Litigation – Page 86 – immigrationcourtside.com

LORELEI LAIRD @ ABA JOURNAL: Sessions’s Quotas Threaten Due Process & Judicial Independence –“And it’s part of an ongoing effort, I think, to diminish the judges to more or less the status of immigration adjudicators rather than independent judges.” (PWS)

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_department_imposes_quotas_on_immigration_judges_provoking_independe

Lorelei Laird reports for the ABA Journal:

. . . .

The news was not welcomed by the National Association of Immigration Judges. Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, the current president of the union, says the quotas are “an egregious example of the conflict of interests of having the immigration court in a law enforcement agency.” A quota system invites the possibility that judges will make decisions out of concern about keeping their jobs, she says, rather than making what they think is the legally correct decision. And even if they don’t, she points out, respondents in immigration court may argue that they do.

“To us, it means you have compromised the integrity of the court,” says Tabaddor, who is a sitting immigration judge in Los Angeles but speaking in her capacity as NAIJ’s president. “You have created a built-in appeal with every case. You are going to now make the backlog even more. You’re going to increase the litigation, and you are introducing an external factor into what is supposed to be a sacred place.”

Retired immigration judge Paul Wickham Schmidt adds that the new metrics are unworkable. Reversal on appeal is influenced by factors beyond the judge’s control, he says, including appeals that DHS attorneys file on behalf of the government and shifting precedents in higher courts.

McHenry’s email said that “using metrics to evaluate performance is neither novel nor unique to EOIR.” Tabaddor disagrees. Federal administrative law court systems may have goals to aspire to, she says, but those judges are, by law, exempt from performance evaluations. Nor have the immigration judges themselves been subject to numeric quotas in the past.

“No other administration before this has ever tried to impose a performance measure that [had] this type of metrics, because they recognized that immediately, you are encroaching on judicial independence,” she says.

Schmidt agrees. “No real judge operates under these kinds of constraints and directives, so it’s totally inappropriate,” says Schmidt, who has also served on the Board of Immigration Appeals. “And it’s part of an ongoing effort, I think, to diminish the judges to more or less the status of immigration adjudicators rather than independent judges.”

Tabaddor adds that the Justice Department forced the union last year to drop a provision forbidding numbers-based performance evaluations from its contract negotiations. This was not a sign that NAIJ agrees with the quotas, she says, but rather that the union’s hands are tied under laws that apply to federal employees.

The memo continues a trend of Justice Department pressure on immigration judges to resolve cases. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has the power to refer immigration law cases to himself, is currently taking comment on whether judges should have the power to end cases without a decision. (The ABA has said they should.)

Last summer, the chief immigration judge discouraged judges from granting postponements. Sessions did the same in a December memo that referenced the backlog as a reason to discourage “unwarranted delays and delayed decision making.”

Sessions has power over the immigration courts because they are a branch of the DOJ, not an independent court system like Article III courts. Independence has long been on the judges’ union’s wish list, and it was one topic when HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliverexplored some problems with immigration courts on Sunday.

As the ABA Journal reported in 2017, the immigration courts have had a backlog of cases for most of the past decade, fueled by more investment in enforcement than in adjudication. Schmidt claims that unrealistic laws and politically motivated meddling in dockets also contribute to the backlog. As of the end of February, 684,583 cases were pending, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which gets its data from Freedom of Information Act requests.

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

Read Lorelei’s full article at the link.

Clearly:

Today’s Immigration Courts are not “real” courts in the sense that they are neither independent nor capable of truly unbiased decision-making given the clear bias against immigrants of all types expressed by Sessions and other officials of the Trump administration who ultimately control all Immigration Court decisions.
The Immigration Courts have become a mere “facade of Due Process and fairness.” Consequently, Federal Courts should stop giving so-called “Chevron deference” to Immigration Court decisions.
The DOJ falsely claimed that the NAIJ “agreed” to these “performance metrics” (although as noted by Judge Tabaddor, the NAIJ might have lacked a legal basis to oppose them).
The current Immigration Court system is every bit as bad as John Oliver’s TV parody, if not actually worse.
America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court. If Congress will not do its duty to create one, it will be up to the Federal Courts to step in and put an end to this travesty of justice by requiring true Due Process and unbiased decision-making be provided to those whose very lives depend on fairness from the Immigration Courts.

PWS

04-04-18

AS EVIDENCE OF SESSIONS’S BIAS AND INCOMPETENCE TO RUN THE IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM MOUNTS, HE “GOES GONZO” ON US IMMIGRATION JUDGES & IMMIGRANTS SEEKING JUSTICE — Dropping All Pretensions That These Are Anything Other Than “Kangaroo Courts,” Gonzo Imposes Assembly Line Quotas That Are Unconstitutional On Their Face!

HERE ARE THE EOIR (SESSIONS) MEMOS:

from Asso Press – 03-30-2018 McHenry – IJ Performance Metrics

03-30-2018 EOIR – PWP Element 3 new

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

Both the BIA and the Federal Courts have found that “case completion goals” can’t be used as the sole basis for denying a continuance. , 531 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2008); Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009). Rather, continuance decisions must be made case-by-case on the basis of a careful consideration and weighing of all relevant factors. By purporting to make the mathematical formulas mandatory rather than goals, the Attorney General only compounds the problem.
- Here are copies of the Hashmi cases:
- 3rd on case completion 063934p
- 3640–Hashmi
Neither Sessions nor Director McHenry has ever served as a U.S. Immigration Judge. They both are totally unqualified to determine “performance criteria” for judges supposedly exercising “independent judgment and discretion.” Indeed, Sessions was once nominated for a Federal District Judgeship but was found unqualified because of his record of racially tinged bias. He has no business being in change of any judiciary.
Numerical quotas simply have no place in a fair judicial system. Having worked with judges in both a supervisory and a collegial capacity for over two decades, my observation is that all good judges do not work at the same pace. Some simply take more time than others to reach a fair result. That doesn’t mean that they are less qualified, less hard-working, or less fair. Indeed in some cases those who take longer to reach a decision are better and more careful judges than those who are more “productive.”
The use of appeal statistics is particularly bogus. I had some cases where I was reversed by the BIA only to be vindicated by the Court of Appeals. In other cases, I was reversed by the Court of Appeals for faithfully applying a BIA precedent that was found to be erroneous. I also had cases while I was an appellate judge on the BIA where my dissenting view was ultimately found by the Court of Appeals be correct and the majority’s view erroneous .
Justice is not a “widget” that can be subjected to “performance standards” by politicos who are not judges. This is all a “smokescreen.” The real problem plaguing the Immigration Court system starts with unqualified politicos interfering in proper docket management and decision-making by judges. Jeff Sessions is a prime example of all that is wrong with the current Immigration Court system.
Contrary to the DOJ’s claim, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) never agreed to these so-called “performance metrics.” I was actually part of the NAIJ team that negotiated the existing performance evaluation system. We were assured by management at that time that while non-binding “goals and timetables” might be developed by the agency as informal guidance, they were not “numerical quotas” and would not be used in determining individual performance.

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

Here’s an article by Tal Kopan @ CNN on the latest memos:

Justice Department rolls out case quotas for immigration judges

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The Department of Justice has announced it will evaluate immigration judges on how many cases they close and how fast they hear cases, a move that judges and advocates criticize as potentially jeopardizing the courts’ fairness and perhaps leading to far more deportations.

The policy has been in the works for months, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration have been working to assert more influence over the immigration courts, or the separate court system built just for hearing cases about whether noncitizens have a claim to stay in the US.

US law gives the attorney general broad and substantial power to oversee and overrule these courts, as opposed to the civil and criminal US justice system, which is an independent branch of government. In the immigration courts, judges are employees of the Department of Justice.

Sessions has been testing the limits of that authority in multiple ways, and in a memo Friday, the director of the immigration courts informed judges they would now be evaluated on a set of metrics including the speed and volume of cases heard.

The Justice Department says the move is designed to make the system more efficient. The immigration courts have a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases, and it can take years for an immigrant’s case to work its way to completion. In that time, the individuals build lives in the US, and critics point to the immigration courts’ backlog as a major factor in the number of undocumented immigrants living in the US.

“These performance metrics, which were agreed to by the immigration judge union that is now condemning them, are designed to increase productivity and efficiency in the system without compromising due process,” a Justice Department official said of the memo. The official added that any judges who fail to meet performance goals would be able to present extenuating circumstances to the Justice Department.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/02/politics/immigration-judges-quota/index.html

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

There are an estimated eleven million undocumented individuals living in the United States. That population has grown up over decades primarily as the result of poorly designed and unrealistically restrictive laws that failed to recognize the need of U.S. employers for immigrant labor and further threw up artificial roadblocks to individuals already in the U.S. obtaining legal status. To claim that the Immigration Courts are a “major cause” of this accumulated undocumented population is simply preposterous.

PWS

04-03-18

ELIZABETH J. (“BETTY”) STEVENS IN “THE FEDERAL LAWYER” (FBA) – Why We Need An Article I Immigration Court Now! — “A close read of the GAO’s report provides a chilling window into a system in chaos.”

http://www.fedbar.org/Publications/The-Federal-Lawyer/Columns/Immigration-Law-Update.aspx?FT=.pdf

Recently, the White House announced that it sought to reduce the current immigration court backlog by requesting appropriations for additional immigration judges and instituting performance metrics for all immigration judges.1 Sen. Claire McCaskill and Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Zoe Lofgren, and Trey Gowdy asked the General Accountability Office (GAO) the following questions: 1. What do Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) data indicate about its caseload, including the backlog of cases, and potential contributing factors and effects of the backlog according to stakeholders? 2. How does EOIR manage and oversee immigration court operations, including workforce planning, hiring, and technology utilization? 3. To what extent has EOIR assessed immigration court performance, including analyzing relevant information, such as data on case continuances? 4. What scenarios have been proposed for restructuring EOIR’s immigration court system and what reasons have been offered for or against these proposals?2

A close read of the GAO’s report provides a chilling window into a system in chaos.

. . . .

Moving the immigration courts out of the executive branch
would help alleviate the perception that they are not independent tribunals with DHS and the respondents as equal participants. This would also cure the perception that the immigration courts have become so politicized that decisions change not with the law but with the politics of the current administration. Moreover, due to
the number of immigration judges who are former DHS attorneys and the co-location of some immigration courts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices, a broad perception exists that immigration judges and DHS attorneys are working together. This perception leads to significant lapses in perceived due process; for example, individuals don’t appear because they think the system is rigged, don’t appeal a bad decision because they lack resources after the long wait for a merits hearing, or don’t pursue potential relief for which they might be eligible. Plus, such a move would allow DHS the opportunity to appeal the Article I appellate division’s decisions to the circuit courts of appeals—providing those courts with a broader, more balanced view of issues and decisions of the trial-level immigration court.21 EOIR’s FY 2016 Statistics Yearbook indicates that one quarter of the initial cases decided were grants—none of which were ever reviewed by the courts of appeals.22

With a move to an Article I court, both trial level and appellate di- vision judges would have fixed terms of office and tenure protections that would facilitate judicial decisions without fear or favor. (If one believes that current members of the Board of Immigration Appeals are truly independent, one should research the “streamlining” of
the board down to just 11 members.23) Current board members and immigration judges are arguably government attorneys with the same client as DHS attorneys.24 They are subject to case completion goals—with or without express reliance on numerical goals—and may be subject to discipline by the attorney general.25 The currently proposed performance metrics are not new—most have been in place in one form or another since 2002.26

Last but not least, removing the immigration courts from the Department of Justice should speed the courts’ ability to regulate itself. First and foremost, the individual immigration judges would have control over their dockets and not be subject to decisions by headquarters to prioritize case A over case B (and then back again)—or send trial judges off to border courts to handle a few cases when their backlogged dockets have to be re-scheduled.27 The Article I court as a whole would be able to issue rules and regulations without the current byzantine requirements for consultation with a number of different offices and agencies. And, finally, hiring an immigration trial judge would not take two years.28

Other options exist; all have flaws. None of the options will single-handedly fix the backlog. We all have strong opinions about whether our nation’s immigration laws need a complete overhaul or a quick x—and how to go about either or both—but as we look to implement changes in our current immigration system, we must also aspire to lift the immigration courts from “halfway there” not-quite- courts to true Article I courts. 

[Text of Footnotes Omitted]

Elizabeth J. Stevens is
the chair of the Federal
Bar Association’s Immi-
gration Law Section.

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

Read Betty’s highly cogent and incisive full article in The Federal Lawyer at the link! You’ll also be able to get all of Betty’s terrifically informative footnotes.

Betty is not just “any” lawyer. In addition to being the head of the FBA’s highly regarded and very active Immigration Law Section, Betty’s distinguished career in the Department of Justice has touched on all aspects of the Immigration Court practice.

While in law school at George Mason, Betty interned at the Board of Immigration Appeals during my tenure there. When I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court, Betty was serving as the sole Judicial Law Clerk for all six Immigration Judges.

Betty then began a distinguished career at the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) where her primary job was to defend the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. She had a meteoric rise through the ranks of OIL, culminating in position as a Senior Supervisor and a trainer of newer OIL attorneys.

I well remember Betty shepherding numberous groups from OIL over to the Arlington Court to introduce them to immigration litigation at the “retail level of our justice system.” Since her retirement from Federal Service, Betty has been an energetic, well-informed, and steadfast voice for better legal education of attorneys on both sides practicing immigration law and for Immigration Court and BIA reform.

“Chilling” is exactly the right word to describe the utter chaos in our U.S. Immigration Courts today, as the backlog approaches 700,000 cases with no end in sight. It’s “chilling” to the individual Constitutional rights of all Americans, as well as “chilling” as to the fantastic degree of “malicious incompetence” of the DOJ’s pathetic attempt to administer the Immigration Courts under Jeff Sessions.

Betty is someone who has “looked at life from both sides now!” When Betty Stevens says the system is broken and “in chaos,” you’d better believe it’s true! Thanks again Betty for all you do! It’s an honor and a privilege to work with you on the “Due Process Team.”

PWS

04-01-18

FEDERAL COURTS DELIVER ANOTHER BIG HIT TO ADMINISTRATION SCOFFLAWS ON IMMIGRATION: Attempt To Violate Detainee’s Constitutional Right To Abortion Thwarted!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-orders-government-to-allow-abortion-access-to-detained-immigrant-teens/2018/03/30/19e9fcf8-3128-11e8-94fa-32d48460b955_story.html

Ann E. Marimow, Spencer S. Hsu and Maria Sacchetti report for the Washington Post:

A federal judge issued a nationwide order temporarily preventing the government from blocking access to abortion services and counseling for teens detained in immigration custody, saying current administration policy and practices probably are unconstitutional.

The order came in a case brought last fall on behalf of a Central American girl in a government-funded shelter that set off a national debate over the constitutional rights of such undocumented teens to terminate their pregnancies.

The late Friday ruling, by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of Washington, allowed the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of any other teens who have crossed the border illegally and while in federal custody may want to seek abortion services. In filings, the U.S. government acknowledged there were at least 420 pregnant unaccompanied minors in custody in 2017, including 18 who requested abortions.

The Trump administration has refused to “facilitate” such procedures for pregnant teenagers traveling alone on the grounds that they had the option to voluntarily return to their home countries or to find private sponsors in the United States to assist them in obtaining procedures.

The policy position marked a departure from that of the Obama administration, whose Office of Refugee Resettlement did not block immigrants in U.S. custody from having abortions at their own expense, and paid for services for teens in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the woman’s life.

In her 28-page opinion, Chutkan, a 2014 Obama appointee, said the change in policy posed irreparable harm to pregnant teens, writing that “ORR’s absolute veto nullifies a UC’s right to make her own reproductive choices,” referring to unaccompanied children.

“The court concludes that ORR’s policies and practices infringe on female UC’s constitutional rights by effectively prohibiting them from ‘making the ultimate decision’ on whether or not to continue their pregnancy prior to viability — a quintessential undue burden,” the judge wrote.

A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately comment on the ruling.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the teens, expressed relief at the court action.

“The Trump administration’s cruel policy of blocking young immigrant women in federal custody from accessing abortion is a blatant abuse of power,” Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. “With today’s rulings, we are one step closer to ending this extreme policy once and for all and securing justice for all of these young women.”

[Trump official blocked a teen’s abortion, calling it ‘violence against an innocent life’]

In all, four pregnant teens in custody have asked Chutkan to force the administration to stop blocking access to abortion services. The initial case involving the teen in Texas is still pending in the Supreme Court after the Justice Department took the unusual step of asking the justices to consider disciplining the teen’s lawyers.

[Trump administration suggests possibility of disciplinary action against ACLU lawyers in abortion case]

Abortion rights advocates and some Democrats in Congress have called for the firing of E. Scott Lloyd, the head of the refugee resettlement office within the Department of Health and Human Services. Court records show that Lloyd has personally intervened to try to block abortion services.

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

Read the full article at the above link.

Hard to figure out why guys like E. Scott Lloyd and Jeff Sessions shouldn’t be both 1) fired, and 2) held personally liable under Bivens for knowing and intentional violations of constitutional rights.

PWS

03-31-18

MATTER OF A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 247 (AG 2018) (“A-B- II”) – Session’s Latest Abuse of Certification Process Illustrates Judge Chase’s Point On Why This Unethical & Unfair Procedure Must End!

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1047666/download

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 247 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3922

Matter of A-B-, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General March 30, 2018

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

The Attorney General denied the request of the Department of Homeland Security that the Attorney General suspend the briefing schedules and clarify the question presented, and he granted, in part, both parties’ request for an extension of the deadline for submitting briefs in this case.

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

On March 7, 2018, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i) (2017), I directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer its decision in this case to me for review. To assist in my review, I invited the parties to submit briefs not exceeding 15,000 words in length and interested amici to submit briefs not exceeding 9,000 words in length. I directed that the parties file briefs on or before April 6, 2018, that amici file briefs on or before April 13, 2018, and that the parties file any reply briefs on or before April 20, 2018.

On March 14, 2018, the respondent filed a request for an extension of the deadline for submitting briefs from April 6, 2018, to May 18, 2018. On March 16, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) submitted a motion containing three requests: (1) that I suspend the briefing schedules to permit the Board to rule on the Immigration Judge’s August 18, 2017, certification order; (2) that I clarify the question presented in this case; and (3) that I extend the deadline for submitting opening briefs to May 18, 2018. The respondent subsequently filed a response requesting that I grant the same relief.

This Order addresses all pending requests from the parties.
I. DHS’s Request To Suspend the Briefing Schedules

DHS’s request to suspend the briefing schedules until the Board acts on the Immigration Judge’s certification request is denied. DHS suggests that this case “does not appear to be in the best posture for the Attorney General’s review,” because the Board has not yet acted on the Immigration Judge’s attempt, on remand from the Board, to certify the case back to the Board. See DHS’s Mot. on Cert. to the Att’y Gen. at 2 (citing United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954)).

247

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 247 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3922

The certification from the Immigration Judge pending before the Board does not require the suspension of briefing because the case is not properly pending before the Board. The Immigration Judge did not act within his authority, as delineated by the controlling regulations, when he purported to certify the matter. The Immigration Judge noted in his order that an “Immigration Judge may certify to the [Board] any case arising from a decision rendered in removal proceedings.” Order of Certification at 4, (Aug. 18, 2017) (emphasis added) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3), (c)). The regulations also provide that an “Immigration Judge or Service officer may certify a case only after an initial decision has been made and before an appeal has been taken.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.7 (2017).

Here, the Immigration Judge did not issue any “decision” on remand that he could certify to the Board. The Board’s December 2016 decision sustained the respondent’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s initial decision and remanded the case to the Immigration Judge “for the purpose of allowing [DHS] the opportunity to complete or update identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, and further proceedings, if necessary, and for the entry of an order as provided by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(h).” Matter of A-B- at 4 (BIA Dec. 8, 2016). Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(h) (2017), the Immigration Judge on remand was directed to “enter an order granting or denying the immigration relief sought” after considering the “results of the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations.” “If new information is presented, the immigration judge may hold a further hearing if necessary to consider any legal or factual issues . . . .” Id.

In this matter, DHS informed the Immigration Judge that the respondent’s background checks were clear. See Order of Certification at 1. Given the scope of the Board’s remand and the requirements of the regulations, the Immigration Judge was obliged to issue a decision granting or denying the relief sought. If the Immigration Judge thought intervening changes in the law directed a different outcome, he may have had the authority to hold a hearing, consider those legal issues, and make a decision on those issues. Cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(h). Instead, the Immigration Judge sought to “certify” the Board’s decision back to the Board, essentially requesting that the Board reconsider its legal and factual findings. That procedural maneuver does not fall within the scope of the Immigration Judge’s authority upon remand. Nor does it fall within the regulations’ requirements that cases may be certified when they arise from “[d]ecisions of Immigration Judges in removal proceedings,” id. § 1003.1(b)(3); see also id. § 1003.1(c), and that an Immigration Judge “may certify a case only after an initial decision has been made and before an appeal has been taken,” id. § 1003.7. Because the Immigration Judge failed to issue a decision on remand, the Immigration Judge’s attempt to certify the case back to the Board was procedurally

248

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 247 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3922

defective and therefore does not affect my consideration of the December 16, 2016, Board decision.

Furthermore, the present case is distinguishable from Accardi, because, here, the Board rendered a decision on the merits, consistent with the applicable regulations. It is that December 8, 2016, decision that I directed the Board to refer to me for my review. See Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227, 227 (A.G. 2018) (directing the Board “to refer this case to me for review of its decision” (emphasis added)). The Board issued that decision “exercis[ing] its own judgment” and free from any perception of interference from the Attorney General. Accardi, 347 U.S. at 266. My certification of that decision for review complies with all applicable regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i) (“The Board shall refer to the Attorney General for review of its decision all cases that . . . [t]he Attorney General directs Board to refer to him.” (emphasis added)). It is therefore unnecessary to suspend the briefing schedule pending a new decision of the Board.

II. DHS’s Request To Clarify the Question Presented

I deny DHS’s request to clarify the question presented. In my March 7, 2018, order, I requested briefing on “[w]hether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal.” Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. at 227. Although “there is no entitlement to briefing when a matter is certified for Attorney General review,” Matter of Silva-Trevino, A.G. Order No. 3034-2009 (Jan. 15, 2009), I nevertheless invited the parties and interested amici “to submit briefs on points relevant to the disposition of this case” to assist my review. Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. at 227. As the Immigration Judge observed in his effort to certify the case, several Federal Article III courts have recently questioned whether victims of private violence may qualify for asylum under section 208(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2012), based on their claim that they were persecuted because of their membership in a particular social group. If being a victim of private criminal activity qualifies a petitioner as a member of a cognizable “particular social group,” under the statute, the briefs should identify such situations. If such situations do not exist, the briefs should explain why not.

DHS requests clarification on the ground that “this question has already been answered, at least in part, by the Board and its prior precedent.” Board precedent, however, does not bind my ultimate decision in this matter. See section 103(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (2012) (providing that “determination and ruling by the Attorney General with respect to all

249

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 247 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3922

questions of law shall be controlling”). The parties and interested amici may brief any relevant issues in this case—including the interplay between any relevant Board precedent and the question presented—but I encourage them to answer the legal question presented.

III. The Parties’ Requests for an Extension of the Deadline for Submitting Briefs

I grant, in part, both parties’ request for an extension of the deadline for submitting briefs in this case. The parties’ briefs shall be filed on or before April 20, 2018. Briefs from interested amici shall be filed on or before April 27, 2018. Reply briefs from the parties shall be filed on or before May 4, 2018. No further requests for extensions of the deadlines from the parties or interested amici shall be granted.

In support of respondent’s request for an extension, she asserted that “an extension of the briefing deadline is warranted because [r]espondent intends to submit additional evidence with her brief in support of her claim,” including the possibility that she might obtain new evidence from El Salvador. Resp’t Request for Extension of Briefing Deadline at 4 (Mar. 14, 2018). Although I retain “full decision-making authority under the immigration statutes,” Matter of A-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 774, 779 n.4 (A.G. 2005), I requested briefing on a purely legal question to assist my review of this case, and I encourage the parties to focus their briefing on that question. Further factual development may be appropriate in the event the case is remanded, but the opportunity to gather additional factual evidence is not a basis for my decision to extend the briefing deadline.

250

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

Back in law school, we were taught that court jurisdiction existed to decide “cases or controversies.” Not so in the US Immigration Court in the “Age of Sessions.”

The latest outrageous “certified” decision by Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalyoto” Sessions shows that he has abused his power by intervening in a case where neither party sought his intervention and where both parties essentially consider the law to be settled by prior BIA precedents. Indeed, the DHS is basically asking Sessions not to intervene in a case that it lost before the BIA and instead let the BIA deal with the issue. Remarkably, though, Sessions treats DHS with the same arrogant and biased dismissiveness that he treats migrants and private lawyers.

Even the DHS (to its credit) appears to be appalled by Sessions’s unwarranted and unneeded interference in the quasi-judicial process before the US Immigration Courts. Apparently, the DHS understands (as Gonzo apparently does not or will not) that the destruction of the credibility and integrity of the Immigration Courts will also hurt their enforcement efforts by making US Courts of Appeals more skeptical of the validity of final orders of removal entered by the BIA! Indeed, it was similar concerns by enforcement officials in the “Legacy INS” during the Reagan Administration that led to the removal of the Immigration Judges from the INS and creation of EOIR as a separate, non-enforcement, agency within the DOJ in the first place.

Although Sessions in his latest decision in Matter of A-B– basically concedes that the Immigration Judge should have followed the BIA’s instructions and granted the respondent’s asylum application, he nevertheless is misusing the case as a “vehicle” for a reexamination of fundamental, well-established principles of asylum law that neither party requested. Talk about abuse of authority!

Sessions has been on the wrong side of legal history on an astounding range of legal issues throughout his sorry career. Yet, having been rebuffed on most of his extremist views by his colleagues of both parties in the Senate and by the courts, he is now using his “captive court system” — the U.S. Immigration Courts — to interfere with the fair administration of justice and to impose his self-styled, White Nationalist inspired rules that no party has requested. Seldom has there been such a clear abuse of the American legal system. Yet, to date he is getting away with it!

This is precisely the type of improper use of the arcane “certification authority” that my colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase discussed in his article reprinted in the previous post. When and where will this mockery of justice end?

PWS

03-30-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Sessions’s Abuses Of “Certification Power” Show Why It’s Past Time To End This Unfair, Unethical, & (Probably) Unconstitutional Mockery of Justice!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/3/29/the-ags-certifying-of-bia-decisions

Mar 29 The AG’s Certifying of BIA Decisions

The recent flurry of case certifications by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (he has certified four BIA decisions to himself since January) raises the question of the continued appropriateness of the practice. Certification allows a political appointee who heads an enforcement agency, and is subject to the policy agenda of the administration he or she serves, absolute authority to overrule or completely rewrite the decisions of an ostensibly neutral and independent tribunal comprised of judges possessing greater subject matter expertise.

The issue has only become a matter of legitimate concern under the two most recent Republican administrations. In her eight years as Attorney General during the Clinton Administration, Janet Reno decided a total of three cases pursuant to certification. Under the Obama administration, AGs Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder decided a comparable number of cases (four). The number is artificially inflated by the fact that two of those consisted of Holder vacating late-term decisions by his predecessor, Michael Mukasey. In one of the vacated decisions, Mukasey’s reasoning had been rejected by five separate U.S. circuit courts of appeal.

In contrast, during the eight year administration of George W. Bush, his three Attorneys General issued 16 precedent decisions through the certification process. Sessions so far seems to be on a similar pace.

One of Bush’s AGs, Alberto Gonzales, co-authored an article in 2016 defending the use of certification.1 As part of his argument, Gonzales traced the history of the practice to the BIA’s origins as an advisory-only panel in the Department of Labor in the 1920s and 30s. When the Board was transferred to the Department of Justice in 1940, it was provided only limited decision-making authority, but was required to refer to the AG certain categories of cases, including those “in which a dissent has been recorded” or where “a question of difficulty is involved.”

I will add that the early appointees to the BIA were career bureaucrats with no prior expertise or experience in the field of immigration law. To me, such history seems to provide no real justification for the continued practice. The BIA has for decades enjoyed the authority to independently decide a broad class of cases. It’s members all come to the Board with far more expertise and experience in the field of immigration law than the AG possesses (although since the 2003 purge by then-AG John Ashcroft, its make-up is far more conservative). Furthermore, whereas in the past, it was the BIA itself, and later, the Commissioner of INS, requesting certification, at present, the AG is handpicking the cases and certifying them to himself, sometimes in order to decide an issue that wasn’t part of the decision below.

Law Professor Margaret H. Taylor has noted that the practice of AG certification “might be seen as objectionable because it conflicts with a core value of our legal system: that disputes are resolved by an impartial adjudicator who has no interest in the outcome.”2 Taylor further points out that many such decisions were issued in the final days of an AG’s term, meaning that the AG “refers a controversial issue to himself and renders a decision upending agency precedent on his way out the door.”3

In an article calling for the implementation of procedural safeguards on the AG’s certification power, the author accurately notes that the practice of “agency head review” is common and non-controversial.4 However, Professor Stephen Legomsky has pointed out that the strongest arguments for agency head review – inter-decisional consistency, and agency control (by politically-accountable officials) over policy – don’t translate well to the process of deciding asylum applications, for example.5 This harks back to a point I made in an earlier article – that immigration judges (including BIA Board member) are the only judges in the otherwise enforcement-minded Department of Justice, and that the Department has never really grasped the concept of independent decision-makers existing under its jurisdiction.

Legomsky pointed out in the same article that the BIA, as an appellate authority, “can yield the same consistency as agency head review” through the issuance of en banc decisions; adding that the AG could require the Board to decide certain cases en banc.6 Interestingly, the BIA has given up the use of en banc decisions in recent years. It has not decided a precedent decision en banc even in cases of major import, or following remands from the AG or circuit courts.

Sessions’ use of certification thus far is unique in his redetermination of what the case he chooses is even about. In Matter of Castro-Tum, the DHS appealed an immigration judge’s decision to administratively close proceedings in which an unaccompanied minor did not appear on the grounds that it had met its burden of establishing proper notice of the hearing on the minor respondent. The BIA actually agreed with DHS and remanded the matter. However, Sessions has now turned the case into a referendum on whether any IJ or the BIA has the legal authority to administratively close any case, an argument that was never raised below. In Matter of A-B-, an immigration judge, in defiance of the BIA’s order to grant asylum on remand, refused to calendar the case for a hearing for an excessive length of time, and then disobeyed the Board’s order by denying asylum again for spurious reasons. Somehow, Sessions decided to certify this case to decide whether anyone seeking asylum based on membership in a particular social group relating to being a victim of private criminal activity merits such relief. His ultimate decision could curtail asylum eligibility for victims of domestic violence, members of the LGBTQ community, targets of gang violence, and victims of human trafficking.

Furthermore, two of the cases certified by Sessions involve tools of docket management, i.e. administrative closure and continuances. As immigration judges are the only judges within the Department, and as the BIA has set out uniform procedures for the proper use of these tools, how can the AG justify his need to weigh in on these issues, which clearly do not involve the need for intra-department consistency (as no other component of the department employs such tools), or for control by a politically-accountable official to ensure the coherent expression of agency policy?

Once again, the solution is to create an independent, Article I immigration court, allowing IJs to continue to decide cases with fairness and neutrality free from such policy-driven interference.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Alberto Gonzales and Patrick Glen, Advancing Executive Branch Immigration Policy Through the Attorney General’s Review Authority, 101 Iowa L.Rev. 841 (2016).

Margaret H. Taylor, Midnight Agency Adjudication: Attorney General Review of Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions, 102 Iowa L. Rev. 18 (2016).

Id.

Laura S. Trice, Adjudication by Fiat: The Need for Procedural Safeguards in Attorney General Review of Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1766 (2010).

Stephen H. Legomsky, Learning to Live with Unequal Justice: Asylum and the Limits to Consistency, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 413, 458 (2007).

6. Id.

JEFF CHASE

JUDGE STEPHEN REINHARDT 1931-2018 – Stalwart Defender Of US Constitution, Due Process, & Individual Rights Dies At 87 – “Unapologetic Liberal” Jurist Stood On Principle, Unfazed By Grenades Constantly Lobbed His Way By Right Wing & Supremes!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=92a5fc77-cf2b-4fbf-ac39-2ef3b89812fa

Maura Dolan reports for the LA Times:

By

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the liberal face of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, died Thursday afternoon, a court spokesman said. He was 87.

The spokesman said Reinhardt died of a heart attack during a visit to a dermatologist in Los Angeles.

“All of us here at the 9th Circuit are shocked and deeply saddened by Judge Reinhardt’s death,” 9th Circuit Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas said. “We have lost a wonderful colleague and friend.”

Thomas called Reinhardt “deeply principled, fiercely passionate about the law and fearless in his decisions.”

“He will be remembered as one of the giants of the federal bench. He had a great life that ended much too soon,” Thomas said.

Reinhardt, an appointee of former President Carter, was dubbed the “liberal lion” of the federal circuit courts.

His rulings in favor of criminal defendants, minorities and immigrants were often overturned by the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

Many lawyers have joked that Reinhardt’s name on a ruling was probably enough to get the attention of the conservatives on the Supreme Court. In 1996, after Reinhardt was reversed several times by the Supreme Court, The Times asked him if he was upset.

“Not in the slightest!” he boomed. “If they want to take away rights, that’s their privilege. But I’m not going to help them do it.”

No matter how many reversals he endured, Reinhardt used the bench to try to help the underdog. Just a few months ago, he called The Times to read a reporter a letter from a woman who had just been released from prison and who wanted to thank him for ruling in her favor.

“He was a giant not just on the 9th Circuit but within the law,” UC Berkeley law school Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said. “He also was a judge with a particular vision of the law, based on enforcing the Constitution to protect people.”

Reinhardt joined another judge in ruling that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional, a decision that was later overturned.

He wrote a ruling that said laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide were unconstitutional and another that overturned California’s previous ban on same-sex marriage.

Reinhardt also lamented Supreme Court rulings that limited judges’ ability to overturn convictions and sentences on habeas corpus and complained about the flaws in death penalty cases.

He was among the federal judges who decided that overcrowding in California’s prison system was unconstitutional.

“His view was to decide cases as he believed the law required, not to predict what the Supreme Court would do,” Chemerinsky said. “He was unapologetic about that.”

Conservatives often railed against Reinhardt, calling him lawless. They accused him of never voting to uphold a death sentence. Reinhardt, asked about that, said he was not sure.

He was particularly close to former 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, considered a conservative with libertarian views. They were dubbed the “odd couple.”

When Kozinski retired under pressure in December in response to sexual harassment allegations, Reinhardt bemoaned the departure. He said he kept a photograph of Kozinski planting a kiss on his cheek in his chambers.

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

Read Dolan’s complete obit on Judge Reinhardt at the above link.

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

My friend and former BIA colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg added this heartfelt tribute:

I am heartbroken to learn of Judge Reinhardt’s dying. Just knowing he was alive and participating in our courts gave me deep hope that justice would prevail, at least in some quarters. I am so fortunate to have known him and to have spent a tiny bit of time with him and his wife at an international meeting years ago. He is a giant among judges. I will miss him.

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

Here’s an excerpt from my favorite Judge Reinhardt concurring opinion in Magna-Ortiz v. Sessions:

The government’s insistence on expelling a good man from the country in which he has lived for the past 28 years deprives his children of their right to be with their father, his wife of her right to be with her husband, and our country of a productive and responsible member of our community. Magana Ortiz, who first entered the United States at 15, is now 43 years old, and during his almost three decades here has raised a family and built a successful life. All of his children, ages 12, 14, and 20, were born in this country and are American citizens, as is his wife. His eldest daughter currently attends the University of Hawaii, and he is paying for her education.

. . .

President Trump has claimed that his immigration policies would target the “bad hombres.” The government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz shows that even the “good hombres” are not safe.3 Magana Ortiz is by all accounts a pillar of his community and a devoted father and husband. It is difficult to see how the government’s decision to expel him is consistent with the President’s promise of an immigration system with “a lot of heart.” I find no such compassion in the government’s choice to deport Magana Ortiz.

We are unable to prevent Magana Ortiz’s removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system. Indeed, the government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice. Magana Ortiz and his family are in truth not the only victims. Among the others are judges who, forced to participate in such inhumane acts, suffer a loss of dignity and humanity as well. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not.

2 The family’s right to occupy their home will terminate upon Magana Ortiz’s removal.

3 On January 25, 2017, the President signed a series of executive orders dismantling the system of priorities that had previously guided Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol in determining whom to deport. The orders also gave far greater authority to individual agents and officers, who are now removing non-citizens simply because they are here illegally, regardless of whether they have committed any offense. In light of the breadth of these orders and the lack of any apparent limit on agents’ discretion, the undocumented must now choose between going to work, school, hospitals, and even court, and the risk of being seized. See James Queally, ICE Agents Make Arrests at Courthouses, L.A. Times, March 16, 2017.

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

I must say that I had the same feelings as Judge Reinhardt on a number of occasions in my judicial career, although I never expressed them as eloquently as he did.

The wastefulness and futility of spending Government time, money, and authority removing fine people who were making remarkable contributions to our country, our economy, and our society certainly was apparent at the Immigration Court level. That this Administration has cynically chosen to aggravate this inhumane and quite frankly stupid situation rather than to attempt to fix it is most disheartening as is the fact that by placing them and retaining them in power we all become complicit in their bias and injustice! Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

You can read the 9th Circuit’s complete decision in Magana Ortiz v. Sessions including Judge Reinhardt’s concurrence at this link:

Magana-Ortiz-9thReinhardt17-16014

PWS

03-30-18

NPR: Sessions Out To Destroy US Immigration Court System — “All the more reason why we need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court removed from the political shenanigans and enforcement bias of Sessions and his DOJ!”

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/29/597863489/sessions-want-to-overrule-judges-who-put-deportation-cases-on-hold

Joel Rose reports for NPR:

The Trump administration has been trying to ramp up deportations of immigrants in the country illegally. But one thing has been standing in its way: Immigration judges often put these cases on hold.

Now Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering overruling the judges.

One practice that is particularly infuriating to Sessions and other immigration hard-liners is called administrative closure. It allows judges to put deportation proceedings on hold indefinitely.

“Basically they have legalized the person who was coming to court, because they were illegally in the country,” Sessions said during a speech in December.

Sessions is using his authority over the immigration court system to review a number of judicial decisions. If he overturns those decisions, thousands of other cases could be affected. In this way, he is expected to end administrative closure, or scale it back.

The attorney general may also limit when judges can grant continuances and who qualifies for asylum in the United States.

This could reshape the nation’s immigration courts, which are overseen by the Justice Department, and make them move faster. Sessions says he is trying to clear a massive backlog of cases that is clogging the docket.

But critics say he is weighing changes that would threaten the due process rights of immigrants, and the integrity of immigration courts.

“What he wants is an immigration court system which is rapid, and leads to lots of deportations,” said Nancy Morawetz, who teaches the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University School of Law.

“It’s really just an unprecedented move by the attorney general to change the way the whole system works,” she said.

It’s rare for an attorney general to exercise this power, but Sessions has done it four times in the past three months.

Separately, for the first time, the Justice Department is setting quotas for immigration judges, pushing them to resolve cases quickly in order to meet performance standards.

It’s not just immigration lawyers who are worried about the effect of any changes. The union that represents immigration judges is concerned, too.

“A lot of what they are doing raises very serious concerns about the integrity of the system,” said Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, “judges are supposed to be free from these external pressures.”

The attorney general insists he’s trying to make sure that judges are deciding cases “fairly and efficiently.” And says he is trying to clear a backlog of nearly 700,000 cases.

That is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of cases in administrative closure. Nearly 200,000 immigration cases have been put on hold in this way in the past five years alone.

“Far and away, administrative closure was being abused,” said Cheryl David, a former immigration judge who is now a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for lower levels of immigration.

He says many of those cases should have ended in deportation. “But rather than actually going through that process, the Obama administration simply administratively closed them. And took them off the docket to be forgotten,” he said.

Sessions has chosen to personally review the case of an undocumented immigrant named Reynaldo Castro-Tum who didn’t show up for his removal hearing. The judge wondered whether the man ever got the notice to appear in court and put his deportation proceedings on hold.

In a legal filing in January, Sessions asked whether judges have the authority to order administrative closure and under what circumstances.

Immigration lawyers and judges say there are legitimate reasons to administratively close a case. For instance, some immigrants are waiting for a final decision on visa or green card applications.

There is a backlog for those applications, too. They’re granted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is separate from immigration court. And that can take months, if not years.

Immigration lawyers and judges are worried that undocumented immigrants could be deported in the meantime.

“You know this is not the private sector where you pay extra money and you can get it done in two days,” said Cheryl David, an immigration lawyer in New York.

David represents hundreds of undocumented immigrants who are facing deportation. She often asks judges to put the proceedings on hold.

“It gives our clients some wiggle room to try and move forward on applications,” she said. “These are human beings, they’re not files.”

Immigration lawyers say these changes could affect immigrants across the country.

Brenda DeLeon has applied for a special visa for crime victims who are undocumented. She says her boyfriend beat her up, and she went to the police.

She came to the U.S. illegally from El Salvador in 2015, fleeing gang violence, and settled in North Carolina.

“If I go back, then my life is in danger,” DeLeon said through a translator. “And not only mine, but my children’s lives too.”

For now, a judge has put DeLeon’s deportation case on hold while she waits for an answer on her visa application.

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

Get the full audio version from NPR at the above link.

Haste makes waste! Gimmicks to cut corners, deny due process, and cover up the Administration’s own incompetent and politically driven mal-administration of the Immigration Courts is likely to cause an adverse reaction by the “real courts” — the Article III Courts of Appeals — who ultimately have to “sign off” on the railroading of individuals back to potentially deadly situations.

I also have some comments on this article.

In Castro-Tum, on appeal the BIA panel corrected the Immigration Judge’s error in administratively closing the case. Consequently, there was no valid reason for the Attorney General’s “certification” and using the case for a wide ranging inquiry into administrative closing that was almost completely divorced from the facts of Castro-Tum.
I also question Judge Arthur’s unsupported assertion that “Far and away administrative closing was being abused.”
- According to TRAC Immigration, administrative closing of cases as an exercise of “prosecutorial discretion” by the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel accounted for a mere 6.7% of total administrative closings during the four-year period ending in FY 2015.
- In Arlington where I sat, administrative closing by the Assistant Chief Counsel was a very rigorous process that required the respondent to document good conduct, length of residence, family ties, employment, school records, payment of taxes, community involvement, and other equities and contributions to the U.S. With 10 to 11 million so-called “undocumented” individuals in the U.S., removing such individuals, who were actually contributing to their communities, would have been a complete waste of time and limited resources.
- The largest number of administrative closings in Arlington probably resulted from individuals in Immigration Court who:
  - Had been granted DACA status by USCIS;
  - Had been granted TPS by USCIS;
  - Had approved “U” nonimmigrant visas as “victims of crime,” but were waiting for the allocation of a visa number by the USCIS;
  - Had visa petitions or other applications that could ultimately have qualified them for permanent legal immigration pending adjudication by the USCIS.
- Contrary to Judge Arthur’s claim, the foregoing types of cases either had legitimate claims for relief that could only be granted by or with some action by the USCIS, or, as in the case of TPS and DACA, the individuals were not then removable. Administrative closing of such cases was not an “abuse,” but rather eminently reasonable.
- Moreover, individuals whose applications or petitions ultimately were denied by the USCIS, or who violated the terms under which the case had been closed by failing to appear for a scheduled interview or being picked up for a criminal offense were restored to the Immigration Court’s “active docket” upon motion of the DHS.

There are almost 700,000 cases now on the Immigration Courts’ docket — representing many years of work even if there were no new filings and new judges were added. Moreover, the cases are continuing to be filed in a haphazard manner with neither judgement nor restraint by an irresponsible Administration which is allowing DHS Enforcement to “go Gonzo.” To this existing mess, Sessions and Arthur propose adding hundreds of thousands of previously administratively closed cases, most of which shouldn’t have been on the docket in the first place.

So, if they had their way, we’d be up over one million cases in Immigration Court without any transparent, rational plan for adjudicating them fairly and in conformity with due process at any time in the foreseeable future. Sure sounds like fraud, waste, and abuse of the system by Sessions and DHS to me. All the more reason why we need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court removed from the political shenanigans and enforcement bias of Sessions and his DOJ. We need this reform sooner, rather than later!

PWS

03-30-18

STEVE VLADECK: How U.S. Courts Undermine Our Constitution — A Constitution Without Remedy For Violations Is An Empty Document!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/increasingly-unenforceable-constitution.html

Vladeck writes in a New York Times op-ed:

For all of the attention that we pay to our constitutional rights, we devote stunningly little attention to the more legalistic — but no less important — topic of how those rights are enforced. And as a largely unnoticed rulinglast week by the full United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit demonstrates, the Supreme Court has quietly made it all but impossible for most victims of constitutional violations by the federal government to obtain relief.

Not only is this development antithetical to the core purpose of having an independent judiciary, but it will almost certainly lead to more unconstitutional conduct by even the most well-meaning federal officers, who, in most cases, no longer have to seriously worry about the specter of judicial review.

Image
Maria Guadalupe Guereca’s son was shot dead in Mexico near the border by a patrol agent on the U.S. side.CreditYuri Cortez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The case that the New Orleans-based federal appeals court ruled on involved the fatal cross-border shooting of an unarmed 15-year-old Mexican national on Mexican soil by a United States Border Patrol agent standing on American soil. The family of the victim, Sergio Hernández, sued the responsible agent, Jesus Mesa, claiming that the shooting was unprovoked and violated the teenager’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Whether the Constitution protects a foreign national standing on foreign soil in a case like this is an interesting and still-open question. But rather than resolving that issue, the Court of Appeals held, by a 13-2 vote, that it didn’t matter; even if the shooting violated clearly established constitutional rights, the majority concluded, the federal courts should not recognize a remedy of damages for fear of intruding upon the legislative and executive branches of government.

. . . .

That’s a troubling conclusion, because government officers like Agent Mesa will have less of a reason to worry about the constitutional rights of those with whom they interact. But at a deeper level, our constitutional rights aren’t worth all that much if there’s no mechanism for enforcing them. One can only hope that sometime soon the Supreme Court comes to its senses and agrees.

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

Go on over to the NYT at the link for the full op-ed.

I decried the Fifth Circuit’s dereliction of duty in a recent blog focusing on the much more persuasively reasoned and powerful dissent by Judge Edward Prado. But, only one of his other 14 black-robed Ivory Towerists were willing to join Judge Prado, step up to the plate, and defend our constitutional rights. What kind of folks and jurists are getting these lifetime sinecures just to avoid controversy and not to stand up for what’s right?

Yup. Today it’s just some Mexican kid (who also happened to be a human being and someone’s son) who was shot by the Border Patrol. But, tomorrow it might be your son or daughter or you yourself whose rights are violated. And, who is going to step up and vindicate your constitutional rights? Certainly not the 13 judges of the Fifth Circuit majority in Hernandez v. Mesa who looked for and found ways to avoid their collective duty to uphold our Constitution.

PWS

03-29-18

JOSHUA MATZ IN WASHPOST: The Litigating Strategy Of Unrelenting Animus – Will It Eventually Win For The Trumpsters, Even While Destroying Our Legal System?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/getting-deja-vu-on-trumps-transgender-ban-youre-not-alone/2018/03/27/4e78091e-312e-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html

By Joshua Matz March 27 at 7:14 PM

Joshua Matz is a constitutional lawyer based in the District. He is also the publisher of the legal analysis blog Take Care.

President Trump is hard at work making animus the law of the land. Justice Department lawyers revealed his latest effort Friday night, announcing a revised plan to exclude nearly all transgender soldiers from the armed forces.

As many commentators have observed, the reasoning offered to support Trump’s policy is riddled with empirical errors and anti-trans stereotypes. It comes nowhere close to disproving the comprehensive study in 2016 that recommended allowing transgender people to serve openly. Like so many other missives from this White House, it makes only a token effort to conceal the disdain and disgust that underlie it.

Trump’s original “transgender ban” was blocked by four federal courts. After two of those rulings were affirmed on appeal, the administration decided against seeking Supreme Court review. It’s therefore safe to assume that Trump’s latest order will not go into effect unless it survives constitutional challenges.

And in thinking about that litigation, it’s hard to escape a feeling of deja vu. A little more than 14 months into Trump’s presidency, a pattern has emerged in cases challenging some of his most despicable decisions.

. . . .

It remains to be seen when and where these arguments will succeed. As a logical matter, there must be some limits. Evidence that Trump originally acted with impermissible motives cannot (and should not) permanently preclude him from making policy.

But that isn’t the situation we confront. Trump has made no effort whatsoever to dispel or deny the aura of animus that envelops so many of his orders. To the contrary, he and his advisers have leaned into the hate. With each passing day, it spreads like a poison.

We thus live in a strange new world, where bigots serve openly and soldiers are forced into closets.

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

Go on over to the WashPost at the link for the complete article.

The problem, as noted by Matz, is that our system isn’t designed to deal with unremitting hate and bias from it’s most active, and supposedly most responsible, litigant, the U.S. Government. Usually, after a few “warning shots across the bow,” the Executive gets the picture and changes strategies.

But, led by White Nationalists like Trump and Sessions, this Administration simply “doubles down” on thinly disguised hate and bias motivated policies. At some point, the Article III courts are likely to become both frustrated and exhausted. By continuing to “knock down” bias-based policies and actions, the Article IIIs become part of the political fray, which makes them uncomfortable. Perhaps at that point, they will just start giving Trump & Co. “free passes.” Indeed, some Federal Courts, including perhaps the Supremes, already appear prepared to “punt” on the daily dose of legally questionable and indecent legal positions spewed forth by this Administration.

PWS

03-29-18

BIA IN FANTASYLAND: Evidence Continues To Mount That BIA’s Deference To Border Statements In Matter of J-C-H-F- Was a Flight of Fantasy That No Reasonable Fact Finder Would Have Reached – How You Can Fight Back Against This Blatant Perversion Of Justice!

http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/03/26/uscis-records-abusing-asylum-seekers/

AARON REICHLIN-MELNICK writes in Immigration Impact:

As thousands of Central American families arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border asking for asylum in 2014, human rights organizations raised alarms about asylum seekers’ treatment by Customs and Border Protection officials. But these organizations were not the only ones expressing concern—asylum officers within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also raised alarms about CBP misbehavior.

A new Freedom of Information Act lawsuit hopes to reveal how asylum officials’ repeated concerns about CBP officer misconduct were left unaddressed. The lawsuit, filed by Human Rights Watch and Nixon Peabody LLP, seeks information about such misbehavior, including hundreds of reports that CBP failed to properly screen asylum seekers.

This lawsuit comes after Human Rights Watch, along with the American Immigration Council, filed a FOIA request asking for records of complaints made by officers in USCIS’s Asylum Division. The lawsuit asks USCIS to turn over all records of complaints about CBP misconduct from 2006 to 2015, arguing that the agency violated FOIA by failing to provide requested key documents following the original request. These documents included a spreadsheet where asylum officers purportedly documented hundreds of instances of “problematic Border Patrol practices.”

CBP officers at ports of entry and along the U.S. border are generally the first to encounter newly arriving asylum seekers. When asylum seekers express a fear of returning to their home country to a CBP officer, the officer is required to refer them to an asylum officer with USCIS for an interview. The asylum officer decides whether the asylum seeker has a “credible fear” of persecution, a determination which allows the asylum seeker to pursue an asylum case in immigration court.

Because these credible fear interviews occur after an asylum seeker has already been processed by CBP officers at the border or ports of entry, asylum officers are able to ask about any encounters with CBP. The limited records USCIS offered in response to the FOIA show that asylum officers often had serious concerns about the behavior of its sister agency.

The documents produced to date demonstrate how grave the problem is:

One email from an asylum officer to a supervisor expresses a belief that there are “significant issues in how some Border Patrol officers are screening individuals.”

A second email discusses an incident where “CBP mocked a transgender woman for hours and refused to record her fear” of returning to her home country. These internal reports of CBP abuse match the reports of many asylum seekers who encountered abuse at the hands of CBP officers during the same time period.

A third email from an asylum officer expressed concerns that an asylum seeker was coerced into withdrawing his request for asylum, with the officer writing that: “What is especially disturbing about this is that … the record indicates that [the asylum seeker] has been subjected to harassment, intimidation, and physical mistreatment by CBP upon his recent entry into the United States, and this mistreatment. . . affected his decision to dissolve his case.”

Records of CBP’s mistreatment of asylum seekers is especially important as the numbers of asylum-seekers at the border continue to rise. Last year, groups sued CBP, alleging a pattern or practice of unlawfully turning away asylum seekers who arrived at ports of entry and requested asylum. In light of CBP’s own inadequate complaint system, this new lawsuit could substantiate the many reports of the agency’s misconduct.

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

Both Judge Jeffrey Chase and I have “roasted” in prior blogs the BIA’s disingenuous and “clearly erroneous greenlighting” of Border Patrol statements in Matter of J-C-H-F, 27 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 2018). Quite contrary to the BIA’s unjustified “head in the sand” presumption of regularity given these flawed statements, there is clear public evidence, compiled over more than a decade, that such statements should be considered “presumptively unreliable.”

In addition to addressing the elements of the bogus “test” enunciated by the BIA in J-C-H-F- what should advocates do to fight this type of clearly biased, largely “fact free,” unwarranted pro-DHS decision-making by the BIA?

First, as Jeffrey and I have pointed out, get the publicly available reports of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (“USCIRF”) which show that glaring errors in accuracy and reliability raised as long ago as 2006 remained unaddressed as of 2016.
Second, use the additional materials cited in the above article to show how DHS has suppressed its own internal documents establishing the unreliability of the Border Patrol statements.
Third, get in touch with Human Rights Watch and the American Immigration Council to see if any additional FOIA materials have been made available which establish unreliability.
Fourth, ask someone from Human Rights Watch about a database I have heard they are establishing to provide “hard evidence” to challenge the reliability of Border Patrol statements.

In the “Age of Sessions,” I wouldn’t hold my breath for the “captive” BIA to recede from its travesty in J-C-H-F-. That’s why it’s critically important for advocates to do a great job of “setting the record straight” in the Courts of Appeals.

But, to do that, evidence challenging the Border Patrol statements must be offered at the trial stage before the Immigration Judge. Documenting and exposing the BIA’s disingenuous decision-making will also undermine the BIA’s overall credibility before the Courts of Appeals and perhaps eventually lead to a reversal of the unjustified “Chevron deference” the Board currently receives.

Today’s Board masquerades as a deliberative “expert tribunal” that neither publicly deliberates nor possesses any obvious expertise — a situation aggravated because nobody who works for the biased White Nationalist xenophobe Jeff Sessions can legitimately be considered “unbiased” or “impartial” when it comes to adjudication of migrants rights. Don’t forget, even if the BIA rules in the respondent’s favor, something that happens less and less these days, each an every BIA decision is subject to an inappropriate “certification and reversal” process by Sessions that he has shown little hesitation in invoking recently.

How can a respondent receive a “fair hearing” from a “court” where the Government’s leading enforcement figure holds all the cards? Obviously, he or she can’t! You can help make a record that eventually should force the “Article III’s” to shut down this “caricature of American justice.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-28-17

TAL @ CNN: Administration’s Plan To Request Citizenship Information In Census Provokes New Litigation!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/census-commerce-department-immigration-california/index.html

California sues over Census citizenship question

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Progressives, states and civil rights advocates are preparing a flurry of legal challenges to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the next census, saying the move will penalize immigrants and threaten civil rights.

The late Monday move from the Commerce Department, which it said came in response a request by the Justice Department, would restore a question about citizenship that has not appeared on the census since the 1950s. The administration said the data was necessary to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The state of California immediately challenged the plan in federal court.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Secretary of State Alex Padilla trashed the move as anti-immigrant.

“The citizenship question is the latest attempt by President Trump to stoke the fires of anti-immigrant hostility,” Padilla said in a statement. “Now, in one fell swoop, the US Commerce Department has ignored its own protocols and years of preparation in a concerted effort to suppress a fair and accurate census count from our diverse communities. The administration’s claim that it is simply seeking to protect voting rights is not only laughable, but contemptible.”

Former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder also blasted the move and said his organization, which focuses on voting enfranchisement and redistricting, would also pursue litigation against what he called an “irresponsible decision.”

Holder said contrary to the rationale presented by the Justice Department, Holder said he and other modern-era attorneys general were “perfectly” able to handle those legal matters without such a question on the Census.

“The addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy,” Holder said in a statement. “Make no mistake — this decision is motivated purely by politics. In deciding to add this question without even testing its effects, the administration is departing from decades of census policy and ignoring the warnings of census experts.”

Critics of the move say that including such a question on a government survey will scare non-citizens and vulnerable immigrant communities into under-reporting. By undercounting these populations, they argue, there will be a major impact that follows on voting and federal funds.

Because the once-a-decade census is used to determine congressional and political districts and to dole out federal resources, an undercount in heavily immigrant areas could substantially impact certain states and major cities and potentially their representation at the federal level.

The question has not been on the full census since the 1950s, but does appear on the yearly American Community Survey administered by the Census Bureau to give a fuller picture of life in America and the population.

The Commerce Department said the decision came after a “thorough review” of the request from the Justice Department. The priority, Commerce said, was “obtaining complete and accurate data.”

“Having citizenship data at the census block level will permit more effective enforcement of the VRA, and Secretary Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts,” the statement said.

Becerra and his state have been central to virtually every legal challenge of the Trump administration on issues ranging from immigration, to the environment, to health care. The Justice Department has also sued California over its so-called sanctuary policies to protect immigrants.

More challenges could soon follow.

Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, a nonprofit that works on issues of justice and civil rights, said the question had no place in the Census.

“Our Constitution requires a complete and accurate count of everyone living in the country, no matter her or his citizenship status. The administration’s decision to add a citizenship question is at best a dramatic misstep, and at worst a politically-motivated move that will undermine a fair and accurate census,” Weiser said. “This question is a dangerous move that could lead to a serious skewing of the final census results, which would have a deleterious effect on our system of representative democracy. We urge the administration to reconsider.”

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

The idea that the Justice Department under Jeff Sessions wants this information to enforce the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) is preposterous on its face! So far, the only interest that Sessions and his crew at the DOJ have shown in the VRA is to insure that White GOP voters are enfranchised and that African-Americans and other minorities are disenfranchised.

Because all individuals in a congressional district are entitled to representation, regardless of citizenship status or other legal status, promoting an undercount (which is what the Administration obviously intends) will work to the disadvantage of those districts with large populations of immigrants, whether legal or illegal.

Stay tuned. There probably are many more similar suits to come, and “Tal is on the ball” to keep us completely informed.

PWS

03-27-18

JUDGE EDWARD C. PRADO DISSENTS FROM 5TH CIRCUIT’S ABANDONMENT OF CONSTITUTION IN BIVENS CASE — HERNANDEZ V. MESA

Hernandezv.Mesa,Bivens,5th

Hernandez v. Mesa, 5th Cir., 03-20-18, published

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court

BEFORE 5TH CIRCUIT EN BANC: STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

MAJORITY OPINION: EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge, joined by STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, DENNIS,** CLEMENT, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES,*** HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

** Judge Dennis concurs in the judgment.
*** Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment and with the majority opinion’s conclusion that Bivens should not extend to the circumstances of this case.

DISSENTING OPINION: EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge, joined by GRAVES, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

EXCEPTS FROM JUDGE PRADO’S DISSENT:

“Today’s en banc majority denies Sergio Hernandez’s parents a Bivens remedy for the loss of their son at the hands of a United States Border Patrol agent. The majority asserts that the transnational nature of this case presents a new context under Bivens and that special factors counsel against this Court’s interference. While I agree that this case presents a new context, I would find that no special factors counsel hesitation in recognizing a Bivens remedy because this case centers on an individual federal officer acting in his law enforcement capacity. I respectfully dissent.

. . . .

In sum, this Court is more than qualified to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed. This case simply involves a federal official engaged in his law enforcement duties acting on United States soil who shot and killed an unarmed fifteen-year-old boy standing a few feet away. I would elect to recognize a damages remedy for this tragic injury. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803). In this case, I would recognize a Bivens remedy for this senseless cross-border shooting at the hands of a federal law enforcement officer. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”

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

Judge Edward C. Prado is nor just “any” U.S. Circuit Judge. Among other things in his long and distinguished career, Judge Prado was the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas during the Reagan Administration. I dealt with him on some immigration issues during my as the Deputy General Counsel in the “Legacy INS” during that time. He is a gentleman and a scholar.

Perhaps appropriately, this is likely to be Judge Prado’s last major published opinion. On March 22, 2018, he was confirmed by the Senate as the U.S. Ambassador to Argentina. Congratulations Ambassador Prado; thanks for leaving us this great dissent as a reminder of how the law should be interpreted and applied!

PWS

03-25-18

FOUNDERING IN THE STORM: Trump & His Lawyers Deserve Each Other — That’s Why Stormy & Friends Have Been Outmaneuvering “Team Trump!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/opinion/donald-trump-lawyers.html

Gail Collins in the NYT:

“Gee, we’ve been hearing a ton about the turmoil in the president’s legal team. You probably have questions.

Is this something else I have to think about in the middle of the night when I’m staring at the ceiling? Because really, I’ve got enough.

We’re talking about chaos and turnover among the people defending Donald Trump in his multitudinous legal battles. If that’s the kind of thing that keeps you awake at night, it’s time to prioritize. Have a drink and relax.

I need to know immediately if I am paying to protect the president from Stormy Daniels.

No, the people getting taxpayer salaries work in the White House counsel’s office, and their job is to advise the president about what’s legal. Like, whether or not he could sign a bill banning imported scallops. Or, say, sabotage the Russia probe. The current counsel, Don McGahn, reportedly threatened to resign when Trump wanted to can Robert Mueller.

I’ve been looking for somebody to admire in the White House. Should it be Don McGahn?

Up to you. He was formerly a member of the Federal Election Commission who hated campaign-finance reform so much he once tore up the F.E.C. rule book at a meeting and threw the shredded chunks at a Democrat. He lobbied Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. He was an enabler on that immigrant travel ban.

On the other hand, he used to be a guitarist in a rock band.

Everybody used to be a guitarist in a rock band. But about the president’s team: I know a lot of recent law school graduates who are desperate for jobs. They’re cleaning tables at Arby’s. Should I tell them there’s a lot of turnover and they ought to send in a résumé?

Have they ever been on Fox News? It definitely helps if you were a guest on Fox a lot.

I don’t understand how these busy lawyers have so much time to appear on TV.

Totally part of the job. Trump just hired Joe diGenova, who’s currently famous for having argued on Fox that a secret cabal of F.B.I. agents created the whole Russia investigation to “frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime.”

O.K., I’ll ask the people who want to get lawyer gigs if they’d mind going on right-wing radio and saying something about how Trump is a victim of the deep state. Is the pay good?

On the government side, $179,700 is the top.

I think my friends could handle that.

There’s a guy named Ty Cobb who sort of coordinates between the president’s personal lawyers and the government on all the Russia stuff. It’s on the public tab, and to take it, he left a job that paid at least a million dollars a year.

Just tell me if he’s related to the baseball player.

I think vaguely. Anyhow, he’s gotten in trouble for talking about office politics — loudly — in a public restaurant. So I guess value depends on your perspective.

Meanwhile, the president’s lawyer John Dowd just made a fuss when he called for an end to the special counsel investigation. Which he said was Trump’s idea. Then he denied it. But it probably was.

Trump must be a difficult client, right?

Well, Michael Cohen, the Trump lawyer handling the Stormy Daniels case, said he used his very own home equity line of credit to raise the $130,000 he gave her in hush money.

On his own house? What kind of lawyer does that?

I guess a super-dedicated one. Unless somehow the president or his friends managed to funnel the cash back in a manner so subtle it will never be revealed. Until the next leak.

I can see why there’s so much turnover.

Yet sometimes it feels as if nobody ever really goes away. One of the early Trump lawyers, Marc Kasowitz, seemed to be getting crazier and crazier last summer. When a man wrote an email that he should resign, Kasowitz came back with a message that said, in part: “I’m Jewish. I presume you are, too. … I already know where you live. I’m on to you. You might as well call me. You will see me. I promise. Bro.”

For a while it looked as if Kasowitz was fading away. But now he’s back! In court arguing that as a sitting president, Trump cannot be sued by a woman who says he molested her during his “Apprentice” days.

That would be Stormy Daniels?

Oh gosh no. This is Summer Zervos, who says Trump came on with an unnerving series of gropes, and then when she resisted claimed “that he did not believe that she had ever known love or been in love.”

The interesting thing about this one is that Zervos is only suing Trump for $2,914 for defaming her when he denied the story. Kasowitz has so far been unsuccessful in arguing that the president’s denial is “political speech” protected by the First Amendment.

So the worse the team gets, the better for the country?

Right now, Stormy’s lawyer is making mincemeat of Trump’s legal representation. For the sake of argument, let’s say the special prosecutor has assembled at least as strong a team as the stripper did.

Could be an, um, stormy summer.”

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

Sure enough, John Dowd, one of Trump’s personal lawyers on the “Russia Team” resigned on Thursday!

PWS

03-23-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE RETURNS WITH MORE ANALYSIS OF RETIRED JUDGES’ AMICUS BRIEF IN C.J.L.G. V. SESSIONS

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/3/21/amicus-brief-filed-in-cjlg-v-sessions

Mar 21 Amicus Brief Filed in C.J.L.G. v. Sessions

On March 15, lawyers with the firm of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of 11 former immigration judges and BIA Board members in the case of C.J.L.G. v. Sessions. The case involves a child from Honduras who appeared in immigration court accompanied only by his mother. As the respondent could not obtain a lawyer in the time afforded, the immigration judge went forward with the hearing, informing the mother that she would “represent” her son.

The respondent is an asylum applicant whose gang-related claim rested on his ability to precisely delineate a particular social group pursuant to requirements complex enough to stump most attorneys. As his mother lacked any legal training, his hearing did not go well. On appeal, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of the claim. In its decision, the BIA determined that the respondent did not suffer past persecution when at the age of 13, members of MS-13, a brutal, multinational gang, threatened to kill him, his mother, and his aunt if he refused to join their ranks, put a gun to his head to emphasize their point, and told him that he had one day to decide. The BIA also found the hearing before the IJ to have been fair, and that the respondent was not denied due process because the immigration laws do not require the appointment of counsel in removal proceedings.

Hon. Dana Marks, an outstanding jurist and president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges, often states that immigration judges hear “death penalty cases under traffic court conditions.” What she means by this is that a genuine asylum seeker who is denied relief and deported faces the risk of death in the country from which he or she fled. Yet the conditions under which such life-or-death claims are heard are inadequate; the limited time and resources afforded to the judges hearing such claims are better suited for a court hearing much lower stakes matters such as traffic tickets. Courts hearing cases involving matters of life and liberty have a higher obligation to afford due process. First and foremost, a defendant facing criminal charges in a state or federal court is entitled to assigned counsel. However, although the stakes may be higher in an asylum case, respondents in immigration court have no such entitlement. Although the respondent in C.J.L.G. may face death if deported, having a judge determine it was fine to proceed, and telling his mother that she would represent him sounds like something that might be appropriate in traffic court.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the respondent’s petition for review. Interestingly, the respondent was found credible in his recounting of the death threats he suffered and as to his fear of return; the court accepted the statistics provided by respondent’s counsel that unrepresented respondents succeed on their claims only 10 percent of the time, whereas as represented minors enjoy a 47 percent success rate. The court also assumed that the respondent qualifies as an indigent (due to his mother’s inability to afford private counsel), and that ordering him removed would send him “back to a hostile environment where he has faced death threats in the past implicates his freedom.” The court further acknowledged that the immigration laws and regulations include assuring minors “the right to a ‘full and fair hearing,’ which includes the ‘opportunity to present evidence and testimony on one’s behalf,’ cross-examine witnesses, and examine and object to adverse evidence.” It would be difficult to argue that an unrepresented minor is capable of exercising such rights.

In spite of this, the court denied the petition, determining that there was no Constitutional right to assigned counsel at government expense to minors in removal proceedings. The court further found that the respondent had not demonstrated prejudice, as he had not established a nexus to a protected ground as required to establish eligibility.

The ACLU has filed a petition for the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc. It is in support of this latest petition that the latest amicus brief was filed. I am one of the former IJs included in the brief; I join my colleagues in being proud to assist in such a noble effort as securing assigned counsel for immigrant children facing the legal complexities and dire consequences of immigration proceedings. In a nutshell, the brief argues that the efforts of an immigration judge to provide a fair hearing is no substitute for counsel. Immigration judges can only do so much faced with “overburdened and growing dockets, the complexity of immigration law, and, as Department of Justice (DOJ) employees, the constraints of administrative policy.”

The problem is compounded in cases in which the asylum claim is based on membership in a particular social group. The BIA has recently held that an asylum applicant must specifically delineate such group, a requirement that is clearly beyond the ability of a child (or his or her mother) to do. As the brief points out, in this case, the respondent “ and his mother showed no understanding of why a gang-related threat alone would not warrant asylum, but the IJ’s cursory inquiry ended without seeking the motivation for the threat.”

Of course, the entire issue could be resolved by the Department of Justice choosing to do what is right by agreeing to provide assigned counsel at government expense to this most vulnerable group.

Heartfelt thanks to partner Harrison J. “Buzz” Frahn and associate Lee Brand of the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett for their dedication and effort in drafting the excellent brief.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE
Mar 10 The AG’s Strange Decision in Matter of E-F-H-L-
fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Blog Archive Contact

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

As pointed out by Jeffrey, this is an incredibly important case for Due Process under our Constitution! Let’s hope that the en banc Ninth gives it a close look.

PWS

03-22-18

Related posts:

Here’s an article by Tal Kopan @ CNN on the latest memos:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Mar 29 The AG’s Certifying of BIA Decisions

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: