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of A-R-C-G- on completely specious grounds while intentionally misconstruing the facts of record. Significantly, Sessions’s intervention was over the objection of DHS, which had expressed continuing agreement with the A-R-C-G- framework for deciding domestic violence cases.

“Hanging by a thread,” as stated by the op-ed, unfortunately vastly understates the war on the legal rights and humanity of asylum-seeking women, particularly targeting women at color, being carried out at EOIR today. This effort is led by a BIA that has long since lost its way, basically “weaponizing” the legal distortions and vicious, openly misogynist dicta set forth by Sessions in Matter of A-B- to dehumanize, degrade, and deport vulnerable refugee women.

In numerous cases, the BIA actually intervenes at ICE’s request to reverse proper grants by courageous and scholarly Immigration Judges below. It’s all about churning out final orders of removal as a deterrent – a vile, disgusting, perverted “philosophy” advanced by Sessions, Barr, and Whitaker, and not yet effectively rejected by Judge Garland.

Yeah, I’ve read about the Judge’s “difficulties” in getting his “A-Team” on board at the DOJ. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/07/us-asylum-law-must-protect-women/. So what!

Judge Garland is in the job because he is not only an experienced DOJ senior executive, but a long-serving Federal Judge who was admired for his sense of justice. It shouldn’t take an army of “spear-carriers” and subordinates for a true leader of Judge Garland’s experience to seize control of the situation and start getting the “ship of justice” sailing in the right direction. Judge Garland’s political and bureaucratic travails are of no moment to, and pale in comparison with, the additional, unconscionable abuse and “Dred Scottification” being heaped on refugee women and their courageous representatives by his dysfunctional and unconstitutional “star chamber courts.”

“Refugee women get ‘special treatment’ in accordance with the ‘traditional values’ applied to their cases in Judge Garland’s Immigration Courts!”

Trial By Ordeal — Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

Please, Pick Up The Phone & Your Pen, Judge Garland!

Not rocket science, Judge Garland! All it takes is six calls and a signature to start ending misogyny at EOIR and achieving racial justice in the America.

First three calls: Call Judge Dana Marks (SF), Judge Noel Brennan (NYC), Judge Amiena Khan (Newark) and tell them that they are detailed to the positions of Acting EOIR Director, Acting BIA Chair, and Acting Chief Immigration Judge, respectively. (The first position is vacant and the other two positions are filled by Senior Executives subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion. The current Acting Director already has an SES position to which she could return, or she could be re-installed as the
EOIR General Counsel, a job for which she is well-qualified.)

Fourth call: Call the the head of of the Justice Management Division (JMD). Ask her/him to find suitable DOJ placements for the two current incumbents mentioned above and all current members of the BIA (all of whom are either SES or “Management Officials” subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion) in other DOJ positions at the same pay level where they can do no further damage to our justice system. Ask him/her to arrange for the temporary appointment of former DOJ employees Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro as Acting Appellate Judges at the BIA.

Calls five and six: Call Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro. Thank them, tell them you agree with their Post op-ed, and ask (or beg) them to come to DOJ on a temporary basis to help Judges Marks, Brennan, and Khan solve the current problems with asylum adjudications and take the necessary actions to get EOIR functioning as a legitimate, independent, due-process-oriented court system. In other words, turn their cogent op-ed into a “real life action plan” for restoring due process, humanity, and common sense to the Immigration Courts, with a focus on the now totally unprofessional, wrong-headed mis-adjudication of asylum cases.

Finally, sign this order:

All precedent decisions issued to EOIR by former Attorneys General Sessions and Barr, and former Acting Attorneys General Whitaker and Wilkinson, and all their pending actions certifying cases to themselves are hereby vacated. All cases shall be returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) for reconsideration. In the reconsideration process, the BIA shall, among other things, honor the letter and spirit of these binding precedents:

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)

Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987)

Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996)

In the reconsideration process the BIA shall also be guided by the principle of “through teamwork, innovation, and best practices, become the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”

See, it’s not that complicated. By the end of this year, women will get the protection to which they legally are entitled from the Immigration Courts. We all will see dramatic changes that will lead the way toward “equal justice for all’” in America and become a blueprint for the Immigration Courts to fulfill the above-stated principle.

It would also be a far better legacy for Judge Garland to be viewed as the “father of the fair, independent, expert Immigration Courts,” than to be remembered as running the most dysfunctional, unfair, and misogynistic court system in America, his current path. And, as an extra added bonus, Judge Garland, you will have a great start on building a premier source of “battle tested,” due-process-oriented, progressive jurists for future Article III appointments!

It’s a “win-win-win” that you no longer can afford to ignore, Your Honor!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-09-21

⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️CAMILLE J. MACKLER @ JUST SECURITY “GETS IT!” — How Come Judge Garland & The Biden Administration Don’t? — “If we want to re-build a better, stronger immigration system, we need to start with immigration courts.” — Get Involved! Get Angry! Say No To Institutionalized Racism, Misogyny, & Dehumanization (“Dred Scottification”) @ EOIR! Force Judge Garland To Pay Attention! Demand Change, Now!

https://www.justsecurity.org/75675/to-fix-the-immigration-system-we-need-to-start-with-immigration-courts/

Merrick Garland was recently confirmed as attorney general, bringing back a much-needed sense of impartiality and integrity to the Justice Department and the immigration court system it oversees. In this sense, his appointment is critical because, less than two months into his presidency, Joe Biden is already confronting the reality that meaningful immigration policies don’t always match up with wishful campaign promises. As thousands of migrants, especially unaccompanied minors, continue to seek safety and opportunity in the United States; as changes to interior enforcement and immigration prosecutions are slow to implement; and as advocates apprehensively watch detention facilities expand and COVID-related border closures continue, immigration remains the most divisive of all political conversations.

But rather than be overwhelmed by the challenge, perhaps there is another place to start, one that has only been alluded to in Biden’s plans and never taken up by Congress: If we want to re-build a better, stronger immigration system, we need to start with immigration courts. In a Just Security piece published in November, Gregory Chen eloquently laid out the devastating harm caused by the Trump administration’s politicization of the immigration judiciary, pointedly describing the courts as “strained to the breaking point under a massive backlog of cases and a systemic inability to render consistent, fair decisions.”

Courts are the backstop of every legal system. Their most basic function is to ensure that applications of the law are fair, not arbitrary and capricious. In the U.S. immigration system, however, most of the oversight has fallen on administrative courts housed within the Department of Justice. As Chen argues, the courts “operate under the jurisdiction of a prosecutorial agency, the Department of Justice, whose aims and political interests often conflict with the fundamental mission of delivering impartial and fair decisions.” Further exacerbating the tension, beginning in 1996 Congress expanded the executive branch’s already far-reaching power on immigration by starting a 30-year trend of limiting the federal courts’ jurisdiction over immigration issues; efforts that were only reinforced by the 2002 Homeland Security Act and 2005 REAL ID Act. The recently introduced, White House-backed, U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 only slightly restores judicial oversight, allowing district courts to review allegations of violations of certain portions of the Act. For the foreseeable future, immigration courts remain under the direction of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a small and chronically under-funded sub-agency of the Justice Department, operating out of an office building in Falls Church, Virginia, removed from DOJ leadership in Washington, D.C.

While they by no means caused the issues that plague the EOIR today, the Trump administration’s policies put the proverbial final nail in the coffin of a quasi-functioning system, decimating the daily functions of immigration courts and showing how they can be used as political tools. The overwhelming backlog of cases –nearly 1.3 million at last count across all courts– exacerbated by the enforcement-first agenda, means that immigration judges have enormous caseloads with few support staff to help them manage the work. In addition, policies by the Trump administration removed judicial discretion from judges, prevented them from using simple control tools to manage their dockets, tied performance reviews to how many cases they closed out within a year while making it harder to avoid entering deportation orders, and created new administrative law to further restrict benefits a judge can grant. When the immigration bench pushed back, leadership dismantled the union that represented them. Hiring and rewards practices have politicized the bench even more. As Chen noted in his piece, the Trump administration “stacked the courts with appointees who are biased toward enforcement, have histories of poor judicial conduct, hold anti-immigrant views, or are affiliated with organizations espousing such views.”

This is not the hallmark of a functional legal system, and its ripple effects undermine our immigration system as a whole.

. . . .

Otherwise, we will prolong a situation that would be comical were the implications not so devastating. Returning to the individuals stranded in Mexico due to the MPP, for example – as of the time of this writing, they are being registered into a database and given COVID tests by various international organizations. Once cleared to enter the United States, they will fill out a form, by hand, which is handed to the Customs and Border Protection official. The CBP officer, overwhelmed and under-resourced as they are at the border, will then transmit this paper form to the immigration court officials, who will enter it into their systems and change the case to the appropriate court. In New York, these courts do not even have sufficient staff to assign one clerk, who also doubles as an administrative assistant, to each judge. As a result, calls to the court frequently go unanswered and are rarely returned. Furthermore, increasingly, understaffing has led to misplaced evidence submissions for pending cases. The responsibility to ensure that all of these obstacles are overcome will lie on the individual who just, finally, entered the United States.

An independent immigration judiciary, with its own resources and free from political oversight, is the only long-lasting remedy to this dysfunction. In the meantime, the agency, much like the DOJ it depends on, is in desperate need of thoughtful, measured leadership that values due process and impartiality and supports existing staff as it continues to navigate the complex problems posed by our immigration laws. There must be trained, dedicated staff ensuring efficient management of the court’s dockets and administrative systems so that the individuals whose cases are going through the courts understand what is required of them. Only then will the immigration system reflect American notions of justice, and only then can we begin to rebuild a strong, sustainable immigration system that meets our goals for foreign policy, national security, and domestic prosperity.

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

Read Camille’s full article at the link.

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Not rocket science! Just following the due process clause of the Constitution; implementing asylum laws in the fair, generous, and practical way they were intended; replacing today’s failed EOIR administrators, the entire BIA, and many Immigration Judges responsible for “asylum free zones” with competent, expert professionals; and treating migrants, regardless of race, color, creed, or gender, as human beings!

If you wonder why Judge Garland is continuing to run “star chambers” masquerading as “courts” @ DOJ, join the club!

As cogently described by my friend and fellow panelist at the Hispanic National Bar Association last night, Claudia Cubas, Litigation Director at the CAIR Coalition, in what other “court” system in America are you not entitled to a timely copy of your client’s file to prepare for litigation and file applications (often with artificially truncated “filing dates” to promote “summary denials”)? Making the Immgration Courts functional is neither impossible nor that complicated. All it takes is competent leadership with the guts to “clean house” at EOIR and “kick some tail” at an intransigent, contemptuous, and out of control DHS.

So why is Judge Garland investing in the continuing, deadly “Clown Show,”🤡🦹🏿‍♂️☠️⚰️ rather than getting going on bringing “his” courts into compliance with due process? It’s not even that hard to get the right experts who could do the job in place, at least on a temporary basis.

If Judge Garland won’t do his job, what can we do to force change and rationality into this totally dysfunctional, stunningly unfair, scofflaw system? Here are some ideas from last night’s panel at the Hispanic National Bar Association (“HNBA”):

Apply for jobs at EOIR (sure, they are hidden away on “USA Jobs,” there is no effort whatsoever on Judge Garland’s part to diversify or recruit real experts, and the selection process is opaque). But, better judges, with actual experience representing migrants (particularly asylum seekers) in court, and some compassion and human understanding along with expertise, are the key to fixing the system. It’s particularly critical for minority attorneys (now a relative rarity in the “Immigration Judiciary”) to apply in overwhelming numbers and get into the system to start forcing change from within (“bore from within,” as Dan Kowalski says). Can’t complain about who’s selected if you don’t apply and compete!
Raise hell with your legislative representatives! As long as Immigration Court reform is #27 on their radar screens, the problem won’t get addressed.
Get involved with educating the public about the ungodly, un-American disaster in the Immigration “Courts” that don’t fit any normal definition of “courts” (except “kangaroo courts”). Join and support advocacy and social service groups; write op-eds; write for blogs; speak at community and church meetings; run for political office!
Sue, sue, sue, sue! Make sure that the systemic mistreatment of migrants and people of color in Judge Garland’s Immigration Courts are front and center in the Article III Courts and that we are making an historical record of where Federal Judges and public officials stand on the most critical racial and social justice issue in America today. Argue the very obvious Constitutional violations present in a system run by prosecutors, where judges can be neither fair nor impartial, and where many lack even minimal competence and qualifications for their “judicial” positions. Take the fight to the broken and dysfunctional DOJ in the only way they understand, by whacking them down in court! Make Judge Garland face and “own” his disgracefully failed, unprofessional “courts” by making it the #1 issue occupying his time. Make how he deals with the Immigration Courts his overriding “legacy” for better or worse!
Remember, GOP politicos like to use immigration as a “prop” to spread their message of racial vilification and dehumanization of the “other” because it “fires up” their White Nationalist base! By contrast, Dem politicos want to make immigration go away and pretend like the mess in the Immigration Courts doesn’t exist, can’t be fixed, isn’t that important (as in lives of migrants and asylum seekers, mainly of color, don’t count), and isn’t killing people! Don’t let either party get away with their respective dishonest, “designed for failure,” approaches!

Humanity and the future of American democracy are at stake here! They might be “Clown Courts” 🤡 but the damage they daily inflict on human lives ☠️⚰️ and values 🤮 is no laughing matter!

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Put an end to deadly “Clown Courts” 🤡 now!

PWS

04-08-21

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:

Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for immigrants @ Justice:

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 5, 2021

This just in from a NDPA stalwart in Houston, TX:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Human lives matter! The Constitution matters! Asylum law matters!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Congrats to Professors Benitez and Vera and GW Law!

If YOU were a refugee woman pleading for YOUR LIFE in Immigration Court, who would YOU want as the Judge?

This Stephen Miller clone holdover from the Trump Administration:

Or these internationally-renowned practical scholar-experts in gender based asylum:

👍🏼🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For Refugee Women! Tell Judge Garland To End Institutionalized Misogyny @ EOIR!☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻Remove Anti-Asylum Zealots & Those Unwilling To Stand Up For Due Process For All Asylum Seekers From The BIA! Appoint Real Judges To Restore Due Process!

Related posts:

😎⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Refugee women get ‘special treatment’ in accordance with the ‘traditional values’ applied to their cases in Judge Garland’s Immigration Courts!”

It’s a “win-win-win” that you no longer can afford to ignore, Your Honor!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Put an end to deadly “Clown Courts” 🤡 now!

Related posts: