AMERICA’S FLAILING & FAILING JUDICIARY: ACHIEVING “EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL” REQUIRES COURAGEOUS AND EMPATHETIC JUDICIAL LEADERSHIP — Don’t Expect It From A Supremes’ Majority Firmly Wedded to Promoting “Dred-Scottification” (De-Humanization) of “The Other!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opinion/sunday/supreme-court-religion-coronavirus.html

Linda Greenhouse writes in The NY Times:

The Supreme Court made the indisputably right call last week when it refused to block California from limiting attendance at religious services in an effort to control the spread of Covid-19.

A Southern California church, represented by a Chicago-based organization, the Thomas More Society, which most often defends anti-abortion activists, had sought the justices’ intervention with the argument that by limiting worshipers to the lesser of 25 percent of building capacity or 100 people, while setting a 50 percent occupancy cap on retail stores, California was discriminating against religion in violation of the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause.

Given the obvious difference between walking through a store and sitting among fellow worshipers for an hour or more, as well as the documented spread of the virus through church attendance in such places as Sacramento (71 cases), Seattle (32 cases) and South Korea (over 5,000 cases traced to one person at a religious service), California’s limits are both sensitive and sensible, hardly the basis for constitutional outrage or judicial second-guessing.

So why did the court’s order, issued as midnight approached on Friday night, fill me with dread rather than relief?

It was because in a ruling that should have been unanimous, the vote was 5 to 4. And it was because of who the four dissenters were: the four most conservative justices, two of them appointed by the president who a couple of months ago was demanding that churches be allowed to open by Easter and who, even before the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, was openly encouraging protests in the capitals of states not reopening as quickly as he would like.

As an astonished country witnessed on Monday night, as he held a Bible in front of a church near the White House after demonstrators were violently cleared from his path, Donald Trump is using religion as a cultural wedge to deflect attention from the consequences of his own ineptitude. The recognition that four Supreme Court justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — would have invoked the court’s power to undermine fact-based public policy in the name of a misbegotten claim of religious discrimination was beyond depressing. It was terrifying.

Does that sound like an overstatement? Take a look at Justice Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion. “California’s latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses,” he wrote. “Such discrimination violates the First Amendment.”

It’s interesting that while Justices Gorsuch and Thomas signed Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion, Justice Alito did not. Perhaps he’s just too good a lawyer to subscribe to the flimsy analysis underlying this opinion. Fair enough, but he evidently couldn’t be bothered to explain his own dissenting vote. And no less than his fellow dissenters, he obviously inhaled the unfounded claim of religious discrimination that the president has injected into an atmosphere already saturated with polarizing rhetoric.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Linda’s op-ed at the above link.

This is just a symptom of an ongoing cancer at the Court. Cases like Hawaii v. Trump (“greenlighting” arbitrary and capricious punishment of refugees, Muslims, certain immigrants based on clearly pretextual “security grounds”), Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab (“Let ‘Em Die in Mexico!” Particularly when they are “only” Central American asylum seekers), and Wolf v. Cook County (final greenlighting of Stephen Miller’s racist scheme to deny health care and spread deadly fears in American Hispanic communities) should all have been 9-0 in favor of those opposing Trump’s racially-biased, illegal, unconstitutional policies.

Additionally, Trump Toady Solicitor General Noel Francisco should have been strongly cautioned against continuing to bend the ethical codes with largely fabricated “emergencies” intended to interfere with the normal functioning of the Federal Courts.

Instead, the Supremes’ majority gave the regime totally undeserved, immoral victories in all three cases. As a result, many innocent individuals were denied rights, forced into life-threatening conditions, and some even died. The Supremes’ inflicted damage on society at large. They assisted in trampling social justice and human rights. They grotesquely perverted and “turned on its head” the concept of “irreparable harm.” They indelibly and irreparably damaged their reputation and our system of justice.

In the meantime, the message to Francisco and the rest of his human rights denying scofflaw crowd over at the DOJ is clear: Justice is dead, courage has fled, you’re in charge.

Unhappily, by most accounts, the tone-deaf and disconnected Supremes’ majority might be on the cusp of throwing more gasoline on the fires of social justice, at the worst possible time for our nation. If, as expected, they endorse the regime’s intentionally cruel, illegal, dishonest, and racially charged scheme to,”shaft” Dreamers — some of our finest young people, many of whom are “essential workers” — it’s likely to spark more justified outrage and further protests!

So certain are the regime’s White Nationalists that they have the “J.R. Five” in their pocket that they reportedly already are planning to use these American youths as “hostages” to demand even further immigration restrictions as “ransom” from House Dems. The Dems are unlikely to bite, so Dreamers will be left to “twist in the wind” pending the results of the election.

The Supreme Court majority has been hand selected by the GOP to insure that a minority, anti-democratic ideology, often willfully devoid of humanity and historical awareness, will continue to exercise disproportionate influence over the U.S. legal system for years, perhaps decades, to come.

We can’t change the past. But, a better “appointing authority” will be a start of long overdue change and “pushback” from the forces and institutions of democracy, humanity, and racial justice to restore integrity to our highest Court that, in actuality, now functions more like the lowest denominator and an instigator of racial and institutional injustice in our hurting nation.

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

06-06-20

🏴‍☠️“BIZARRO COURTS” — THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO ALL PERSONS IN THE U.S., YET ICE & THEIR “PARTNERS” AT EOIR HAVE ESTABLISHED A CONSTITUTION-FREE “COURT SYSTEM” THAT OPERATES BEYOND THE LAW & MORALITY IN A LEGAL NEVER-NEVER LAND 🧚‍♂️ — How Do They Get Away With It Under The Noses Of Congress & Article III Courts? — An Outrageous Story of Gross 🤮 Institutional & Personal Failures & Ethical Lapses Across All Three Branches of Our Federal Government ☠️👎🏻!

Paul Moses and Tim Healy report for The Daily Beast:

‘The Bizarro-World’ Immigration Courts Where the Constitution Isn’t Applied Detainees can be held for weeks or months before seeing a judge. The Justice Department gave “the word of the agency under penalty of perjury” that it would fix that—but only in NY

·         ICE officials acknowledged that they couldn’t handle the volume of arrests their own agents made; the major clog was in getting a legal review from the agency’s understaffed legal unit.

·         In 11 of the 55 venues that heard more than 500 cases last year, detainees spent six weeks or more in jail before an initial hearing. Such long waits would be unconstitutional in criminal cases; the right to due process requires authorities to not only get a case filed but also to provide an arraignment promptly, generally in no more than 48 hours.

·         Among the 55 venues that handled 500 or more detainee cases last year, the longest waits from arrest to initial hearing were in hearing locations at privately run lockups under contract with ICE: Winn Correctional Center in Winnifield, Louisiana, a median of 140 days; T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas, 72 days; Richwood Correctional Center in Richwood, Louisiana, 64 days…

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

Ironically, by his own overt corruption and open disdain for our Constitution and the rule of law, Trump has exposed the deep flaws, grotesque derelictions of duty, and unethical complicity throughout our Constitutional institutions that are supposed to protect all of us, particularly the most vulnerable among us like civil immigration detainees and asylum seekers, from abuses by would-be authoritarian tyrants like Trump!

Here’s a gem:

“The larger question behind this mass of numbers is why DHS is detaining so many people when both its legal office and the court lack the staffing—not only judges but support staff as well—to handle them.

‘I would just say, they are the prosecuting agency and in this context, they have complete control over the timeline,’ said Aaron Hall, an immigration lawyer who practices at the court in Aurora, Colorado, which has had substantial delays. ‘If the charging document isn’t ready to go, why are they arresting them?’”

Good question! But don’t expect a straight answer from the “malicious incompetents” at DHS. Nor will today get anything except misleading nonsense from their “partners” at EOIR (“ICE Jr.”).

DOJ was forewarned of this disaster by an independent consultant back in 2017. But, rather than solving the problem, then AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions intentionally made things even worse at EOIR. You might remember “Gonzo” as the “mastermind” behind the regime’s unconstitutional child separation policy. His victims were returned to abuse, scarred for life, or imprisoned for the “crime” of asserting their Constitutional and legal rights to fair treatment.

All of this is wrong, plain and simple! It’s part of “Dred Scotiffication” — now playing out across our nation in many ways. Finally, the systematic “dehumanization of the other” as aided, abetted, and actually encouraged by a majority of the Supremes, is getting some much-needed and long overdue “pushback.”

But the abuses of our Constitution and our values, and the unaccountability of corrupt public officials, present and former, of the Trump immigration kakistocracy, won’t cease until we get “regime change.” That requires substantial personnel and attitude changes across all three branches of our reeling Federal Government! And that definitely includes accountability for those who have failed to insure “equal justice for all” and instead permitted and sometimes aided and abetted the existence of “Constitution-Free Zones” right under their noses!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Officials & Institutions, Never!

PWS

6-04-20

ROUND TABLE STRIKES ANOTHER BLOW IN SUPPORT OF JUSTICE⚔️🛡: Immigration Detainees Have a Right to Due Process in Bond Hearings — PADILLA RAUDALES V. DECKER, 2D CIR.

CHRISTOPHER T. CASAMASSIMA
Partner
Wilmer Hale
Los Angeles

SOUVIK SAHA
Counsel
Wilmer Hale
Washington, D.C.

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Amici curiae have served as Immigration Judges and as members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Amici are invested in the resolution of this case because they have dedicated their careers to improving tghe fairness and

2

efficiency of the U.S. immigration system. Through their centuries-long collective experience, amici have adjudicated hundreds—if not thousands—of immigration detention hearings. Amici have substantial knowledge of immigration detention issues, including the practical impact of the burden of proof in such hearings.

INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT SUMMARY

Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person” shall “be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This liberty is so fundamental that the law tolerates its restraint only in limited circumstances.

1

Amici are invested in the resolution of

2

efficiency of the U.S. immigration system. Through their centuries-long collective experience, amici have adjudicated hundreds—if not thousands—of immigration detention hearings. Amici have substantial knowledge of immigration detention issues, including the practical impact of the burden of proof in such hearings.

INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT SUMMARY

Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person” shall “be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This liberty is so fundamental that the law tolerates its restraint only in limited circumstances.

1

Amici are invested in the resolution of this case because they have dedicated their careers to improving the fairness and

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).

Amici have filed substantially similar briefs in other cases involving burden of proof issues in proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, no party or party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor contributed money to preparing or submitting this brief. Only amici or their counsel contributed money to prepare or submit this brief. The parties have consented to the filing of this brief.

2

A complete list of amici is included in this brief’s addendum.

Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page13 of 56

Such restraint violates the Due Process Clause “unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, or, in certain special and narrow nonpunitive circumstances, where a special justification, such as harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. Yet, federal law provides far greater protections to criminal defendants than it does to noncitizens in civil proceedings—even though the distinctions between criminal and non-criminal proceedings mean very little to a person sitting behind bars.

Accordingly, noncitizens already face significant hurdles in detention proceedings brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). At issue in this appeal is whether another, even higher and more fundamental, barrier to due process can be erected in this Circuit: do noncitizens bear the burden of justifying their freedom from detention? For noncitizens, the answer to this question is no mere technicality—it can mean the difference between freedom and confinement. This burden’s allocation, therefore, “reflects the value society places on individual liberty.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979).

Given their collective experience in adjudicating immigration bond hearings, amici are particularly well-suited to address the monumental question in this case. To that end, amici wish to share the following observations for this Court’s benefit:

-2-

Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page14 of 56

First, noncitizens already enjoy fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. We contrast the procedural rules for detaining criminal defendants and noncitizens to underscore the challenges that noncitizens face in immigration bond hearings, and to highlight the need for a presumption against detention as one of the last remaining bulwarks to protect noncitizens’ liberty.

Second, detention of noncitizens consumes the government’s already- limited administrative and judicial resources. Amici highlight the staggering costs that are associated with immigration detention, as well as the strain on immigration courts resulting from the unnecessary detention of noncitizens.

Third, contrary to the government’s position, placing the burden of proof on the government would not generate fiscal or administrative hardship. Amici advance that position with confidence because the government previously shouldered that exact burden over a fifteen-year period. Several of the amici served as Immigration Judges within that period and found that this older system did not cause additional costs or administrative hurdles.

Fourth, in amici’s experience, detaining noncitizens actually increases the burden on the immigration court system. While in detention, noncitizens face significant challenges in adequately preparing their cases. Further, the Executive Branch now utilizes “performance metrics” to encourage Immigration Judges to accelerate the fact-finding process in detention proceedings. With less time for

-3-

Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page15 of 56

individualized fact-finding, noncitizens will have even less opportunity to marshal the facts needed to satisfy the burden to avoid detention. Reallocating the burden of proof in immigration bond hearings, therefore, would reduce costs.

Fifth, and finally, amici offer alternatives to noncitizen detention that would inject much-needed resources to the immigration court system. The government’s aversion to such alternatives rest on a single statistic suggesting that the vast majority of noncitizens abscond upon release on bond. That statistic, however, is misleading and inconsistent with other available data, and bears little resemblance to the reality that amici encountered in years of adjudicating immigration cases.

Together, these observations should lead this Court to conclude that due process requires the government to make some sort of individualized showing before it may place noncitizens under lock and key.

. . . .

Read the full brief here: AS FILED No. 19-3220 Amici Br. Padilla Raudales v. Decker (2d Cir.)

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

Thanks again not only to the signatory members of our Round Table, but especially to CHRISTOPHER T. CASAMASSIMA, SOUVIK SAHA, and the other members of their pro bono team over at WILMER HALE. Without assistance like yours, the “Voices of the Round Table” would not be heard in support of justice in so many cases throughout our nation!

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

06-04-20

⚖️👍🏼SUPREMES UPHOLD JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CAT DENIAL, 7-2 — NASRALLAH v. BARR, Opinion By Justice Kavananaugh — Round Table ⚔️🛡 Files Amicus For Winners!

NASRALLAH v. BARR, No. 18-432, June 1, 2020

SUPREME COURT SYLLABUS:

OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

NASRALLAH v. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 18–1432. Argued March 2, 2020—Decided June 1, 2020

Under federal immigration law, noncitizens who commit certain crimes are removable from the United States. During removal proceedings, a noncitizen who demonstrates a likelihood of torture in the designated country of removal is entitled to relief under the international Conven- tion Against Torture (CAT) and may not be removed to that country. If an immigration judge orders removal and denies CAT relief, the noncitizen may appeal both orders to the Board of Immigration Ap- peals and then to a federal court of appeals. But if the noncitizen has committed any crime specified in 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(C), the scope of judicial review of the removal order is limited to constitutional and legal challenges. See §1252(a)(2)(D).

The Government sought to remove petitioner Nidal Khalid Nasral- lah after he pled guilty to receiving stolen property. Nasrallah applied for CAT relief to prevent his removal to Lebanon. The Immigration Judge ordered Nasrallah removed and granted CAT relief. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals vacated the CAT relief order and ordered Nasrallah removed to Lebanon. The Eleventh Circuit declined to review Nasrallah’s factual challenges to the CAT order because Nasrallah had committed a §1252(a)(2)(C) crime and Circuit precedent precluded judicial review of factual challenges to both the final order of removal and the CAT order in such cases.

Held: Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizen’s factual challenges to a CAT order. Pp. 5–13.

(a) Three interlocking statutes establish that CAT orders may be re- viewed together with final orders of removal in a court of appeals. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes noncitizens to obtain direct “review of a final order of re-

2

NASRALLAH v. BARR Syllabus

moval” in a court of appeals, §1252(a)(1), and requires that all chal- lenges arising from the removal proceeding be consolidated for review, §1252(b)(9). The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA) implements Article 3 of CAT and provides for judicial review of CAT claims “as part of the review of a final order of removal.” §2242(d). And the REAL ID Act of 2005 clarifies that final orders of removal and CAT orders may be reviewed only in the courts of appeals. §§1252(a)(4)–(5). Pp. 5–6.

(b) Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) preclude judicial review of factual challenges only to final orders of removal. A CAT order is not a final “order of removal,” which in this context is defined as an order “con- cluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation,” §1101(a)(47)(A). Nor does a CAT order merge into a final order of re- moval, because a CAT order does not affect the validity of a final order of removal. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 938. FARRA provides that a CAT order is reviewable “as part of the review of a final order of removal,” not that it is the same as, or affects the validity of, a final order of removal. Had Congress wished to preclude judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, it could have easily done so. Pp. 6– 9.

(c) The standard of review for factual challenges to CAT orders is substantial evidence—i.e., the agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” §1252(b)(4)(B).

The Government insists that the statute supplies no judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, but its arguments are unpersua- sive. First, the holding in Foti v. INS, 375 U. S. 217, depends on an outdated interpretation of “final orders of deportation” and so does not control here. Second, the Government argues that §1252(a)(1) sup- plies judicial review only of final orders of removal, and if a CAT order is not merged into that final order, then no statute authorizes review of the CAT claim. But both FARRA and the REAL ID Act provide for direct review of CAT orders in the courts of appeals. Third, the Gov- ernment’s assertion that Congress would not bar review of factual challenges to a removal order and allow such challenges to a CAT order ignores the importance of adherence to the statutory text as well as the good reason Congress had for distinguishing the two—the facts that rendered the noncitizen removable are often not in serious dis- pute, while the issues related to a CAT order will not typically have been litigated prior to the alien’s removal proceedings. Fourth, the Government’s policy argument—that judicial review of the factual components of a CAT order would unduly delay removal proceedings— has not been borne out in practice in those Circuits that have allowed factual challenges to CAT orders. Fifth, the Government fears that a

Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus

decision allowing factual review of CAT orders would lead to factual challenges to other orders in the courts of appeals. But orders denying discretionary relief under §1252(a)(2)(B) are not affected by this deci- sion, and the question whether factual challenges to statutory with- holding orders under §1231(b)(3)(A) are subject to judicial review is not presented here. Pp. 9–13.

762 Fed. Appx. 638, reversed.

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

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

Score at least a modest victory for the NDPA over the “Deportation Railroad.”

Once again the Round Table 🛡⚔️ intervened with an amicus brief on the side of justice. Here’s a report from Judge Jeffrey Chase:

Hi All: Our Round Table filed an amicus brief in Nasrallah v. Barr. The Supreme Court issued it’s 7-2 decision in the case today, and we were on the winning side.

Kavanaugh wrote the decision, and was joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Alito.

The decision reverses the 11th Cir. and holds that federal courts may review factual issues as well as legal and constitutional issues in CAT appeals filed by noncitizens with criminal convictions falling under 8 C.F.R. section 1252(a)(2)(C).

Gibson Dunn assisted us with the drafting of the brief.

Best, Jeff

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

And, of course, as Jeffrey notes, we couldn’t have done it without help from our pro bono heroes 🥇 over at Gibson Dunn! Many, many thanks!

Great that Justice Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Gorsuch “saw the light” on this one! Not sure how often it will happen in the future, but gotta take what we can get.

Also, given the “haste makes waste” policies thrust on EOIR by the DOJ under Trump, and the significant number of fundamental legal and factual errors made by the BIA, judicial review is likely to turn up additional instances of substandard decision-making.

PWS

06-01-20

IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG: Johnson, Olivas, Wadhia on DACA: “DACA will be reminisced as a story about human pain and hope.“

Kevin R. Johnson
Dean
UC Davis School of Law

Professor Michael Olivas
University of Houston Law Center

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2020/06/the-meaning-of-daca-by-kevin-r-johnson-michael-a-olivas-and-shoba-sivaprasad-wadhia-.html

The Meaning of DACA

By Kevin R. Johnson, Michael A. Olivas, and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

The Supreme Court will soon release an opinion on the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s choice to end DACA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Former President Barack Obama rolled out DACA in June 2012 and the Department of Homeland Security implemented it two months later through a memorandum signed by then-Secretary Janet Napolitano.

DACA, based on a conventional concept of prosecutorial discretion, provided limited relief from removal – and work authorization — to nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants through a discretionary tool called “deferred action.” All legal challenges to DACA, including one by campus immigration hawk former Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio, failed. How will the story of DACA be remembered?

Much more than the sum of its parts, DACA will be remembered as an intriguing political story. For years, Congress introduced legislation known as the DREAM Act to provide legal status and a pathway to permanent residency for young undocumented college students. Congress has debated some kind of comprehensive immigration reform over two decades. All of these efforts failed. Said President Obama in announcing DACA “In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places.” DACA helped jump start the forceful movement across the nation calling for the vindication of the rights of immigrants.

Politics led to DACA’s demise. Donald J. Trump ran for President on a strident immigration enforcement ticket and promised to end the “unconstitutional” DACA policy. After the inauguration of President Trump and lobbying by some Republican leaders to keep DACA, the administration tried to terminate DACA and announced this “wind-down” in a press conference on September 5, 2017. Ultimately, political slogans, not reasoned analysis, were offered for the decision to end DACA.

The Trump administration’s arguments to the Supreme Court defending the end of DACA were also mired in politics. In a convoluted fashion that wended its way to federal appellate courts from coast to coast, the administration—through a series of Interim leaders—simply ignored the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and in an arbitrary and capricious way simply declared that DACA was “illegal,” and that they were required to end it.

The claim that DACA was somehow “illegal” was simply not true. No court found it to be, and for good reason. Deferred action is an instrument of discretion used to shield “low priority” immigrants from deportation. Deferred action enjoys a long history and legal foundation across both Republican and Democratic administrations. The administration could decide to end the policy it, but not by undertaking the judicial role of declaring their own exercise of discretion to be unconstitutional. As it did in the Department of Commerce v. New York (2019) in manufacturing a civil rights rationale for a U.S. citizenship question on the 2020 Census that would have chilled the participation of many Latina/os and immigrants, the administration simply misrepresented facts. The Supreme Court should require the Department of Homeland Security to undertake the searching analysis of facts and policy impacts, and honestly proceed, playing by the rules. Those with DACA have upheld their part of this bargain, and the administration must abide by open and fair procedures required by the law.

DACA will be reminisced as a story about human pain and hope. Said one DACA recipient one author spoke to described September 5, 2017, the day the end of DACA was announced as “just an awful day … Eventually you just get over the pain, get over the fear… and you continue to organize and protect your community in whatever way you can.” Throughout the time DACA has been tossed around in the courts, thousands continue to build families of their own, work in the frontlines of healthcare. and revitalize classrooms in colleges and universities across the country, a phenomenon we have seen first-hand as educators and administrators. DACAmented recipients are now our doctors, lawyers, and schoolteachers, repaying the investment this country has made in them.

If the Supreme Court fails to require the Trump administration to abide by the law, as we urge the Court to insist upon, those with DACA must live under a cruel Sword of Damocles, with no clear pathway to legal permanent residency. They deserve an honest policy determination, and the Supreme Court should insist on no less. Ultimately, it will take Congressional action to enact a DREAM Act, and comprehensive immigration reform to enable these young members a means to their rightful place in our society.

—–

Kevin R. Johnson is Dean of the University of California, Davis School of Law and Mabie/Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicanx Studies.

Michael A. Olivas is William B. Bates Distinguished Chair of Law, Emeritus, at the University of Houston Law Center and the author of Perchance to DREAM: A Legal and Political History of The DREAM Act and DACA.

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar, Founding Director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law in University Park, and the author of Beyond Deportation: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases and Banned: Immigration Enforcement in the Time of Trump.

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

I’ll be more blunt.

The Administration’s legal arguments for ending DACA have always been bogus and totally disingenuous. Indeed, they do not even remain the same from case to case as they essentially make it up as they go along. It’s all transparently about White Nationalist racism and political pandering to a right-wing minority.

The lower Federal Courts were nearly unanimous in rejecting the DOJ’s various bad faith positions. Yet, instead of unanimously blasting the Administration’s frivolous request for intervention out of hand and sending a clear message reaffirming the lower courts, the Supremes granted an audience to Francisco and the scofflaws.

By failing to send a clear message that political pandering at the expense of human lives won’t be tolerated, the Supremes have encouraged further lawless, insidiously-motivated acts by Trump and have become part of the problem. They have also unconscionably undermined lower Federal Court judges who stood up for the rule of law and removal of racism and dehumanization from government decision-making.

Among other things, the Supremes have helped Trump: eradicate 40 years of asylum protections without legislation; weaponize the public charge provisions without legislation to endanger the health an safety of immigrants and our nation; allowed invidious discrimination against Muslims and refugees; and forced individuals who have established reasonable fear of persecution to be sent to live in life-threatening squalor and danger in Mexico.

The Supremes’ majority has knowingly and intentionally furthered the “Dred-Scottification” of “the other” in society: African-Americans, Latinos, immigrants, asylum seekers, the poor, women, prisoners, workers, etc. Our nation is paying the price.

The solution eventually will require a re-examination of the type of individuals to whom we give the high privilege of serving on the Supremes: their humanity, courage, practical experience, empathy, moral leadership, problem-solving ability, expertise in furthering human rights, and commitment to equal justice for all, rather than narrow “out of the mainstream” political ideologies. The current outrage and unrest over the lack of social justice in the United States can be tied directly to the Supremes’ lack of leadership, courage, humanity, and an overriding commitment to equal justice under law. This version of the Supremes has failed America. Badly! We must do better in the future!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-01-20

⚖️👍🏼🗽DUE PROCESS VICTORY: US District Judge Requires Baltimore Immigration Court to Comply With Due Process in Bond Hearings! — Round Table Warrior Judge Denise Noonan Slavin Provides Key Evidence! — Miranda v. Barr!

Miranda v. Barr, U.S.D.C. D. MD., U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, 05-29-20

Preliminary Injunction Memo

KEY QUOTES:

. . . .

A. Likelihood of success on the merits

i. Due process claim: burden of proof

The lead plaintiffs claim that Fifth Amendment due process entitles them, and all members of the proposed class, to a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, dangerousness or risk of flight. As explained above, neither the INA nor its implementing regulations speak to the burden of proof at § 1226(a) bond hearings, and the BIA has held that the burden lies with the noncitizen. See Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 37, 40. But, as the lead plaintiffs point out, when faced with challenges to the constitutionality of these hearings, district courts in the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have concluded that due process requires that the government bear the burden of justifying a noncitizen’s § 1226(a) detention. See, e.g., Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1017 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (“[T]he Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires the Government to bear the burden of proving . . . that continued detention is justified at a § 1226(a) bond redetermination hearing.”); Diaz-Ceja v. McAleenan, No. 19-CV-00824-NYW, 2019 WL 2774211, at *11 (D. Colo. July 2, 2019) (same); Darko v. Sessions, 342 F. Supp. 3d 429, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (same); Pensamiento, 315 F. Supp. 3d at 692 (same). While jurisdictions vary on the standard of proof required, compare, e.g., Darko, 342 F. Supp. 3d at 436 (clear and convincing standard) with Pensamiento, 315 F. Supp. 3d at 693 (“to the satisfaction of the IJ” standard), the “consensus view” is that due process requires that the burden lie with the government, see Darko, 342 F. Supp. 3d at 435 (collecting cases).

The defendants concede that “a growing chorus of district courts” have concluded that due process requires that the government bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) bond hearings. (Opp’n at 22). But the defendants also point out that some courts to consider the issue have

15

Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 16 of 29

concluded otherwise. In Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cty. Corr. Facility, the Third Circuit analyzed a § 1226(a) detainee’s claim that due process entitled him to a second bond hearing where “[t]he duration of [] detention [was] the sole basis for [the] due process challenge.” 906 F.3d 274, 276 (3d Cir. 2018). The Borbot court noted that the detainee “[did] not challenge the adequacy of his initial bond hearing,” id. at 276–77, and ultimately held that it “need not decide when, if ever, the Due Process Clause might entitle an alien detained under § 1226(a) to a new bond hearing,” id. at 280. But, in analyzing the detainee’s claims, the Borbot court stated that it “perceive[d] no problem” with requiring that § 1226(a) detainees bear the burden of proof at bond hearings. Id. at 279. Several district courts in the Third Circuit have subsequently concluded that Borbot compels a finding that due process does not require that the government bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) bond hearings. See, e.g., Gomez v. Barr, No. 1:19-CV- 01818, 2020 WL 1504735, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2020) (collecting cases).

Based on its survey of the case law, the court is more persuaded by the reasoning of the district courts in the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. “Freedom from imprisonment— from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (citation omitted). While detention pending removal is “a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process,” such detention must comport with due process. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003). Although the Supreme Court has not decided the proper allocation of the burden of proof in § 1226(a) bond hearings, it has held, in other civil commitment contexts, that “the individual’s interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence.” See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427 (1979)

16

Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 17 of 29

(addressing the standard of proof required for mental illness-based civil commitment) (emphasis added).

Application of the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test lends further support to the lead plaintiffs’ contention that due process requires a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof. In Mathews, the Supreme Court held that “identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors”: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). While the court acknowledges that requiring the government to bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) hearings would impose additional costs on the government, those costs are likely outweighed by the noncitizen’s significant interest in freedom from restraint, and the fact that erroneous deprivations of liberty are less likely when the government, rather than the noncitizen, bears the burden of proof. (See Decl. of Former Immigration Judge Denise Noonan Slavin ¶ 6, ECF 1-8 (“On numerous occasions, pro se individuals appeared before me for custody hearings without understanding what was required to meet their burden of proof. . . . Pro se individuals were rarely prepared to present evidence at the first custody hearing[.]”))

With respect to the quantum of proof required at § 1226(a) bond hearings, the court notes that “the overwhelming majority of district courts have . . . held that, in bond hearings under § 1226(a), due process requires the government to bear the burden of justifying detention by clear and convincing evidence.” Hernandez-Lara v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, Acting Dir., No.

17

Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 18 of 29

19-CV-394-LM, 2019 WL 3340697, at *3 (D.N.H. July 25, 2019) (collecting cases). As the Hernandez-Lara court reasoned, “[p]lacing the burden of proof on the government at a § 1226(a) hearing to show by clear and convincing evidence that the noncriminal alien should be detained pending completion of deportation proceedings is more faithful to Addington and other civil commitment cases,” id. at *6, “[b]ecause it is improper to ask the individual to ‘share equally with society the risk of error when the possible injury to the individual’—deprivation of liberty—is so significant,” id. (quoting Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 2011)) (further citation omitted).

Moreover, on the quantum of proof question, the court finds instructive evolving jurisprudence on challenges to prolonged detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). As noted in note 2, supra, § 1226(c) mandates detention of noncitizens deemed deportable because of their convictions for certain crimes. See Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 846. Although § 1226(c) “does not on its face limit the length of the detention it authorizes,” id., the Supreme Court has not foreclosed the possibility that unreasonably prolonged detention under § 1226(c) violates due process, id. at 851. Indeed, many courts have held that when § 1226(c) becomes unreasonably prolonged, a detainee must be afforded a bond hearing. See, e.g., Reid v. Donelan, 390 F. Supp. 3d 201, 215 (D. Mass. 2019); Portillo v. Hott, 322 F. Supp. 3d 698, 709 (E.D. Va. 2018); Jarpa, 211 F. Supp. 3d at 717. Notably, courts in this district and elsewhere have ordered § 1226(c) bond hearings where the government bears the burden of justifying continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. See Duncan v. Kavanagh, — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2020 WL 619173, at *10 (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2020); Reid, 390 F. Supp. 3d at 228; Portillo, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 709–10; Jarpa, 211 F. Supp. 3d at 721. As the Jarpa court explained, “against the backdrop of well-settled jurisprudence on the quantum and burden of proof required to pass constitutional muster in civil detention

18

Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 19 of 29

proceedings generally, it makes little sense to give Mr. Jarpa at this stage fewer procedural protections than those provided to” civil detainees in other contexts. See Jarpa, 211 F. Supp. 3d at 722 (citing United States v. Comstock, 627 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2010)).

In light of the above, the court is satisfied that the lead plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that due process requires § 1226(a) bond hearings where the government must bear the burden of proving dangerousness or risk of flight. As to the quantum of proof required at these hearings, the court is persuaded that requiring a clear and convincing standard is in line with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Addington, as well as consistent with the bond hearings ordered in cases involving § 1226(c) detention.

ii. Due process claim: ability to pay and suitability for release on alternative conditions of release

The lead plaintiffs also claim that Fifth Amendment due process entitles them, and all members of the proposed class, to a bond hearing where the IJ considers the noncitizen’s ability to pay a set bond amount and her suitability for release on alternative conditions of supervision. The defendants counter that due process does not so require, and also asserts that at Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s bond hearing, the IJ did consider his ability to pay, (Opp’n at 26).

As an initial matter, the court considers whether the IJ at Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s bond hearing considered his ability to pay. According to the Complaint, there is no requirement that IJs in Baltimore Immigration Court consider an individual’s ability to pay when setting a bond amount. (Compl. ¶ 27 & n.8). The defendants assert that because Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s motion for bond included arguments about his financial situation, the IJ did, in fact, consider his ability to pay. (Opp’n at 26). The court is not persuaded. The fact that an argument was raised does not ipso facto mean it was considered. Neither the transcript of Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s bond hearing, (ECF 15-11), nor the IJ’s order of bond, (ECF 1-18), suggest that the IJ actually

19

Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 20 of 29

considered ability to pay. Accordingly, without clear evidence to the contrary, the court accepts the lead plaintiffs’ allegation that the IJ did not consider Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s ability to pay when setting bond.

The question remains whether due process requires that an IJ consider ability to pay and suitability for alternative conditions of release at a § 1226(a) bond hearing. As explained above, detention pending removal must comport with due process. See Demore, 538 U.S. at 523. Due process requires that detention “bear[s] [a] reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual [was] committed.” See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (quoting Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972)). Federal regulations and BIA decisional law suggest that the purpose of § 1226(a) detention is to protect the public and to ensure the noncitizen’s appearance at future proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19, 1236.1; Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 38. But, the lead plaintiffs argue, when IJs are not required to consider ability to pay or alternative conditions of release, a noncitizen otherwise eligible for release may end up detained solely because of her financial circumstances.

Several courts to consider the question have concluded that § 1226(a) detention resulting from a prohibitively high bond amount is not reasonably related to the purposes of § 1226(a). In Hernandez v. Sessions, the Ninth Circuit held that “consideration of the detainees’ financial circumstances, as well as of possible alternative release conditions, [is] necessary to ensure that the conditions of their release will be reasonably related to the governmental interest in ensuring their appearance at future hearings[.]” See 872 F.3d at 990–91. While the Hernandez court did not explicitly conclude that a bond hearing without those considerations violates due process, see id. at 991 (“due process likely requires consideration of financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release” (emphasis added)), the court in Brito did reach that conclusion, see 415 F.

20

Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 21 of 29

Supp. 3d at 267. The Brito court held that, with respect to § 1226(a) bond hearings, “due process requires an immigration court consider both an alien’s ability to pay in setting the bond amount and alternative conditions of release, such as GPS monitoring, that reasonably assure the safety of the community and the alien’s future appearances.” Id. at 267. Relatedly, in Abdi v. Nielsen, 287 F. Supp. 3d 327 (W.D.N.Y. 2018), which involved noncitizens held in civil immigration

9

detentionpursuantto8U.S.C.§1225(b), thecourt—relyingontheNinthCircuit’sreasoningin

Hernandez—held that “an IJ must consider ability to pay and alternative conditions of release in setting bond for an individual detained under § 1225(b).” Id. at 338. To hold otherwise, the Abdi court reasoned, would implicate “the due process concerns discussed in Hernandez, which are equally applicable to detentions pursuant to § 1225(b).”10

The court is persuaded by the reasoning of Hernandez, Brito, and Abdi. If an IJ does not make a finding of dangerousness or substantial risk of flight requiring detention without bond (as in Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s case), the only remaining purpose of § 1226(a) detention is to

11

that an individual may not be imprisoned “solely because of his lack of financial resources.” See

9 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) authorizes indefinite, mandatory detention for certain classes of noncitizens. See Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 842 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2)).

10 The court notes that both Hernandez and Abdi reference now-invalidated precedent in both the Ninth and Second Circuits requiring the government to provide civil immigration detainees periodic bond hearings every six months. See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015), abrogated by Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 852; Lora v. Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601, 616 (2d Cir. 2015), abrogated by Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 852. But Jennings, which was decided on statutory interpretation grounds, explicitly did not include a constitutional holding. See Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 851 (“[W]e do not reach th[e] [constitutional] arguments.”). And, as the Hernandez court noted, “the Supreme Court’s review of our holding . . . that noncitizens are entitled to certain unrelated additional procedural protections during the recurring bond hearings after prolonged detention does not affect our consideration of the lesser constitutional procedural protections sought at the initial bond hearings in this case.” 872 F.3d at 983 n.8.

11 The defendants offer no purpose for § 1226(a) detention beyond protecting the community and securing a noncitizen’s appearance at future proceedings.

The set bond amount, then, must be reasonably related to this purpose. But where a bond amount is set too high for an individual to pay, she is effectively detained without bond due to her financial circumstances. It is axiomatic

secure a noncitizen’s appearance at future proceeding.

21

Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 22 of 29

Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 661–62, 665 (1983) (automatic revocation of probation for inability to pay a fine, without considering whether efforts had been made to pay the fine, violated due process and equal protection); cf. Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 398 (1971) (“The Constitution[’s equal protection clause] prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.”). In the pretrial detention context, multiple Courts of Appeals have held that deprivation of the accused’s rights “to a greater extent than necessary to assure appearance at trial and security of the jail . . . would be inherently punitive and run afoul of due process requirements.” See Pugh v. Rainwater, 572 F.2d 1053, 1057 (5th Cir. 1978) (quoting Rhem v. Malcolm, 507 F.2d 333, 336 (2d Cir. 1974)) (quotation marks omitted); accord ODonnell v. Harris Cty., 892 F.3d 147, 157 (5th Cir. 2018); see also Duran v. Elrod, 542 F.2d 998, 999 (7th Cir. 1976); accord Villarreal v. Woodham, 113 F.3d 202, 207 (11th Cir. 1997).

There is no suggestion that the IJs in Baltimore Immigration Court impose prohibitively high bond amounts with the intent of denying release to noncitizens who do not have the means to pay. But without consideration of a § 1226(a) detainee’s ability to pay, where a noncitizen remains detained due to her financial circumstances, the purpose of her detention—the lodestar of the due process analysis—becomes less clear. As the Ninth Circuit explained,

Setting a bond amount without considering financial circumstances or alternative conditions of release undermines the connection between the bond and the legitimate purpose of ensuring the non-citizen’s presence at future hearings. . . . [It is a] common-sense proposition that when the government detains someone based on his or her failure to satisfy a financial obligation, the government cannot reasonably determine if the detention is advancing its purported governmental purpose unless it first considers the individual’s financial circumstances and alternative ways of accomplishing its purpose.

Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 991.

The defendants assert that an IJ need not consider a noncitizen’s ability to pay a set bond

22

Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 23 of 29

amount because it had a “reasonable basis to enact a statute that grants the Executive branch discretion to set bonds to prevent individuals, whose ‘continuing presence in the country is in violation of the immigration laws,’ from failing to appear,” and that § 1226(a) passes muster under rational basis review. (Opp’n at 25–26 (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 491 (1999)). But the appropriate analysis for a procedural due process challenge is the Mathews balancing test, not rational basis review, which is used to analyze equal protection claims, see, e.g., Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 234–35 (1981), and substantive due process claims, see, e.g., Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732, 739 (4th Cir. 1999). And, in applying the Mathews test, the court agrees with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that “the government’s refusal to require consideration of financial circumstances is impermissible under the Mathews test because the minimal costs to the government of [] a requirement [that ICE and IJs consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release] are greatly outweighed by the likely reduction it will effect in unnecessary deprivations of individuals’ physical liberty.” See Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 993.

Accordingly, the court is satisfied that the lead plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that due process requires a § 1226(a) bond hearing where the IJ considers a noncitizen’s ability to pay a set bond amount and the noncitizen’s suitability for alternative conditions of release.

Y. . . .

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

Thanks and congratulations to Judge Denise Slavin for “making a difference.” It’s a true honor to serve with you and our other colleagues in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges! Judge Slavin’s Declaration is cited by Judge Blake at the end of the first full paragraph above “17” in the quoted excerpt.

fl-undocumented-minors 2 – Judge Denise Slavin, executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges in an immigration courtrrom in Miami. Mike Stocker, Sun Sentinel

To be brutally honest about it, Denise is exactly the type of scholarly, courageous, due-process-oriented Immigration Judge who in a functioning, merit-based system, focused on “using teamwork and innovation to develop best practices and guarantee fairness and due process for all” would have made an outstanding and deserving Appellate Immigration Judge on the BIA. Instead, in the totally dysfunctional “World of EOIR,” the “best and brightest” judges, like Denise, essentially are “pushed out the door” instead of being honored and given meaningful opportunities to use their exceptional skills to further the cause of justice, establish and reinforce “best judicial practices,” and serve as outstanding role models for others. What an unconscionable waste!

It’s a great decision! The bad news: Because the Immigration Courts remain improperly captive within a scofflaw, anti-immigrant, and anti-due-process DOJ, respondents in many other jurisdictions will continue to be denied the fundamentally fair bond hearings required by Constitutional Due Process.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-30-20

CATHERINE RAMPELL @ WASHPOST: Will Trump’s Incompetence Save America From His Maliciousness?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-all-about-deregulation–except-when-it-comes-to-his-enemies/2020/05/28/dcfb9638-a116-11ea-b5c9-570a91917d8d_story.html

Catherine writes:

. . . .

That’s because the pretense was nonsense from the start. Trump’s regulatory agenda was never about helping the economy; it was always about rewarding friends and punishing enemies. White House officials have weaponized the “administrative state” they claim to hate and have repeatedly tried to strangle disfavored groups with regulations and red tape.

Not just Twitter, either.

Arbitrary delays in processing visa applications, for example, have been used to punish immigrants and the companies that employ them. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has rejected visa applications because applicants lack a middle name. It has also waited to mail approved visas until (oops!) after the visas had already expired.

The additional costs and uncertainty these processing changes create for workers and their employers are a feature, not a bug.

Elsewhere, both federal and state officials have ratcheted up bureaucratic hurdles for the poor, as Georgetown University professors Pamela Herd and Donald P. Moynihan have documented.

Right now, for example, states can decide a poor family is automatically eligible for food assistance if the family is enrolled in other means-tested safety-net programs. The Trump administration is trying to block states from doing this, and require more paperwork to prove eligibility. By the administration’s own calculations, this would cause 1 million children to lose their automatic eligibility for free school lunches.

The administration, of course, argues that its regulatory decisions are determined not by Trump’s political whims but by meticulous analysis of what’s best for the economy.Helpfully, a method exists to check their work: the cost-benefits analysis that agencies must produce ahead of major rule changes.

These records show, however, that the administration has repeatedly struggled to prove that its regulatory actions actually increase economic and social welfare.

To get the numbers to work out in its favor, the administration has had to cook the books.

. . . .

The only upside to this slapdash math is that it makes the administration’s most damaging and punitive regulatory changes less likely to hold up in court. Already, the Trump administration has lost more than 90 percent of the legal challenges to its regulatory policies, according to New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. By comparison, previous administrations lost only about 30 percent of the time.

“A lot of these losses have been because of the poor quality of the analysis — who’s harmed, who’s helped, by how much,” said Richard Revesz, a law professor who directs the institute.

The only thing that may save us from the administration’s regulatory vindictiveness is its incompetence.

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

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

As usual, Catherine’s analysis is “spot on.” My problem is this.

If the same private litigant and his or her lawyers kept presenting Federal Courts with false, misleading, or just plain faked evidence and statistics, the private lawyers likely would be facing discipline or disbarment for failure to provide “candor to a tribunal.” The client would be facing large penalties and likely contempt for continuing to institute or cause frivolous litigation.

Yet, except for occasional “harsh but toothless” language in judicial opinions or a couple of minor fines, Trump, his sycophantic toadies, and his battery of unethical Government lawyers get off scot-free for abusing the Article III Judiciary and our legal and judicial processes. Meanwhile, the private litigants are forced to file the same challenges over and over again in different jurisdictions across the country. In the area of immigration, asylum, and human rights, most of the lawyers are donating their time pro bono, while the unethical Government attorneys and their corrupt clients are on the taxpayer’s dime.

The occasional Equal Access to Justice Act award against the Government seldom comes close to compensating private lawyers for their actual lost time and lost opportunities. Nor does it deter the Trump regime, because it comes out of “you of the taxpayers’” pocket.

A Federal Judge demands accurate statistics from DHS after private litigants show the last batch was bogus; the DHS merely submits another set of bogus or misleading data, forcing the private litigants to once again have to demonstrate their unreliability. Government officials and their attorneys claim, contrary to fact, that there is no “child separation” policy, but suffer no consequences other than to be told to stop violating the Constitution. Instead of doing that, they “repackage” unconstitutional child separation as a bogus “parental choice.” So, now the private litigants, who have already won once, have to show that the latest iteration of a clearly illegal and contemptuous policy is what it is: unlawful.

A Federal Judge orders they DHS to make individualized release determinations for detainees held in overcrowded substandard conditions that violate the Government’s own health guidance. Instead of doing that, the DHS merely moves them to another, slightly less crowded facility with equally bad conditions and falsely claims they have “fixed” the problem. Again, the private litigants have to gather new evidence that the move has not materially reduced the health risks to the clients. And so on.

Essentially, the Trump regime and their lawyers are playing a big game of “hide the ball;” every time the private advocates show the Federal Judge where the ball actually is hidden, the Government simply moves it again. And, unfortunately, most Federal Judges give the regime and its ethics-challenged lawyers unlimited “plays” at the expense of the other side. Even when relief is ordered, it just solves the “problem of the moment” rather than halting the pattern of ethical abuses, contemptuous attitudes, and unlawful conduct by the regime and its complicit lawyers.

In effect, the regime has “weaponized” the Federal Courts and the Article III Judiciary in a way not dissimilar from how Sessions and Barr have “weaponized” the Immigration Courts. Turning the Article III Courts into a feckless “runaround” where the individuals and their lawyers “lose even when they win” makes the process punitive and serves as a deterrent to those seeking to challenge the regime’s overtly lawless agenda.

The November election is the chance to throw a scofflaw regime out of office. But, the deep-seated institutional and integrity problems of an Article III Judiciary, beginning with the dangerously complicit and spineless in the face of tyranny “Roberts Court,” that has allowed itself to be “weaponized” and used by the army of authoritarian scofflaws to punish those seeking to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law won’t be solved so quickly. The Article III Judiciary requires an institutional re-examination and a philosophical and ethical overhaul so that it serves the Constitution, due process of law, and equal justice for all, rather than protecting the interests of an insular right-wing minority that seeks nothing less than the disintegration of our nation and our cherished democratic institutions.

PWS

05-29-20

⚖️💰JUSTICE FOR SALE: DOJ ATTEMPTED TO “BUY OUT” “HOLDOVER” BIA MEMBERS TO CLEAR THE WAY FOR AGGRESSIVELY NATIVIST AGENDA — It Failed, But The Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Asylum, Anti-Due Process Tilt Still Took Place!

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

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/05/27/doj-memo-offered-to-buy-out-immigration-board-members/

Tanvi Misra reports for Roll Call:

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/05/27/doj-memo-offered-to-buy-out-immigration-board-members/

DOJ memo offered to buy out immigration board members

The buyouts were only offered to Board of Immigration Appeals members hired before Trump took office

The Justice Department memo came from the director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, a Justice Department agency. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)

By Tanvi Misra

Posted May 27, 2020 at 5:04pm

The Justice Department offered buyouts to pre-Trump administration career members on its influential immigration appeals board as part of an ongoing effort to restructure the immigration court system with new hires who may be likely to render decisions restricting asylum.

An internal memo viewed by CQ Roll Call shows that James McHenry, the director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, offered financial incentives to longtime members of the Board of Immigration Appeals to encourage them to retire or resign. The buyouts and “voluntary separation incentive payments” were offered to “individuals whose positions will help us strategically restructure EOIR in order to accommodate skills, technology, and labor markets,” according to the April 17 memo.

EOIR is the Justice Department agency that oversees the Board of Immigration Appeals, a 23-member body that reviews appealed decisions by immigration judges and sets precedent.

According to two knowledgeable sources at EOIR who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, the memo was sent to the nine board members appointed under previous Republican and Democratic administrations, before Trump took office. No one accepted the buyout offers, according to both sources.

CQ Roll Call reached out for comment on the memo to McHenry, EOIR and the Justice Department and received a statement Wednesday saying that “the Department does not comment on personnel matters.”

“Any insinuation that politicized hiring has become ramped up is inconsistent with the facts,” the statement said.

The memo sheds light on an ongoing debate over BIA hiring. Immigration judges, lawyers and former EOIR employees say the Trump administration has used the board to help meet its goal of reducing immigration, while government officials say they have simply streamlined a lengthy hiring process that was always subject to political judgments.

In October, CQ Roll Call reported on documents showing the Justice Department had tweaked the hiring process to fill six new vacancies on the board with immigration judges with high asylum denial rates and a track record of complaints. Additional memos that CQ Roll Call wrote about earlier this month shed further light on these rule changes that enabled fast-tracking of those and more recent hires.

The three most recent hires to the board include an immigration judge who denied 96 percent of the asylum requests before him and had a history of formal complaints about “bias and prejudice.” The vacancies were created after a flurry of career board members left the BIA.

“EOIR does not select board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics, and it does not discriminate against applicants based on any prohibited characteristics,” the Justice Department said in its statement. “All board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process that begins with a public advertisement on the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) federal employment website.”

Recent changes to EOIR hiring procedures “have made the selection process of board members more formalized and neutral,” the department said.

While buyouts are typically offered to soften the blow of workforce reductions, the two sources at EOIR said the agency’s offers were made so that the BIA could be reconfigured entirely, with the positions of “board members” replaced by those of “appellate immigration judges.” The differences go beyond title, extending to pay ranges and leave policy. Appellate immigration judges also hear cases at both the trial and appellate levels, creating potential conflicts of interests.

“Many board members have viewed themselves as appellate immigration judges for years, and EOIR first proposed such a designation in 2000,” according to the Justice Department statement. “Elevating trial-level judges to appellate-level courts is common in every judicial system in the United States.”

The American Immigration Lawyers Association and other critics said the buyout offer is the latest example in a series of moves that have undermined the neutrality of the immigration court system. They point out that BIA is already housed under a law enforcement agency, the Justice Department, whose leadership may have a stake in the outcome of the court process.

“The administration is trying to further politicize the immigration court system by packing the appellate bench and is seeking to make room for more handpicked judges with this buyout,” Benjamin Johnson, AILA’s executive director, told CQ Roll Call.

“These latest actions reveal the severe impact of our nation’s immigration system being housed under the Attorney General and only underscore the real need to create an independent immigration court,” he said.

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

The refusal of the “holdovers” to take the “buyout” just forced the DOJ politicos to use a different “strategy:” creating additional “appellate judgeships” and “packing” them with appointees with established records of hostility to asylum seekers and the due process rights of respondents.

This presents an interesting historical comparison with an earlier GOP Administration’s program for promoting an anti-immigrant agenda at the BIA. Under Bush II, Ashcroft arbitrarily “cut” the size of the BIA to get rid of the vocal minority of judges who dared to speak up (usually in dissent) for the rights of asylum seekers and other migrants to due process, fundamental fairness, and humane treatment. I was one of those judges “exiled” from the BIA during the “Ashcroft Purge of ‘03.”

Fortunately, I got a “soft landing” just down the hill from the “EOIR Tower” at the Arlington Immigration Court where I remained on the bench and (mostly) “below the radar screen” for the following 13 years. And, yes, I was offered a “buyout” in the form of “early retirement,” which would have been a rather bad financial deal for me at the time. So, I rejected it, and eventually got a much better “deal.”

The DOJ’s claim that the current farce is a “merit selection system” is beyond preposterous. But, as long as Congress and the Article IIIs won’t stand up to Trump’s blatant abuses of due process, the “de-professionalization” of the career Civil Service, and the dehumanization of the “other” before the law (“Dred Scottificfation”), the charade will continue.

Of course the problem isn’t, as EOIR would lead you to believe, that some “trial judges” are elevated to the appellate bench. It’s which “trial judges” are being “rewarded” for their records of hostility to asylum seekers, respondents, and their attorneys.

Also, in what has become essentially a “closed system” of Immigration Judges, staffed almost exclusively by government attorneys overwhelmingly with prosecutorial backgrounds, the “elevation” of existing trial judges, basically tilts the system heavily in favor of DHS and against respondents. Indeed, some fine Immigration Judges with broader experience including private practice, who would have made superior Appellate Immigration Judges in a true merit-based system, were instead forced off the bench by the demeaning, biased, restrictionist policies implemented at EOIR.

Also, having served as both a trial and appellate judge, I know that the “skill sets” are related, but by no means identical. Not all good trial judges make good appellate judges and vice versa. While it’s certainly to be expected that some trial judges will be elevated to the appellate bench, that should not be the sole source of appellate judges.

Appellate judging requires scholarship, collegiality, creativity, writing, and a broad perspective that many talented private advocates, academics, and NGO lawyers possess in abundance. The same holds true of the Article III Appellate Bench. From the Supremes on down, it’s basically in various degrees of failure to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution against the attacks by the Trump regime.

It’s a case of far too many former District Court Judges, former prosecutors, and right-wing “think tankers,” and far too few individuals who have litigation, legal, and life experience gained from representing those who actually come before the courts. The Supremes in particular are badly in need of folks with a broader, more practical, more humane perspective on the law.

The institutional failure of today’s Supremes in the face of concerted Executive tyranny threatens to collapse our entire justice system and take our democratic republic down with it. The whole Article III judicial selection system needs careful reexamination and reforms lest it fall into the same type of institutional dysfunction and disrepute as today’s Immigration “Courts” (which aren’t “courts” at all in any normal sense of the word).

Of course, Trump, Barr, and the rest of their anti-democracy gang would love to make the captive, biased, Executive-controlled Immigration “Courts” the “model” for the Article III Judiciary. And, John Roberts and the rest of the “JR Five” seem all too eager to accommodate them. The perception already is out here that Roberts & Co. “work for” Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco in somewhat the same way as Immigration “Judges” work for Billy Barr. Until Roberts and his gang show the courage to stand up to Trump and enforce the legal, constitutional, and human rights of “the other” in our society, that perception will only deepen.

As generations of African-Americans discovered following the end of Reconstruction, Constitutional and legal rights are meaningless in the face of biased and cowardly legislators, judges, and other public officials who simply look the other way, join the abuses, or “go along to get along” with treating “the other” unfairly under the law.

Due Process Forever, Captive & Complicit Courts, Never!

PWS

05-28-20

UPDATE:

Benjamin Johnson
Executive Director
AILA

AILA Statement on BIA:

AILA: EOIR Director Attempts to Buy Out Remaining Board Members to Solidify Control of Immigration Courts

AILA Doc. No. 20052830 | Dated May 28, 2020

Washington, DC – According to the Roll Call story published May 27, 2020, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Director McHenry sent the remaining members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) a buy-out memo offering them financial compensation in exchange for early retirement or resignation. This memo was sent on April 17, 2020, during the global public health crisis, and highlights the continuing push by this administration to manipulate the functions of the BIA, the appeals court located within EOIR.

AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson stated, “This administration has taken numerous steps to alter the composition and role of the BIA, all in an effort to gain more control over the immigration courts and influence court decisions. In recent months, it came to light that the EOIR Director was attempting to pack the immigration bench with more appointees who have among the lowest asylum grant rates in the country. Now, he is attempting to winnow existing members from the BIA and replace them with a roster of Appellate Immigration Judges, despite congressional and stakeholder concerns about politicization of the BIA. Last year, these new appellate judge positions were created out of thin air. They appear to have nearly identical job functions as the BIA members but the Appellate Immigration Judges can adjudicate both trial and appellate level cases at the same time and can be reassigned away from the BIA at the whim of the EOIR Director.”

“This effort shows a complete disregard, or at the very least a failure to appreciate how our judicial system is supposed to work to provide a fair day in court. In 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft purged several members of the BIA, a political move that was severely criticized and ultimately undermined the credibility of our court system. These recent efforts by this administration make it even clearer that our nation urgently needs an immigration court system that is independent, fair and impartial.”

###

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.

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

The BIA is a travesty, to be sure. But, an even bigger travesty is the continued “deference” given to a biased, unqualified, non-expert tribunal and its political handlers by the Article III Courts! Under Marbury v. Madison, it’s the job of the Article III Courts to say what the law is. To “defer” to the BIA, a body that currently functions not like a independent, expert tribunal, but has become a “shill” for DHS Enforcement and an adjunct of White Nationalist White House Policy Advisor Stephen Miller, is a disgraceful case of judicial task avoidance and dereliction of duty.

If nothing else, the ongoing disaster at the BIA points to an “inconvenient truth” in America’s justice system: We need better, more informed (particularly in the areas of immigrants’ rights and human rights), more courageous judges at all levels of the Federal Judiciary if we are to survive as a democratic republic where the rule of law and equal justice under law have meaning!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-28-20

2D CIR. JOINS 9TH IN REJECTING BIA’S PRECEDENT, MATTER OF MENDEZ, 27 I. & N. Dec. 219 (BIA 2018) (Holding Misprision of Felony is a CIMT) – Mendez v. Barr

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/75dbe12d-c0a1-497d-848e-59f07e9aa4b2/3/doc/18-801_complete_opn.pdf

Mendez v. Barr, 2d Cir., 05-27-20, published

PANEL: PARKER, CHIN, and SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Barrington D. Parker

DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Richard Sullivan

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

Tomas Mendez was admitted to the United States in 2004 as a lawful

17 permanent resident. In 2010, he was convicted of misprision of a felony in

18 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. That section makes it a crime for one with knowledge

19 of the commission of a federal felony to conceal it and not promptly report it to

20 the appropriate authorities. 18 U.S.C § 4.

21 In 2016, upon returning from a trip abroad, the Department of Homeland

22 Security charged him, based on his misprision conviction, as inadmissible under

23 § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because he was a

24 noncitizen convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). The

25 immigration judge sustained the charge, and the Board of Immigration Appeals

2

1 (“BIA”) affirmed. The BIA concluded that the violation of § 4 meant that he had

2 committed a CIMT. Matter of Mendez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 219, 225 (BIA 2018).

3 The BIA defines a CIMT as crime that is “inherently base, vile, or

4 depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and duties owed

5 between persons or to society in general.” Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 63

6 (2d Cir. 2006).1 For decades, the BIA never considered misprision a CIMT. Matter

7 of Sloan, 12 I. & N. Dec. 840, 842 (BIA 1966) (holding misprision does not

8 constitute a CIMT).

9 However, in 2002, the Eleventh Circuit held in Itani v. Ashcroft that a

10 conviction under § 4 is categorically a CIMT “because it necessarily involves an

11 affirmative act of concealment or participation in a felony, behavior that runs

12 contrary to accepted societal duties and involves dishonest or fraudulent

1 Unless otherwise indicated, in quoting cases all internal quotation marks, alterations, emphases, footnotes, and citations are omitted.

3

1 activity.” 298 F.3d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 2002).2 Following the Eleventh Circuit’s

2 lead, the BIA did an about face and determined in a case arising in the Ninth

3 Circuit that misprision was a CIMT. In re Robles-Urrea, 24 I. & N. Dec. 22, 25 (BIA

4 2006).

5 The Ninth Circuit rejected the BIA’s conclusion. The court held that

6 because § 4 required only knowledge of the felony and did not require an intent

7 to defraud, or conceal, or to obstruct justice, the statute encompassed conduct

8 that was not inherently base or vile. Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702, 710-12

9 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that “[n]othing in the statute

10 prohibiting misprision of a felony references the specific purpose for which the

11 concealment must be undertaken,” let alone a purpose sufficient to qualify

12 misprision as a categorical CIMT. Id. at 710.

2 In 2017, the Fifth Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit to hold that misprision is categorically a CIMT. Villegas-Sarabia v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 871, 878 (5th Cir. 2017). We respectfully decline to follow the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit’s approach. We believe that neither Itani nor Villegas-Sarabia satisfactorily supports the assertion that specific intent, or intent to defraud, can be read into § 4, especially when Congress did not include such a requirement and has shown elsewhere in the criminal code that it knows how to include such a requirement if it so chooses. The Eleventh Circuit in Itani reasoned only “that misprision of a felony is a crime of moral turpitude because it necessarily involves an affirmative act of concealment or participation in a felony, behavior that runs contrary to accepted societal duties and involves dishonest or fraudulent activity.” 298 F.3d at 1216. We are reluctant to adopt this reasoning because, “any crime, by definition, runs contrary to some duty owed to society” and “[i]f this were the sole benchmark for a crime involving moral turpitude, every crime would involve moral turpitude.” Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702, 709 (9th Cir. 2012). We are also unpersuaded by Villegas-Sarabia, where the Fifth Circuit relied almost exclusively on Itani’s reasoning.

4

1 Mendez moved to terminate removal proceedings and for cancellation of

2 removal, arguing that misprision is not a CIMT. Relying on the BIA’s decision in

3 Robles-Urrea, the IJ found Mendez removable as charged. The IJ also pretermitted

4 Mendez’s application for cancellation of removal, concluding that because his

5 2010 misprision conviction constituted a CIMT, it stopped the clock for

6 calculating length of residency and prevented him from establishing the required

7 seven years of continuous residency. In February 2018, the BIA issued a

8 precedential decision in this case. Matter of Mendez, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 219. It

9 reaffirmed its holding that misprision is a CIMT and declined to follow the Ninth

10 Circuit’s rejection of its reasoning in Robles-Urrea.

11 Mendez petitions for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

12 (a)(2)(D). Mendez argues that a conviction for misprision is not a CIMT because

13 it does not categorically involve conduct that is inherently base, vile, or

14 depraved. He also argues that, contrary to the BIA’s contention, its decision is

15 not entitled to Chevron deference. We agree on both points.

16 DISCUSSION

17 The dispositive issue is whether misprision is a CIMT. Because the BIA has

18 no particular expertise in construing federal criminal statutes (as opposed to the

19 INA), we owe no deference to its construction of § 4. United States v. Apel, 571 5

1 U.S. 359, 369 (2014); Mendez v. Mukasey 547 F.3d 345, 346 (2d Cir. 2008).

2 Accordingly, we review de novo the BIA’s conclusion that Mendez’s conviction

3 under § 4 is a conviction for a CIMT. Rodriguez, 451 F.3d at 63.

. . . .

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

There is a “Circuit split:” The 5^th & 11^th Circuits agree with the BIA’s decision in Matter of Mendez; the 9^th and 2d Circuits reject it. That means it’s likiely to eventually be up to the Supremes to decide who’s right.

PWS

05-27-20

LAW YOU CAN USE: THE DEVIL👹 IS IN THE DETAILS: JEFFREY S. CHASE — OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW: “Just One More Thing…”

HTTPS://WWW.JEFFREYSCHASE.COM/BLOG/2020/5/27/JUST-ONE-MORE-THING

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog

Archive

Press and Interviews

Calendar

Contact

“Just One More Thing…”

When reviewing asylum applications of late, I find myself thinking of the popular 1970s TV show “Columbo.” After interviewing a suspect, it’s title character, a disheveled homicide detective, would famously stop on his way out to ask “just one more thing.” What he asked next was always critical to proving the case.

Asylum claims are increasingly reliant on nuance. For example, in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, the Petitioner’s statement that she had resisted an attempted rape by one of the gang members “because [she had] every right to” was a significant reason for the Second Circuit’s conclusion that her subsequent persecution was on account of an imputed political opinion.

Similarly, in Lopez-Ordonez v. Barr, the Fourth Circuit’s finding of imputed political opinion relied largely on the Petitioner, while a soldier in the Guatemalan army, uttering a warning that he would “call the human rights right now” if a fellow soldier carried out his intent of harming a baby.

And in Orellana v. Barr, the Fourth Circuit found support for the Petitioner’s assertion that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to provide protection from her domestic partner in her testimony that she would call the police when her partner would become abusive and lock herself in a room with her children while the partner paced outside with a machete, but that the police would not show up for hours, and sometimes not show up at all.

In the above examples, the critical statements came out during testimony in court. But under pressure to meet unrealistic case completion goals, immigration judges are increasingly suggesting that respondents forego testimony and rely on their written applications, or waive direct examination and reserve the right to redirect. In some instances, judges have imposed time limits on testimony. There has been even greater pressure to forego the testimony of other witnesses and instead rely on their written submissions alone.

This pressure to make asylum adjudication more administratively efficient conflicts with the process through which such claims develop. While the written evidence explains the claim, an unanticipated response to a probing question may provide a eureka moment that alters the legal analysis. In my first year on the bench in 1995, a response from a female asylum seeker uttered with a certain degree of conviction caused me to make a connection to a 1993 decision of the Third Circuit in Fatin v. INS. That decision, authored by then-circuit judge Samuel Alito, recognized a particular social group consisting of both gender and a refusal to conform to the government’s gender-specific laws. After weeks of subsequent research and analysis, the case before me ended in a grant of asylum, a result that never would have occurred without the extensive testimony that elicited that one critical utterance.

While EOIR management’s present focus is on efficiency, it bears noting that claims for asylum and related reliefs have life-or-death consequences. For example, a February report of Human Rights Watch documented 138 Salvadorans who were murdered after being deported from the U.S., and 70 other deportees who were subjected to beatings, sexual assault, or extortion. And those are just the statistics for one country.

It is therefore extremely important to find a way to anticipate the details that might turn a case from a denial to a grant, and to include those details in the written asylum application. And this can be best achieved through the Columbo method of asking “just one more thing.”

Examples:

Domestic violence claims

Typically, applications describe the brutal mistreatment suffered by the asylum-seeker. But in Matter of A-B-, the Attorney General claimed a lack of evidence that the persecutor “was aware of, and hostile to” a particular social group. The A.G. rather attributed the motive for the attack to the persecutor’s “preexisting personal relationship with the victim.”

In such cases, ask “just one more thing” to establish that the abusive partner was at least partially motivated to harm the asylum seeker because of her gender (which should in turn be argued to constitute her particular social group). For example, the respondent in A-B- described how her ex-husband believed “a woman’s place was in the home, like a servant.” This statement established (1) that the persecutor was aware of a particular social group, consisting of women, and (2) his own hostility towards such group, through his relegating its members to a subservient role in society.

Additional “Columbo” questions would inquire whether the persecutor’s verbal abuse included gender-specific derogatory terms; how he generally spoke of or treated other women in his life; and whether he would have inflicted the same forms of abuse on e.g. his brother, a close male friend, or a male roommate. The answers may well establish that the asylum seeker’s inclusion in a social group defined by her gender was at least “one central reason” for her being targeted for abuse.

“Just one more thing” should also be asked to flesh out imputed political opinion as a possible motive, as in the above-cited Hernandez-Chacon case.

Family-based claims

These claims often arise in the gang context, when gang members unable to target a particular individual target family members of that individual instead. Although courts for decades have held family to be the quintessential example of a particular social group for asylum purposes, two recent administrative decisions have complicated these claims. First, the BIA in Matter of L-E-A- dismissed the threat to the family member as being motivated by financial considerations and not by an actual animus towards the family. The Attorney General then weighed in, questioning whether a family enjoys the required distinction in the eyes of society to constitute a particular social group.

Regarding nexus, the “Columbo” questions should focus on circumstantial evidence of intent. Keep in mind the BIA’s decision in Matter of S-P–. One of the factors set out in that decision for determining when purported criminal prosecution might actually be political persecution is where the abuse is “out of proportion to nonpolitical ends.” For example, if someone accused of jaywalking is sentenced to ten years in prison and subjected to torture and interrogation sessions, it’s safe to assume that it isn’t really about the jaywalking.

With this in mind, the “just one more thing” issue in such cases is to elicit details about the purported motive vs. the seriousness of the threatened harm. Where the issue is extortion, and the Board might therefore view the motive as economic, ask exactly how much money was involved. Under the S-P- test, a threat to rape and kill someone because their family member neglected to pay $20 in renta probably isn’t about the money. The same might be found even where a larger sum is involved where the threats are directed at, e.g., a teenage child who lacks any realistic ability to pay. Or where the family has managed to avoid paying for years, is there a point where a dispute that began purely over money starts to take on some animus towards the family as well?

Regarding social distinction, “just one more thing” should be asked to establish how the asylum-seeker’s family was viewed in the society in which they lived, as well as the general distinctions that all families enjoy in such society. Was it known throughout the community that MS-13 is targeting the client’s family? If so, might that knowledge have caused the family to achieve social distinction? It is also worth asking whether the institution of family is addressed in the country’s constitution, or how kinship is treated regarding the country’s inheritance and guardianship laws.

Unwilling/unable issues:

As in Orellana v. Barr above, ask “just one more thing” about how many times your client turned to the police, and how many times they actually responded. Also, how long did it take them to respond, and what did the response consist of? How did the authorities treat the abuser? Did they take the position that the issue was a “personal matter” not proper for police intervention?

If the client did not bother to call the police because they viewed it as futile, ask “just one more thing” about what caused them to form such a view. Do they know of relatives, friends, or neighbors whose experiences with the authorities support such a view? Can they cite examples in which there were repercussions for those who called on the authorities for protection? Have the authorities asked for bribes, or made statements exhibiting bias or corruption? Or have they gone as far as to admit that they are unable to provide effective protection?

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Reprinted by permission.

(Disclaimer: The foregoing is meant as “food for thought,” and is not to be interpreted or relied upon as legal advice, or to create an attorney-client relationship. And as the law changes, by the time you read this, the information contained therein might not be up to date.)

MAY 27, 2020

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

Thanks, Jeffrey, my friend!

I’ve always said about asylum litigation in Immigration Court: The Devil 👹 is in the details. And, if you don’t find that Devil, the Assistant Chief Counsel will. And, YOU will burn🔥!

PWS

05-27-20

1ST CIR. THWARTS BIA’S ATTEMPT TO USE “SUA SPONTE” AUTHORITY TO COVER UP ARBITRARINESS, BIAS, & CLEAR LEGAL ERROR! — Thompson v. Barr

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-pardons-thompson-v-barr

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

22 May 2020

bia

Connecticut

pardon

CA1 on Pardons: Thompson v. Barr

Thompson v. Barr

“Petitioner Richard Marvin Thompson (“Thompson”) appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen sua sponte his immigration proceedings, alleging that the BIA committed a clear legal error. Thompson asks this Court to exercise jurisdiction to review whether the BIA clearly erred when it determined that he was not entitled to relief from deportation under section 237(a)(2)(A)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (A)(vi) (the “Pardon Waiver Clause”), because a pardon issued by the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles is “not effective for purposes of establishing entitlement to” a waiver of deportation. Because we find that this Court has jurisdiction to review this colorable legal question and because, here, the BIA departed from its settled course of adjudication, we vacate the decision of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Gregory Romanovsky, William M. Tong, Attorney General of Connecticut, Jane Rosenberg, Assistant Attorney General, Clare Kindall, Solicitor General, amicus curiae for the State of Connecticut, Trina Realmuto, Kristin Macleod-Ball and Emma Winger!]

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

So, let’s take a little closer look. Thompson immigrated legally to the U.S. in 1997, at age 14. Nearly two decades ago, Thompson was convicted of second degree assault in Connecticut and given a suspended sentence and 3-years probation. In other words, no jail time.

He successfully completed probation, got a GED, and worked as a commercial operator for 10 years. Essentially, Thompson successfully rehabilitated and became a productive member of society.

In 2012, the Obama Administration DHS, in its wisdom, instituted removal proceedings against Thompson based on his 2001 Connecticut assault conviction. After being found removable and losing on appeal, Thompson received a full and complete pardon from the Connecticut State Board of Pardons, the highest pardoning authority in the state. Although established by the legislature, the Board of Pardons’ action was deliberative and based on an assessment of the factors in Thompson’s individual case. It was not an “automatic expungement” pursuant to legislation.

Since the time for filing a motion to reopen had expired, Thompson asked the BIA to reopen his case “sua sponte” — on its own motion — to recognize that the pardon had eradicated the legal basis for removal.

Following its previous rulings, as well as sound policy and common sense, the BIA should promptly have granted Thompson’s motion and terminated proceedings in a two or three sentence order. Instead, the BIA, now operating under the “Trump removal regime in 2018,” denied the motion based on specious reasons that deviated without rational explanation from their prior treatment of substantially identical motions.

The BIA’s action touched off approximately 20 months of furious litigation involving a small army of lawyers on both sides, including the Connecticut Attorney General and the Connecticut Solicitor General, as well as the American Immigration Council, filing briefs in support of Thompson.

Following this 34-page opus by the First Circuit, Thompson’s case is by no means over. It’s been “orbited” back to the “Weird World of EOIR” where Thompson might, or might not, receive justice at some undetermined point in the future. To make matters even worse, Thompson remains detained at the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama. Alabama is one of the current “hot spots” for COVID-19.

Is it any wonder that a “weaponized,” overtly anti-immigrant “court system” that looks for “reasons to deny” meritorious cases, rather than promoting prompt and efficient due process in deserving cases is running a backlog of approximately 1.4 million “on and off calendar” cases?

The longer the reviewing Circuit Courts keep up the fiction of treating EOIR as a legitimate adjudicative organization rather than the biased, “non-expert,” unconstitutional extension of DHS Enforcement that it has become, the bigger the mess will get and the more injustice that will be done to individuals like Thompson.

Meanwhile, legions of lawyers and judges at all levels, who could and should be devoting their talents to operating a constitutional immigration justice system that provides “due process and fundamental fairness with efficiency and humanity for all concerned” will instead continue to flail as a result of this “designed and operated to fail” system run by a kakistocracy to produce injustice and to squander judicial time and legal resources on a massive scale. When will it ever end?

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-24-20

FORBES PROFILES DUE PROCESS WARRIOR STEPHEN MANNING OF INNOVATION LAW LAB!

Stephen Manning ESQUIRE
Founder, Innovation Law Lab
Portland, OR

https://apple.news/ADjIgsd5vTR6lN15QEpey1w

Over the last several years, America has been rocked by evidence of the mistreatment of migrants in detention centers. While the nation makes its political judgments about the future of immigration policy, Stephen Manning has assembled a team of lawyers, organizers, and tech innovators working to squeeze more humanity out of the current system while imagining its replacement. We talked to Stephen about how he pursues justice and reform.

How did you get involved in immigration law in the first place?

I was volunteer teaching at an elementary school, helping immigrant children from Central America with homework. I asked, “Why don’t you do your homework?” and I found their answer hard to believe: “We’re going to be deported.” No one deports second-graders, I thought. It must be an administrative matter. Naively, I took the whole family to Immigration, unprepared for the experience. I discovered a system based on the otherization and exclusion of human beings, as core principles. I could have gotten the whole family deported but luckily everyone was ok, and are still ok—I’ve since presided over two of their weddings.

What is so dehumanizing about immigration?

In fact, immigration could be a deeply humanizing experience—it could be the ultimate humanizing concept, actually. Instead, though, today it is the opposite. Its purpose is to categorize persons and judge their desirability. Racism and other biases have corrupted these functions. For example, on April 22nd, President Trump issued a proclamation to end family-based immigration. The next day his advisor explained that they want to “re-white” the country. The Remain in Mexico program does the same thing. Take a person seeking asylum: they are treated based not on their individual lives and circumstances, but on their assignment to a less desirable macro category—the asylum-seeker. They lose their individuality and simply become members of an undesired group. That classification has nothing to do with their hopes, fears, dreams or their contributions to our collective prosperity.

The same sense of power affects the whole system and shows up in myriad small ways. For example, I remember being at a detention center filled with families, working on a very compelling claim by a mother and her children. I’m working on my laptop surrounded by small children playing. We had sent a letter to the officer showing cause for their release. He showed up armed, in aviator glasses, ignored the children, and crumpled up and threw away the letter right in front of everyone. That’s dehumanization on a micro scale.

What surprises people when they learn about the realities of the U.S. immigration system?

People expect law to reflect some kind of morality. We expect the power of the law to be used justly. When law and power seem to align against common sense—that’s a tough lesson, even for lawyers. The immigration legal system is a world unto itself, and even for experienced lawyers, nothing prepares them for it.

You started and lead Innovation Law Lab, one of the largest pro bono projects in the country, to push for reforms. How do you recruit lawyers to volunteer?

Innovation Law Lab is equal parts lawyers, organizers, and coders. Our core team is about 20 people. For volunteers, actually, we don’t have any formal recruitment mechanisms. The work itself is demanding—you’re volunteering, giving up family time, spending your own money to participate. What we offer is a chance to use the law for justice and to join a team of like-minded people. And we’ve also structured it so that it can scale. We ask, Can you come for a day, a week, three weeks? Big law does not have to worry—there’s no mass exodus coming, but there is a small trend towards movement-based lawyering. The last time I looked, our numbers at Innovation Law Lab were in the tens of thousands of volunteers. And about 30% are repeat volunteers; they participate in multiple projects.

. . . .

Stephen Manning is an Ashoka Fellow. You can read more about him and his work here.

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

You can read the rest of the profile at the link.

Innovation Law Lab is doing some spectacular work in defending the Constitution, the rule of law, and humanity against the Trump regime’s relentless onslaught.

PWS

05-22-20

CHILD ABUSE BY COWARDLY REGIME OFFICIALS RAMPS UP AS COURTS TANK IN FACE OF LATEST ASSAULT ON RULE OF LAW & HUMANITY ☠️ — “This incredibly callous treatment of young migrants as well as their families is part of the Trump administration’s attempt to erase any vestige of due process at the border with Mexico.“

https://apple.news/AfPeFLsDGQTyTuvEeyuQsIg

Esther Wang writes in Jezebel:

Another day, another extreme cruelty: according to a report in the New York Times, the Trump administration has deported almost 1,000 migrant children and teens during the past two months of the covid-19 pandemic, sending them out of the United States alone and at times putting them on a flight without even telling their family members. Stephen Miller, who is unfortunately still alive, must be thrilled.

Trump’s latest tactic in the service of slashing immigration is, as the New York Times points out, a complete 180 from past policy:

The deportations represent an extraordinary shift in policy that has been unfolding in recent weeks on the southwestern border, under which safeguards that have for decades been granted to migrant children by both Democratic and Republican administrations appear to have been abandoned.

Historically, young migrants who showed up at the border without adult guardians were provided with shelter, education, medical care and a lengthy administrative process that allowed them to make a case for staying in the United States. Those who were eventually deported were sent home only after arrangements had been made to assure they had a safe place to return to.

But now, not even children who are already in the United States with pending asylum cases are safe from deportation. As the Times reported, in addition to the more than 900 children and teens who were deported in March and April shortly after arriving at the border, 60 young people who were already being held in government shelters were also abruptly sent out of the United States, at times “rousted from their beds in the middle of the night.”

According to the Times, even young children have been put on flights by themselves. Take the case of Sandra Rodríguez and her 10-year-old son Gerson, whom she sent across the southern border with the expectation that once Gerson arrived in the United States, he would be able to eventually live with Rodríguez’s brother in Houston. But instead, shortly after entering the U.S., Gerson was sent to Honduras alone.

This incredibly callous treatment of young migrants as well as their families is part of the Trump administration’s attempt to erase any vestige of due process at the border with Mexico. Citing the pandemic, immigration officials have used provisions in the 1944 Public Health Act as justification to essentially close the United States to all asylum seekers who cross the border. The impact has been severe: In an almost two-month period from mid-March to May, only two people seeking protection on humanitarian grounds at the border were allowed to stay within the United States.

“What is happening at the border right now is a tragedy. We are abandoning our legal commitment to provide asylum to people whose lives are in danger in other countries,” Kari Hong, an immigration attorney and Boston College law school professor, told the Washington Post. “By invoking these emergency orders, the Trump administration is simply doing what it’s wanted to do all along, which is to end asylum law in its entirety,” she said.

While Trump administration officials have justified their likely illegal use of emergency orders in the name of public health, the fact that officials have also deported children and teens who were already in the care of the federal government sure indicates that something else is going on here. I wonder what that could be.

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

Who would have thought that America would become a nation of child abusers and that Federal Courts would be so feckless and complicit in the face of such clear abuses? Three years of concerted failure, led by John Roberts and the Supremes, to give meaning to Due Process and Equal Protection in the face of the “New Jim Crow” have emboldened the regime’s White Nationalist, anti-American abusers while kneecapping democratic and constitutional institutions.

Then, there’s the extreme, wanton cruelty and dehumanization inflicted on the mostly vulnerable among us that has come to symbolize our nation in the Age of Trump. Like all the other abuses by the regime, it’s been “normalized” by feckless legislators and judges: “Another day, another extreme cruelty!” ☠️⚰️🤮🏴‍☠️

Somewhere down there in the fires of the underworld, Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the infamous “Dred Scott Decision” must be feeling totally vindicated by Roberts and his gang!

Is this really how we want to be remembered by future generations? If not, vote ‘em out this November!

PWS

05-21-20

🏴‍☠️AMERICA THE CHILD ABUSER: Trump Regime ☠️ Uses Pandemic As Pretext To Violate Migrant Children’s Legal & Human Rights As Feckless Congress & Complicit Federal Courts Fail To Act! — Disintegration Of Nation’s Values & Humanity 🦹🏿‍♂️ Continues Unabated!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/coronavirus-migrant-children-unaccompanied-minors.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20200520&instance_id=18629&nl=the-morning&regi_id=119096355&segment_id=28532&te=1&user_id=70724c8ee3c2ebb50a6ef32ab050a46b

Caitlin Dickerson reports for The NY Times:

The last time Sandra Rodríguez saw her son Gerson, she bent down to look him in the eye. “Be good,” she said, instructing him to behave when he encountered Border Patrol agents on the other side of the river in the United States, and when he was reunited with his uncle in Houston.

The 10-year-old nodded, giving his mother one last squinty smile. Tears caught in his dimples, she recalled, as he climbed into a raft and pushed out across the Rio Grande toward Texas from Mexico, guided by a stranger who was also trying to reach the United States.

Ms. Rodríguez expected that Gerson would be held by the Border Patrol for a few days and then transferred to a government shelter for migrant children, from which her brother in Houston would eventually be able to claim him. But Gerson seemed to disappear on the other side of the river. For six frantic days, she heard nothing about her son — no word that he had been taken into custody, no contact with the uncle in Houston.

Finally, she received a panicked phone call from a cousin in Honduras who said that Gerson was with her. The little boy was crying and disoriented, his relatives said; he seemed confused about how he had ended up back in the dangerous place he had fled.

Hundreds of migrant children and teenagers have been swiftly deported by American authorities amid the coronavirus pandemic without the opportunity to speak to a social worker or plea for asylum from the violence in their home countries — a reversal of years of established practice for dealing with young foreigners who arrive in the United States.

The deportations represent an extraordinary shift in policy that has been unfolding in recent weeks on the southwestern border, under which safeguards that have for decades been granted to migrant children by both Democratic and Republican administrations appear to have been abandoned.

Historically, young migrants who showed up at the border without adult guardians were provided with shelter, education, medical care and a lengthy administrative process that allowed them to make a case for staying in the United States. Those who were eventually deported were sent home only after arrangements had been made to assure they had a safe place to return to.

That process appears to have been abruptly thrown out under President Trump’s latest border decrees. Some young migrants have been deported within hours of setting foot on American soil. Others have been rousted from their beds in the middle of the night in U.S. government shelters and put on planes out of the country without any notification to their families.

The Trump administration is justifying the new practices under a 1944 law that grants the president broad power to block foreigners from entering the country in order to prevent the “serious threat” of a dangerous disease. But immigration officials in recent weeks have also been abruptly expelling migrant children and teenagers who were already in the United States when the pandemic-related order came down in late March.

Since the decree was put in effect, hundreds of young migrants have been deported, including some who had asylum appeals pending in the court system.

Some of the young people have been flown back to Central America, while others have been pushed back into Mexico, where thousands of migrants are living in filthy tent camps and overrun shelters.

In March and April, the most recent period for which data was available, 915 young migrants were expelled shortly after reaching the American border, and 60 were shipped home from the interior of the country.

During the same period, at least 166 young migrants were allowed into the United States and afforded the safeguards that were once customary. But in another unusual departure, Customs and Border Protection has refused to disclose how the government was determining which legal standards to apply to which children.

“We just can’t put it out there,” said Matthew Dyman, a public affairs specialist with the agency, citing concerns that human smugglers would exploit the information to traffic more people into the country if they knew how the laws were being applied.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration extended the stepped-up border security that allows for young migrants to be expelled at the border, saying the policy would remain in place indefinitely and be reviewed every 30 days.

Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said the policy had been “one of the most critical tools the department has used to prevent the further spread of the virus and to protect the American people, D.H.S. front-line officers and those in their care and custody from Covid-19.”

An agency spokesman said its policies for deporting children from within the interior of the country had not changed.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Caitlin’s article at the above link.

Thanks to my friend, the amazing “Due Process Warrior Queen,” 👸🏼 👑 ⚔️🛡Deb Sanders for bringing Caitlin’s article to my attention.

Kids suffer, the law is ignored, corrupt bureaucrats like Chad Wolf continue to wander around spreading lies. There is no evidence that any of those kids “rocketed” out of the country in violation of laws and human rights had coronavirus.

And if they did, returning them to a poorer nation with even fewer resources to fight the pandemic without taking proper precautions and safeguards would be totally irresponsible, inhumane, and ultimately counterproductive. What goes around, comes around!

This has absolutely nothing to do with “protecting” the U.S. from coronavirus (something that Trump otherwise largely eschews) and everything to do with advancing a racist, xenophobic, White Nationalist political agenda designed to appeal to a relatively narrow slice of Trump voters. So, how does this pass “legal muster?” Clearly, “It doesn’t!”

How do folks like Trump, Miller, Wolf, and their accomplices get away with it? Easy when GOP legislators and life-tenured Federal Judges look the other way rather than forcing the regime to comply with the rule of law and simple human decency.

Congressional letters, particularly to a lawless regime, are useless unless accompanied by veto-proof legislation. Courts that fail to take a unified “Just Say No” approach to Trump’s systemic abuses, all the way up to the Supremes, and which rule without holding the officials and lawyers masterminding these abuses legally accountable are basically feckless!

These are not difficult questions from either a legal or moral standpoint. What the Administration is doing is wrong! Period! Those who say otherwise are wrong! Period!

The Trump regime disguises their vicious attacks on human dignity and the rule of law as bogus “legal issues.” And, the Federal Courts encourage them by going along with the charade. This is no “normal Executive.” It’s a “rogue regime” and must be treated as such!

The failure to end these disgraceful practices and hold those who are abusing their authority accountable says much about the current state of our democratic institutions, justice system, civil servants, and the inadequacy and moral complacency of many of our current GOP legislators and Federal Judges.

This November, vote like your life and your humanity depends on it! Because it does!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts, Never!

PWS

05-20-20

IT’S HERE! — IMMIGRATION HISTORY AT ITS BEST! — Months In The Making, The “Schmidtcast,” A 7-Part Series Featuring Podcaster Marica Sharashenidze Interviewing Me About My Legal Career “American Immigration From Mariel to Miller” — Tune In Now!

Marica Sharashenidze

Born in 1993, Marica was raised in Maryland and earned a B.A. in Sociology from Rice University. Marica worked in the past as a paralegal at Hudson Legal in Ann Arbor and most recently explored eGovernance based infrastructure projects on the Dorot Fellowship. In the past, she received the Wagoner Fellowship, from the Higher School of Economics in Saint Petersburg, Russia, where she completed a year long ethnographic research project. She is fluent in Russian and proficient in Spanish and Hebrew.

Hon. Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Ret.)
Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law
Blogger, immigrationcourtside.com

Judge (Retired) Paul Wickham Schmidt

Judge Schmidt was appointed as an Immigration Judge at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia, in May 2003 and retired from the bench on June 30, 2016. Prior to his appointment as an Immigration Judge, he served as a Board Member for the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, in Falls Church, VA, since February 12, 1995. Judge Schmidt served as Board Chairman from February 12, 1995, until April 9, 2001, when he chose to step down as Chairman to adjudicate cases full-time. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Lawrence University in 1970 (cum laude), and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Wisconsin School of Law in 1973 (cum laude; Order of the Coif). While at the University of Wisconsin, he served as an editor of the Wisconsin Law Review. Judge Schmidt served as acting General Counsel of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (1986-1987; 1979-1981), where he was instrumental in developing the rules and procedures to implement the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. He also served as the Deputy General Counsel of INS for 10 years (1978-1987). He was the managing partner of the Washington, DC, office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen (1993-95), and also practiced business immigration law with the Washington, DC, office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987-92 (partner, 1990-92). Judge Schmidt also served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989 and at Georgetown University Law Center (2012-14; 2017–). He has authored numerous articles on immigration law, and has written extensively for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Judge Schmidt is a member of the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, and the Wisconsin and District of Columbia Bars. Judge Schmidt was one of the founding members of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (“IARLJ”). In June 2010, Judge Schmidt received the Lucia R. Briggs Distinguished Achievement Award from the Lawrence University Alumni Association in recognition of his notable career achievements in the field of immigration law. Since retiring, in addition to resuming his Adjunct Professor position at Georgetown Law, Judge Schmidt has established the blog immigrationcourtside.com, is an Americas Vice President of the IARLJ, serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects, as well as speaking, lecturing, and writing in forums throughout the country on contemporary immigration issues, due process, and U.S. Immigration Court reform.

Here are links:

https://pws.transistor.fm/

https://feeds.transistor.fm/the-life-and-times-of-the-honorable-paul-wickham-schmidt

And here are some “Previews with links to each episode:”

APRIL 23, 2020 • 66 MINUTES

Concluding Remarks

So, what now? Will the intentional cruelty, “Dred Scottification,” false narratives, and demonization of “the other,” particularly women, children, and people of color, by presidential advisor Stephen Miller and his White Nationalists become the “future face” of America? Or, will “Our Better Angels” help us reclaim the vision of America as the “Shining City on the Hill,” welcoming immigrants and protecting refugees, in good times and bad, while “leading by example” toward a more just and equal world?

APRIL 22, 2020 • 48 MINUTES

The Mariel Boatlift Crisis

The Refugee Act of 1980 feels like a huge success…for a short amount of time. The first test of the act comes when Fidel Castro opens Cuba’s borders (and Cuba’s prisons) and hundreds of refugees arrive on Florida shores. The Mariel Boatlift Crisis forced the U.S. government to realize that not all asylum processing can happen abroad. Unfortunately, it also left the public with the impression that “Open arms and open hearts” leads only to crisis.

APRIL 22, 2020 • 25 MINUTES

The Refugee Act of 1980

The year is 1980 and the war in Vietnam has displaced hundreds and thousands of people. The system of presidential parole doesn’t seem like it can handle the growing global refugee crisis. What is the answer to this ballooning need? Process most refugees abroad to streamline their entrance to the U.S. Codify asylum in the U.S. in legislation that puts human rights first. Increase prestige, improve overall government coordination, provide a permanent source of funding, and institutionalize refugee resettlement programs and assimilation. Have Ted Kennedy be the face of the effort. For once, things are actually working out for humanity.

APRIL 22, 2020 • 54 MINUTES

The 1990s BIA

In the 1990s, Judge Schmidt was BIA Chairman Schmidt. With the support of then Attorney General Janel Reno, he aspired to “open up” appellate judgeships to all immigration experts, and to lead the BIA to much-needed progressive steps towards humane asylum law, better scholarship, improved public service, transparency, and streamlined efficiency to reduce the backlog. However, progress seemed to stall at several points and certain types of behavior tended to be rewarded. The Board sits at the intersection between a court and an agency within the administration, which means its hurdles come both from structural issues with the U.S. Justice System and with entrenched government bureaucracy.

APRIL 22, 2020 • 48 MINUTES

Creating EOIR

In the 1980s, critics claimed that the federal agency in charge of immigration enforcement, the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), could not process quasi-judicial cases in a fair and just manner due to limited autonomy, non-existent technology, insufficient resources, haphazard management, poor judicial selection processes, and backlogs. The solution? Create a sub-agency of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) just for the immigration courts, focused on “due process with efficiency” and organizationally separate from the agency charged with immigration enforcement. The Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) was an ambitious and noble endeavor, meant to be an independent court system operating inside of a Federal Cabinet agency. Spoiler: despite significant initial progress it did not work out that way in the long run.

APRIL 21, 2020 • 36 MINUTES

The Immigration Reform and Control Act

In 1986, the United States was facing an immigration crisis with an overwhelmed INS and a record number of undocumented folks in the country. IRCA, a bipartisan bill, was created to solve the immigration crisis through a three-pronged approach: legalization, enforcement and employer accountability. However, it soon became apparent that some parts of IRCA were more successful than others. IRCA taught us relevant lessons for going forward. Because while pathways to citizenship are self-sustaining, enforcing borders is not.

APRIL 18, 2020 • 43 MINUTES

The Ashcroft Purge

Judges are meant to be impartial; but, U.S. Immigration Judges have political bosses who are willing and able to fire them while making little secret of their pro-enforcement, anti-immigrant political agenda. What are the public consequences of an Immigration Court with limited autonomy from the Executive Branch? We begin the podcast at one of the “turning points,” when Attorney General John Ashcroft fired almost all the most “liberal” Board Members of the BIA, all of whom were appointed during the Clinton Administration. What followed created havoc among the U.S. Courts of Appeals who review BIA decisions. The situation has continually deteriorated into the “worst ever,” with “rock bottom” morale, overwhelming backlogs, fading decisional quality, and the “weaponized”Immigration Courts now tasked with carrying out the Trump Administration’s extreme enforcement policies.

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

Many, many thanks to Marica for persuading me to do this project and for doing all the “hard stuff.” I just “rambled on” — her questions and expert editing provided the context and “framework.” And, of course, Marica provided all the equipment (the day her brother “borrowed” her batteries) and the accompanying audio clips and written introductions.

Also, many thanks to my wife Cathy for the many hours that she and “Luna the Dog” (a huge “Marica fan”) spent trying not to listen to us working in the dining room, while adding many helpful suggestions to me, starting with “you sound too rehearsed” and “lose the ‘uhs’ and ‘you knows.’” She even put up with me playing some of the “original takes” while we were “on the road” to Wisconsin or Maine.

Happy listening!

Due Process Forever!

PWS😎

05-19-20

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Officials & Institutions, Never!

Related posts:

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever, Captive & Complicit Courts, Never!

UPDATE:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life and your humanity depends on it! Because it does!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts, Never!

PWS

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: