"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Dalia Castillo-Granados and Yasmin Yavar. So far this year, the Children’s Immigration Law Academy has responded to more than 300 legal technical assistance questions. It has coordinated five in-depth virtual trainings and hosted eight webinars that attracted more than 1,600 attendees.
Dalia Castillo-Granados had just begun her fellowship with the St. Frances Cabrini Center for Immigrant Legal Assistance, a program of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, when she met Yasmin Yavar in 2008.
Like Castillo-Granados, Yavar focused a lot of her attention on special immigrant juvenile status cases as the pro bono coordinator of Kids in Need of Defense’s new office in Houston. Despite changes in the law that allowed more children to apply for this form of immigration relief—which gives those who have been abused, neglected or abandoned a pathway to lawful permanent residence in the United States—attorneys were just beginning to test the waters in this area.
After collaborating on a case, Castillo-Granados and Yavar stayed in touch and created their own support system.
“There was a very small community of attorneys, even nationwide, representing unaccompanied children,” says Castillo-Granados. “In Houston, Yasmin and I were trying to get into state court and educating judges about why we were there. We had each other on speed dial, calling to talk over strategy and get suggestions and push the cases forward.”
Several years later, as an increasing number of unaccompanied children crossed the United States-Mexico border, Castillo-Granados and Yavar wanted to support the legal service providers and volunteer attorneys who were taking their cases. They drafted a plan for a legal resource center focused on children’s immigration law, and Yavar, who had worked with the ABA’s South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project in Harlingen, Texas, shared it with Commission on Immigration Director Meredith Linsky.
At the time, Linsky met regularly with the ABA Working Group on Unaccompanied Minor Immigrants. Its members liked the idea, and in September 2015, Linsky helped Castillo-Granados and Yavar launch the Children’s Immigration Law Academy.
“We decided to do exactly what we did for each other back when we were starting, but for everyone else,” says Castillo-Granados, who serves as CILA’s director.
. . . .
******************
Read Amanda’s full article at the link.
Here’s an interesting contrast in problem-solving, creative thinking, dynamic leadership, and effectively using resources. Between 2008, when they met, and 2021, Dalia and Yasmin experienced an approximately 15X growth in the number of unaccompanied children, from 8,000 to 120,000. Faced with this stressful situation and a U.S. Government that under Administrations of both parties has displayed a rather callous indifference to child welfare, it would have been easy to give up and take their talents to another area of law!
Because they worked for an NGO, the couldn’t demand more resources or claim that drastic reductions in children’s rights, harsher enforcement, or “deterrence” were the “only solutions.” Interestingly, these were exactly the type of “rote, alarmist, reactionary reactions” that the Obama Administration had and that the Trump Administration tried to “implement” without the benefit of legislation.
Dalia and Yasmin viewed the problem as challenging, yet solvable, came up with a plan, and sold it to other members of the legal community — on its merits, not its “scare value.” They were able to “leverage” their experience, skills, and dynamic leadership to pool resources, create teamwork, and “teach and inspire others to help those in need.”
They actually expanded, improved quality, and increased efficiency, thus multiplying rather than diluting their effectiveness. The also relied largely on existing tools and frameworks, but “leveraged” them in a creative and more efficient manner.
I submit that this is the exact opposite of how the broken bureaucracies at DHS, DOJ, and ORR have reacted to most immigration issues. Given lots of personnel, considerable resources, a workable, if not “perfect,” legal framework, and ample flexibility to redirect and repurpose wasted or misused resources, the last three Administrations have fallen “flat on their overstuffed and moribund bureaucratic faces.”
With billions in taxpayer dollars, thousands of employees, and a legal framework that actually provides plenty of useful options, the USG has underachieved, to put it charitably. It has fallen back on wasteful, disruptive, andinefficient “proven to fail” deterrence “gimmicks;” ludicrous rhetoric; mythical threats; aimless reshuffling and churning of existing workload; bolloxed priorities; victim shaming and blaming; cruelty; and most disturbingly, massive scofflaw actions, crackpot proposals, and blatant curtailment of important human and legal rights.
To make matters worse, at least the Biden Administration has had access to what is probably the greatest “talent pool” of human rights, immigration, and child welfare experts on the face of the earth — almost all of it in the private/NGO/advocacy/academic sectors! Yet, they have resisted sound expert advice and creative solutions, while largely passing over available dynamic and inspiring leadership to overstuff their bloated immigration bureaucracy largely with a mixture of Trump holdovers, Obama retreads, and lesser lights.
Obviously, talented NDPA superstars like Dalia and Yasmin are the wave of our future — not just in immigration and human rights, but in government, politics, our legal system, and American society! The issue is how we can force unwilling, “stuck in reverse” Dem Administrations to grow some backbone, enforce the values they espouse during elections, “clean house” in the bureaucracy and the ranks of ineffective, often clueless, politicos, and “repopulate and reform” the USG immigration bureaucracy and the beyond dysfunctional Immigration Courts with stars like Dalia and Yasmin. That is, courageous, visionary, experts who can actually solve problems rather than creating new ones and blaming the victims and those striving to hep them!
Many thanks to Roberto Blum, Esquire, of Houston Texas for sending this article my way. Roberto says “they are the real heroes!” I concur, my friend, 100%!
But special master appointments are rare, and judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit expressed concern at oral arguments that Cannon’s decision set a troubling precedent: allowing the target of a search warrant to go into court and request a special master that could interfere with an executive branch investigation before an indictment is ever issued.
The judges did not back down from that stance in their written opinion Thursday, saying they could not issue an order that would “allow any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant.”
“Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so,” the Thursday opinion read. “Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.
. . . .
*****************
I imagine every criminal defendant in America would be delighted to have the benefit of “Judge Loose’s” incredible ruling that the subject of a criminal investigation, basically caught “red handed” with contraband after a lawfully executed search warrant, could block an ongoingcriminal investigation.
It’s notable that all three 11th Circuit panel judges were GOP appointees, two of them Trump appointees like Judge “Loose!” Unlike “Loose,” they actually take the Constitution and their oaths of office to uphold it seriously, at least in this case!
The saga of Trump’s frivolous abuse of our justice system isn’t yet over. He can request review from the Supremes. However, since he lost to Biden, the Supremes’ GOP majority has shown less willingness to bail out the insurrectionist ex-Prez in his dilatory personal battles to avoid accountability for his actions!
“The IJ granted Omorodion’s application for deferral of removal under the CAT and, after an initial remand by the BIA, reaffirmed that decision. In July 2018 the BIA vacated the IJ’s grant of CAT relief and ordered Omorodion removed, concluding that Omorodion did not show that she would suffer torture or that public officials would acquiesce in her torture. … First, Omorodion argues that the BIA mischaracterized and ignored key evidence. We agree. … The BIA also erred by failing to apply the clear error standard in its review of the IJ’s “predictive finding that [Omorodion] would suffer torture by or with the acquiescence of the Nigerian government.” … The BIA erred as a matter of law when it overlooked such evidence and rejected the IJ’s predictive finding. To summarize, we grant the petition and remand because the BIA overlooked material components of the record and misconstrued others. See Xiao Kui Lin v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir. 2009). Should the BIA vacate the IJ’s grant of CAT relief on remand, it should explain where it identifies clear error in the IJ’s factfinding based on the totality of the record. If any vacatur is not due to clear error, the BIA must otherwise “provide sufficient explanation to permit proper appellate review” of its decision. Hui Lin Huang, 3 677 F.3d at 137. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“We remand for the agency to conduct the required factfinding and analysis regarding the reasonableness of Perez Nagahama’s delay in filing her asylum claim following her changed circumstances. An asylum applicant must file an asylum “application . . . within 1 year after the date of . . . arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). There is an exception for “changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Where there is such a change, the applicant must file an application “within a reasonable period given those ‘changed circumstances.’” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). The IJ concluded and the BIA assumed that Perez Nagahama’s circumstances changed materially when she began living as openly gay in April 2015. What is a reasonable period for filing after a changed circumstance is a fact-specific inquiry: IJs should make specific “findings of fact with respect to the particular circumstances involved in the delay of the respondents’ applications” to determine the reasonableness of the delay. Matter of T-M-H- & S-W-C-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 193, 195–96 (B.I.A. 2010). … Perez Nagahama has raised a reviewable question of law that the agency failed to apply the proper standard because it did not consider her specific circumstances before concluding that her delay was unreasonable. … The agency did not conduct the required factfinding and analysis. … Here, the IJ did not make findings of facts regarding the reasonableness of the delay in light of the attendant circumstances. The BIA should have remanded to the IJ to consider whether the delay was reasonable. … Instead, the BIA made its own factual determinations that Perez Nagahama beginning to live as openly gay did not make her delay reasonable and that the other facts she pointed to were not related to this underlying changed circumstance. Compounding this issue, the BIA gave no reasoning for its conclusion that the relevant circumstance made her delay unreasonable.”
[Hats off to Genet Getachew!]
**********************
Clearly, the BIA’s performance in this and other recent CA remands is far below even the “good enough for government work” mantra that prevails at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Why does Garland think “NOT good enough for government work” is “goodenough for due process for ‘persons’ who happen to be foreign nationals” with the their lives at stake in his “smashed to smithereens” piece of our “justice” system?
The only way Garland gets to where his EOIR is today is by “Dred Scottification:” That is, intentionally treating “persons” (“humans”) in his Immigration Courts as “non –persons” under the Due Process Clause of our Constitution. If that sounds like a “Stephen Miller wet dream”🤮 (grotesque as that image undoubtedly is), it’s because that’s exactly what it is! How does a Dem Administration get away with this affront to due process, equal protection, and racial justice in America?
Kind of makes me wonder what they taught at Harvard Law (Garland’s alma mater) and other so-called “elite” law schools. I daresay that virtually all law students I have encountered in teaching immigration and refugee law for a number of years at Georgetown Law would have done better than the BIA had these cases been on my final exams.
The BIA’s inability to fairly and competently apply basic legal standards, honestly and professionally evaluate evidence of record, give asylum applicants the “benefit of the doubt” to which they are entitled under international standards, provide positive practical expert guidance on granting relief, eliminate “asylum free zones,” promote uniform outcomes, and develop and enforce “best judicial practices” is a major factor in the incredible two million case backlog that Garland has built in Immigration Court! His failure to take corrective action by replacing the BIA with competent, expert, unbiased appellate judges is a major breach of both ethical standards and his oath of office! How does he get away with it?
Thousands of asylum applicants at our border are being illegally returned to danger! Individuals with valid claims to be in the United States are routinely being denied relief for specious reasons and clear misapplications of basic legal standards in his “courts” —powerful indicators of systemic bias that should have been forcefully addressed by Garland on “day one” of his tenure at EOIR, as experts recommended.
Garland’s victims’ lives are irrevocably ruined or even ended! Misery is inflicted on their family, loved ones, and American communities! Dedicated lawyers working overtime to save lives are mistreated by Garland’s courts and traumatized by sharing the horrible consequences to their clients of systemic inferior judging! America is denied legal immigrants we need!
Our Federal justice system is overwhelmed with wasteful and never-ending litigation of immigration cases that should have been timely granted in the first instance and bad policies that never should have seen the light of day. In this respect, note that the IJ actually got it right in Omorodion! Then, in attempting to accommodate DHS and achieve an illegal removal, the BIA completely botched it on appeal! Even where justice prevails at the “retail” level, the BIA screws it up!
Yet Garland just shows up for work and draws his paycheck as if this were the way “justice” is supposed to work in America and fixing it is “below his pay level!” Gimmie a break!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, many congrats and much appreciation to NDPA stalwarts Tom Moseley and Genet Getachew!
I am particularly honored to recognize the litigation greatness of my long-time friend, former INS colleague, and NDPA litigation icon 👍🏼🗽 Tom Moseley. He honed his complex litigation skills as an INS Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY during my tenure as Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel at the “Legacy INS.”
Since leaving INS decades ago, Tom has been a tower of “practical impact litigation” and “Life-Saving 101” in New Jersey and beyond. Thanks for all you do, my friend!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Politico: Experts in the immigration field say they’re expecting a stressful and chaotic transition when a court-ordered deadline to end the Trump directive is hit, one that could drive a new rush to the border and intensify GOP criticism. See also States move to keep court from lifting Trump asylum policy.
Reuters: The United States is in talks with Mexico and other countries to facilitate the return of Venezuelan migrants to their homeland, a senior U.S. official said in a call with reporters on Tuesday.
TRAC: The South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, which currently houses single adults (mostly females) has more than doubled the number of individuals it is holding since September. ICE reports this facility run by CoreCivic now has the largest average daily population of detainees (1,562) in the country
CBS: McCarthy also threatened to use “the power of the purse and the power of subpoena” to investigate and derail the Biden administration’s immigration and border policies, saying Republican-led committees would hold oversight hearings near the U.S.-Mexico border.
LexisNexis: “Remand is required in this case because the BIA did not give consideration to all relevant evidence and principles of law, as those have been detailed by this Court’s recent decision in Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 332–36 (2d Cir. 2020). … Because Mejia did not fear torture at the hands of the Guatemalan authorities, the relevant inquiry is whether government officials have acquiesced in likely third-party torture. To make this determination, the Court considers whether there is evidence that authorities knew of the torture or turned a blind eye to it, and “thereafter” breached their “responsibility to prevent” the possible torture.”
LexisNexis: “Having reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions, we hold that the agency did not err in finding that Garcia-Aranda failed to satisfy her burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal, but that the agency applied incorrect standards when adjudicating Garcia-Aranda’s CAT claim.”
Law360: The Third Circuit has backed a decision denying a Dominican man’s bid for deportation relief based on his fear of being tortured, saying the procedural flaws he claimed tainted his proceedings — including the use of legal jargon and a videoconferencing glitch — did not prejudice him.
Law360: An English-speaking Cameroonian lost her chance to stay in the U.S. after the Eighth Circuit ruled that she failed to provide enough evidence showing that military officers had attacked her for her presumed support of Anglophone separatists.
LexisNexis: “Without record evidence that Phong orally waived his right to appeal before the IJ, we decline to address his alternative arguments that any waiver was unconsidered, unintelligent, or otherwise unenforceable. Rather, we remand to the BIA to develop the record on the waiver issue and, if it deems it appropriate, to consider Phong’s remaining arguments in the first instance.”
Law360: A divided Ninth Circuit on Monday ruled that the federal government was not constitutionally required to provide a Salvadoran immigrant a second bond hearing amid his prolonged detention during removal proceedings, while also bearing the burden to show he was a flight risk or danger to the community.
AP: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has agreed to pay a Vermont-based immigrant advocacy organization $74,000 in legal fees to settle a lawsuit seeking information about whether advocates were being targeted by immigration agents because of their political activism.
USCIS: Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it is extending and expanding previously announced filing fee exemptions and expedited application processing for certain Afghan nationals.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Folks, it’s about re-instituting the law and screening system for legal asylum seekerswhich was in effect, in one form or another, for four decades before being illegally abrogated by the Trump Administration’s abusive use of Title 42. Outrageously, after promising to do better during the 2020 election campaign, the Biden Administration has “gone along to get along” with inflicting massive human rights violations under the Title 42 facade until finally ordered to comply with the law by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan last month.
One of Judge Sullivan’s well-supported findings was that the scofflaw actions by both Trump and Biden officials had resulted in knowingly and intentionally inflicting “dire harm” on legal asylum applicants:
Sullivan wrote that the federal officials knew the order “would likely expel migrants to locations with a ‘high probability’ of ‘persecution, torture, violent assaults, or rape’ ” — and did so anyway.
“It is unreasonable for the CDC to assume that it can ignore the consequences of any actions it chooses to take in the pursuit of fulfilling its goals,” Sullivan wrote. “It is undisputed that the impact on migrants was indeed dire.”
Contrary to the “CYA BS” coming from Biden Administration officials, making the law work at the Southern Border requires neither currently unachievable “reform” legislation nor massive additions of personnel! It does, however, require better personnel, expert training, accountability, smarter use of resources, and enlightened, dynamic, courageous, principled, expert leadership currently glaringly lacking within the Biden Administration.
The Administration’s much ballyhooed, yet poorly conceived, ineptly and inconsistently implemented,“revised asylum regulations” have also failed to “leverage” thepotential for success, thus far producing only an anemic number of “first instance” asylum grants. This is far below the rate necessary for the process significantly to take pressure off the backlogged and dysfunctional Immigration Courts, one of the stated purposes of the regulations!Meanwhile, early indications are that Garland’s ill-advised regulatory time limits on certain arbitrarily-selected asylum applications have further diluted quality and just results for EOIR asylum decisions. That, folks, is in a system where disdain for both of these essential judicial traits is already rampant!
It’s not rocket science! It was well within the capability of the Biden Administration to establish a robust, functional asylum system had it acted with urgency and competency upon taking office in 2021:
Better Asylum Officers at USCIS and Immigration Judges at EOIR — well-qualified asylum experts with practical experience in the asylum system who will timely recognize and grant the many valid asylum claims in the first instance;
Cooperative agreements with NGOs and pro bono organizations to prescreen applications in an orderly manner and represent those who can establish a “credible fear;”
A new and improved BIA of qualified “practical scholars” in asylum law who will establish workable precedents and best practices that honestly reflect the generous approach to asylum required (but never carried out in practice or spirit) by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA itself in its long-ignored and consistently misapplied precedent in Mogharrabi;
An orderly refugee resettlement program administered under the auspices of the Feds for those granted asylum and for those whose claims can’t be expeditiously granted at the border and who therefore must present them in Immigration Court at some location away from the border.
The Biden Administration has nobody to blame but themselves for their massive legal, moral, and practical failures on the Southern Border! With House GOP nativist/restrictionists “sharpening their knives,” Mayorkas, Garland, Rice, and other Biden officials who have failed to restore the legal asylum system shouldn’t expect long-ignored and “affirmatively dissed” human rights experts and advocates to bail them out!
The massive abrogations of human rights, due process, the rule of law, common sense, and human decency that the GOP espouses — so-called enforcement and ineffective “deterrence” only approach — will NOT resolve the humanitarian issues with ongoing, often inevitable, refugee flows!
But, the Biden Administration’s inept approach to human rights has played right into the hands of these GOP White Nationalist politicos. That’s an inconceivable human tragedy for our nation and for the many legal refugees we turn away without due process or fair consideration of their life-threatening plight! These are refugees — legal immigrants — who should be allowed to enter legally and help our economy and our nation with their presence.
If we want refugees to apply “away from the border,” we must establish robust, timely, realistic refugee programs at or near places like Haiti, Venezuela, and the Northern Triangle that are sending us refugees. In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress actually gave the President extraordinary discretionary authority to establish refugee processing directly in the countries the refugees are fleeing. This was a significant expansion of the UN refugee definition which requires a refugee to be “outside” his or her country of nationality. Yet, no less than the Trump and Obama Administrations before, President Biden has failed to “leverage” this powerful potential tool for establishing orderly refugee processing beyond our borders!
Meanwhile, down on the actual border, a place that Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, Garland, Rice, and other “high level architects of failed asylum policies” seldom, if ever, deign to visit, life, such as it is, goes on with the usual abuses heaped on asylum seekers patiently waiting to be fairly processed.
A rational observer might have thought that the Biden Administration would use the precious time before Dec. 22, 2022, reluctantly “gifted” to them by Judge Sullivan, to pre-screen potential asylum seekers already at ports of entry on the Mexican side. Those with credible fear and strong claims could be identified for orderly entries when legal ports of entry (finally) re-open on Dec. 22. Or, better yet, they could be “paroled” into the U.S. now and expeditiously granted asylum by Asylum Officers.
This would reduce the immediate pressure on the ports, eliminate unnecessary trips to backlogged Immigration Courts, and expedite these refugees’ legal status, work authorization, and transition to life in the U.S.
I have no idea what the Biden Administration has done with the time since Judge Sullivan “gifted” them a stay. The only noticeable actions have been more BS excuses, blame-shifting, and lowering expectations.
But, in reality, by their indolent approach to humanitarian issues and the law, in the interim the Administration has consciously left the fate of long-suffering and already “direly-harmed” legal asylum seekers to the Mexican Government. According to a recent NBC News report, the Mexican Government forcibly “rousted” many awaiting processing at a squalid camp near the border and “orbited them’ to “who knows where.” https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/mexican-authorities-evict-venezuelan-migrants-from-border-camps-155516485544
Judge Sullivan might want to take note of this in assessing how the Biden DOJ has used the “preparedness time” that he reluctantly granted them following his order.
Nearly five months later, the Supreme Court will give the Texas case a full hearing on Tuesday. And there’s a good chance that even this Court, where Republican appointees control two-thirds of the seats, will reverse Tipton’s decision — his opinion is that bad.
The case involves a memo that Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas issued in September 2021, instructing ICE agents to prioritize undocumented immigrants who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America’s well-being” when making arrests or otherwise enforcing immigration law.
Nevertheless, the Republican attorneys general of Texas and Louisiana asked Tipton to invalidate Mayorkas’s memo. And Tipton defied the statute permitting Mayorkas to set enforcement priorities — and a whole host of other, well-established legal principles — and declared Mayorkas’s enforcement priorities invalid. This is not the first time that Tipton relied on highly dubious legal reasoning to sabotage the Biden administration’s immigration policies.
. . . .
Even when the law offers no support for the GOP’s preferred policies, in other words, the Court permits Republicans to manipulate judicial procedures in order to get the results they want. The Texas attorney general’s office can handpick judges who they know will strike down Biden administration policies, and once those policies are declared invalid, the Supreme Court will play along with these partisan judges’ decisions for at least a year or so.
******************
Once the GOP got the upper hand on the Federal Bench, the “traditional” conservative case for “judicial restraint” went straight down the tubes under an assault by righty ideologues eager to “do in” precedents, laws, and Executive policies that don’t fit their “out of the mainstream” political agenda, no matter how thinly reasoned or often counterfactual their “cover” might be.
And, as usual, Dems have been slow on the uptake about getting younger, staunch defenders of democracy and our Constitution on the bench to counteract the right-wing’s Article III takeover.
As this article points out, the Supremes’ questionable “shadow docket” is manipulated by the Court’s righty majority improperly to favor GOP scofflaw tactics, even where they ultimately can’t concoct a legal basis to uphold them on the merits.
“Karla Iveth Garcia-Aranda petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Garcia-Aranda, a native and citizen of Honduras, testified before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that she and her family had been threatened, kidnapped, and beaten by members of the Mara 18 gang while a local Honduran police officer was present. Garcia-Aranda sought asylum and withholding of removal, arguing that the gang had persecuted her because she was a member of the Valerio family, which ran its own drug trafficking ring in Garcia-Aranda’s hometown. She also sought protection under CAT based on an asserted likelihood of future torture at the hands of the gang with the participation or acquiescence of the local Honduran police. Having reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions, we hold that the agency did not err in finding that Garcia-Aranda failed to satisfy her burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal, but that the agency applied incorrect standards when adjudicating Garcia-Aranda’s CAT claim. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART, the decisions of the BIA are VACATED IN PART to the extent they denied Garcia-Aranda’s claim for CAT protection, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision. … Because of these legal errors, we grant the petition as to Garcia-Aranda’s claim for protection under CAT and vacate the BIA’s decisions regarding CAT protection. See Rafiq v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 165, 166–67 (2d Cir. 2006) (remanding a CAT claim for proper application of Khouzam). On remand, we direct the agency to consider, in light of all testimony and documentary evidence, whether Garcia-Aranda will more likely than not be tortured by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, any public official (or other person) acting under color of law. As more fully described above, that means considering questions such as whether it is more likely than not that the gang will torture Garcia-Aranda, including meeting all the harm requirements for torture under section 1208.18(a), and whether it is more likely than not that local police acting under color of law will themselves participate in those likely gang actions or acquiesce in those likely gang actions. The BIA is also instructed to remand to the IJ for any additional factfinding that is necessary for the BIA to make its determination.”
[NOTE: This PFR was filed in 2018! Hats off to Heather Axford and team!]
Heather Axford Senior Staff Attorney Central American Legal Assistance Brooklyn, NY
“Petition for review of a December 26, 2018 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) vacating a July 27, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting Petitioners’ application for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Accordingly, the decision of the BIA is VACATED in part, and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this summary order. … Remand is required in this case because the BIA did not give consideration to all relevant evidence and principles of law, as those have been detailed by this Court’s recent decision in Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 332–36 (2d Cir. 2020). … Because Mejia did not fear torture at the hands of the Guatemalan authorities, the relevant inquiry is whether government officials have acquiesced in likely third-party torture. To make this determination, the Court considers whether there is evidence that authorities knew of the torture or turned a blind eye to it, and “thereafter” breached their “responsibility to prevent” the possible torture. Scarlett, 957 F.3d at 334 (quoting Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 171 (2d Cir. 2004)); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7). … Here, record evidence raises questions as to the Guatemalan government’s inability to protect Mejia, insofar as it indicates that Mejia sought assistance from Guatemalan police and was told that they could not protect her and she should simply hide in her home. … Insofar as the BIA ruled without the benefit of Scarlett, a remand is warranted before this Court conducts any review. We therefore remand for the sole purpose of allowing the BIA to decide, after reasoned consideration of the record, whether the Guatemalan police’s inability to protect Mejia constituted acquiescence.”
Mikhail Usher, Esq. Senior Partner The Usher Law Group PLLC My & New Jersey PHOTO: Usher Law Group
********************
Congrats to NDPA superstars Heather and Mike!
Here’s commentary from my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase on Heather’s performance on Garcia-Aranda v. Garland:
“Heather is a remarkable litigator who did a remarkable job on this case – it was a tough panel that had basically ruled out asylum from the start; it was most impressive to hear Heather persuade the judges over the course of oral arguments as to the CAT standard (during which one of the judges repeatedly referenced proposed Trump regs that had never taken effect, but were nevertheless listed on the government’s eCFR as if it had).
Best, Jeff“
And, here’s my response:
“Heather is truly an NDPA superstar. And, I’m proud that she got her start appearing at the Arlington Immigration Court!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Texas Observer: But as the case of Felipe shows, immigration officials have continued to separate parents and children in violation of the policy. From the start of the new administration to August 2022—the latest month for which data has been published—U.S. authorities have reported at least 372 cases of family separation.
AP: Within hours, the Justice Department asked the judge to let the order take effect Dec. 21, giving it five weeks to prepare. Plaintiffs including the American Civil Liberties Union didn’t oppose the delay.
Politico: Party leaders are pushing hard for legislation aiding the undocumented population known as “Dreamers” before Republicans take the House. But GOP senators have little interest. See also House Judiciary GOP Highlights First Oversight Targets.
TRAC: The outcome for asylum seekers has long been influenced by the identity of the immigration judge assigned to hear their case. This continues to be true as documented by TRAC’s just released judge-by-judge report series, now updated through FY 2022. In Arlington, Virginia, judge denial rates ranged from 15 percent to 95 percent. In Boston, judge denial rates varied from 17 percent to 93.5 percent. In Chicago, they ranged from 16 percent to 90 percent, while in San Francisco one judge denied just 1 percent of the cases while another denied 95 percent.
NPR: Individuals held in immigration detention were barred from visits with relatives and friends for more than two years during the pandemic — far longer than federal prisons. In May, ICE lifted the ban, but immigrant advocates and people in detention centers argue that social visits have not been fully nor consistently reinstated.
Philly Inquirer: A second bus carrying immigrants from Texas arrived in Philadelphia Monday morning, a twice-in-six-days sequel that propelled the city to offer fresh welcome to more weary, uncertain travelers from the border.
AP: U.S. immigration authorities didn’t do enough to adequately vet or monitor a gynecologist in rural Georgia who performed unnecessary medical procedures on detained migrant women without their consent, according to results of a Senate investigation released Tuesday.
Intercept: According to ICE’s Performance-Based National Detention Standards, whenever there is a “calculated use of force,” staff are required to use a handheld camera to record the incident. The Intercept, with Kumar’s consent, requested the video through the Freedom of Information Act. After ICE refused to turn over the footage, The Intercept filed a lawsuit and ICE subsequently agreed to turn over the footage, but the agency redacted the faces and names of everyone who appears in it, aside from Kumar.
Guardian: A multi-country investigation by the Guardian finds at least 6,500 migrant workers from south Asia have died in Qatar in the 10 years since it was awarded the right to host the World Cup.
AG: (1) Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018), is overruled. (2) Pending the outcome of the rulemaking process, immigration judges and the Board of Immigration of Appeals may consider and, where appropriate, grant termination or dismissal of removal proceedings in certain types of limited circumstances, such as where a noncitizen has obtained lawful permanent residence after being placed in removal proceedings, where the pendency of removal proceedings causes adverse immigration consequences for a respondent who must travel abroad to obtain a visa, or where termination is necessary for the respondent to be eligible to seek immigration relief before United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Law360: The Biden administration on Thursday swept aside a Trump-era decision that mostly stripped immigration judges of their power to end removal proceedings, restoring immigration courts’ ability to terminate some deportation cases while it devises new policy.
Law360: A federal judge on Wednesday granted “with great reluctance” the Biden administration’s request for a five-week stay of his previous day’s order to end expulsions of migrants under Title 42, a public health provision the Trump administration began using at the start of the pandemic.
Law360: A split Fourth Circuit panel ordered the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider a Jamaican man’s removal order, criticizing the agency’s reasons for rejecting his claims that he diligently sought reversal of his order following a Supreme Court ruling.
LexisNexis: Michael Shannon writes: “I wanted to share a very good written decision from IJ Barbara Nelson, who granted asylum to my client based on her actual and imputed feminist political opinion under Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr.”
Law360: The federal government got the green light from an Arizona federal judge to conduct psychological examinations of asylum-seeking parents suing for damages for the alleged emotional trauma from being separated from their children at the southwestern U.S. border.
AILA: AILA and partners sent a letter to USCIS, EOIR, and OPLA addressing the unnecessary hurdles non-detained people in removal proceedings face in securing a biometrics appointment prior to their merits hearing.
AILA: USCIS notice of the automatic extension of the validity of TPS-related documentation for beneficiaries under the TPS designations for El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Sudan, Honduras, and Nepal set to expire on 12/31/22, through 6/30/24. (87 FR 68717, 11/16/22)
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
After two years of “drinking the koolaid,” the party might be over for Mayorkas & Garland, as McCarthy & his insurrectionist/White Nationalist zanies “move in for the kill.”
Two years of ineptness, failure to clean house at DOJ and DHS, unkept promises to advocates, lack of guts to quickly reverse Trump’s massive scofflaw program of racist-inspired human rights abuses, arrogant “tuning out” of experts, lack of engagement and presence at the border have been largely ignored by Dems in both Houses. Indeed, other than a hearing on the Article 1 bill before Chair Lofgren (at which Garland was not required to appear and explain his due-process-denying mess and abject failure to reform EOIR), Dems failure to conduct meaningful oversight of the Administration’s mishandling of refugee programs, asylum, detention, asylum seeker resettlement, and Immigration Courts will be “coming home to roost” as insurrectionist, racists from the House GOP take aim at “snuffing” humanity and abolishing the rule of law!
Two years of inept, immoral, “Miller Litism” from the Administration leaves Dems with no defense and no supporters of their actions. Nativist restrictionists wanted “100% kill” @ border! Experts wanted a return to the rule of law, orderly processing, and due process. The Biden Administration delivered neither!
We tried to tell them, but they wouldn’t listen! No,McCarthy and his insurrectionist White Nationalist zany-haters have the floor. Just have to hope that historians are fully documenting the lies and Neo-Nazi views that these GOP hacks will be promoting — to help future generations understand how America “went off the rails” in the 21st century! Understandably, the GOP would rather focus on Biden’s failed immigration policies than on the rampant gun violence, hate crimes, child abuse, forced births, and dumbing down of America at the heart of their vile agenda!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The GOP’s “New McCarthyism,” Never!
Kathleen Guthrie Woods American Journalist & Writer San Francisco, CA PHOTO: GoodreadsHon. Dana Leigh (“NanaDana”) Marks U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges; “Founding Mother of U.S. Asylum Law”
By the time she retired from San Francisco’s Immigration Court on December 31, 2021, Judge Dana Leigh Marks* had built an inspiring reputation as a leader, mentor, and advocate. She is known for her fierce advocacy for the court. She is known for her compassion and fairmindedness. She is known for her intelligence and wit, having coined oft-repeated, appropriate zingers that help people better understand the challenges of immigration court, including “Immigration judges do death penalty cases in a traffic court setting” and “Immigration is more complicated than tax law. How do I know this? Because there is no TurboTax for immigration law.”
Talking with her former colleagues—many of whom are now also her friends—is an uplifting experience. They speak of a woman who broke through barriers, applied the law fairly and compassionately, fought hard fights, and inspired others to join her. “She’s the GOAT of immigration judges!” declares Francisco Ugarte, Manager of the Immigration Defense Unit of San Francisco’s Public Defender’s Office.
Who is Judge Marks, and how did she positively influence and impact so many lives?
. . . .
Judge Marks also thrived in this arena because she saw beyond the expectation that her role was solely to facilitate deportations; she saw the humanity inherent in the proceedings. “Every story is individual,” she says, and every person deserves to be heard.
. . . .
“She showed us all how to be fierce advocates for justice—for what is true and right and just—without crossing over lines,” says Judge King. Jamil adds Judge Marks’s “tireless” work for the union and “giving a professional, female voice to immigration judges” to her list of accomplishments. “When she started, she was one of few women. After her, all these really amazing women came to the bench,” says Shugall, women Judge Marks mentored and encouraged to apply for the bench. That roster includes Judges Jamil, King, Miriam Hayward, Stockton, Webber, and Laura Ramirez. “She helped start that trajectory,” says Shugall.
“She helped create an inspiring model for how courts can be,” says Ugarte, and Judge Webber states, simply, “She inspires people all the time.”
“While she has had some limelight in her career, the vast majority of her work has been thankless,” says Judge King. “She perseveres solely because she believes it is important to make a difference wherever you can.”
*Today Judge Marks is known as “NanaDana,” a title that celebrates her role as caretaker for her granddaughter and helps people correctly pronounce her name (“dan-uh,” not “day-nuh”).
Kathleen Guthrie Woods is a long-time contributor to San Francisco Attorney magazine. She first interviewed Judge Marks, then-president of NAIJ, for “Understanding the Crisis in Our Immigration Courts” (Spring 2015).
**************************
Every judge, lawyer, and law student in America, and particularly AG Garland and his lieutenants, should read Kathleen’s interview with Judge Marks (full version at link) about what “American judging” should, and could, be — all the way up to the Supremes!
Dana, my friend and colleague, your inspiring career is yet more evidence of the “then-available” talent who could have led long-overdue change at EOIR and the BIA. Like you, much of that talent has moved on to our Round Table, and we’re stuck with the dysfunctional mess at EOIR. But, others are arising in your image to fight for justice, sanity, and humanity from “the retail level on up” in our Federal Courts.
I will always think of you as the “Founding Mother of US Asylum Law” because of your stellar advocacy in Cardoza-Fonseca and your unending, unapologetic, and highly vocal commitment to due process, independent thinking, and judicial excellence.
As you probably remember, I was in Court for your OA in Cardoza-Fonseca, sitting at the SG’s table as you won the day for your client. My “client,” INS, “lost” that day. But, American justice, due process, and human rights won!
As it was for you and those many you inspired, “realizing the promise of Cardoza-Fonseca” became the “guiding light” of my subsequent judicial career at EOIR, on both the appellate and trial benches. Despite the more than quarter-century since Cardoza, the battle to make judges at all levels actually follow its dictates, and perhaps more importantly, its generous humanitarian spirit, is far from won!
Congrats on your new position as “NanaDana.” 😎 I always look forward to working with you and our amazing Round Table colleagues to give due process and fundamental fairness an unyielding voice before courts throughout America, and to continue the unending fight for best judicial practices in a life-determining system that has “lost its way” as millions needlessly suffer!”
We “Knightesses and Knights of our Round Table” 🛡⚔️ will “never let the bastards grind us down!” You continue to inspire all of us in our never ending quest for justice for the most vulnerable individuals among us!
“NanaDana’s” fierce fighting spirit continues to inspire our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges to new heights in the never-ending pursuit of “due process and fundamental fairness for all!” (Ironically, the latter was actually EOIR’s long-abandoned “vision!” )
I would like to discuss a concept related to asylum, involving protection under Article 3 of the U.N. Convention Against Torture (commonly referred to as “CAT” for short). Although lacking the benefits afforded to those granted asylum or admitted as refugees, the importance of CAT as a protection from deportation has increased in recent years due to the complex nature of current asylum claims, which require greater effort to interpret causation than claims that were more commonly decided decades ago.
Whereas asylum requires a connection between the persecution and the applicant’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, CAT protects those who are at risk of torture for any (or no) reason. CAT therefore can (and has) saved lives where the person at risk could not demonstrate to the adjudicator’s satisfaction a sufficient connection to one of the five mandatory asylum grounds.
While not requiring specific causation, CAT does require that the torture be “by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official…”1 When (as is often the case) the torturers are a gang or drug cartel, what is required of an applicant to establish government acquiescence?
According to federal regulations, “Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.”2 Thus, the regulations make it clear that acquiescence is a two-step test for (1) awareness, and (2) breach of responsibility to intervene.
Back in 2000, the BIA addressed the meaning of “acquiescence” in a precedent decision, and managed to get it very wrong. In its en banc decision in Matter of S-V- , the majority defined “government acquiescence” as a government’s willful acceptance of the torturous activity.3 How it managed to look at the above two-step test and come up with “willful acceptance” (which, incidentally, is only one step) is anyone’s guess.
Not surprisingly, the Board’s standard was universally panned by the circuit courts. With the recent decision of the First Circuit in H.H. v. Garland 4, nine circuits have now outright rejected the BIA’s take as overly restrictive, holding that the proper test is satisfied where the government in question remained “willfully blind” to the commission of torture. The remaining two circuits, while not directly overruling the Board’s take, have nevertheless applied the “willful blindness” standard. No circuit has deferred to the BIA’s interpretation.
However, until just recently, only one circuit – the Second – clarified that acquiescence requires a two-step test as described above. The remaining circuits were content to correct the language of the Board’s one-step standard from “willful acceptance” to one including “willful blindness” and then leave it at that.
Last year, Prof. Jon Bauer at the Univ. of Connecticut Law School wrote an excellent article that did a wonderful job of explaining the proper standard and the shortcomings of existing case law on the topic.5 I believe that Prof. Bauer’s article (available at the above link) should be required reading for Immigration Judges.
In summary, Bauer’s article flagged several flaws in the common view of acquiescence. The first is the mistaken belief that “willful blindness” is the entire test for acquiescence. Bauer points out that the circuit courts have held that the “awareness” step (step one) may be met either through a government’s willful blindness or through its actual awareness. But willful blindness is neither an absolute requirement nor a minimum standard for establishing both awareness and breach of legal duty elements; it simply expands the manner in which the awareness prong may be satisfied.
Importantly, in most cases, actual awareness can be established without the need to rely on a government’s willful blindness. As Bauer points out in a footnote, at least two circuits recognize government awareness as being satisfied where the government is “aware that torture of the sort feared by the applicant occurs.”6 In other words, awareness doesn’t require the government to have specific knowledge of a plan to torture the CAT applicant; it is enough that ts agents are aware that, e.g., MS-13 is engaging in this sort of conduct within the country to satisfy the awareness prong.
Bauer additionally emphasized that acquiescence remains a two-step test, and that “willful blindness” is relevant to only the first step. The standard for satisfying step two, the breach of duty to intervene, remains a blank slate. Neither the BIA nor the circuit courts have stated what is required to establish a likelihood that the government will breach its responsibility to intervene.
Bauer points out that the confusion concerning willful blindness has caused some adjudicators to view any action (no matter how ineffectual) by the government in question as precluding a finding of acquiescence, regarding even a minimal response as proof that the government was not being “willfully blind” to the torture. But as Bauer notes, willful blindness has nothing to do with the obligation to intervene. Once awareness is established (either through actual awareness or willful blindness), the focus turns to the separate question contained in step two of whether the duty to intervene was breached.
As to the breach prong, Bauer opined that the test applied under international law, requiring states “to exercise ‘due diligence’ to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish acts of torture by non-State actors,” is the correct one for adoption as the domestic standard for step two. Bauer explains how this interpretation is consistent with the CAT’s text and drafting history, as well as the legislative history of US ratification and implementation of the treaty.7
The confusion cited by Bauer as to the proper standard to be applied is exacerbated by the fact that the Board has never vacated its precedent decision in S-V- setting out the incorrect standard. And it was that failure to fix what was obviously broken that led to the First Circuit’s recent lesson on the topic in H.H. In that case, an Immigration Judge denied CAT by applying the Board’s incorrect “willfully accepting” standard. And perhaps because the case arose in the First Circuit, which at the time had yet to directly refute the Board’s approach in a published decision, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision applying the erroneous standard.
Fortunately, the petitioner in that case was represented on appeal to the First Circuit by SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire. Petitioner’s counsel did an excellent job of explaining the state of confusion on the topic, and of presenting the clear solution in line with Bauer’s approach. Counsel also enlisted the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges to weigh in on the topic with an amicus brief drafted for us by the law firm of Cooley LLP.8
The result was an excellent published decision deserving of our attention. First, the circuit panel found that the BIA “failed to meaningfully address H.H.’s alternative theory that MS-13 itself is a de facto state actor.” The court found that in simply labeling the argument “unpersuasive,” the Board provided an insufficient degree of analysis to facilitate appellate review. That argument remains one that practitioners should continue to raise in both the CAT and asylum contexts.9 And practitioners may now wish to cite to the language in H.H., which is the first published decision to demand a detailed explanation from adjudicators as to why they find such argument unconvincing.10
In addressing Matter of S-V-, the court joined the list of circuits rejecting the Board’s standard. Specifically, the court found the term “willful acceptance” to clash with Congress’s clear intent for awareness to be satisfied through both actual knowledge and willful blindness. As the court pointed out, willful acceptance “necessarily includes knowledge of the matter one is ‘accepting,’ and excludes the concept of willful blindness.”
Finding that the BIA applied an improper standard of review by treating the acquiescence issue as clearly factual, when the inquiry regarding “‘whether the government’s role renders the harm ‘by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official,”’ is legal in nature and is subject to de novo review,” the court remanded for the Board to consider under a de novo review standard “the question of acquiescence, understanding that a showing of willful blindness suffices to demonstrate an “awareness” of torture under the CAT.”
However, the court did not stop there. It continued on to the question of the breach of obligation, observing that the regulations set out a two-step inquiry, yet noting that “most of the courts that have adopted the willful blindness standard have not consistently distinguished between the ‘awareness’ and ‘breach of duty’ steps.”
On remand, the court left it to the Board to address the proper standard for the breach requirement in the first instance. But the court advised “that we join the Second Circuit in expressing skepticism that any record evidence of efforts taken by the foreign government to prevent torture, no matter how minimal, will necessarily be sufficient to preclude the agency from finding that a breach of the duty to intervene is likely to occur….Rather, on remand, the agency’s determination about breach of duty, to the extent such a determination is necessary, must be made after carefully weighing all facts in the record.”11
It is puzzling why it took 22 years for the Board to be given that direction by a circuit court. And from experience, it will take the Board some time to respond in the form of a precedent decision. As many lives will be on the line in the meantime as claims are heard by Immigration Judges (and in some instances by USCIS asylum officers, under new procedures for claims arising at the border), those deciding CAT cases are respectfully urged to reference the full decision in H.H. as well as Prof. Bauer’s article, which practitioners should also file, cite, and discuss in their briefs and arguments. Litigants and judges should work together towards getting this important standard right. Lives depend on our doing so.12
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7).
22 I&N Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000) (en banc). I am happy to announce that all three members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges who participated in that decision disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of acquiescence in separate opinions. See Concurring Opinion of Board Member Gustavo D. Villageliu; Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of BIA Chair Paul W. Schmidt, and Dissenting Opinion of Board Member Lory D. Rosenberg.
J. Bauer, “Obscured by Willful Blindness: States’ Preventive Obligations and the Meaning of Acquiescence Under the Convention Against Torture,” 52 Col. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 738 (2021).
Id. at 749, fn. 34 (quoting Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1089 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing two earlier decisions in agreement); and additionally citing Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 518 (3d Cir. 2017) (similar statement).
Id. at 750.
The Round Table expresses its appreciation to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Zachary Sisko, Marc Suskin, Valeria M. Pelet del Toro, and Samantha Kirby of Cooley LLP for expressing our arguments so articulately in their brief on our behalf. Our brief can be read here.
For persuasive presentations of the de facto state actor argument, see Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (Thomsen Reuters) at § 4:9; and Anna Welch and SangYeob Kim. “Non-State Actors ‘Under Color of Law’: Closing a Gap in Protection Under the Convention Against Torture,” 35 Harvard Hum. Rts. J. 117 (2022).
The Second Circuit case cited to was De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 110-111 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that the preventative measures of some government actors does not foreclose the possibility of government acquiescence).
My sincere thanks to Jon Bauer and SangYeob Kim, who provided valuable input in reviewing this article.
NOVEMBER 17, 2022
Republished by permission.
**************************
I’m proud to say that, as kindly noted by “Sir Jeffrey” in FN 3, Round Table ⚔️🛡 members, Judge Gustavo D. Villageliu, Judge Lory D. Rosenberg, and I, each filed separate opinions distancing ourselves from various aspects of our majority colleagues’ specious, and eventually proved to be wrong, views in Matter of S-V-, 22 I & N Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000) (en banc). My BIA colleagues Judge John Guendelsberger and Judge Anthony C. Moscato also joined my separate opinion, in addition to Judges Villageliu and Rosenberg.
As a hint to what’s wrong with this politically-biased “charade of a court,” operating within a prosecutorial agency, I note that all of us except Judge Moscato were ultimately “exiled” from the BIA by John Ashcroft. Our “offense” was doing our jobs by standing up in dissenting opinions for correct interpretations of law and the legal and constitutional rights of migrants in the context of a “go along to get along” BIA majority who too often chose job security over justice for the individuals coming before us.
That a number of our dissents, particularly Judge Rosenberg’s, were prescient as to what Federal Circuit Courts and the Supremes would hold, and also predicted some of their vociferous criticisms of EOIR’s poor performance under Ashcroft, are also telling of the lack of legitimacy and impartiality that Ashcroft ushered in. That has continued to plague EOIR over subsequent Administrations of both parties, including the present Administration.
In my conclusion, I highlight the majority’s unseemly haste to “get to no, with the interpretation least favorable to the respondent.”
The issue whether the respondent’s situation fits within Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture requires factual determinations about conditions in Colombia and the respondent’s own situation considered in the con- text of international legal principles. We have little United States jurisprudence to guide us in this area. Before deciding such important and potentially far-reaching issues, we should have a fully developed record and the benefit of the Immigration Judge’s informed ruling on the positions of the parties.
The respondent has established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing under Matter of L-O-G-, supra. His motion to reopen and remand should therefore be granted. Consequently, I respectfully dissent from the decision to deny the motion.
Over the years, the pro-government/anti-immigrant bias and “haste makes waste gimmicking” has progressively gotten worse at the BIA, culminating in the disgraceful “packing” of the BIA with notorious asylum deniers and “hard liners” during the Trump Administration.
Poll human rights experts on how many of the Trump holdover BIA judges would be considered “leading asylum experts?” How many have ever represented an asylum seeker in Immigration Court? So, why would this body have a “stranglehold” over American asylum law and be given deference by the Article IIIs to boot?
One would have expected Garland to address this obviously unacceptable situation on an urgent basis by reassigning most holdover BIA Appellate Judges and replacing them with real, expert judges from the deep private sector talent pool. EOIR needs qualified appellate jurists who will correct the many mistakes of the past, change the one-sided, overwhelmingly anti-immigrant and often misleading “precedential guidance,” enforce some consistency, eliminate disreputable “asylum free zones” pretending to be “courts,” and lead EOIR (and indeed the entire Federal Judiciary) into high-quality, best-scholarship, 21st century jurisprudence.
That means a body of scholarly, practical, transparent precedents that properly guide and advise Immigration Judges on the correct and efficient adjudication of many cases stuck in this dysfunctional system where individuals deserve to win. Instead, Garland has allowed EOIR to continue its downward spiral with sloppy work, bad decisions, and incompetent judicial administration in a system where all of these problems are potentially life threatening. Not surprisingly, this failure to fundamentally reform and improve EOIR has also led Garland to increase the backlog to a jaw-dropping almost two million cases.
Lack of judicial excellence, grotesque inconsistencies, worst practices, and administrative incompetence have also unfairly, unprofessionally, and unnecessarily increased the difficulty and already sky-high stress levels for immigration practitioners, many serving the system in a pro bono or low bono capacity. With lack of adequate immigration representation one of the festering problems undermining our entire American justice system, Garland’s poor stewardship over EOIR can (charitably) be described as totally unacceptable.
So, in answer to Jeffrey’s question as to why after 22 years legallywrong precedents still rule at EOIR and correct guidance remains elusive, I have the answer. Because, Merrick Garland has ignored the advice of experts and failed to make achievable, long-overdue reforms and critical upgrading of judicial quality at EOIR.
That’s a growing cancer on our justice system that won’t be cured without better, due-process-dedicated, leadership — at all levels!
Let’s look at this in perspective. Biden ran in 2020 on a platform of ending Title 42 and restoring asylum processing at the border. Almost two years later, after illegally returning hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers without any process at all, his Administration still lacks a coherent, transparent plan to implement asylum law at the border. This wasn’t “rocket science” as there had been an operating asylum system at the border for approximately four decades, since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, until Trump illegally ended it.
After more than a year of dawdling, the Administration eventually, reluctantly, set a May 23, 2022 date to “lift” the illegal Title 42 “blockade,” giving GOP nativists more than ample time to block it.
In the meantime, they squandered time, money, and goodwill thinking of ways to actually extend the illegal removals. Their “defense” of lifting Title 42 was, predictably, half-hearted and inept. Not surprisingly, they were enjoined by nativist right wing judges. Reportedly, many Administration officials breathed a “sigh of relief” that the GOP nativists and their “wholly owned judges” had “bailed them out” from having to actually restore the asylum system and make good on their campaign promises.
Now, another six months have gone by. Garland and Mayorkas still are “not ready for prime time.” Sounds like they thought their “regime of illegal returns” would last forever!
Casts doubt on the good faith of their claim that they wanted to end Title 42 in the first place. Almost all Administrations, once in office, get enamored of the idea that “because it’s only immigrants” they don’t have to treat them as humans. What’s another month of law violations after two years and hundreds of thousands of human rights abuses?
I have little confidence that there will be a functional, due process compliant, asylum system on Dec. 22 at the border. I’m not aware that DHS and EOIR even have the properly trained qualified personnel to correctly and efficiently apply asylum law. There is no known plan for working with the pro bono bar to insure representation and prioritize the many potentially grantable cases.
There is certainly a mind-boggling “leadership void” at both DHS and DOJ on refugee, asylum, and human rights issues. The ill-advised “gimmicks” and “corner-cutting” that Garland and Mayorkas have substituted for competence and expertise in “recently arrived” asylum cases have resulted in elevated denials, hindered representation, and alienated the pro bono bar and human rights NGOs. The latter have far more expertise in asylum law and better ideas on how to efficiently and fairly process refugees and asylees than anyone at either DHS or EOIR. Yet, the experts have intentionally been “frozen out” of the decision-making process.
Additionally, and stunningly, Garland has gone out of his way to alienate and demoralize the already stressed and overextended immigration bar with a insane dose of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” Setting “D-Day” for reinstating the law, three days before the Christmas holiday, also seems highly problematic. What could possibly go wrong with a system run by politicos who have spent two years avoiding providing fair hearings to asylum seekers?
In the vacuum created by the Biden Administration’s incompetence and lack of leadership, racist GOP governors have taken control of “asylum resettlement” and conducted it in ways calculated to cause the most disruption, cruelty, and suffering for the political pawns (actually humans) that Biden has abandoned.
This does not sound like a “dressed for success” plan to restore a fair and efficient asylum system. But, after two years of adapting and using clearly illegal methods instead of competently handling human rights issues, the Biden group has gotten very used to “programmed failure” and shifting the blame to Trump (out of office since Jan. 20, 2021), the hapless victims, and their lawyers.
I hope I’m wrong. But, I strongly suspect that it’s going to take more than Judge Sullivan’s order to end the disingenuous “Miller Lite” approach to immigration within the Biden Administration and usher in an era of expertise, competence, integrity, and courage in addressing human rights.
“Judge” Roy Bean (1825-1903) American Saloon Keeper & “Jurist” Public Realm His reputation for “rough justice” in the West would be right at home in the “Asylum Free Zones” of Garland’s EOIR. Bean “was once trying a Mexican on a charge of horse stealing and his charge was the shortest on record: Gentlemen of the Jury, there’s a greaser in the box and a hoss missing. You know your duty, and they did.”
Here’s the latest analysis of Garland’s ongoing abuse of his office from Austin Kocher, PhD, at TRAC:
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
If someone NOT Merrick “What Me Worry” Garland (the “Alfred E. Neumann of Biden’s immigration bureaucracy”) took a look at the data, one major thing would jump out! There are likely more than 400,000 refugees entitled to asylum sitting in Garland’s 770,000 case asylum backlog (52% x 770,000). (The asylum backlog at EOIR is a “subset” of Garland’s largely self-inflicted, ever mushrooming, nearly 2 million case EOIR backlog — more judges have produced more backlog, so that’s likely NOT the answer here).
And, this is in a system currently governed by skewed anti-asylum BIA “precedents” and a chronic “anti-asylum culture” actively encouraged and fed by the Trump Administration. In a properly staffed and functioning court system with qualified, due-process oriented, judges and an expert BIA that enforced some decisional consistency and properly and generously interpreted asylum law, a “grant rate” of 75% or more would be a plausible expectation.
Given the obvious (and I would argue intentional) lack of reliable data on how a legitimate asylum system, one consisting at all levels of judges with well-recognized expertise in asylum law and human rights, and overseen by competent, due-process-oriented judicial administrators, might function, the 75% figure is just an “educated guesstimate.” But, it matches my own personal experience over 13 years on the bench in the (now defunct) Arlington Immigration Court.
It’s also in line with my recent conversations with the head of one of the largest NGOs in the DMV area involved in meeting busses and counseling those “orbited” from the Southern border by the racist/nativist GOP Govs that Biden, curiously, has chosen to run our domestic refugee resettlement program. This is a person who, unlike Garland, his lieutenants, and most of the other politicos and nativist blowhards participating in the “border travesty,” actually spent years of a career representing individuals in Immigration Court. They estimated that “at least 70%” of the “arriving bus riders” had very viable asylum claims.
This is a far cry from the nativist, restrictionist myths promoted by both the Trump and Biden Administrations — obviously to cover up their gross human rights violations in knowingly and illegally returning hundreds of thousands of legal refugees to danger zones! Many human rights experts would consider such gross misconduct to be “crimes against humanity.” Consequently, it doesn’t take much imagination to see why self-interested scofflaw officials like Garland, Mayorkas, and White House advisors seek to manipulate the system to keep the asylum grant rates artificially low while eschewing proper, realistically robust use of the overseas refugee program to take the pressure off the border — by acting legally rather than illegally!
Almost all the EOIR asylum backlog consists of “regular docket” (I use this term lightly with EOIR where “normalcy” is unknown) cases. Those are refugees who have had time to get lawyers, adequately prepare, document their cases, but are stuck in Garland’s chronically dysfunctional system. Consequently, they are “denied by delay” legal immigration status, a chance to get green cards, and to eventually qualify for citizenship. The American economy is denied an important source of legal workers who should be part of our permanent workforce and well on their way to full participation in our political system and society!
An expert looking at this system would see a “golden opportunity” to move most of the backlogged “easily grantable” asylum cases out of the system with stipulated grants or short hearings (the kind you actually might be able to do 3-4 a day without stepping on anyone’s due-processrights or driving the private bar nuts). These cases would also avoid the BIA’s appellate backlog, as well as eliminating unnecessary workload in the U.S. Circuit Courts (which already have their own inconsistency, rubber stamp, and bias issues in the human rights/racial justice area that seem to be getting worse, not better).
Knocking 400,000+ cases off the backlog wouldn’t completely solve Garland’s 2 million case backlog problem — only a complete “house cleaning” at EOIR, replacing many of the current bureaucrats with competent leaders and expert Immigration Judges well-versed in asylum law, will do that. But, cutting EOIR’s backlog by 20% (and the asylum backlog by over 50%) without stomping on anyone’s rights, while bolstering much-needed legal immigration, and harnessing the strengths of the private/pro bono bar, is nothing to “sneeze at!” That’s particularly true in comparison with Garland’s two years of mindless “designed to fail” gimmicks and astounding mismanagement, which have produced exactly the opposite results!
How bad has Garland’s leadership been at on human rights, due process, and racial justice at DOJ. A number of seasoned asylum practitioners have told me that today’s EOIR, also suffering from a tidal wave of Garland’s“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — is actually significantly worse than it was under Trump! That’s right, Garland’s tone-deaf incompetence has exceeded the disorder and systemic unfairness caused by overt xenophobia, anti-asylum bias, misogyny, “dumbing down,” and enforcement-biased “weaponization” of the Sessions/Barr years.
As for Dr. Kocher’s cogent observation that input from the Immigration Judges who actually decide these cases is a “missing ingredient,” good luck with that, my friend! Perhaps understandably in light of his unseemly failures at EOIR, Garland has taken EOIR’s traditional opaqueness and “muzzling” of Immigration Judges to new heights — even barring their participation in CLE events aimed at improving the level of practice before his courts.
Apparently, “studied incompetence” in a Democratic Administration can be even worse than the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Kakistocracy — at least where immigrants rights/human rights/racial justice/ women’s rights are concerned at EOIR. That’s an astounding observation! One that I actually never thought I’d hear from practitioners!
The only way for human rights and racial justice experts and advocates to “communicate” with Garland in his “ivory tower” is to ‘“sue his tail” in court! Judge Sullivan’s recent opinion finding Title 42 illegal incorporates the very facts and law used by human rights experts and advocates in years of fruitless pleading and begging Garland to “cease and desist” his support for unlawful conduct and “just follow the law.” The latter seems like a modest “no-brainer” request to a guy once nominated by an Dem President for the Supremes.
Waiting for Merrick Garland to fix the mess at EOIR to provide even a bare minimum of due process and rational administration is like waiting for the guy pictured below. Frustrated and “Garland-weary” as they might be, human rights advocates should take it to heart and act accordingly!
Waiting for Merrick Garland and his “clueless crew” at DOJ to fix the dysfunctional Immigration Courts will be an exercise in futility. He only pays attention when ordered by a Federal Judge, which, somewhat ironically, he used to be. But, he’s proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he is unqualified to run one of the most important and life-determining Federal Judiciaries — one where due process has been buried beneath an avalanche of expediency, incompetency, intellectual dishonesty, and dumb gimmicks. When will “enough be enough?” https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0
Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg Senior Advisor Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLCRekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KSHon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesMe
Here it is “Time for a Child Welfare Approach to Cancellation of Removal:”
So honored to collaborate with my colleagues Lory, Sue, and Rekha on this. Grateful to AILA for publishing. This resulted from lively conversations and brainstorming when we served as faculty at the Immigration Trial College sponsored by Rekha’s firm in Kansas City in April 2022!
We all hope that this “practical scholarship” will give ideas to practitioners on how to argue for a “child centered approach.” That the BIA is one of the American authorities NOT following this better approach, supported by compelling empirical evidence, is a testament to how badly broken and in desperately needing reform our Immigration Courts are today. They aren’t going to change on their own. So, start arguing for a better approach, now!
There’s also some “insider BIA history” in here from those of us “expelled” for our aggressive, progressive judicial views on due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Namely, Lory and me!
Knightess of the Round Table — “Primed and ready to keep fighting dysfunction @ EOIR until due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and equal justice for all prevail!”
Introduction and Summary of Argument
This brief presents amici’s practical perspective on why the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provision for removal based on a conviction for a “crime involving moral turpitude” is void for vagueness. Section 1227(a)(2)(A) combines the imprecision of the phrase “moral turpitude” with the indeterminacy of applying that phrase to a hypothetical set of facts
1 Counsel of record for all parties received notice of amici’s intent to file this brief at least ten days before its due date. The parties have consented to this filing. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
2
under the categorical approach. The result is a provision so vague that adjudicators cannot agree on how to conduct the inquiry and frequently reach inconsistent results.
The Act charges immigration judges with determining which crimes involve “moral turpitude.” Though the statute provides no definition, in 1951, this Court held that the “language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct.” Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 231-32 (1951). But time has disproved that understanding. The usual “consistency [that] can be expected to emerge with the accretion of case law,” S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., 894 F.3d 535, 550 (3d Cir. 2018), has not materialized. Indeed, the typical sources of clarity—the Board of Immigration Appeals and the courts of appeals—have produced more questions than answers. Whose morals matter? How should judges discern what those morals are? What course should judges follow when moral views conflict? How do they account for changes in views over time? Immigration judges have no way to know. And the uncertainty that the statute’s vague words create left amici with no guide except their own moral intuitions.
To this ambiguity, add that, under the categorical approach, immigration judges do not evaluate the actual conduct engaged in by the noncitizen before them. Instead, they must assess the moral implications of a theoretical set of facts—the “least culpable” means of committing the crime in question. The hypothetical nature of this mode of analysis exacerbates the underlying vagueness of the statutory phrase “crime involving moral turpitude.”
3
Recently, this Court has struck down statutory provisions that suffered from analogous uncertainty, holding each unconstitutionally vague. See Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018); United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Section 1227(a)(2)(A) should suffer the same fate.
The real-world effects of Section 1227(a)(2)(A)’s vagueness confirm this conclusion. Attempts to curtail the provision’s arbitrariness by articulating standards have failed. The Board and the courts of appeals have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to craft a workable set of rules for identifying which crimes involve moral turpitude. Their efforts have instead produced a series of non-dispositive, ad hoc tests that generate inconsistent and arbitrary results. Confusion abounds in immigration courts and in Article III courts alike, with widespread disagreement over whether a given crime involves moral turpitude. Among other unexplainable outcomes, the courts of appeals part ways on whether crimes such as making a terroristic threat or deceptively using a social security number involve moral turpitude. Amici were required to sort through this morass, unsure of which of the growing list of ad hoc tests applied or how to deal with the conflicting results. Their experiences confirm that the phrase “moral turpitude” is too vague to govern the “particularly severe ‘penalty’” of removal. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 365 (2010) (quoting Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 740 (1893)).
For these reasons, this Court should grant review and reverse.
For over 70 years, Federal Judges from the Supremes on down have turned a “blind eye” to our Constitution and substituted their subjective views on morality and immigrants for the rule of law. Our Round Table says it’s high time to stop! ⚔️🛡
Madeline Meth ESQUIRE Deputy Director and Staff Attorney – Georgetown Law Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic PHOTO: Linkedin — “She’s training tomorrow’s lawyers to fix today’s failing courts!“
Thanks again to the superstars Esthena L. Barlow, Brian Wolfman, Counsel of Record Madeline Meth, and the rest of the “Youth Brigade of the NDPA” over @ Georgetown Law!
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down a Donald Trump-era policy used by U.S. border officials to quickly expel migrants because of the covid pandemic, saying the ban had little proven benefit to public health even as it shunted migrants to dangerous places.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the District of Columbia vacated the order known as Title 42, effectively restoring asylum seekers’ access to the borders for the first time since the Trump administration issued it during the earliest days of the pandemic.
The decision — which takes effect immediately — knocks down one of the last remaining barriers to asylum from the Trump administration, advocates for immigrants said. It also poses an immediate logistical challenge for the Biden administration after two consecutive years of record apprehensions on the U.S.-Mexico border, with the possibility that the numbers could grow.
Biden officials have long worried about a mass rush to the border creating an emergency similar to the one that occurred in Del Rio, Texas, in Sept. 2021, when thousands of migrants crossed illegally and overwhelmed U.S. agents, creating a squalid camp on the banks of the Rio Grande that embarrassed the Biden administration.
Sullivan’s ruling also comes days after top border official Chris Magnus resigned under pressure after clashing with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security had no immediate response to the ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that brought the lawsuit on behalf of migrants, said Sullivan’s decision to vacate the Title 42 policy means the policy ends for all migrants, including families and adults traveling without children.
“Title 42 unfortunately had a long shelf life but has finally been ended, and that will mean enormous relief to desperate asylum seekers,” said ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt.
Sullivan also made clear that that he would not stay his order pending appeal, leaving it to a higher court to do so if the Biden administration sought more time to address the ruling.
. . . .
Key Quote:
Sullivan wrote that the federal officials knew the order “would likely expel migrants to locations with a ‘high probability’ of ‘persecution, torture, violent assaults, or rape’ ” — and did so anyway.
“It is unreasonable for the CDC to assume that it can ignore the consequences of any actions it chooses to take in the pursuit of fulfilling its goals,” Sullivan wrote. “It is undisputed that the impact on migrants was indeed dire.”
***************
The horrific consequences for lawful asylum seekers subjected to this unlawful policy have indeed been “dire:” rape, assault, kidnapping, beating, torture, extortion, starvation, illness, sickness, death, family separation, despair, to name a few.
By contrast, there have been NO consequences for Stephen Miller and the other Trump Administration officials who fabricated and directed this ruse on the justice system and attack on humanity and the rule of law! Nor have there been any consequences for lower level officials who “went along to get along” with what they knew or should have knownto be deadly abuses of our laws.
Additionally, Biden officials who continued to violate the law and even concocted ways of expanding its illegal and immoral use have escaped accountability and continue in their jobs. DOJ lawyers who failed to do “due diligence” and defended a policy based on pretext, misrepresentations of fact, racism, and xenophobia have also continued to operate in the “ethical twilight zone” that normally would have serious professional consequences!
Of course the whole history of the Title 42 charade ☠️🤮has been one of one step forward and three steps back. The corrupt decision-making extends to unqualified right-wing zealots with lifetime sinecures on the Federal Article III bench and to equally corrupt GOP state AG’s for their dishonest scheme to force continued illegal Title 42expulsions.
So, despite these “crimes against humanity,” don’t expect that “heads will roll!” Given the current sorry state of our Federal Courts and the DOJ, it’s not certain that Judge Sullivan’s order will actually have effect or that asylum seekers will ever get the fundamentally fair and humane treatment to which they are entitled.
But, I am certain that this will eventually go down in history as one of the most disgraceful intentional abrogations of law, with the most drastic consequences for humanity and our nation’s reputation, in 21st Century legal history!
It’s also worthy of note that rather than getting the asylum system properly staffed and trained, bringing in Immigration Judges with the required expertise, installing a BIA of expert judges capable of issuing correct, realistic, generous, practical asylum precedents, working cooperatively with the private bar to facilitate representation, and developing an orderly process for resettlement (away from the border) of asylum applicants who pass credible fear, Garland, Mayorkas, and a White House officials have dithered away two years of time without getting the necessary robust, fair, expert, efficient, timely asylum adjudication system up and running!
The advice and pleas of experts and advocates have been “tuned out” or ignored by those in charge! Now, as all of us predicted, the “chickens have come home to roost” for the Administration’s indifferent, incompetent, and lackadaisical approach to the biggest racial justice and human rights crisis facing our nation.
Thanks Judge Sullivan! Thanks ACLU! Apologies to the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers wronged by the cowardly failure of America to uphold our laws, Constitution, and international obligations — that “subset” of victims who are still alive despite our Government’s grotesque misconduct!
“Dulce Zaragoza, a native and citizen of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to the Indiana offense of criminal neglect of a dependent after locking her six-year-old son in a closet for six hours. She was sentenced to one year in jail suspended to time served plus 30 days, with the remainder of the sentence to be served on probation. After completing her sentence, she traveled abroad and presented herself for admission when she returned. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) found her inadmissible based on the neglect conviction, which the agency classified as a “crime involving moral turpitude.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). She was placed in removal proceedings. Zaragoza fought removal on several grounds, with her arguments expanding as the proceedings progressed. Before the immigration judge, she argued that the Indiana neglect offense does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. The judge disagreed and entered a removal order, and Zaragoza appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “the Board”). In the meantime, she petitioned the state court to modify her sentence. Her purpose was to bring herself within the so-called “petty offense” exception to inadmissibility, which is available to first-time offenders sentenced to six months or less. Id. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). The state court obliged and reduced her one-year sentence to 179 days. With that order in hand, Zaragoza argued before the BIA that Indiana’s neglect offense is not a crime involving moral turpitude, and regardless, the petty-offense exception applies. The BIA rejected both arguments, agreeing with the immigration judge that the Indiana offense is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, and further holding that the sentence-modification order was not effective to establish Zaragoza’s eligibility for the petty-offense exception. For the latter conclusion, the Board relied on a recent decision of the Attorney General declaring that state-court sentence modification orders are effective for immigration purposes only if based on a legal defect in the underlying criminal proceeding. Matter of Thomas & Thompson (“Thomas”), 27 I. & N. Dec. 674, 690 (Att’y Gen. 2019). Zaragoza sought reconsideration, this time adding two more arguments: (1) the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the Attorney General’s decision in Thomas is impermissibly retroactive as applied to her. The BIA disagreed on both counts. Zaragoza petitioned for review in this court, reprising the entire array of arguments she presented to the Board. We agree with the BIA’s resolution of all issues but one: applying Thomas in Zaragoza’s case is an impermissibly retroactive application of a new rule. We therefore remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
***********************
Commentary from Kevin A. Gregg, ESQ:
Kevin A. Gregg
• 1st
Partner at Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli & Pratt P.A. & Host of Immigration Review Podcast
2d • Edited •
2 days ago
Crimmigration attorneys, get your motions ready.
At least in Chicago! Matter of Thomas and Thompson CANNOT be applied retroactively in the Seventh Circuit!
Sentence modifications/clarifications/European vacations obtained pre-T&T and that comply with Matter of Cota Vargas/Song/Estrada must be recognized for immigration purposes!
Also, when will A.G. Garland weigh in on Matter of Thomas and Thompson? The time is now.
*******************
When the BIA starts not with the correct legal concept that retroactivity is disfavored in the law, but rather with “how can we best help DHS Enforcement and/or curry favor and job security from our political ‘handlers’ at DOJ,” “bad things are going to happen.” And, they do, over and over!
There are plenty of well-qualified “practical scholars” out here who understand retroactivity in the immigration context and would get these basic questions right in the first instance without bothering the Courts of Appeals or generating disorder, inconsistency, and unnecessary backlog! Why hasn’t Garland recruited them to be the “New and Improved BIA” that would actually be driven by legal expertise, practical scholarship, due process, and fundamental fairness? The latter are qualities that EOIR and DOJ claims it seeks in Immigration Judges. But, it’s not the reality that practitioners too often actually face in todays dysfunctional, inefficient, and hopelessly backlogged EOIR.
The public and those subject to substandard judging and often dehumanizing treatment by EOIR are suffering — amazingly, now more than ever! When will Garland do his job and reform his courts to conform to due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations of law, and best practices?
The latter desirable qualities, actually necessary for any legitimate judiciary, are certainly NOT descriptive of today’s broken EOIR! Garland and his lieutenants might consider themselves “above the fray!”
But, my already over-stuffed e-mailbox is “lighting up” with EOIR horror stories from experienced, long-time practitioners who are questioning whether they can continue practicing in the hostile, lawless, “no due process,” “no customer service,” “no common sense,” “blame the victim” environment that Garland has allowed to mushroom, and sometimes even encouraged, at EOIR.
I mentioned the term “Dedicated Docket” at an Executive Session of a major NGO recently. The anger and disgust that it provoked from those actually “doing the job” of fighting for justice in Garland’s broken system was palpable!
Why is a Democratic Administration that is, despite beating expectations in the midterms, still hanging on by a thread, inflicting this type of disrespect, pain, and suffering on its own loyal supporters? How will this self-created legal, Constitutional, human rights disaster play out moving toward 2024!
“The EOIR HQ Tower” needs a complete shake-up and replacement ofthose who have demonstrated their inability to get the job done with those who can! The latter are out here. But, the worse Garland lets his system get, the harder and most costly (dollars and lives) it will be to fix it!
