Courts – Page 204 – immigrationcourtside.com

Advocates: Here’s Your Opportunity To Shape The Future Of American Immigration Law — Don’t Blow It! — BIA Asks For Amicus Briefing On Whether “Misprision Of A Felony” Is A “Crime Involving Moral Turpitude!”

Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05
AMICUS INVITATION (MISPRISION OF A FELONY), DUE FEBRUARY 6, 2017

The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue:

ISSUES PRESENTED:

(1) Does the offense of misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4 categorically qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude? Please see in that regard and address Matter of Robles- Urrea, 24 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 2006), reversed, Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2012); and Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2002).
(2) Assuming the Board should decide to adhere to Matter of Robles-Urrea, supra, in circuits other than the Ninth, is the application of such precedent impermissibly retroactive to convictions for acts committed prior to the publication of Matter of Robles- Urrea inasmuch as that decision overruled a prior precedent holding that misprision of a felony was not a crime involving moral turpitude?

Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae (“Request to Appear”) pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix B (Directory), and Appendix F (Sample Cover Page) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board Practice Manual.

Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider a brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.

Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case may be available. Please contact the Amicus Clerk by phone or mail (see contact information below) for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear and brief.

Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 30 double-spaced pages.

Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear and brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by February 6, 2017. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear and brief are disfavored. The briefs or extension request must be RECEIVED at the Board on or before the due date. It is not sufficient simply

to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.

Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear and brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.

Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear and brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae).

Notice: A Request to Appear may be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(f). A Request to Appear filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.

Attribution: Should the Board decide to publish a decision, the Board may, at its discretion, name up to three attorneys or representatives. If you wish a different set of three names or you have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear and brief.

Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:

To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:

Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041 703-605-1007

Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear and amicus briefs.

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

The key case to read is Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2012), where the Ninth Circuit rejected the BIA’s conclusion in Matter of Robles- Urrea, 24 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 2006) that misprision of a felony is “categorically” a “crime involving moral turpitude” for removal purposes.

In simple terms, among other things, the BIA is now considering whether to “blow off” the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in other circuits and adhere to its prior interpretation which the Ninth Circuit found to be wrong and which, of course, is must less favorable to respondents.

So, anybody who thinks that the BIA is about to “bark up the wrong tree” here (and, not for the first time, ignore the well reasoned decision of an Article III Court under the so-called “Chevron doctrine”) better get their group together and get crackin’ on a brief to convince the BIA that the Ninth Circuit got it right.

The deadline is February 6, 2017, (WARNING: The BIA seldom extends amicus deadlines) and everything you need to know about how to file the brief is in the BIA’s notice, reproduced above.

Here are links to Robles-Urrea v. Holder: https://casetext.com/case/roblesurrea-v-holder

and Matter of Robles: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3542.pdf to help you get started.

Good luck!

PWS

01/06/17

L.A.’s Already Overwhelmed Immigration Court Could Simply Collapse Under A Trump Enforcement Initiative!

http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2016/12/27/54010/la-s-busy-immigration-courts-could-swell-under-tru

“The burden on judges could also increase, as dockets swell with more cases and those on the bench come under increasing pressure to render decisions.

“I see this as a pot that is going to boil over and scald everybody,” said Bruce Einhorn, a former immigration judge in Los Angeles. “I just don’t see pragmatically how you can almost double the number of cases without spending huge amounts of money to try to accommodate the dockets of the cases already on schedule and those that will be brought into the system.”

The backlog of cases is not new. It has steadily increased over the past decade — even as fewer immigrants have been apprehended along the Southwest border in recent years. In response, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that oversees the courts, has added more judges, including one to Los Angeles in November. It’s also prioritized juvenile cases in an effort to speed up cases of migrant youth.”

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

The full article, at the link, contains a 9-minute audio segment. Does anyone seriously think that adding one Immigration Judge in Los Angeles or “prioritizing” juvenile cases will solve this mess?

Actually, the misguided prioritization of juvenile cases, many of them unrepresented, over longer pending cases of represented individuals is exactly the type of “Aimless Docket Reschuffling” that has created a practically insurmountable backlog in the Immigration Courts, notwithstanding a modest decline in new case receipts and a modest increase in resources. The inability of the DOJ and EOIR to establish an efficient merit hiring system for new Immigrstion Judges and poor planning for additional courtrooms to house new judges has also aggravated the problem.

PWS

01/05/17

Will Workplace Immigration Raids Return Under Trump Administration?

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/illegal-immigrants-raids-deportation.html?mabReward=A4&recp=0&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

“But as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to take office and promises to swiftly deport two million to three million undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, bipartisan experts say they expect a return of the raids that rounded up thousands of workers at carwashes, meatpacking plants, fruit suppliers and their homes during the Bush years.

“If Trump seriously wants to step up dramatically the number of arrests, detentions and removals, I think he has to do workplace raids,” said Michael J. Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School who represents detainees in civil rights cases.

Since the election, Mr. Trump has suggested that he plans to focus on deporting criminals. “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers,” he told CBS News in November. “We’re getting them out of our country.”

But Mr. Trump’s advisers have said that to promptly reach his target number of deportations, the definition of who is a criminal would need to be broadened. In July 2015, the Migration Policy Institute, a bipartisan think tank, estimated that of the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, 820,000 had criminal records — a definition Mr. Obama mostly adhered to during his second term, evicting some 530,000 immigrants convicted of crimes since 2013.

Mr. Trump would need to expand the basket to include immigrants living in the United States illegally who have been charged but not convicted of crimes, those who have overstayed visas, those who have committed minor misdemeanors like traffic infractions, and those suspected of being gang members or drug dealers.

Targeting workers for immigration-related offenses, such as using a forged or stolen Social Security number or driver’s license, produced a significant uptick in deportations under Mr. Bush. But the practice was widely criticized for splitting up families, gutting businesses that relied on immigrant labor and taking aim at people who went to work every day, rather than dangerous criminals.”

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

There is no statutory or other widely accepted definition of a “criminal alien.” As shown by this article in the NY Times, it could be narrow — covering only those who are actually removable from the United States by virtue of their crimes — or broad — covering anyone who has ever had contact with the criminal justice system and is potentially removable, regardless of whether there was a conviction or whether the crime itself is the ground for removal. For example, “driving with an expired license” is not a ground for removal. But, an undocumented individual arrested for “driving without a license” could be referred by the state or local authorities to the DHS to be placed in removal proceedings before a U.S. Immigration Judge. If the Immigration Judge finds that such an individual has no legal status in the United States, and that individual cannot establish that she or he is entitled to some type of relief from removal, the Immigration Judge must enter an order of removal, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest or the overall equities of the case.

PWS

01/04/17

The U.S. Immigration Court’s Vision Is All About Best Practices, Guaranteeing Fairness, And Due Process — 7th Circuit’s Judge Posner Thinks It’s A “Farce” — Blames Congressional Underfunding!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/archive/2016/12/31/let-39-s-close-out-2016-with-a-posner-dissent-chavarria-reyes-v-lynch.aspx?Redirected=true

“POSNER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. This case involves a typical botch by an immigration judge. No surprise: the Im‐ migration Court, though lodged in the Justice Department, is the least competent federal agency, though in fairness it may well owe its dismal status to its severe underfunding by Congress, which has resulted in a shortage of immigration judges that has subjected them to crushing workloads. See, e.g., Julia Preston, “Deluged Immigration Courts, Where Cases Stall for Years, Begin to Buckle,” NY Times, Dec. 1, 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/deluged‐immigratio n‐courts‐where‐cases‐stall‐for‐years‐begin‐to‐buckle.html?_r =0 (visited Dec. 30, 2016).”

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

Go on over to Dan Kowalski on LexisNexis Immigration Community and read the full opinion and Judge P’s full dissent in Chavarria-Reyes v. Lynch.

Also, read Julia Preston’s article in the NY Times, cited by Judge Posner, quoting (and picturing) me here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/deluged-immigration-courts-where-cases-stall-for-years-begin-to-buckle.html

PWS

01/02/17

Chief Gives Year-End Shout-Out To Retail Level Jurists!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/roberts-steers-clear-of-controversy-praises-district-judges-in-year-end-report/2016/12/31/445fc61a-cf8c-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?utm_term=.b76ef6d5bf24

“There already are 84 vacancies at the district level Roberts was writing about, with about another dozen openings expected early in the year.

There are 673 district judgeships authored by Congress around the nation, and Roberts said they are aided by more than 500 senior district judges, who are eligible for retirement with full pay but still continue to work part time.

“Unlike politicians, they work largely outside of the public eye,” Roberts wrote. The typical judge has a docket of about 500 cases, he said, and is responsible for all aspects of moving a lawsuit toward resolution.

“The judge must have mastery of the complex rules of procedure and evidence and be able to apply those rules to the nuances of a unique controversy,” he wrote. “As the singular authority on the bench, he must respond to every detail of an unscripted proceeding, tempering firm and decisive judgment with objectivity, insight, and compassion. This is no job for impulsive, timid, or inattentive souls.”

The most challenging part of the job is sentencing those found guilty of a criminal offense, Roberts wrote, balancing the perspectives of prosecutor, defendant and victim and guided by legislative directive and sentencing guidelines.”

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

Wow! 500 case dockets! The “average” U.S. Immigration Judge handles a docket approaching 2,000 cases, almost four times the average for a U.S. District Judge. At the time I retired from the U.S. Immigration Court at Arlington, VA on June 30, 2016, the two of us assigned to so-called “non-priority dockets” (everything except detained, juveniles, and recently arrived “adults with children”) each had more than 5,000 assigned cases — ten times more than a U.S. District Judge!

Notably, notwithstanding “docket chaos” which has sent the backlog of pending cases soaring to more than one-half million, the Department of Justice and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administer the Immigration Courts, have failed to establish a “Senior Judge” program like that which assists U.S. District Judges. Moreover, they have never implemented a Congressionally-enacted program for “phased retirement” and mentoring by Immigration Judges (or anyone else, for that matter). Consequently, the literally centuries of judicial experience and expertise that retiring “baby boomer” judges have gained is completely lost to the over-strapped Immigration Court System.

And, it’s not that the role of a U.S. Immigration Judge is noticeably less significant than that of a U.S. District Judge. Chief Justice Roberts describes the difficulties of sentencing, which is certainly quite similar to, and no less gut-wrenching, than the decisions about people’s lives, future, and freedom that Immigration Judges make on a daily basis.

For a wonderful recent description of what the daily life of a U.S. Immigration Judge is like, go over to USA Today and read this first-hand account by Hon. Thomas G. Snow, my former colleague at the Arlington Immigration Court. Judge Snow is widely respected and admired as “one of the best.” Here’s the link:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/12/12/immigration-judge-gut-wrenching-decisions-column/95308118/

Happy New Year 2017,

PWS

01/01/17

Family Detention, Raids, Expediting Cases Fail To Deter Scared Central Americans!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/central-americans-continue-to-surge-across-us-border-new-dhs-figures-show/2016/12/30/ed28c0aa-cec7-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.077ef694fd73

“Immigration advocates have repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for its increased reliance on detention facilities, particularly for Central American families, who they argue should be treated as refugees fleeing violent home countries rather than as priorities for deportation.

They also say that the growing number of apprehended migrants on the border, as reflected in the new Homeland Security figures, indicate that home raids and detentions of families from Central America isn’t working as a deterrent.”

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

The “enforcement only” approach to forced migration from Central America has been an extraordinarily expensive total failure. But, the misguided attempt to “prioritize” cases of families seeking refuge from violence has been a major contributing factor in creating docket disfunction (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) in the United States Immigration Courts. And, as a result, cases ready for trial that should have been heard as scheduled in Immigration Court have been “orbited” to the end of the docket where it is doubtful they ever will be reached. When political officials, who don’t understand the Immigration Court and are not committed to its due process mission, order the rearrangement of existing dockets without input from the trial judges, lawyers, court administrators, and members of the public who are most affected, only bad things can happen. And, they have!

PWS

12/31/16

As Federal Hiring Freeze Looms, The Chickens Might Be Coming Home To Roost At The Beleaguered U.S. Immigration Court System — More than 20% Of Judicial Vacancies Unfilled!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/federal-agencies-rush-to-fill-job-openings-before-trump-takes-office-jan-20/2016/12/30/de0c1030-cdd8-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_trumphiring-940pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.81ad4681c3c9

“Leaders at these agencies are filling open positions with transfers and outside hires and are making internal promotions before Trump takes office Jan. 20, according to internal documents and interviews.

The hiring could increase tensions between the Trump transition team and the Obama administration — a relationship that has grown worse in recent days due to disagreements over how the United States should handle its relationship with Israel and the issuance of new sanctions against Russia over its role in hacking incidents tied to the election.

Sean Spicer, the incoming White House press secretary, said in an interview late Friday that an agreement was struck in November that no new hires would be made after Dec. 1.

“After the election, the current administration notified us there would be a hiring freeze as of Dec. 1,” he said. “The understanding was that there would be a full accounting of anyone put on the payroll after then.”

White House Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman Shannon Buckingham said in an email early Saturday, “On Dec. 7, the administration imposed a moratorium on the hiring of senior executives within the civil service, known as the Senior Executive Service or SES.”

“This policy is consistent with previous transitions and is intended to ensure that incoming agency heads have the opportunity to make or approve executive hiring decisions that will impact the agency’s performance in the next administration,” she added.”

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

As I have mentioned before, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), which administers the U.S. Immigration Court System, is on the verge of leaving at least 78 U.S. Immigration Judge positions unfilled at the end of the Obama Administration. As of November 8, 2016, EOIR had filled just 296 of its authorized and funded 374 Immigration Judge vacancies. However, with a number of year-end retirements among the Immigration Judge Corps, the actual number of vacancies is almost certainly exceeds that previously announced.

Given that the U.S. Immigration Courts are struggling with a backlog of well over 500,000 cases — more than two years of work for 296 Immigration Judges, even assuming that they were all trained and fully productive, and that no new cases were filed — the lack of urgency in filling these judicial positions seems unusual, to say the least.

Over the past two Administrations, the DOJ has turned a Civil Service hiring system into a multi-tiered bureaucratic quagmire resulting in a hiring cycle that in too many cases substantially exceeds the much-criticized Senate confirmation process for Article III Federal Judges. But, the multiple layers of bureaucracy haven’t actually improved hiring quality.

Conspicuously absent from the process is meaningful input from anyone who actually practices in, appears before, sits on, or “consumes” the “judicial product” of the Immigration Courts (like judges of the U.S. Courts of Appeals who review final decisions from the Immigration Courts). Not surprisingly, the results of this opaque bureaucratic exercise have been heavily weighted toward new Immigration Judges from government backgrounds, to the disadvantage of those with private practice, academic, or non-governmental organization experience.

While the claimed “complexity” of Federal background checks and security clearances sometimes is blamed for the delays, that is, in plain terms, “poppycock.” The clearance process goes exactly as fast as the Attorney General tells it to go. Those of us who are familiar with the process, and have actually participated in it, know that it is a series of largely ministerial tasks, which with proper “motivation” can be accomplished in a matter of days, rather than months. The idea that any cabinet officer normally would wait a year or more to bring on needed talent from the private sector to fill a critical senior position is simply preposterous. In the past, senior level positions at EOIR and the DOJ, including Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges who serve on the Board of Immigration Appeals, were filled with candidates from outside the government in a fraction of the time IJ hiring currently takes.

As noted in the Washington Post article, the Trump Administration has announced an intention to impose an immediate hiring freeze. Immigration Judge vacancies might, or might not, be exempted as “public safety positions.” Nobody knows for sure.

U.S. Immigration Judges are senior Civil Service officials, with their own senior pay scale established by Congress. Immigration Judges certainly are equivalent to the Senior Executive Service positions that the Obama Administration appears to have agreed to informally freeze as of December 1, 2016, according to the article. Even if DOJ belatedly tries to rush new appointments through prior to January 20, it is far from clear that the incoming Administration would be legally bound to honor such last minute appointments, let alone outstanding offers.

The chickens might be coming home to roost for the DOJ’s and EOIR’s lackadaisical administration of the U.S. Immigration Courts. And, at this point, it could be too late to solve this self-created disaster. If so, in addition to those who might reasonably have expected to receive Immigration Judge appointments, the real losers will be due process and the American people.

PWS

12/31/16

In Case You Missed It: It’s A Rainy Night In Georgia, Particularly If You Are An Asylum Applicant!

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/12/12/america-s-toughest-immigration-court?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=opening-statement&utm_term=newsletter-20161212-654#.bKZwzlP91

Some of you have seen this before. But, my good friend and former Georgetown Law colleague Heidi Altman of the National Immigrant Justice Center sent me this article by Christie Thompson of The Marshall Project which describes the dismal atmosphere for asylum applicants and their attorneys at the U.S. Immigration Court located at the Stewart County Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia. Christie interviewed me for the article. Here an excerpt:

“‘When people aren’t represented, how can you do a fair job?’ says Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge and former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Isolating a few judges to see only detained cases, Schmidt says, also creates a culture where granting relief is the exception, not the rule. Locating detention centers in rural areas ‘seems more or less designed to discourage people from getting meaningful representation and fighting to stay in the U.S.’”

More on the tough situation for asylum seekers in the U.S. Immigration Courts located in Georgia in the preceding post.

“‘Rainy Night in Georgia’ is a song written by Tony Joe White in 1967 and popularized by R&B vocalist Brook Benton in 1970.” See Wikipedia link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainy_Night_in_Georgia

PWS

12/29/16

Hungarian Human Rights Scholar Sees Authoritarian Danger in Populist Drift — Cites Hungarian Example

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/i-watched-a-populist-leader-rise-in-my-country-and-that-is-why-i-am-genuinely-worried-for-america/2016/12/27/6b4cf632-cc65-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d:homepage/story&utm_term=.ac8ebaf01f3b

“The world is looking at the United States now in a way that we never thought would be possible: fretting that the ‘deals’ of its new president will make the world’s first democracy more similar to that of the others. I wish we onlookers could help the Americans in making the most out of their hard-to-change Constitution. We still are thankful for what they gave to the world, and we will be a bit envious if they can stop the fast-spreading plague of national populism.”

I sure hope he’s unduly pessimistic. The United States has a history of being able to reorient back to the center when necessary. Also, we do have a vigorous free press and, at least with respect to our “Article III Courts,” the world’s most independent court system.

PWS

12/28/16

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: