Courts – Page 23 – immigrationcourtside.com

DOJ’s IMITATION OF DHS “SERVICE CENTERS” IN VA MIGHT OFFER LITIGANTS A CHANCE AT BETTER LAW! 😎 — Hon. Jeffrey Chase Points Out How DOJ’s Efforts To “Dumb Down” 😩 Immigration Courts & Replace Judicial Decision-Making With “Rote Adjudication” Could Unintentionally Give Individuals A Better Due Process Option!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/8/16/the-4th-circuit-on-jurisdiction

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

The 4th Circuit on Jurisdiction

On June 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision that might not have received the attention it deserved. The end result of the court’s published decision in Herrera-Alcala v. Garland was to affirm an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum based on a lack of credibility.1

But before reaching the merits, the court addressed a jurisdictional issue, and that is where our interest lies. At his removal proceeding, the petitioner was detained at a Louisiana correctional facility, which placed him physically within the territory of the Fifth Circuit. For some reason, the Administrative Control Court (which is where the administrative record for the case was created and maintained, and where documents were filed by the parties) having jurisdiction over that Louisiana correctional facility was in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, which is physically located within the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

However, the immigration judge who conducted the hearing remotely by video and rendered the decision was sitting at the Immigration Adjudication Center in Falls Church, Virginia, which is within the geographic jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit. So after the BIA dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, his counsel sought review with the Fourth Circuit. The Department of Justice moved to change venue to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the petitioner’s location was determinative. And an amicus brief filed by an immigrants’ rights group took the position that venue properly belonged in the Eighth Circuit, where the control court was located.

The Fourth Circuit resolved the question of jurisdiction using the language of the relevant statute. Since 8 U.S.C. section 1252(b)(2) states that the “petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings,” the court interpreted that to mean it is the location of the judge that determines jurisdiction. And as the judge in this case was in Virginia, it found proper jurisdiction to be with the Fourth Circuit.

The decision yields an immediate benefit, as there are presently nineteen Immigration Judges sitting in the two Immigration Adjudication Centers that are located within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction (in Falls Church and Richmond, VA). Based on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, any of the thousands of noncitizens whose cases were heard by one of these Virginia-based judges now have the option of seeking judicial review in the Fourth Circuit.

The impact of this becomes apparent when we look at the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of L-E-A-.2 In that case, the Board held that the respondent’s family constituted a valid particular social group for asylum purposes, but then denied asylum by finding that a nexus had not been established between that family membership and the feared persecution. In fact, the decision created an unreasonably high standard for nexus in a commonly occurring type of asylum claim. But the decision contains a footnote recognizing that the Fourth Circuit holds a significantly different view of nexus in such cases, adding that L-E-A- did “not arise in the Fourth Circuit.”3

Although the Board doesn’t go as far as saying so, applying Fourth Circuit case law to the facts of L-E-A- would have resulted in a grant of asylum. As I discussed in far greater depth in this blog post in December, the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly reversed the Board on nexus, citing the latter’s error of focusing on why the persecutor targeted the group in question, instead of asking why they targeted the asylum applicant themself. For example, if the group in question is a family, it doesn’t matter if the persecutor is targeting that family for an unprotected reason such as money, revenge, or self-preservation. Per the Fourth Circuit, if the asylum seeker themself wouldn’t be targeted if not for their membership in that family, then nexus has been established, regardless of the reason the family is at risk in the first place.4

In addition to its more favorable take on nexus, the Fourth Circuit is also among the handful of circuits to consider verbal death threats to constitute persecution.5 This is important, because one who has been threatened in those circuits has thus established past persecution, causing burdens of proof regarding future fear and internal relocation to then shift to the government to rebut, and further opening the possibility for humanitarian grants of asylum even where the government meets its burden of rebuttal.6

The Fourth Circuit has also imposed on Immigration Judges a strong obligation under international law to fully develop the record in hearings involving asylum claims, particularly (but not exclusively) where the respondent is pro se, and considers an IJ’s failure to meet this obligation to be “presumptively prejudicial.”7 Any attorney who is representing on appeal an asylum applicant who appeared pro se below where the IJ had been sitting in Virginia might want to review the record to see if the duties imposed by the Fourth Circuit to develop the record, which includes a “broad and robust duty to help pro se asylum seekers articulate their particular social groups,” was satisfied.8

In spite of the above-listed benefits, advocates have identified a potential downside to the ruling in Herrera-Alcala should the Fourth Circuit’s view on jurisdiction be adopted nationwide. To illustrate this concern, I’ll use a hypothetical example arising in a circuit such as the Fourth with a body of case law favorable to asylum applicants. Let’s imagine that after briefing and documenting the claim in line with that circuit’s law, the presiding judge in Baltimore is out sick on the day of the merits hearing. A deserving asylum seeker could have a likely grant of asylum upended if a judge stationed in a jurisdiction with far less favorable case law is enlisted to hear the case by video under EOIR’s “No Dark Courtrooms” policy.9 While the intent behind substituting in a remote judge might be an innocent one, the impact on the asylum seeker of unexpectedly having to overcome a much tougher standard for nexus or a narrower definition of persecution could be devastating, as the Matter of L-E-A- example illustrated.

The Fourth Circuit’s view is presently limited to the Fourth Circuit. But should it come to be the universal rule, while whether a particular circuit will accept jurisdiction over a petition for review is beyond EOIR’s control, the agency may itself still choose which circuit’s case law its own Immigration Judges should apply in individual cases before the Immigration Courts. EOIR would do well to look to the example of USCIS, which advises its asylum officers conducting credible fear interviews that where there is disagreement among the circuits as to the proper interpretation of a legal issue, “generally the interpretation most favorable to the applicant is used when determining whether the applicant meets the credible fear standard.”10

I mentioned above the Fourth Circuit’s recognition of the duty of Immigration Judges to ensure that the record is fully developed in asylum claims. Scholars credit that obligation to the legal requirement on nations to implement treaties in good faith. For example, in discussing the adjudicator’s duty to develop the record in asylum cases, two leading international refugee law scholars explain the duty to implement treaties in good faith as holding states “not simply to ensuring the benefits of the Convention are withhold from persons who are not refugees, but equally to doing whatever is within their ability to ensure recognition of genuine refugees.”11

But shouldn’t that same obligation apply to not only developing the evidence of record, but also to deciding which law to apply when, as in Herrera-Alcala, there is more than one option? If there is an obligation on our government to do everything in its ability to ensure recognition of genuine refugees, then isn’t that obligation breached where an individual sitting in a geographic area in which the law deems her deserving of asylum is then denied protection because the judge being beamed into that courtroom is sitting in a place with less enlightened precedent?

Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2022. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, Nos. 20-1770, 20-2338, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. June 30, 2022).

Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017).

Id at 46, n.3.

Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 222 (4th Cir. 2021).

See Sorto-Guzman v. Garland, No. 20-1762, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022) (restating the court’s repeated holding that “the ‘threat of death’ qualifies as persecution.”); Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020) (emphasizing that “under our precedent, as we have repeatedly explained, a threat of death qualifies as past persecution”).

8 C.F.R. §§1208.13(b)(1), 1208.13(b)(3)(ii), and 1208.13(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Matter of D-I-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 448 (BIA 2008); Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705 (BIA 2012).

Arevalo Quintero v. Garland, 998 F.3d 612, 642 (4th Cir. 2021) (italics in original).

Id. at 633.

March 29, 2019 Memo of EOIR Director, “No Dark Courtrooms,” OOD PM 19-11.

USCIS Asylum Division Officer Training Course, Credible Fear of Persecution and Torture Determinations (Feb. 13, 2017), at 17.

James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (2d Ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014, at 119.

AUGUST 16, 2022

PREVIOUS

Can Keathley Be Applied More Broadly?

NEXT

Correcting Course?

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a formerImmigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

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

At the “Legacy INS,” the acronym for what were then called “Remote Adjudication Centers” was “The RACK” — with good reason! Once upon a time, EOIR went out of the way to emphasize the differences with, and independence from, INS — it ran “courts” not “adjudication centers,” and it was comprised of “judges” NOT “adjudicators.”

Indeed, I can remember a past (in person) IJ National Conference where a senior DOJ official received a rather chilly reception for referring to the IJs in the room as “highly paid immigration examiners who worked for the AG.”

But, times change, and passage of time does not always bring progress. In many important ways EOIR is going backwards. Over the years, particularly 2017-2021, it probably has become more “politicized, compromised, weaponized, and subservient to immigration enforcement” than it was when it operated within the “Legacy INS.” Now, its bloated hierarchical bureaucracy, unmanageable backlogs, lousy public service, and emphasis on “productivity” and carrying out DOJ policies, looks more and more like DHS — the successor to the agency from which it declared “independence” back in 1983. What an unforgivable mess!

Star Chamber Justice — The “RACK” “processes” another “adjudication.”

Here’s a recent post with my “take” on Herrera-Alcala. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/07/02/⚖%EF%B8%8Fvenue-venue-whos-got-the-venue-the-4th-circuit-herrera-alcala-v-garland/

As a “vet” of thousands of Televideo Hearings during my 13+ years on the bench at Arlington, I can definitively say that they are inferior to in person hearings, for many reasons. But, sometimes bureaucratic attempts to “depersonalize” justice, cut corners, and achieve bureaucratic goals produce unanticipated outcomes!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-28-22

🤯HASTE MAKES WASTE — DEFENDING IT’S WORSE: IJ’s Due Process Errors During 4-Min. Hearing 11 Years Ago Touch Off 4 Years Of Litigation Ending In Another Crushing Rebuke Of Garland’s DOJ By 4th Cir! — As Judge Wayne Iskra said, “This system is broken!”

U.S. v. Fernandez-Sanchez, 4th Cir., 08-25-22, published

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/204061.P.pdf

WYNN, Circuit Judge:

Bonifacio Fernandez Sanchez, a Mexican citizen who migrated to the United States

illegally as a minor in 2006, was deported in 2011 following a four-minute removal hearing. During that hearing, the immigration judge neglected to advise Fernandez Sanchez about his eligibility for voluntary departure or inform him of his right to appeal. Then, in his written summary order, the immigration judge indicated that Fernandez Sanchez had waived his right to appeal—even though this was never discussed during the hearing.

In the years since, Fernandez Sanchez has returned to the United States and been deported multiple times. Upon discovering him in the country once again in 2018, the Government opted to arrest and charge him with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Fernandez Sanchez moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that the 2011 deportation order underlying his § 1326 charge was invalid.

The district court agreed, finding that the immigration judge’s failure to advise Fernandez Sanchez regarding his eligibility for voluntary departure rendered his 2011 removal fundamentally unfair. However, while this appeal was pending, we effectively rejected the district court’s reasoning in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, 14 F.4th 311 (4th Cir. 2021). Fernandez Sanchez nevertheless maintains that the district court’s decision must be affirmed on an alternative basis: that the immigration judge’s denial of his right to appeal also prejudiced him. We agree, and therefore affirm the dismissal of Fernandez Sanchez’s indictment.

. . . .

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

To me, it sounds like the 4th Circuit having “buyer’s remorse” about their questionable decision in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, There, the court found that an IJ’s erroneous failure to advise a respondent of the availability of pre-hearing voluntary departure (“VD”) was not a constitutional violation because there was no constitutional right to be advised of potential relief from deportation, even though a DOJ regulation required it! Huh?

But, here the court finds that the IJ’s improper failure to advise of the availability of prehearing VD combined with his failure to advise of appeal rights WAS a due process violation. Why? Because, if properly advised, the individual probably would have appealed, been successful, received a remand from the BIA, and then received VD from the IJ, thus avoiding deportation. Huh?

The problem here is that as currently staffed and operated by the Executive, EOIR is one “walking, talking violation of due process.” If Congress won’t solve the problem by enacting a long overdue Article I Immigration Court, then the Article IIIs need to “take the bull by the horns!”

They should place this entire, festering conflict of interest, and hotbed of substandard quasi-judicial performance OUT of the control of the nation’s Chief Prosecutor, the AG. Until Congress acts to establish a constitutionally compliant system, EOIR should be placed under the supervision of an independent, expert “Special Master” qualified to fairly administer one of the nation’s most important, yet totally dysfunctional and highly unfair, court systems!

Interestingly, much of the court’s reasoning is based on the premise that on appeal the BIA would have corrected the IJ’s clear errors. But, as those who follow Federal immigration litigation are aware, the BIA’s “assembly line” appellate review, sensitivity to due process, and willingness to apply precedent favoring the respondent are often as slipshod and driven by undue haste as this 4-minute IJ hearing.

Ironically, the IJ who mishandled this case is generally regarded as one of the “best in the business” — experienced, knowledgeable, fair, and sensitive to the rights of individuals coming before him. So, while this screw-up might be an aberration for this particular IJ, it’s clearly not a systemic rarity.

In the haste makes waste, hopelessly backlogged, “anything goes” “world of EOIR” goofs like this are likely happening every hour of every day that the Immigration Courts are in session. But, since many folks are unrepresented or underrepresented, some mistakes are simply buried or deported.

Indeed, I had my share of 4-minute (or less) “hearings” during 13 years on the bench. Inevitably, I made some mistakes — some were caught, some inevitably weren’t. Hopefully, I learned from the ones brought to my attention. With “Master Calendars” often consisting of upwards of 50 cases in a 3-hour “slot” in a courtroom overflowing with humanity — and the need to provide stressed out interpreters court clerks, counsel, and me with suitable “breaks” — you can do the math!

Once I did a 100 case Televideo Master in Ohio where 1) I had no files; 2) the ICE ACC who had been detailed to the hearing location had no files; and 3) the interpreter spoke a language other than the one of the majority of the respondents on the calendar. Afterwards, I told the then Chief IJ that I had spent the day in “Clown Court!’” 🤡 He was not amused.

To quote my friend and former colleague retired Judge Wayne Iskra: “This system is broken!” “Numbers,” “final orders,” “expediency,” and “productivity” to satisfy bureaucratic enforcement goals or to support Government myths about immigrants drive the EOIR system. Due process, fundamental fairness, compliance with the statute and regulations, and meaningful analysis are not this dysfunctional system’s focus. But, they must be!

Clearly, “dedicated dockets,” regulatory time frames, form orders, remote “Adjudication Centers,” and other “designed to fail” gimmicks tried under Garland are NOT going to solve the chronic quality-control and due process problems plaguing EOIR!

In other words, EOIR as currently constituted and “operated” is a “due process sham!” The 4th Circuit and other Article IIIs need to “dig deeper” into the glaring constitutional and professional quality problems plaguing Garland’s broken Immigration Courts! If neither he nor Congress will solve the problems, somebody must!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-22

🎭 HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE ASKS: CAN LIFE IMITATE ART IMITATING LIFE? — Lessons From The Play/Movie “The Courtroom!”

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/8/16/can-keathley-be-applied-more-broadly

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Can Keathley Be Applied More Broadly?

The Off-Broadway play The Courtroom is now a film; it recently screened as part of the Tribeca Film Festival. I think it is excellent, and would highly recommend that all those interested in immigration law see it. As you might know, the film depicts the actual immigration court case that culminated on appeal in the Seventh Circuit’s 2012 precedent decision in Keathley v. Holder.1

While there is so much artistic talent to applaud among the film’s cast (especially the excellent Kristin Villanueva as the respondent, Elizabeth Keathley), director Lee Sunday Evans, and Arian Moayed (who created the script from actual court transcripts), as a lawyer and former judge, I was particularly impressed with the legal theory employed in the case by the real-life attorney Richard Hanus.

To summarize the facts of the case, Ms. Keathley went to the Illinois Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain a state identification card while in non-immigrant status, having been admitted to the U.S. on a fiancee visa. In processing her application, the DMV official asked (as he was required to do) whether she wanted to be an organ donor, and more consequentially, whether she wanted to register to vote. Having just shown the DMV official her non-U.S. passport and non-immigrant visa, Ms. Keathley took the question to mean that she was eligible to vote. And an Illinois law designed to deter discrimination in voter registration precluded the DMV official from offering her further guidance to dispel that belief. When at her adjustment of status interview with DHS, Ms. Keathley answered honestly that she had voted in the 2006 midterm election, she soon found herself in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.

Furthermore, her situation appeared hopeless. Section 237(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration & Nationality Act requires only a finding that a noncitizen voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local statute in order to make the individual deportable; it does not require a criminal conviction for having done so. Ms. Keathley readily admitted that she had voted. And of course, a federal statute, namely, 18 U.S.C. section 611, prohibits non-citizens from doing so.

But Ms. Keathley’s attorney argued that she was not in fact deportable, because there was a legal defense for her action, called “entrapment by estoppel.” As Judge Frank Easterbrook, writing the Seventh Circuit’s decision in the case, explained, criminal defenses are relevant in removal proceedings. He provided the example of a noncitizen who kills another in self-defense, raising the question of whether that person would then be deportable for having committed the crime of murder. While Judge Easterbrook explained that the statute might define murder as the intentional killing of a human being, a person who kills in self defense is not guilty of murder, and would thus not be deportable.2 The same logic applies to voting.

Judge Easterbrook further explained that while its name is confusing, the defense of entrapment by estoppel can be better described as “official authorization.” In his oral argument, Hanus offered the analogy of a police officer waving a driver through a red light; because the officer authorized the action, the driver could not be ticketed for their action.

Judge Easterbrook provided another example: if a Secret Service agent authorizes someone to distribute counterfeit currency as part of a criminal investigation, the person doing so cannot then be criminally charged for such action.

But the judge also emphasized an important requirement for the defense: the person authorizing the action must have the authority to do so. As Judge Easterbrook pointed out, a Secret Service agent can authorize someone to pass counterfeit bills, but (choosing a seemingly random example) a high school principal, in spite of being a government employee, would have no authority over who is qualified to vote.

He continued that in Ms. Keathley’s case, while Department of Motor Vehicle officials lack the authority to specifically register non-citizens to vote, they are authorized to register people for federal elections. In the words of Judge Easterbrook, “The power to register someone supposes some authority to ascertain whether legal qualifications have been met,” meaning that such officials “thus are entitled to speak for the government” on the subject of eligibility to vote.3

The Seventh Circuit remanded the matter, advising that “If the IJ does credit Keathley’s statements about what occurred, the Department of Homeland Security should give serious consideration to withdrawing its proposal that she be declared inadmissible and be removed from the United States. A person who behaves with scrupulous honesty only to be misled by a state official should be as welcome in this country in 2012 as she was when she entered in 2004.”4

On remand, Immigration Judge Craig Zerbe determined that the charge of removability was not sustained in light of the Seventh Circuit’s decision; Ms. Keathley’s application for adjustment of status was thus granted. As those who saw the movie or play know, she has since become a U.S. citizen.

I hold Richard Hanus in the highest regard, and find his arguments in litigating this case to be brilliant. I’ve also wondered if his argument might have broader applications.

With that thought in mind, I have heard of a disturbing position being taken by DHS in response to the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana, which presently remains a controlled substance under federal law.

The issue is that a noncitizen seeking to adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident must demonstrate that they are not inadmissible to the U.S. (It was in this same posture that Ms. Keathley was also found inadmissible at her adjustment of status interview). But section 212(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Act makes inadmissible not only any noncitizen who “is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance,” but also one who “is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance…or endeavored to do so.”

Like the voting provision, this exclusion ground does not require a criminal conviction. But while whether or not someone voted is a clearcut question, what constitutes aiding, abetting, assisting, or colluding with marijuana-related businesses that are operating legally at the state level is far less obvious.

For example, DHS has taken the position that those providing accounting and payroll services to marijuana-related businesses constitute aiding or assisting with drug trafficking within the meaning of the Act. It’s not clear how far that theory can be extended. What about those providing banking services? Or the landlords renting to such businesses? Or those providing them with phones, electricity, or internet service? And in at least one case, USCIS has applied the trafficking bar to an individual who maintained video surveillance equipment in a marijuana collective.5

My question is whether the “entrapment by estoppel” defense successfully raised in Keathley could also apply to someone such as an accountant who performed services typical of their profession for a client who happened to be in the marijuana business, and who is then charged by DHS of aiding or assisting in marijuana trafficking. I’m posing this and all that follows as thoughts for discussion; they certainly are not an authoritative opinion. I am curious to hear what readers think.

First, in terms of “official authorization,” legalizing states have set up agencies to closely regulate the marijuana industry. In Colorado, even non-employees providing support services that require them to be unescorted in what the state has termed “limited access areas” within marijuana-related businesses must be issued a license by the state’s Marijuana Enforcement Division.6 Would the application process and issuance of such authorization by the relevant state agency be sufficient to trigger an entrapment by estoppel defense?

There is a question of whether a state agency can provide authorization that would carry any weight at federal level. As noted above, the DMV official in Keathley, although working for the state, had the authority to register individuals to vote in federal as well as state elections; in the view of the Seventh Circuit, that authority carried with it an entitlement to speak to issues of eligibility.

I would here point to an August 29, 2013 memo to all U.S. Attorneys from then Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, titled “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement.” Importantly, this memo refers to a “traditional joint federal-state approach to narcotics enforcement,” adding that this approach has been affected by “[t]he enactment of state laws that endeavor to authorize marijuana production, distribution, and possession by establishing a regulatory scheme for these purposes…”

The Cole Memo listed the federal government’s specific enforcement priorities as follows:

Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;

Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels;

Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;

Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;

Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana;

Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;

Preventing the growth of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and

Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

The memo continues by stating that outside of the above-listed priorities, “the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws.”

So if the federal government views state governments as partners in a “traditional” joint approach, in which the federal government limits its own enforcement to the above-listed priorities, and leaves the rest to its enforcement partners at the state level, then could someone authorized by the state to engage in activity of the type that the federal government has announced it was ceding to the state to enforce have a valid argument that state permission covered them at the federal level as well?

It also bears noting that subsequent to the Cole Memo, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury called the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (or “FinCEN” for short) issued guidance “ to clarify Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) expectations for financial institutions seeking to provide services to marijuana-related businesses.”7

It is noteworthy that this federal government guidance does not warn that providing banking or other financial services to MRBs constitutes aiding, assisting, or abetting in the commission of a federal crime. The guidance does require such institutions to exercise due diligence, and to file suspicious activity reports with FinCEN if it believes activity it observes might violate the federal government’s enforcement priorities. In doing so, those institutions are actually aiding and assisting the federal government in its enforcement.

So in providing such guidance, is FinCEN “waving through” businesses who provide supporting services to marijuana-related businesses, providing that they adhere to the guidance? Could the FinCEN guidance be interpreted by non-financial institutions for the premise that it’s OK to provide services to marijuana-related businesses as long as one keeps their eyes open for suspicious activity, and reports all suspect activity to the authorities?

Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

696 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2012).

Id. at 646.

Id. at 646-47.

Id. at 647.

Voronin v. Garland, No. 2:20-cv-07019-ODW (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2021). Thanks to Marie Mark at the Immigrant Defense Project for flagging.

1 Code of Colorado Regulations 212-3 at Section 1-115.

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, “BSA Expectations Regarding Marijuana-Related Businesses,” FIN- 2014-G001, Feb. 14, 2014.

AUGUST 16, 2022

PREVIOUS

William Van Wyke

NEXT

The 4th Circuit on Jurisdiction

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals. He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award. Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award. He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

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

The DHS position described by Jeffrey appears to fall on a scale somewhere between “bizarre and incredibly stupid!” But, that doesn’t mean immigrants and their lawyers shouldn’t be concerned and prepared to respond!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-22

😰IMMIGRATION 101: SUMMER GRADES POSTED: GARLAND, BIA, & OIL GET “F’s” FROM 1ST (FRENTESCU TEST) & 3RD (CATEGORICAL TEST) CIRS! — Meanwhile, NDPA Litigators Get “A+’s”

Dunce Cap — With lives on the line, the BIA’s performance leaves something to be desired.
PHOTO: Creative Commons

From Dor v. Garland, 1st Cir.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1694P-01A.pdf

Given our familiarity with the record at this point, we are prompted to note that it is not at all apparent to us how an application of the Frentescu factors to Dor’s case would lead to a particularly-serious-crime determination. For instance, consider again the June 1 incident — the BIA relied on a police officer’s assessment that Dor had a “large amount” of marijuana on him, but this on-the-scene appraisal by an officer is largely irrelevant to an immigration-law-driven determination that a crime is particularly serious pursuant to the guiding statutes, especially when the actual amount (25 grams, a small amount) is available. See Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. at 703; Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 194 n.7. Consider, too, that while the BIA identified the type of sentence imposed as a Frentescu factor but never mentioned (or weighed) Dor’s sentences, we observe that

– 23 –

Dor received lenient sentences with respect to both offenses (a two-year probation and a one-year suspended sentence that never went into effect since Dor completed a violation-free probation period).

As to Dor’s involvement in trafficking as part of the calculus here, based on the amount in question, and again on the face of this record, this characterization seems ambitious. The May 20 offense officers observed Dor sell “20 bucks[‘ worth]” of marijuana to another individual; the June 1 incident revealed Dor had in his possession a digital scale, a large amount of U.S. currency, and 25 grams of marijuana.

Bottom line: The BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion is devoid of any actual application of the Frentescu factors, and even if we considered it a solid application of the law to Dor’s case, we still do not have a sufficiently rational explanation of the BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion as to Dor’s minor marijuana offenses, and a rational explanation is necessary to ensure Dor was appropriately precluded from obtaining the humanitarian relief he seeks.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :

Edward Crane, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, Shaiba Rather, Lena Melillo, and Katie Quigley, Law Student Advocates, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, were on brief, for petitioner.

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

From Vurimindi v. AG, 3rd Cir.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191848p.pdf

In sum, the Government has identified no evidence that supports divisibility. The statute, the case law, and the available state court documents all support the opposite conclusion.11 Because Pennsylvania’s stalking statute is indivisible as to intent, we apply the categorical approach. And under the categorical approach, Section 2709.1(a)(1), which sweeps more broadly than its generic counterpart in the INA, is not a categorical match. Vurimindi’s offense of conviction therefore does not qualify as a removable offense.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to DLA Piper’s:

Courtney Gilligan Saleski

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/s/saleski-courtney-gilligan/

and

Rachel A.H. Horton

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/h/horton-rachel/

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

Interestingly, the BIA’s defective decision in Dor involved improper reliance on police reports. This comes just as a new NIJC report shows how improper reliance by EOIR on police reports means that “racism and inequities in the criminal legal system and policing carry over into the immigration system.” https://default.salsalabs.org/T59538212-844f-4d6d-ade1-0428b5eef400/e9c83407-de3b-4bcf-a318-704cbcd599a2.

The Dor case also presents a familiarly outrageous characteristic of American immigration policy — still going strong in the era of Biden, Harris, and Garland — “Dred Scottification” — that is systemic injustice — directed at Black Haitian refugees. Indeed, Dor is lucky to be in the “system” at all — no matter how biased and poorly functioning. Following in the footsteps of the overtly racist and xenophobic Trump Administration, under Biden more than 25,000 potential Haitian refugees have been arbitrarily returned under Title 42 with no process at all — not even the “veneer of due process” provided by EOIR! See https://www.wola.org/2022/05/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-title-42-ruling-family-self-separations-more-drownings-haiti-expulsion-flights/.

The cases described above have been pending for three and six years, respectively. EOIR presents the worst of both worlds: lengthy delays and backlogs without due process and careful expert consideration of the issues involved. Injustice at a high cost, in more ways than one!

After trips to three levels of our broken immigration justice system, countless hours of legal time, and untold trauma and uncertainty for the individuals subjected to this dysfunctional system, these cases remain far from final resolutions. Now they go back into Garland’s incredible nearly two million case backlog!

Sometimes, the BIA uses this as an opportunity to invent a new “bogus theory of denial.” Other times, the files get lost or reassigned. In other words, they are subject to EOIR’s “specialty:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

Garland doesn’t lose any sleep over it because: 1) not his life on hold, 2) not his time and money being wasted, and 3) he isn’t paying attention! This is unacceptable public service! Plain and simple! And, there appear to be few, if any, real consequences for anybody except the individuals whose lives and futures are at stake and their (often pro bono) lawyers!

How completely “out of touch” is Garland? He has put bogus, “Mickey Mouse” time limits on new asylum adjudications. Doing incompetent and biased adjudications faster isn’t going to solve the problem. It will actually make backlogs worse and more importantly, increase the number of defective asylum denials — already at beyond unacceptable levels.

You can’t fix a broken system by making it “pedal faster!” Why, after all these years, Garland doesn’t understand that “fundamental rule of Goverment bureaucracy” is totally beyond me!

The obvious solution: Put emphasis on getting these cases right at the first instance. That means “canning” the “anti-immigrant default and assembly line process” and getting expert IJs willing to rule in favor of individuals where appropriate and a revamped BIA of expert judges willing to issue precedents favorable to individuals and insure that IJs properly follow them. It also means a BIA who will follow precedent even where it doesn’t produce a “DHS Enforcement-friendly result.”

Additionally, “lose” OIL’s often-dilatory or quasi-frivolous arguments designed to cover up EOIR failures and block justice! (HINT: The Assistant AG, Civil, one of the key sub-cabinet positions at DOJ, and OIL’s “boss,” remains unfilled approaching the halfway point of the Biden Administration.) This system is broken from top to bottom, including the litigation “strategy” that attempts to shield unfair and legally incorrect EOIR decisions from critical substantive review by Article III judges independent from the Executive.

Yes, Garland recently has “pruned” some of the deadwood at EOIR and brought in a few widely-respected expert “real judges.” That’s some progress.

But, he’s barely scratched the surface of the anti-immigrant culture, “haste makes waste” atmosphere, and shoddy decision making at EOIR and the poorly conceived litigation strategies at OIL! In particular, the dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy glaringly lacks inspired progressive due-process-committed, human-rights-focused, racial-justice-sensitive leadership willing to stand up for individual rights against Government overreach and abuses!

Of course, the “real” solution is to get the Immigration Courts out of DOJ and into an independent Article I structure. But, unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen tomorrow.

In the meantime, there is plenty that Garland could be doing to improve due process and professionalism and to “pave the way” for the eventual transition to Article I. The more dysfunctional Garland makes his system the more difficult and rocky that transition will be.

Garland isn’t getting the job done! Everyone who cares about the future of our nation and the rule of law should be asking why and demanding better from Garland and his “asleep at the switch” lieutenants!

High-powered lawyers like Courtney Saleski, National Co-Chair of DLA’s White Collar Practice, who successfully litigated Vurimindi in the 3rd Circuit have some “juice.” They need to team up with the ABA, FBA, AILA, ACLU, Human Rights First, NIJC, the NAACP, Catholic Conference, HIAS, and other human rights and civil rights groups and “camp on Garland’s doorstep” until he “pulls the plug” on his dysfunctional, unprofessional EOIR and brings in due-process-focused competence! How many resources and human lives can our nation afford to waste on Garland’s EOIR disgrace?

Alfred E. Neumann

Individuals whose lives are subject to systemic injustice and their hard-working, often pro bono, attorneys might “dissent” from Garland’s dilatory approach to long overdue due process reforms and key personnel changes in his stunningly dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

🗽⚖️ REMEMBERING JUDGE WILLIAM VAN WYKE — Tributes Pour In From His Round Table Colleagues! 🛡⚔️

Judge William Van Wyke (D – Aug. 14, 2022)
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“A True Due Process Visionary”
PHOTO: the world.com

Remembering William

From his fellow former Immigration Judges:

This news is very sad.   William appeared before me years ago when he was an attorney for CARECEN and I was the sole Immigration Judge in Washington DC. Before the 1986 Amnesty, my docket was largely persons from El Salvador, who were the bulk of his case load.   I saw him close to daily in those years.   Ironically, once he became a colleague -sitting in Philly, York and New York, I saw much less of him.

            Passionate is indeed the word that describes him.   His death is truly a loss to society.

            – Joan Churchill, Immigration Judge, Washington, D.C./ Arlington, VA – 1980 – 2005

So sad to hear. I worked my first legal job with William at CARECEN in Washington DC, we were two attorneys representing hundreds of clients in what at the time a no- win environment where all court cases were being denied. William was a tireless advocate for justice and the little guy and relished playing David to the system’s Goliath.

I later followed his lead in becoming an IJ, meeting with him at York detention court where he assuaged my doubts and concerns about an IJ’s ability to be effective in achieving our goals of putting the respondent first.

Golden Slumbers, William.

            – Paul Grussendorf, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and San Francisco, 1997-2004

William was both an honorable man and an honorable judge. Before he became an immigration judge, he often appeared in the Baltimore Immigration Court. I would ask, how much time do you need to present your case in chief, and he would say , at least 1 day, judge! He taught me so much about El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras…he was a passionate advocate who believed in fundamental fairness, the right to be heard, due process. He cared so much about the vulnerable people who came before us.

Rest In Peace, William.

            – John Gossart, Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1982-2013

William was an inspiration. So devoted to justice and uncompromising despite the personal costs. His memory will be a blessing to us all, as well as a reminder to hold true to our beliefs. He will be sorely missed.

            – Dana Leigh Marks, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1987-2021

So shocking to hear about William. I’m so sorry for his family. Paul Grussendorf, you had it right when you said he relished playing David to the system’s Goliath. He was brilliant, thoughtful and tireless, and a warm and collegial colleague.

            – Terry Bain, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2019

I echo what Terry said. He was a great colleague. I am so sad for his young children.

            – George Chew, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995 – 2017

This is so shocking! William was a rare combination of a legal scholar, a genuinely caring human being and a compassionate judge. I’m very sorry for his family.

            – Sarah Burr, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge and Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2012

I concur with Terry and the others. I just saw William on 7/31 at Steve Morley’s retirement celebration in Philadelphia. He was as animated and passionate as ever-among the most powerful and persuasive advocates to have ever served as an IJ. William will be missed.

            – Charles Honeyman, Immigration Judge, New York and Philadelphia, 1995-2020

I am so saddened by Bill’s untimely passing. I practiced before him in York and for his brief stint in Philadelphia before his return to NY. It was always a pleasure and refreshing to see an IJ so passionate about immigrant rights. And, I spoke with him in NY shortly before I took the bench 12 years ago. It was a pleasure to reconnect with him at my retirement party 2 weeks ago. Just so sad.

            – Steve Morley, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia, 2010-2022

I cant get over this shocking and sad news about William’s passing. He is someone Ive known for so long – back to the times in the 80s when I’d come to DC from Boston for marches for Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum rights! I knew William from the National Lawyers Guild Immigration Project. Such a devoted warrior and thinker for civil and human rights!

As I said elsewhere, we had a lot of contact when he was at York and I was at the BIA. We shared a commitment to fairness and justice. He is such an honorable person and an inspiring and humane advocate for those he represented and whose cases he adjudicated. l’ll miss him.

            – Lory D Rosenberg, Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2002

After I met William during my new Immigration Judge training, we quickly became good friends. He was one of the most brilliant lawyers I’ve ever known, a staunch warrior for justice, and a lovely person. He will be terribly missed. I really can’t believe he is gone.

            – Carol King, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2017

William was a very caring and compassionate judge. He was also a terrific human being who touched so many lives in a positive way!

            – Robert D. Weisel, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Immigration Judge, New York, 1989-2016

I always admired his devotion to justice and especially his bravery and righteousness. I wish I had known William well enough to share that I also had a son named Camilo. We would have gotten to know each other so much better.

            – Laura Ramirez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018

He really was a wonderful advocate for immigrants. I always remember government counsel complaining to Judge Creppy and I that he was too nice and too helpful to detained clients. Such an indictment. We needed more Judges like him.

            – William P. Joyce, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1996-2002

I will always remember him as someone who put his duties to the law, human dignity, and his country above “career comfort.” Compare that with the many “go along to get along” appellate judges on the BIA — unwilling to properly review records and enforce Mogharrabi and Cardoza because it might rock the boat and slow down the deportation assembly line. William laid his career on the line for higher values of humanity and fairness.

Like Bill Joyce, I say we we need more of that from our judges from EOIR to the Supremes!

            – Paul W. Schmidt, Chairperson and Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2003; Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA, 2003-2016

My experiences with William were mostly after he left York. We became friends and spoke freely of our similarly being derailed because others didn’t approve of how we viewed our duty to the sacred office we held. I tried to give him some of my silly humorous advice based on Alexander Zholtenis advice that when in exile tend to your craft. Later he expressed his appreciation for that silly advice I got from my kid brother. William, as everybody noted was a first class mind individual and legal scholar. I’ll always miss him.

            – Gus Villageliu, Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2003; Immigration Judge, Miami, 1990-1995

I also echo all that has been said. I knew William from our IJ conferences in addition to periodically speaking with him by phone. Whatever the issue, he was always the voice of experience, respect and sensitivity.

He was a good judge. He was a good man. May he RIP.

            – Alberto Gonzalez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995 – 2005

I did not know William well, perhaps having run into him at AILA conferences before we each became IJs in 1995. There were a few times that we connected on seemingly humorous events, such as EOIR having Bernadette Dohrn present at our national training one year. (She had been known maybe 20 years earlier as a leader in the Weather Underground). I had immense respect for him and his forthrightness about what was fair and just. A powerful voice that will be missed.

            – Polly Webber, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2016

Very, very sad news…A warrior for Justice. May his memory be a blessing.

            – Bruce J. Einhorn, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1990-2007

He will be missed. One of the best we had.

            – Steve Abrams, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick St., and Queens Wackenhut, 1997-2013

The descriptions are apt. and I concur on the great loss that his passing represents and feel very sad about this news.

I first met him when I was sitting on the ABA’s Coordinating Committee on Immigration – I believe that was in the late 80’s. We were on the commission when Pro Bar was created. He was such a knowledgeable person. He was also committed to justice and due process and he will be missed.

            – Cecelia Espenoza, Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 2000-2003

Saddened to hear of William’s death.

            – Patricia Sheppard, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1993-2006

That’s shocking! So sad.

            – Denise Slavin, Immigration Judge, Miami, Krome, and Baltimore, 1995-2019

I will remember William for his intellect, his courage, and his compassion. He will be greatly missed.

         – James R. Fujimoto, Immigration Judge, Chicago 1990-2019

I knew William primarily through appearing before him as an attorney, and then through the work of the Round Table. William’s legal acumen, compassion, and dedication to justice has been reflected in his work both on and off the bench. I had just seen him in person at Steve Morley’s retirement party, where we talked about many things, and got to know each other better. I am very thankful for that opportunity, because I very much enjoyed our conversation, and especially our discussion of how much he was enjoying retirement and the time he was able to spend with family and friends.

            – Sue Roy, Immigration Judge, Newark, 2008-2010

William had a mind like no one else, a really deeply-held sense of right and wrong, a scholarly grasp of the law, and patience to take as long and go into as much detail as humanly possible to get to the correct result. We won’t see another like him. I am honored to have known him. He will be greatly missed.

– Jeff Chase, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2007

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

Many thanks to our colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase for compiling, organizing, and formatting the many e-mails that circulated among the Round Table paying tribute to our friend and colleague.

A life dedicated to serving humanity through due process. RIP our friend!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

🇺🇸⚖️🗽AN AMERICAN LEGAL HERO LEAVES BEHIND LEGACY OF COURAGE, SCHOLARSHIP, INNOVATION, COMPASSION: A HEARTFELT TRIBUTE TO HON. WILLIAM VAN WYKE BY HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE!

Judge William Van Wyke (D – Aug. 14, 2022)
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“A True Due Process Visionary”
PHOTO: the world.com

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/8/22/william-van-wyke-2

William Van Wyke

On August 14, the immigration law community lost a true giant. William Van Wyke, a former Immigration Judge, advocate, and scholar unexpectedly passed away.

How does one capture William’s essence? I’m going to attempt to do so through his own words (in bold), taken from both public sources and emails he wrote to his former Immigration Judge colleagues in conversations after his retirement from the bench.

“The fearful and crude ideas get put into practice by reflex; compassionate and thoughtful ones wait around until everyone agrees with them. – William” – April 1, 2021 email.

My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.

Prior to authoring that article, WIlliam had spent nine years pioneering the representation of Central American refugees before the Immigration Courts in Washington and Baltimore, beginning this work when the 1980 Refugee Act was still new.

“’We have a law that was intended to be generous, that, when it is well understood, would cover many cases — many, many more cases — than those that are granted,’ Van Wyke says.” – Quote in Eyder Peralta, “Why A Single Question Decides The Fates Of Central American Migrants,” NPR, Feb. 25, 2016.

In one 1990 case in which his clients were denied asylum, William succeeded in persuading the Immigration Judge to rule that those clients could not be deported to their native El Salvador as long as the civil war continued there. William achieved this result by arguing customary international law, and analogizing a refugee’s flight from war to the customary practice of allowing a ship in distress the right to enter a port without authorization. The Washington Post quoted an immigration law authority who called the decision “one of the most impressive victories ever in an immigration court.” The decision was the subject of a law review article the following year.3

“My own experience is that people with anti-immigrant sentiments, whether in INS, DHS, EOIR or anywhere else, have always cringed at the idea of an IJ giving an unrepresented person sufficient information to make genuinely informed decisions… I remember a talk by Janet Reno at one of our conferences 20 years ago when she mentioned ‘compassion’ 12 times — I counted them. But try to actually be compassionate in specific cases in a legally appropriate and consequential way and you’re accused of overstepping judicial bounds. Didn’t I know that compassion is supposed to be a decoration, not something that actually helps the people before us?” – Email, Sept. 18, 2019

William’s appointment as an Immigration Judge in March, 1995 sent a message of hope to the immigration law community. On the bench, William maintained his methodical, detail-oriented approach. Early in his career on the bench, William reported that the INS trial attorneys had given him the nickname “the Van Wyck Expressway,” a reference to the similarly named NYC roadway that most know from traveling to or from JFK Airport. When William pointed out to one of those INS attorneys that his courtroom actually moved quite slowly, the attorney responded: “So does the Van Wyck Expressway.”

While we were both on the bench, I heard that William had developed a highly unique seating plan for his courtroom, and asked him about it one day. He showed it to me, explaining in detail his deeply thought out reasoning for the placement of every chair in the room. I don’t remember the specifics so many years later, but it was a perfect example of the strong sense of responsibility WIlliam felt towards all who set foot in his courtroom.

That sense of responsibility became even more heightened when WIlliam transferred from the court in New York to what he used to call “plain old York,” meaning the detained immigration court in York, Pennsylvania, located inside of the York County Prison.4

In one case he heard there, a non-citizen sat in jail awaiting approval of a green card petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife that could have saved him from deportation. But approval of visa petitions is not something an immigration judge can do; that power lies with the same government agency that was seeking the non-citizen’s deportation (at the time, that was INS; it is now DHS). After continuing the case multiple times to allow for a decision on the visa petition, WIlliam was repeatedly informed by INS’s attorney that no action had been taken. The INS attorney further refused to inquire as to when a decision might be expected, and insisted that rather than wait, the non-citizen should be ordered deported.

Although at the time such action required the consent of both parties, WIlliam took the bold step of administratively closing the case over the government’s objection, writing a detailed decision explaining the necessity of doing so under the facts presented.

Remarkably, rather than appeal William’s denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the INS attorney privately and most improperly contacted the Chief Immigration Judge by phone, who in turn improperly reopened the matter and placed it back on for hearing.

In a decision that should be required reading for all EOIR management, WIlliam fired back at both INS and his own higher-ups, stating that it would be a “manifest injustice” to deport the respondent “simply because INS has not performed its Congressionally-mandated adjudication in a timely fashion.”

Detailing the extensive efforts he had undertaken to get INS to adjudicate the visa petition, WIlliam further noted that “[t]he asymmetry of ordering one party, but asking, begging, pleading and cajoling the other party hearing after hearing without effect, can only diminish the court as an authoritative and independent arbiter in the public’s eyes.”

WIlliam took the INS and the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge to task for their unethical ex parte communication, and the latter’s unauthorized action in response to such conversation:

The Chief Immigration Judge is an administrative and policy officer without appellate or other legal authority to overrule the immigration judge’s procedural decisions in the case, see 8 CFR 3.9, 3.1(b), and ethical rules require the Chief Immigration Judge as well as immigration judges to refrain from taking action in a specific case following an ex parte communication about the case by one of the parties.

William further noted that his “decision to close the case temporarily was not a mere administrative one subject to OCIJ’s general direction, but a legal decision made as an integral part of the adjudicatory process in an individual case.” William cautioned that the private communication, which denied opposing counsel the right to be heard, protected INS from having to defend its position in an appeal to the BIA, thus giving

a procedural and tactical advantage to the INS by demonstrating to respondent, rightly or wrongly, that an INS call to the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge may be enough to undo what the immigration judge does in open court, while encouraging the INS to continue to seek results from the OCIJ privately that it might not be able to get from the BIA publicly.

William concluded:

Unable to establish or enforce the standards of conduct that this judge believes must apply, he will recuse himself from further consideration of the case. In the court’s view, only the OCIJ, which went beyond mere administrative action to direct a particular course of action in this case, is in a position to cure the appearance of impropriety its intervention has produced. The court will therefore refer this case back to the Chief Immigration Judge for whatever action he may deem fit and appropriate.

The extraordinary nature of the matter was reported in an article in the New York Times.5

In retirement, William was a member of our Round Table that filed an amicus brief in an important case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Velasco-Lopez v. Decker. The case challenged the practice of requiring a detained non-citizen to themself prove that they would not pose a flight risk or danger to the community in order to warrant their release from detention. In its precedent decision, the circuit court agreed that such burden should be borne by the government, and not the detainee.

I share here part of William’s response to the decision

In this decision, the important starting point is that due process applies to every person in their relation to the power of government. This principle humanizes immigrant “others” and shows that when Big Government (i.e. the kind that wields power in favor of the already rich and already powerful) treads on anyone, everyone’s rights are in jeopardy. The principles relevant in bond decisions –– having ties to our communities and not being a danger to others –– are strong values that most of us honor and share, whether recent immigrants or earlier-generation immigrants, and should make all of us resist limitations on our freedom by the coercive power of jailing people.

I don’t know if they still staple those little yellow cards with red print onto files of jailed immigrants that used to say, “RUSH: detained at government expense.” Years ago when I was at York I wrote to… EOIR General Counsel, to ask if we couldn’t change those cards to be more humane, to say, “RUSH: person deprived of liberty,” or at least more neutral: “person deprived of liberty at government expense.” A change, of course, was “unnecessary” because everyone already knew the immigrants’ hardship, even if our boss’s reminder focused only on the government’s. Maybe they’ll change the cards now to remind adjudicators: “Rush: this person should not be deprived of freedom unless the government quickly decides he/she lacks any community ties AND is dangerous.” I won’t hold my breath, though.

I will conclude by saying that just recently, I set about researching a narrow legal issue that I would imagine most Immigration Judges would resolve in a few pages at most. I came across a decision that William had written on the topic shortly before his retirement from the bench that was exactly what I was looking for. It was 39 pages single spaced, and of course, absolutely brilliant.

On behalf of your fellow judges, and of all who have appeared in Immigration Court, thank you, William, for being you, for never lowering your standards. You restored the hope of so many in the power of law to make a positive difference in people’s lives, and so often showed that there was a way forward when we thought there was none. You are already greatly missed.

Notes:

William Van Wyke, “A New Perspective on Well-Founded Fear,” 1992-93 Immigration & Nationality Handbook(AILA, 1992) at 497.

Carlos Sanchez, “Lawyer’s Persistence Helps Reshape Immigration Law,” Washington Post, March 31, 1991.

Cookson, II, Charles W. “In Re Santos: Extending the Right of Non-Return to Refugees of Civil Wars.” American University International Law Review 7, no. 1 (1991): 145-171.

The York Immigration Court was closed on July 31, 2021.

Eric Schmitt, “Two Judges Do Battle in an Immigration Case,” NYT, June 21, 2001.

978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020). The author recognized the outstanding representation in this matter by the petitioner’s counsel, Julie Dona (who argued the case) and Aadhithi Padmanabhan of the Legal Aid Society, and to Souvik Saha of Wilmer Hale for his remarkable assistance in drafting our amicus brief.

AUGUST 22, 2022

NEXT

Can Keathley Be Applied More Broadly?

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

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

My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.

. . . .

William spent those years trying to persuade the government of the proper application of the new law. However, INS and the newly created EOIR remained largely mired in the Cold War-influenced view of asylum that preceded the 1980 changes. And under that Cold War approach, Central Americans fleeing pro-U.S. regimes had nearly no chance to obtain asylum

A 1991 Washington Post article documented how this institutional resistance only caused William to be more persistent and creative in his legal approach.2

Kind of says it all about the entrenched, continuing, institutional resistance at EOIR to correct, generous, fair, practical interpretations of asylum law and other immigration and human rights laws! That’s what helps generate uncontrollable backlogs and brings our entire justice system into disrepute! Worst of all, it threatens the lives of those denied justice by its legal misinterpretations and mis-applications of the law!

What does it say about an institution that no longer touts or actively pursues its noble one-time-vision of “through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” Ironically, William’s life and achievements embody that now-defunct “EOIR vision.” But, nobody in “management” actually acknowledged that during his often-difficult tenure there.

Encouragingly, a number of Garland’s recent judicial appointments are distinguished, expert, widely respected “practical scholars” in the “Van Wyke mold.” Unfortunately, it’s going to take immediate and dramatic changes in moribund, uninspired EOIR leadership and in the “any reason to deny” BIA to overcome the “Cold War mentality,” anti-immigrant bias, assembly line procedures, “institutionalized go along to get alongism,” and unacceptably poor performance of EOIR. Right now, it’s still drag on our entire justice system that puts the future of our nation at risk!

No wonder we already miss William, his outspoken courage, and his wisdom so much. There is a void in our justice system right now where fierce due-process-focused, creative, humane, practical scholars should be leading the way in our institutions of justice!

It’s up to the “new generation” of the NDPA to break down the walls of official resistance by Garland and other short-sighted bureaucrats and politicos who lack the vision to make racial justice, immigrant justice, and equal justice for all realities rather than disingenuous unfulfilled rhetoric! Guys, your lives and those of your descendants might depend on it! So, dial up the pressure on the intransigents, many of them in the Biden Administration you helped to elect and who expect your support and votes again this Fall!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

🤯 AS EOIR SINKS INTO THE SEA OF CHAOS & INJUSTICE, GARLAND’S SOLUTION: MORE UNNEEDED BUREAUCRACY!

Hole in the head — This is how much EOIR and its long-suffering stakeholders need a “Chief of the Immigration Law Division” at EOIR!
PHOTO: EOI Teacher @ Twitter

https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/supervisory-attorney-advisor-chief-immigration-law-division

Duties include but are not limited to the following:

Plan and direct general legal activities of the Agency with the objective of assuring that all actions taken are in accordance with law and regulation with special emphasis on assuring that actions taken conform to the basic principles of law.

Provide interpretation of immigration provisions, laws, and regulations to all segments of the agency.

Propose the development of policies and procedures in response to legal cases or problems that have the effect of substantially broadening or restricting the activities of the agency.

Advise the Director/Deputy and staff on the legal implications of proposed and newly enacted laws, regulations and policies that will have an impact on the operation of the agency and keeps abreast of current decisions of the courts.

Direct professional legal staff in the development, documentation, and operation of both internal processes and administrative/technical controls.

Supervise staff in the formulation and direction of proactive, time-sensitive services and/or guidance to EOIR components, unique needs of senior management and responsiveness to the Department and other government or regulatory agencies.

Qualifications:

In order to qualify for the position, you must meet the following minimum qualifications:

Education: Applicants must possess an LL.B. or a J.D. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)

AND

Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)

AND

Required Experience:

For GS-15: Applicants must have four (4) full years (48 months) of post J.D. or LL.B professional legal experience. Qualifying professional legal experience includes: Direct professional legal staff in the development, documentation, and operation of both internal processes and administrative/technical controls; Advise Senior Management and staff on the legal implications of proposed and newly enacted laws, regulations and policies that will have an impact on the operation of the agency and keeps abreast of current decisions of the courts; and Plan and direct general legal activities of the Agency with the objective of assuring that all actions taken are in accordance with law and regulation with special emphasis on assuring that actions taken conform to the basic principles of law.

(Your resume must CLEARLY demonstrate this experience)

Preferred Experience:

The ideal candidate will have experience with the following:

Providing technical and administrative supervision over attorneys and professional staff within an organization.

Planning and assigning work to subordinate attorneys based on priorities and difficulty of the assignment.

Providing input and advice to Senior Officials on policy decisions.

Coordinating with other government offices and/or agencies on legal matters.

NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated only after receipt of J.D. or LL.B.

IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE.

Salary:

($148,484 – $176,300 per year.

Travel:

Occasional travel

Application Process:

To Apply for this position, please click the below link to access and apply to the vacancy announcement via USA Jobs USAJOBS – Job Announcement . Please read the announcement thoroughly. You Must Submit a complete application package by 11:59PM (EST) on 9/02/2022, the closing date of the announcement.

Applicants should familiarize themselves and comply with the relevant rules of professional conduct regarding any possible conflicts of interest in connection with their applications. In particular, please notify this Office if you currently represent clients or adjudicate matters in which this Office is involved and/or you have a family member who is representing clients or adjudicating matters in which this Office is involved so that we can evaluate any potential conflict of interest or disqualification issue that may need to be addressed under those circumstances.

Application Deadline:

Tuesday, September 6, 2022

Relocation Expenses:

Not authorized

Number of Positions:

1

Updated August 23, 2022

* * *

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

The ship is rudderless and sinking! Many of the sailors are inept or think they are working for a different Navy! The solution: More Lt. Commanders on deck, each doing someone else’s job and giving random orders, to add to the confusion and disorder!

Let me be clear: EOIR and its long-suffering “customers” and “stakeholders” need this superfluous position like a hole in the head! Perhaps less! This looks like “EOIR imitating the DHS bureaucracy” that it is supposed to be treating as a “party,” not a “role model!”

The “Office of Policy” — totally unnecessary and inconsistent with the mission of a quasi-judicial court system — is a serious boondoggle created by the last Administration. Eliminating it and redeploying its wasted resources into competent, expert quasi-judicial decision making should have been “Day One Stuff” for Garland. But it wasn’t!

EOIR needs better, expert judges, who know immigration and human rights laws, and are unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! It also needs a “lean team” of well qualified judicial administrators to recruit, hire, train, and support judges and court staff!

Incredibly, most of this PD sounds like it’s right out of the PDs for BIA Chair, BIA Member, CIJ, Director, Deputy Director, or General Counsel. Get folks who can do those jobs and eliminate the Office of Policy and the other “non-operational bureaucratic fat” in Falls Church!

Does the Supreme Court have a “U.S. Law Division?” How about the D.C. Circuit where Garland once served? What on earth is Garland doing with this wasteful nonsense!

For Pete’s sake, the BIA IS the “Immigration Law Division!” If, as I maintain, most of the current Appellate Judges are not capable of performing those functions competently and in accordance with due process and fundamental fairness, then get better judges in there! Now!

Sure, it’s not the “popular solution” within the self-perpetuating bureaucracy. But, it’s the right one!

Stop the unnecessary proliferation of inept bureaucrats at EOIR! “Hey, hey, Ho, ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!” Throwing more “ringmasters” into this circus is NOT the answer!

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

DOJ and Director Neal should be hauled before an Oversight Committee to justify their continuing bureaucratic nonsense in the face of abject “mission failure!” Not going to happen. But, it should! Honestly!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

💨 FROM THE ROCKIES & THE HIGH PLAINS, THE WINDS OF TRUTH BLOW AWAY THE BS & SHOW HOW GARLAND’S BIA & THEIR SCOFFLAW INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BUILT BACKLOGS — “This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in,” says 10th Cir. in Estrada-Corona v. Garland!

Kangaroos — It’s easy guys, we just do what DHS Enforcement and our political bosses want and we can keep hopping around forever! Backlogs! Ha, the bigger the bigger they get, the more “secure” our jobs!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

“The Attorney General may allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the country if, among other things, they have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We call this form of discretionary relief “cancellation of removal.” Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” the period of continuous physical presence ends (A) when the alien is served with a notice to appear, or (B) when the alien has committed certain criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Nothing more, nothing less. In the latest installment of “What Triggers the Stop-Time Rule?” the Government asks us to hold that the issuance of a final order of removal is a third, extra-statutory event sufficient to stop the clock. The plain language of the statute supports no such conclusion. Declining to read ambiguity into a statute where none exists, we hold a final order of removal does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence. … This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in. … After years of statutory short-circuiting, the Government finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being wrong. … Because Congress unambiguously replaced the final-order rule with the stop-time rule, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Petitioner continued to accrue continuous physical presence after the immigration judge issued the order to voluntarily depart. … [W]e hold that because the BIA seems to have considered change-in-the-law equitable tolling arguments before, the BIA abused its discretion in this case by failing to “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” … We cannot discern why the BIA found no extraordinary circumstance which would warrant equitable tolling, so the BIA abused its discretion. … On remand, the Government is free to argue that Petitioner should not be granted sua sponte reopening or equitable tolling. This opinion is expressly limited to two conclusions. First, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Second, the BIA’s explanations for denying sua sponte reopening and equitable tolling constituted, as a procedural matter, an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated herein, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Jennifer M. Smith and Mark Barr!]

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

“For years, if not decades, the Government sent aliens “notices to appear” which failed to include all the information required by § 1229(a)—like the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). For countless aliens, the only obstacle to being eligible for cancellation of removal was the Government’s position that a time-and-place-to-be-set notice to appear still triggers the stop-time rule. In Pereira, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s atextual interpretation and held a “putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the [alien]’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court cleared the way for many aliens, like Petitioner, to seek cancellation of removal.

But the Government quickly erected a new hurdle.”

The BIA could and should have prevented this debacle by insisting from the git go that the statute (“the law”) be followed by DHS and EOIR. Instead, at the behest of DHS, and perhaps to prevent tens of thousands of long-term residents who had received statutorily defective notices from seeking relief, the BIA misinterpreted the statute time after time.

The real stupidity here is that the requirement the BIA was pretzeling itself to avoid was hardly “rocket science” or burdensome: Serve a notice containing the actual date, time, and place of the hearing! One might ask what purpose is served by a so-called “Notice to Appear” that doesn’t notify the individual of where and when to appear?

Moreover, when the BIA started issuing their incorrect precedents, DHS and EOIR had a then-existing system — called “interactive scheduling” — that would have complied with the statute. The problem was that the “powers that be” at DOJ, EOIR, and DHS consciously decided NOT to use that system.

The apparent reason was the belief that complying with the law might have interfered with DHS arbitrarily filling the Immigration Courts with large “numbers” of cases to meet various enforcement “priorities” set from “on high.” Rather than doing its job, the BIA chose time and again to “go along to get along” with this nonsense!

Over and over, EOIR lets bogus DHS or Administration “enforcement priorities” or “improperly using the legal system as a deterrent” subvert due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations, and practical solutions!

And, although Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of bringing the rule of law and rationality back to immigration, the absurdity and illegality continues under Garland. He even sent OIL in to waste the time of the Article IIIs by mounting essentially frivolous defenses to the BIA’s malfeasance.

Perhaps worst of all, in addition to being denied timely justice, individuals and their lawyers dealing with Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR often are falsely blamed for causing the backlogs that are the primary result of DHS/EOIR incompetence and political meddling by unqualified bureaucrats. The latter don’t understand what really happens in Immigration Court and how to properly, fairly, and efficiently administer such a large and important court system.

The backlogs will continue to grow and the US justice system will crater because of bad immigration decisions generating skyrocketing litigation. Garland must replace the BIA with real expert appellate judges committed to fair, humane, and reasonable interpretations of immigration and human rights laws — without regard to whether those correct interpretations will be “career enhancing” or “career preserving.” In other words, judges who put justice before personal or institutional “survival.” Competent, expert, independent-minded judicial administrators with the guts to keep DOJ and DHS bureaucratic meddlers “at arm’s length” are also required.

Folks who could do the job are out here. But, that’s the problem! They belong in the key judicial judicial and administrative positions at EOIR where they can put any end to the due-process denying, backlog building dysfunction.

Everyone committed to the future of American justice should be asking themselves why Garland hasn’t recruited and hired the right “Team Due Process” for EOIR! American justice can’t afford more of Garland’s inept, “go along to get along,” “afraid to say no to DHS enforcement” BIA and the rest of the EOIR “Deadly Clown Show” largely left over from past, failed Administrations!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-21

⚖️🗽 RAPPAPORT & STOCK URGE ACTION ON AFGHAN REFUGEES!

Margaret Stock, Esquire
Anchorage, Alaska
PHOTO: Law firm

Nolan sends this summary of his latest on The Hill:

Afghans who helped us deserve better immigration treatment

Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor

As the Afghan government and military fell to the Taliban after U.S. troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, the U.S. hastily evacuated American citizens and 76,000 Afghans who had helped the U.S. in its 20-year war against the Taliban.

It is a year later now, and most of the Afghan evacuees still have temporary immigration status, which means that they may be subject to removal when their status expires. This isn’t right. We should be taking better care of them.

It is more than just an obligation to people who put themselves in peril to help the United States.

According to Margaret D. Stock, a retired military officer, “Correcting for this inaction is a matter of national security — in future conflicts, why would anyone risk their lives by serving alongside our soldiers or providing critical translation services if the U.S. can’t keep our promises to them when we depart?”

It wouldn’t be taking this long to meet the needs of the Afghans if our immigration system weren’t overwhelmed to the point of being dysfunctional.

Parole

The evacuees who did not have entry documents had to request humanitarian parole, which permits undocumented migrants to be admitted to the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons.

Approximately 70,192 of them were paroled into the United States between July 30, 2021, and Nov. 15, 2021.

Permanent status

Congress has enacted a series of legislative provisions which enable certain Afghan nationals to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) on the basis of a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV).

Section 1059 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2006, authorizes giving SIVs to Afghans who worked with the U.S. Armed Forces or under Chief of Mission (COM) authority as a translator or an interpreter for at least a year.

To be eligible for this special immigrant classification, the principal applicant must obtain a favorable written recommendation from the COM or a general or flag officer in the relevant Armed Forces unit.

Afghans who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government or the International security Assistance Force in Afghanistan may be eligible for SIV status under section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009.

Roadblock

As of July 18, 2022, there were 74,274 principal applicants in the SIV pipeline. This number does not include spouses and children. And the applications have to be processed by USCIS, which is experiencing a backlog crisis.

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3605096-afghans-who-helped-us-deserve-better-immigration-treatment/

Published originally on The Hill.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him athttps://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/2306123393080132994

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

Read Nolan’s full op-ed at the link.

When experts like Nolan and Margaret are saying the same thing, everyone should listen and act accordingly!

In addition to fair and equitable treatment for our allies, we must resume and expand fair and humane treatment for all refugees, including, most important, those seeking legal refuge at our borders. Many of them actually come from broken countries where the the U.S. has left a “large footprint,” like Haiti and Latin America.

It is long past time to make the legal requirement set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980 — any individual in the US or arriving at our border may apply for asylum “irrespective of status” — a reality rather than a cruel hoax. Contrary to some disgracefully wrong-headed court decisions, this statutory requirement implicitly requires that opportunity to be in full compliance with due process.

Otherwise, to state the obvious, it’s no opportunity at all — just a legal charade. Unfortunately, that is what much of our broken, dysfunctional, and unjust asylum and refugee systems look like now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-19-22

⚖️ NDPA STALWART MICHAEL MEHR BEATS DOWN MATTER OF CORDERO-GARCIA (Obstruction of Justice) IN 9TH — Dissenting Trump Judge VanDyke Goes Ballistic — Accuses Colleagues Of “Playing Dirty” By Occasionally Ruling In Favor Of Individuals In Immigration Cases!

Here’s a report from Nate Raymond @ Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-judge-says-9th-circuit-playing-dirty-prevent-deportations-2022-08-15/

(Reuters) – A conservative judge appointed by former President Donald Trump on Monday accused his colleagues on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of playing “dirty” in a “trainwreck” of rulings to prevent immigrants from being deported.

U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s criticism came in a dissent to a 2-1 decision holding a Mexican native’s California conviction for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime was not a deportable offense under federal immigration law.

VanDyke, who has become known for a string of dissents since joining the liberal-leaning court in 2020, noted he had not been shy in criticizing the San Francisco-based court’s “abysmal and indefensible immigration precedents.”

He said the 9th Circuit for more than a decade has been “doing everything in our power (and much not) to upset” the Board of Immigration Appeals’ “reasonable” interpretation of what constitutes an offense related to obstruction of justice.

The BIA in this case had concluded Fernando Cordero-Garcia committed such an offense after he was convicted in California of sexual battery without restraint, sexual exploitation by a psychotherapist and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime.

“My colleagues in the majority should be embarrassed,” VanDyke wrote. “Perhaps not for their wrong decision today–to err is human, after all, even for those in robes. But they should be troubled by our court’s jaw-dropping, always-increasing, epic collection of immigration gaffes.”Cordero-Garcia’s lawyer, Michael Mehr, declined to comment.

Cordero-Garcia, who entered the country in 1965 as a lawful permanent resident, was a psychologist for the County of Santa Barbara Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services department who prosecutors said sexually assaulted patients, the ruling said.

Two appointees of Democratic presidents — U.S. District Judge Barry Moskowitz, a visiting judge on the court, and U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz — ruled for Cordero-Garcia in overturning the BIA’s decision on the obstruction offense.

Moskowitz, writing for the majority, said he was not writing on a “clean slate,” as the 9th Circuit in 2020 ruled an “obstruction of justice” offense must be connected to ongoing or pending criminal proceedings.

The California law Cordero-Garcia was convicted under, by contrast, does not require any connection to an ongoing or pending proceeding or investigation, making it “not an appropriate comparator” to obstruction under federal law.

VanDyke, though, said the 9th Circuit’s approach had created a “lopsided circuit-split,” with the majority acknowledging its ruling ran counter to decisions by the 1st and 4th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The case is Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-72779.

For Cordero-Garcia: Michael Mehr of Mehr & Soto

For the United States: Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips of the U.S. Department of Justice

Read more:

Trump-appointed judge blasts 9th Circuit’s ’embarrassing’ immigration rulings

In barbed dissents, Trump appointees call

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

Here’s a link to Matter of Garcia-Cordero, 27 I&N Dec. 652 (BIA 2019) which was reversed by the 9th Circuit:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwip-puUns75AhUlk4kEHaQXAisQFnoECAMQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Feoir%2Fpage%2Ffile%2F1210991%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw2IVnTOUmhzqK0ppatf4rr7

While VanDyke has been eager to rip into his colleagues for critically reviewing BIA rulings, rather than just “rubber stamp deferring,” he is no stranger to controversy. He received the coveted “not qualified to serve” rating from the ABA and has been characterized as an “unqualified hack” by Joe Patrice over at abovethelaw.com. https://abovethelaw.com/2021/12/ninth-circuit-judge-has-had-it-with-trump-judges-insulting-dissents/.

Interestingly, a chunk of the dissent is dedicated to showing that Mr. Cordero-Garcia is a louse. However, that doesn’t seem to have much to do with the legal application of the “categorical test” to his crime in the immigration context. For all its difficulties, Congress was well aware that courts had historically applied the “categorical test” as opposed to the “sounds like a bad guy” approach when they enacted the statutory language in question.

Curiously, VanDyke castigates his majority colleagues for “result oriented” decision making. But it seems highly unlikely that either District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, who wrote the opinion, or Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz would have chosen Mr. Cordero-Garcia’s situation as one to “throw out a lifeline.”

What’s more likely is that they fairly applied controlling Circuit precedent notwithstanding the highly unsympathetic individual involved. By contrast, critics have characterized VanDyke as an ideologue — driven by a far-right agenda — whose main focus on the bench has been “writing vitriolic Town Hall editorials to publish in F.4th.” Id.

From a due process standpoint, one of the most severe problems undermining our entire justice system today is the disturbingly poor performance of the BIA which often functions as a “rubber stamp” on incorrect anti-immigrant decisions by Immigration Judges, many of them appointed during the Trump Administration with questionable credentials, at best. That’s when the BIA isn’t busy serving as a “shill” for DHS Enforcement — often bending the law or going out of their way to sustain ICE appeals from correct decisions below that grant relief or benefit individuals. BIA precedents favorable to asylum seekers and other migrants are few and far between — despite an obvious lack of immigration and human rights expertise among many Trump appointees to the immigration bench.

The problem is compounded when reviewing Circuit Courts ignore the glaring Constitutional conflict of having a “court” that is “owned” by an enforcement agency (and was blatantly “weaponized” against migrants by Sessions and Barr) and the poor quality decision making, lack of scholarship, and overt bias that plagues EOIR. “Rubber stamp deference” to BIA decisions that do not deserve it is a systemic problem for the Article IIIs, actively encouraged by the Supremes judge-created Chevron and Brand X doctrines of undue deference. From this perspective, VanDyke and many (not all) of his Trump colleagues are a big part of the problem — not the solution!

Michael K. Mehr ESQ!
Senior Partner
Mehr & Soto LLP
Santa Cruz, CA
PHOTO: Website

Many congrats to Michael Mehr for vigorously and successfully litigating this complex issue in the 9th Circuit. It’s telling to compare the “quiet competence” of dedicated, expert advocates like Mehr with the “bombastic grandstanding” of VanDyke and others in the xenophobic right. Mehr and others in the NDPA have honed their their advocacy and scholarship skills by decades of giving a “voice” to those who otherwise are seldom “heard” by the powers that be.

Undoubtedly, given the circuit split, this eventually will end up at the Supremes. There, VanDyke’s fellow Trump appointees could well agree with him. But, that might be more reflective of problems with the composition of today’s Supremes than with the law. Stay tuned!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-17-22

🔌👎🏽GARLAND MUST “PULL THE PLUG” ON HIS FAILED APPELLATE COURT — BIA “DEFIES” EVIDENCE TO MOCK DUE PROCESS & DENY ASYLUM, SAYS 3RD CIR! — OGEE v. AG (Ghana)

Read the 3rd Circuit’s (unfortunately) unpublished decision here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202423np.pdf

Key quote:

The IJ credited Bimpong’s testimony, and the BIA did not disturb this finding. Yet the BIA concluded that Bimpong’s persecution was a personal land dispute that lacked any nexus to his membership in the Ashanti tribe. In doing so, the BIA deferred to the IJ’s conclusion that “the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the [Enzema] Tribe targeted the applicant because of membership in the Ashanti Tribe.” AR 97 (emphasis added). That conclusion defies the record, which is replete with evidence that Bimpong’s tribal affiliation was a central reason for his persecution. See, e.g., AR 157, 162-63, 167–68, 185, 596, 598. For example, Bimpong testified that members of

the Enzema “did not want the land that [he] possessed to be owned by non-members of 4

the Enzema tribe,” AR 596, and that he “was a target of persecution because of [an] intertribal dispute between the Enzema tribe and Ashanti tribe.” AR 598.

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

Typical BIA BS prejudged, form denial “boilerplate.” “Devoid of evidence” — gimmie a break! We tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to eliminate this type of non-analytical nonsense several decades ago. It’s indicative of a totally broken system that is unfair and biased against migrants! Why is Garland allowing this continuing systemic injustice?

Demand that Garland replace his inept, unprofessional, unconstitutional, “Trump holdover” BIA with real judges who are experts in immigration, asylum, human rights, and fully committed to due process and fundamental fairness!

To quote my good friend and Round Table 🛡 colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

At the IJ level, the ACIJs have to be charged with determining if the IJ actually doesn’t know the law, or if they are choosing not to follow it. Of course, you need ACIJs who actually know immigration law, which isn’t always the case anymore. If it’s the former, you schedule additional training; if it’s the latter, they may need to suspend or remove the IJ. That should be a priority for the next Chief IJ.

But why isn’t this being caught at the BIA level? They continue to act as a rubber stamp. There have been a few cases just in the past couple of weeks where the errors were really major and apparent.

A BIA that would “rubber stamp” denials without question or meaningful analysis so that OIL could then argue “deference” to railroad refugees and other individuals entitled to relief out of the country is precisely what Barr and Sessions intended to create. In other words, a “parody of justice” that would carry out the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda without giving it any thought. And, it’s no coincidence that this unconstitutional agenda falls hardest on the backs of asylum seekers and other migrants of color. It also serves to reinforce the vile concept that individuals of color in the U.S. are not equal under the law.

The real question here is why Garland hasn’t effectively changed the system by bringing in real judges who are experts in immigration and human rights and who would be fair to all coming before his Immigration Courts regardless of race or status? “Gradual change” is unacceptable when individuals (and their conscientious representatives) are being subjected to deadly quasi-judicial incompetence on a daily basis. Tell Garland you’ve had enough!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-16-22

⚖️NDPA SUPERSTAR BEN WIN-OGRAD WINS A BIGGIE IN 4TH ON IJ CONDUCT — Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

“Petitioner Rodolfo Josue Tinoco Acevedo appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address whether Tinoco Acevedo’s case should be remanded to a new immigration judge (“IJ”) under Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2015), we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Rather than opine as to the exact grounds on which the BIA decided that the applicant was entitled to a new hearing before a new IJ in Matter of Y-S-L-C-, we remand for the BIA to interpret its precedent and address Tinoco Acevedo’s argument in the first instance. … we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for the BIA to consider whether Tinoco Acevedo is entitled to a new hearing before a different IJ because the initial IJ’s conduct—both during and following the hearing—failed to satisfy the high standard expected of IJs under Matter of Y-S-L-C-. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.” [Note: The IJ was Roxanne C. Hladylowycz.]

[Hats off once again to IRAC superlitigator Ben Winograd!]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Yet another example of the BIA not being familiar with and applying their own precedents where they could be favorable to the respondent. Any old boilerplate BS will do as long is the result is “dismiss and remove.”

It’s one thing for the BIA to articulate “high standards” for IJ conduct in Matter of Y-S-L-C-. It’s quite another to consistently enforce them where the lives of migrants are at stake!

It was a particularly bad idea for the BIA to spring this haphazard “good enough for government work” approach when Ben Winograd is appellate counsel. Winograd knows the BIA and 4th Circuit precedents better than most BIA judges. And, unlike the latter, he’s willing to stand up for immigrants’ legal rights!

It would be better for Garland and American justice — not to mention those seeking justice in Immigration Court, too often in vain — if brilliant, due-process-oriented “practical scholars” like Ben Winograd replaced the “holdover BIA judges” who aren’t up to the job of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Remarkably, there was a time in the past when that long disregarded judicial essential was the “vision” of EOIR.

Ironically, the Article III Judges of this 4th Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory, Circuit Judges Motz and Wynn) understand the critical requirements for EOIR judging better than AG Garland! That’s a problem (although, concededly, outside the “World of EOIR” Garland has had his best week as AG)!

This opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory. He continues to be a leader among Article III Judges who take due process and immigrants’ rights seriously! He’s also someone who “gets” the clear connection between immigrant justice (or, in too many cases lack thereof) and racial justice.

With the Chief Immigration Judge position now vacant, Judge Garland has a golden opportunity to appoint a “Judge Gregory clone” to that critical position. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30193&action=edit. That would also be a wise course for Garland to take to replace the current glaringly inadequate leadership at his failing BIA! How about Chief Appellate Immigration Judge/Chairman Ben Winograd?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-13-22

📖COURTSIDE HISTORY: BEYOND THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT, RACISM IS AT THE CORE OF U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY — Professor Andrew S. Rosenberg Interviewed On New Book By Isabela Dias @ Mother Jones!

Isabela Dias
Staff Writer, Immigration & Social Issues
Mother Jones
PHOTO: Twitter

https://apple.news/AOMcfZiMFQ0OSgozcppDcjg

“Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration”

. . . .

In the book, you dispute the assumption that the right to border control and to exclude foreigners is an inherent feature of sovereign states. Instead, you frame it as a “modern consequence of racism.” Why do you see it that way?

The nation-state is a relatively modern invention on the scale of human history. Today, we have this conventional wisdom floating around that it is the natural right and duty of nation-states as sovereign entities to be able to restrict foreigners and have these really hard borders—and that it’s that ability that makes a state what it is. Actually, if you go back in time and look at the international legal thought that emerged from the 15th through the 19th centuries on what it actually means to be a state, the commonly held assumption that people like the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia and others talk about, is actually an invention of the 19th century. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the great thinkers of international legal jurisprudence or of state theory either thought that states had a right or an obligation to be hospitable to foreigners and to allow them free passage into their territory or, at most, it was up for raucous debate. It was only in the 19th century, when immigrant-receiving countries like the United States began receiving a large influx of racially different outsiders like the Chinese, that this presumption that sovereign states have a right and an obligation that can be tied back to their status as sovereign states to restrict outsiders emerged.

People like Texas Governor Greg Abbott seem to invoke that supposed inherent right when they describe migrants at the border as an “invasion.”

Precisely. These types of “declarations of war” are one of the clearest examples of this ideology seeping into public debate, which leads everyday people to create this idea that migrants are undesirable outsiders who are not fit for, or are undeserving of reaping the benefits of living in the United States or participating in our society.

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

Read the complete interview at the link.

The myth of the “undesirable immigrant” — at the heart of the anti-immigrant rabble rousing of Trump, Miller, Bannon, DeSantis, Abbott, Cotton, Hawley, etc. — has deep roots in American racial history.

I’ve said it many times: There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all without justice for immigrants (regardless of status). Laws like the Refugee Act of 1980, that very explicitly make arrival status irrelevant to access to a fair legal process, have been intentionally misinterpreted and misapplied by right-wing judges from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts.

Advocates for civil rights, womens’ rights, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, disability rights, and other fundamental rights that have been unlawfully restricted or diminished, usually, but certainly not exclusively, by the right, who continue to ignore the primacy of dealing with the intentional unfair, racially biased treatment of migrants do so at their own peril!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-12-22

⚖️🗽 US JUDGE IN SAN DIEGO EVISCERATES TRUMP’S ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL “TURNBACKS” OF ASYLUM APPLICANTS; MAYORKAS TERMINATES REMAIN IN MEXICO (AGAIN) EVEN AS RED RESTRICTIONIST AGs FILE MORE FRIVOLOUS OBJECTIONS! 🤮

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12R1mt07Z4S7R7xiieRUznueR9DRXrBdq/view?usp=sharing

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant minces no words in blasting both the unlawful, cruel, and unconstitutional policy and the Supreme’s toxic decision to look the other way as immigration enforcement runs roughshod over legal, constitutional, and human rights.

In its September 2, 2021 decision, this Court held the right to access the U.S. asylum

process conferred vis a vis § 1158(a)(1) applies extraterritorially to noncitizens who are

arriving at Class A POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, but who are not yet within the

jurisdiction of the United States, and is of a constitutional dimension. (Op. Granting in

Part and Denying in Part Parties’ Cross-Mots. for Summ. J. (“MSJ Opinion”), ECF No.

742.) It further held that Defendants’ systematic turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at

Class A POEs (the “Turnback Policy”) amounted to an unlawful withholding by

immigration officials of their mandatory ministerial “inspection and referral duties”

detailed in 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (“§ 1225”), in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act,

5 U.S.C. § 706(1) et seq., and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. (MSJ Opinion at

33–34, 37–38); see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(a)(3) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to

inspect asylum seekers), 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to

refer asylum seekers to the U.S-asylum process).

In casting appropriate equitable relief to rectify the irreparable injury Defendants’

unauthorized and constitutionally violative Turnback Policy has inflicted upon members

of the Plaintiff class,2 this Court ordinarily would be guided by the fundamental principle

that an equitable remedy should be commensurate with the violations it is designed to

vindicate. See Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 465 (1979) (“[It is an]

accepted rule that the remedy imposed by a court of equity should be commensurate with

the violation ascertained.”). Equitable relief should leave no stone unturned: it should

correct entirely the violations it is aimed at vindicating. That cornerstone of Article III

courts’ equitable powers generally is unfaltering, whether the party against whom an

injunction is sought is a private entity, a state actor, or, as here, a federal official. Thus, in

2 Plaintiffs consist of the named Plaintiffs listed in the case caption, along with a certified class

consisting of “all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting

themselves at a Class A [POE] on the U.S.-Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S.

asylum process by or at the instruction of [Customs and Border Protection] officials on or after January 1,

2016.” (Class Certification Order at 18, ECF No. 513.) The Court also certified a subclass consisting of

“all noncitizens who were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process at a Class A POE on the

U.S.-Mexico border as a result of Defendants’ metering policy on or after January 1, 2016.” (Id.)

– 3 – 17cv2366

the ordinary course of things, this Court would not hesitate to issue broad, programmatic

relief enjoining Defendants from now, or in the future, turning back asylum seekers in the

process of arriving at Class A POEs, absent a valid statutory basis for doing so.

Yet the circumstances with which this Court is presented are not ordinary because

of the extraordinary, intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court in Garland

v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022). That decision takes a sledgehammer to the

premise that immigration enforcement agencies are bound to implement their mandatory

ministerial duties prescribed by Congress, including their obligation to inspect and refer

arriving noncitizens for asylum, and that, when immigration enforcement agencies deviate

from those duties, lower courts have authority to issue equitable relief to enjoin the

resulting violations. It does so through unprecedented expansion of a provision of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1989 (“IIRIRA”), 8

U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) et seq. (“§ 1252(f)(1)”), which for years the Ninth Circuit has

interpreted as placing a relatively narrow limit on injunctive relief. In essence, Aleman

Gonzalez holds that § 1252(f)(1) prohibits lower courts from issuing class-wide injunctions

that “require officials to take actions that (in the Government’s view) are not required” by

certain removal statutes, including § 1225, or “to refrain from actions that (again in the

Government’s view) are allowed” by those same provisions. Id., 142 S. Ct. at 2065.

Federal courts (except for the Supreme Court) now may only issue injunctions enjoining

federal officials’ unauthorized implementation of the removal statutes in the individual

cases of noncitizens against whom removal proceedings have been initiated. See id.

In no uncertain terms, the logical extension of Aleman Gonzalez appears to bestow

immigration enforcement agencies carte blanche to implement immigration enforcement

policies that clearly are unauthorized by the statutes under which they operate because the

Government need only claim authority to implement to immunize itself from the federal

judiciary’s oversight.

With acknowledgment that its decision will further contribute to the human suffering

of asylum seekers enduring squalid and dangerous conditions in Mexican border

– 4 – 17cv2366

communities as they await entry to POEs, this Court finds the shadow of Aleman Gonzalez

inescapable in this case. Even the most narrow, meaningful equitable relief would have

the effect of interfering with the “operation” of § 1225, as that term is construed by the

Aleman Gonzalez Court, and, thus, would clash with § 1252(f)(1)’s remedy bar. Aleman

Gonzalez not only renders uneconomical vindication of Plaintiff class members’

statutorily- and constitutionally-protected right to apply for asylum, those inefficiencies

inevitably will lead to innumerable instances in which Plaintiff class members will be

unable to vindicate their rights at all. Thus, while the majority and dissent in Aleman

Gonzalez hash out their textual disagreements concerning § 1252(f)(1)’s scope in terms of

remedies, make no mistake, Aleman Gonzalez leaves largely unrestrained immigration

enforcement agencies to rapaciously scale back rights. See Tracy A. Thomas, Ubi Jus, Ibi

Remedium: The Fundamental Right to a Remedy Under Due Process, 41 San Diego L.

Rev. 1633, 1634 (2004) (“Disputes over remedies provide a convenient way for dissenters

to resist conformance to legal guarantees. Courts can declare rights, but then default in the

remedy to avoid a politically unpopular result.” (footnote omitted)).

Although it is no substitute for a permanent injunction, class-wide declaratory relief

is both available and warranted here. In lieu of even a circumscribed injunction enjoining

Defendants from again implementing a policy under which they turn back asylum seekers

presenting themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Court enters a

declaration in accordance with its MSJ Opinion that turning back asylum seekers

constitutes both an unlawful withholding of Defendants’ mandatory ministerial inspection

and referral duties under § 1158 and § 1225 in violation of both the APA and the Fifth

Amendment Due Process Clause. The Court also issues relief as necessary to named

Plaintiff Beatrice Doe.

. . . .

You can read Judge Bashant’s full opinion at the link.

Meanwhile, Secretary Mayorkas exercised the authority recognized by the Supremes in Biden v. Texas to terminate the reprehensible and illegal “Remain in Mexico” (a/k/a “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico”) program engineered by Trump and Miller. Predictably, the same scofflaw, restrictionist “Red AG’s” who had instituted frivolous litigation to block this long overdue action filed more specious objections with the Trump-appointed US District Judge, as advocacy groups like Justice Action Center (“JAC”) pledged to fight the racist right until this vile (and highly ineffective) program is finally ended.

JAC Responds to Official Termination of Remain in Mexico, Attempts by Texas to Delay Wind-Down

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 9, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a victory for immigrants’ rights movement, the Remain in Mexico program has been officially terminated after court proceedings following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Biden v. Texas on June 30. Below is a statement from Justice Action Center founder and director Karen Tumlin:

“The official end to shameful Remain in Mexico program is a victory for the immigrants’ rights movement and the right to asylum. RMX is a stain on the country’s history, having harmed tens of thousands of people fleeing for their lives since the Trump Administration instituted the unlawful and immoral program in 2019.

“Since the Supreme Court’s ruling affirming the authority of the Biden Administration to end the RMX program, the #SafeNotStranded campaign has called on the President and DHS to implement a swift and humane wind-down, including halting all new enrollments and allowing everyone in RMX to safely pursue their asylum claims in the U.S. Yesterday, DHS stated its wind-down has begun and new people will not be enrolled in the program, and that it would disenroll individuals with upcoming RMX hearings. These are important first steps to finally redress just some of the immense harm inflicted by the program.

“This commitment by DHS, following such a significant SCOTUS victory, illustrates the strength and resilience of the immigrants’ rights movement. But even after a clear loss, Texas is continuing its hateful attempts to keep this deadly program in place for as long as possible: After the District Court rightfully vacated its injunction of the RMX wind-down yesterday, Texas unfortunately—yet unsurprisingly—filed an amended complaint challenging the second DHS memo rescinding RMX, as well as a motion asking the District Court to stay the memo’s effective date.

“But we will not be deterred: advocates will continue to fight back against ongoing red state efforts to continue Trump’s racist and xenophobic agenda and work towards a world where all people fleeing danger can be safe, not stranded.”

# # #

Contact: Tasha Moro; 323-450-7269; tasha.moro@justiceactioncenter.org

Justice Action Center (JAC) is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for greater justice for immigrant communities by combining litigation and storytelling. JAC is committed to bringing additional litigation resources to address unmet needs, empower clients, and change the corrosive narrative around immigrants in the U.S. Learn more at justiceactioncenter.org and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Related:

8/1/22: JAC Responds to Supreme Court’s Certification of Decision on Remain in Mexico; Encourages Swift and Humane Wind-Down of Deadly Program

6/30/22: Justice Action Center Welcomes Positive Supreme Court Decision on Remain in Mexico in Biden v. Texas

3/21/22: #SafeNotStranded Campaign Launches Ahead of April Supreme Court Arguments in Biden v. Texas

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

We should remember that the Trumpest GOP’s insurrectionist war on American democracy and attack on truth and human decency began with overt lies and racist attacks on migrants of color and non-Christians. It has escalated to become an all out assault on our future as a nation of laws and values.

We can’t go back to a time when liberals and progressives viewed immigration as a tangental or secondary issue. It is THE all-encompassing issue now in preserving American democracy from GOP efforts to destabilize and destroy our nation’s fabric from bottom to top!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-11-22

DAN KOWALSKI: “YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!” — All Three Branches Combine To Produce Absurdity!🤯

CAUTION: You are about to enter the “Mayorkas-Garland Twilight Zone!”
The Twilight Zone Billy Mumy 1961.jpg
:PHOTO: Public Realm

Check out this US Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision from Houston in Desai v. Mayorkas:

Desai 31 7-26-22

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

There used to be a saying at the”Legacy INS:” “Truth is stranger than fiction, and INS is stranger than truth!”

It’s symbolic of the dysfunction in our immigration system that nobody with some common sense at either DHS or DOJ has stepped up to resolve this nonsense! Can’t anyone in Government solve a problem these days?

I inherited a few of these “forever” cases during my career on the bench. For the most part, with the help of cooperative lawyers on both sides, we were able to “make them go away” without stomping on anyone’s rights.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-07-22

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

U.S. v. Fernandez-Sanchez, 4th Cir., 08-25-22, published

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Can Keathley Be Applied More Broadly?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dor v. Garland, 1st Cir.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :

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

From Vurimindi v. AG, 3rd Cir.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to DLA Piper’s:

Courtney Gilligan Saleski

Rachel A.H. Horton

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

William Van Wyke

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Nolan sends this summary of his latest on The Hill:

Afghans who helped us deserve better immigration treatment

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s a report from Nate Raymond @ Reuters:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Key quote:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: