"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
⚠️☹️ GARLAND REPORTEDLY WILL DISAPPOINT PROGRESSIVES AGAIN WITH SELECTION FOR EOIR DIRECTOR
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
September 17, 2021
According to sources inside and outside EOIR, Attorney General Merrick Garland will appoint former BIA Chair and retired EOIR Senior Executive David Neal to the key position of EOIR Director, in charge of the nation’s dysfunctional and hopelessly backlogged Immigration Courts. He certainly will be an improvement over the last permanent Director, Judge James McHenry, who was hand-selected by former Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions.
But, progressives can’t expect the bold reforms and laser focus on due process that experts recommended. That’s simply not David’s “style,” nor is it his history at EOIR.
Progressives had hoped that the selection would come from among the many exceptionally well-qualified potential candidates in the private sector who spearheaded the effort to oppose the Trump regime and keep due process alive at EOIR. Indeed, many had anticipated, apparently in vain, that Garland would tap one of the many well-qualified minority female “practical scholars” from the NDPA to lead the court reform effort. Since its founding in 1983, EOIR has never had a female Director, and has only had one minority Director, the late Juan Osuna during the Obama Administration.
Neal will become the sixth White Male to serve as Director. He also would continue the “DOJ tradition” of appointing “insider bureaucrats” to the job rather than dynamic experts from the private sector. The latter might actually take bold actions to turn EOIR into an independent judiciary that would fulfill the now-abandoned vision of “through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
Alas, Garland appears to have just as little interest in restoring that noble vision as his predecessors over the past two decades. That’s likely to not only further alienate the progressive advocacy community, but also to spell doom and suffering for many migrants and their frustrated, often pro bono, lawyers who must seek justice on a daily basis Garland’s regressive and totally dysfunctional “courts.”
Finally, Defendants argue that “[a]ny time [the government]
is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by
representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable
injury.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 38 (quoting Maryland v.
King, 133 S. Ct. 1, 3 (2012)). But, as explained above, the
Title 42 Process is likely unlawful, and “[t]here is generally
no public interest in the perpetuation of an unlawful agency
action.” Newby, 838 F.3d at 12.
*********************************“
“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of an unlawful agency action.” Yup! Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Who knows if this will stand. Both the DC Circuit and the Supremes have too often been willing to allow continued Government abuse of the rights of “mere migrants,” mostly of color, because they can’t really see them as fellow human beings, entitled to due process, justice, and human dignity!
But, at least for this moment in time, it’s a victory for due process, humanity, and judicial integrity.
“Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their U-visa applications. Because the BFD [“Bona Fide Determination”] process was issued after Plaintiffs’ complaints were filed, Plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints should they wish to assert that USCIS has unreasonably delayed its determination that their U-visa applications are “bona fide.” … We hold that the issuance of the BFD Process moots no part of this case. We hold that 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), and 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) do not bar the federal courts from reviewing claims that USCIS has unreasonably delayed placing principal petitioners on the U-visa waitlist and adjudicating prewaitlist work-authorization applications. We hold that the federal courts may compel USCIS to place principal petitioners on the U-visa waitlist when an unreasonable delay has occurred per 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). We hold that § 706(1) allows the federal courts to command USCIS to hasten an unduly delayed “bona fide” determination, which is a mandatory decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and the BFD process. We hold, however, that the federal courts cannot invoke 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) to force USCIS to speed up an unduly delayed prewaitlist work-authorization adjudication, which is a nonmandatory agency action under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and the BFD process. We hold that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the principal petitioners’ placement on the U-visa waitlist. We further hold that Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaints should they wish to challenge any delayed “bona fide” determinations. We thus REVERSE the district courts’ grants of the Government’s motions to dismiss and REMAND for further proceedings.”
Just another in the continuing litany of why Mayorkas and Garland aren’t getting the job done for immigrants. They continue to: 1) mindlessly defend Trump-era screw ups and invidiously motivated actions; 2) attempt to weasel their way out of accountability for misdeeds by their agencies. This case should have been settled, plain and simple!
The only good thing about the dilatory litigation tactics employed by DHS and DOJ is that they are building up some good case law precedents for those challenging Government immigration actions and hopefully costing the DOJ attorneys’ fees that can be plowed back into public interest litigation. Actually, the DOJ should be litigating “in the public interest,” but apparently someone forgot to tell “Team Garland.”
Trump and his xenophobic, insurrectionist colleagues were not a “normal” Administration. For the Biden folks to continue to ignore that and pretend like the White Nationalist, anti-democracy actions of the Trump kakistocracy/bureaucracy were “business as usual,” will be a never-ending disaster for the Dems!
For these reasons, we do not see a strong justification for concluding that the IIRIRA detention statutes override the deep-rooted tradition of enforcement discretion when it comes to decisions that occur before detention, such as who should be subject to arrest, detainers, and removal proceedings. That means the United States has shown a likelihood of prevailing on appeal to the extent the preliminary injunction prevents officials from relying on the memos’ enforcement priorities for nondetention decisions.
***********************
Finally, some rationality and common sense! A partial stay from the ultra-conservative 5th Circuit is a good sign for the Biden Administration on this issue.
PANEL: Consuelo M. Callahan and*Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Watford; Dissent by Judge Callahan
* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
STAFF SUMMARY:
Granting Rafael Diaz-Rodriguez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that child endangerment, in violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a), does not constitute “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
In Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018), a divided panel held to the contrary, and a majority of the non-recused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. However, after the petitioner passed away, the en banc court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the panel decision. The panel here observed that Martinez-Cedillo is no longer binding precedent, but explained that between its issuance and the decision to rehear the case en banc, two published opinions relied on it: Menendez v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2018), and Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2018).
The panel concluded that the unusual circumstance here led it to conclude that this case falls outside the scope of the general rule that three-judge panels are bound to follow published decisions of prior panels. The panel explained that both Alvarez-Cerriteno and Menendez simply followed Martinez-Cedillo as then-binding precedent without engaging in independent analysis of the deference issue, and
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND 3
both decisions were effectively insulated from en banc review on that issue. The panel explained that both decisions are irreconcilable with a subsequent decision of the court sitting en banc because their reliance on Martinez-Cedillo is in conflict with the en banc court’s decision to designate that decision as non-precedential.
Applying the categorical approach, the panel identified the elements of California Penal Code § 273a(a): causing or permitting a child “to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered,” committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence. As to the federal offense, the panel explained that Congress enacted the ground of removability at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and did not define the phrase “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” In Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), however, the BIA held that the phrase encompassed child endangerment offenses committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. In considering whether Soram was entitled to deference, the panel was guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017), where the Court observed that the term “sexual abuse of a minor” was undefined and then looked to normal tools of statutory interpretation in concluding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of it.
Applying this approach, the panel concluded that deference was precluded at Chevron step one because the text of §1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses. First, the panel explained that contemporary legal dictionaries from the time of IIRIRA’s enactment indicate that child abuse, child neglect, and child
4 DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND
abandonment were well-understood concepts with distinct meanings that do not encompass one-time negligent child endangerment offenses. Second, the panel explained that the statutory structure suggested that Congress deliberately omitted child endangerment from the list of offenses specified in § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Third, the panel explained that the general consensus drawn from state criminal codes confirms that the phrase does not encompass negligent child endangerment offenses. The panel noted that the fourth source consulted in Esquivel-Quintana, related federal criminal statutes, did not aid its analysis.
Because a violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a) can be committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence, the panel concluded that it is not a categorical match for “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” Accordingly, the panel concluded that Diaz-Rodriguez’s conviction under that statute did not render him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that she was compelled to dissent for two reasons. First, she did not agree that the three-judge panel could disregard Menendez and Alvarez-Cerriteno. Second, Judge Callahan did not agree with the majority’s peculiar reading of the phrase as not encompassing a child endangerment offense committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. Judge Callahan wrote that majority’s suggestion that § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) is unambiguous is contrary to precedent and the unanimous opinions of the court’s sister circuits. Moreover, she wrote that the majority failed to recognize that the court’s task is limited to reviewing the agency’s interpretation for “reasonableness.” Instead, the majority proffered its own definition based primarily on selected dictionary definitions and its own research.
*****************
Who knows how this eventually will come out? But, what I can guarantee is until it is finally resolved, by the Supremes or otherwise, immigration practitioners and their clients will have a mess of inconsistency and bad decisions by EOIR on their hands.
Complicated issues involving criminal law come up all the time in EOIR “detention courts,” located in the Mayorkas/Garland “New American Gulag,” where many respondents are unrepresented or under-represented. How would an unrepresented respondent be able to prepare a “defense” like this? No way! The entire EOIR system suffers from some extreme constitutional problems that Garland has done nothing to address.
Having bad precedents like this in effect for a decade or more, almost always tilted toward DHS enforcement, results in many wrongful removals, as well as numerous remands and “redos” that help increase the astronomical 1.4 million case backlog! Having better judges on the BIA, real independent jurists with practical scholarly expertise, unafraid to interpret statutes and apply the law in favor of respondents when that is the “better view,” and to impose “best practices” on the Immigration Courts, is a necessary first step in addressing EOIR’s many legal and operational shortcomings.
It appears that Garland is disinterested in meaningful due process reforms and inserting real progressive judicial leadership into EOIR. The good news: With the vast majority of the immigration, human rights, and constitutional expertise and legal talent now in the private sector, and more talent coming out of law schools all the time, the NDPA stands a good chance of “litigating Garland’s failed EOIR to a standstill” over the next four years.
While that’s hardly the most desirable result, it would be infinitely better than the continuing due-process-denying “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland currently runs at EOIR! Sometimes, you just have to take what the opposition gives you!
At what point will “powers that be” finally pay attention to the ongoing disaster at EOIR? When the backlog reaches 1.5 million? 2 million? 3 million? 4 million? 5 million? How many unjust and illegal removals will take place, and how many lives and futures irrevocably altered or ruined before this dysfunctional system finally reaches its “breaking point?”
“Eyore is completely distraught that Garland has eschewed installing progressive expert judging and creative thinking, instead allowing the ‘death spiral’ to continue!” “Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
President Joe Biden announced another historic slate of judicial nominees on Wednesday who would bring badly needed diversity to the nation’s federal courts.
His picks also begin to address a major vacancy problem on California’s courts.
Biden announced a total of eight new judicial nominees; three would fill seats on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and five would fill seats on U.S. district courts. All are up for lifetime appointments.
With Wednesday’s nominees, Biden has now nominated a total of 43 people to federal judgeships. Thanks in part to the Democrat-led Senate, he has been confirming judges faster than any president in more than 50 years by this point in their terms.
His latest nominees also reflect his push to bring more diversity to the federal bench, both professionally and demographically. The courts have long been represented by white, male judges with backgrounds as corporate attorneys or prosecutors. President Barack Obama helped to diversify the courts, adding historic numbers of women and LGBTQ judges, for example. But former President Donald Trump reversed that trend by overwhelmingly nominating straight, white, male, right-wing ideologues.
As a candidate, Biden vowed to bring a diversity of perspectives onto the courts, even promising to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court if and when a seat opens up there. He’s kept his word; so far, his court picks have been public defenders, civil rights lawyers, voting rights lawyers and historic firsts with Native American and Muslim American picks.
Wednesday’s nominees include people with backgrounds at legal civil rights organizations, too. Thomas worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Urias and Vera both worked for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
California’s senators praised Biden for his six picks for courts located in their state.
“If confirmed, this slate of nominees will bring historic personal and professional diversity to California’s federal bench,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). “Our justice system needs the experience and unique perspectives these public servants bring.”
But California needs far more nominees than Biden put forward Wednesday. The state still has a whopping 15 vacancies on its federal courts, in part because the state’s two U.S. senators aren’t moving quickly enough to recommend people to the White House to fill those seats.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) acknowledged there is more work to be done here.
“There are 15 additional vacancies on California’s district courts that need to be filled immediately and more expected next year,” Feinstein said. “I look forward to continuing to work with President Biden and Senator Padilla to ensure that the remaining vacancies on the federal courts in California are filled with well-qualified judicial candidates who reflect the makeup of the state.”
. . . .
***************
Read the complete story at the link.
It’s an important step — but only a first step in the process of creating a diverse progressive Federal Judiciary, from top to bottom!
Meanwhile, a house built on a bad foundation is in trouble! In this case, that crumbling foundation is the nearly 600-judge U.S. Immigration Court at both the trial and appellate levels.
This “court” system, with nationwide jurisdiction and life or death authority over millions of lives and American families, is regressive, dysfunctional, and non-diverse, particularly when taking into account the composition of the American communities most directly affected by it’s too often defective, unprofessional, and biased decision making. That’s hardly surprising, because it was largely expanded, packed, weaponized, staffed, and directed in the “image” of Jeff Sessions, Billy Barr, and Gauleiter Stephen Miller!
Unlike Article III Judges, Immigration Judges currently are considered “DOJ Attorneys” who are selected outside the competitive Civil Service, have no “tenure” in their quasi-judicial positions, are subject to the control of the Attorney General, and can be reassigned, or in some cases terminated, at the will of the Attorney General. In simple terms, Garland could fix this badly broken system, but hasn’t done so.
The sorry condition of today’s Immigration Courts (“EOIR”) is particularly disgraceful when one considers the wide, diverse, progressive pool of potential judicial talent available in the private/NGO/sector who were either discouraged from applying under Trump or passed over in favor of lesser-qualified candidates perceived (whether accurately or not) to be more receptive and obedient to the overtly White Nationalist, xenophobic stance promoted by Trump’s DOJ.
To date, Garland has replaced zero (0) of the Trump judicial appointees. He has hired no notable progressive judges as inspirational leaders. He “promoted” one notable progressive to be among the several dozen “Assistant Chief Immigration Judges.” He outrageously appointed his first 27 Immigration Judges from among those “preselected” by Barr under defective procedures that have been universally condemned by progressive experts!
For the most part, without any progressive judicial leadership, precedents, or procedures, EOIR rambles on producing the same sloppy, haste-makes-waste, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, racially and misogynistically tinged decisions that were the “hallmark” of the Trump-era EOIR.
If things don’t change quickly, I guarantee that American progressives will come to rue the squandered opportunity to radically reform EOIR and convert it into a model progressive judiciary that will showcase due-process-focused judging, innovation, and best judicial practices while saving lives and promoting racial justice, gender rights, and equal justice for all at the critical “retail level” of our justice system!
“We voted to rehear this case en banc to reconsider our “single factor rule,” which we have applied in considering petitions for review from decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The single factor rule, as we have applied it, requires us to sustain an adverse credibility finding if “one of the [agency’s] identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). On rehearing en banc, we hold that the single factor rule conflicts with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), and we overrule our prior precedent establishing and applying it. We remand this case to the three-judge panel to re-examine the petition for review in light of our clarification of the standard for reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations. … Given the REAL ID Act’s explicit statutory language, we join our sister circuits and hold that, in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the Act, we must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination—our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances. To the extent that our precedents employed the single factor rule or are otherwise inconsistent with this standard, we overrule those cases. We remand this case to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the newly articulated standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations.”
********************
Even with Article III Courts, including the 9th Circuit, generally “drifting right,” “good enough for Government work” has been rejected! That ought to help Garland boost the EOIR backlog!
The EOIR/DOJ policy right now appears to be “give any reason to deny,” hope that OIL can make at least one of them stick, and count on righty Circuit Judges to “swallow the whistle.” While that has certainly happened in the 5th Circuit, and to some extent in the 11th Circuit, there still appear to be enough Article IIIs out there critically reviewing EOIR’s too often patently substandard work product to make Garland’s indolent “look the other way” approach to the EOIR mess highly problematic.
Analyzing all the factors also might be inconsistent with mindless, due-process-denying three or four per day “merits quotas,” invented and imposed by Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions (someone with zero (0) Immigration Court experience and a well-justified lifetime reputation as a racist xenophobe — how does Matthews v. Eldridge allow a guy like that to pick and “run” judges — the Article IIIs might choose to look the other way, but most L-1 students know this is wrong and unconstitutional).
Just aimlessly listing common testimonial problems and hoping OIL will find one or more of them actually in the record is much faster (if you don’t count the impact of Circuit remands!) That it’s inconsistent with the statute, the Constitution, and, actually, BIA precedent seems to be beside the point these days. Of course, EOIR’s “assembly line jurists” also get “dinged” for remands.
Is there is anybody left at EOIR HQ today who could properly teach “totality of the circumstances” under REAL ID?
My observation from Arlington was that the number of adverse credibility findings and asylum denials went down substantially once the Fourth Circuit, and even occasionally the BIA, began enforcing “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors” under REAL ID. As lawyers “got the picture” and began providing better independent corroborating evidence and documentation, the ability to “nit-pick” testimony, find the respondent “not credible,”and make it stand up on review diminished, as its well should have!
Of course, in my mind, REAL ID and the Fourth Circuit were just “re-enforcing and adopting” observations that members of our deposed “Gang of Four or Five” had made in numerous dissents from our BIA colleagues “undue deference” to poorly reasoned and thinly supported adverse credibility determinations, particularly in asylum cases.
More careful analysis of the record as a whole, often with the help of JLCs, became the rule at Arlington. And, after a few initial setbacks in the Fourth Circuit, ICE in Arlington generally stopped pushing for unjustified adverse credibility rulings and adopted approaches that actually complied with Fourth Circuit law.
The antiquated “contemporaneous oral decision format,” put on steroids by Sessions and Barr, is particularly ill-suited to the type of careful analysis required by the current statute, not to mention due process. And, having far too many newer Immigration Judges who have no immigration background and who have never had to represent an individual in Immigration Court is also a formula for failure, particularly when combined with inadequate training and idiotic “quotas.”
I’m not sure that the famous Rube Goldberg could have created a more convoluted,inefficient, and irrational process than exists at today’s EOIR. It simply can’t be fixed without leadership and assistance from outside experts who understand the problems (because they and their clients have “lived them”) and who aren’t wedded to all the mistakes and failed “silver bullet solutions” of the past!
The EOIR process is so “user friendly” that any unrepresented two-year-old can easily navigate it! Rube Goldberg (1883-1970) — 1930 Public Realm
By contrast with the EOIR mess, it’s amazing what changes an expert appellate body that actually takes its job and due process seriously can effect. Imagine if we had an expert BIA that made due process and treating individuals fairly “job one,” rather than operating as a “whistle stop on the deportation railroad.”
The ongoing EOIR clown show 🤡 just keeps getting exposed. But, nobody in charge seems to care! That’s a shame, 🤮 because “human lives, ⚰️ and perhaps the survival of our democracy, 🇺🇸 hang in the balance here!”
BTYB – Student Success, Equity, and Community and the Weissberg Program in Human Rights & Social Justice
The Office of Student Success, Equity & Community Ousley Scholar In Residency honors the legacy of Grace Ousley, the first black woman to graduate from Beloit College. It is a junior scholar/activist/organizer/intellectual committed to the theory and practice of social justice. They should embody the “academic hustler” who fights for “social justice” in all aspects of their work. Support for the residency comes from the Weissberg Program in Human Rights and Social Justice and the Office of Student Success. Equity & Community.
This promises to be a great program! And, the Ousley Residence Program is a fantastic contribution to educating and inspiring new generations of Americans about the many challenges still facing us in achieving social justice in our nation.
The abrogation of due process and dehumanization of people of color has, outrageously, become part of the dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Court System. The last Administration specifically encouraged and promoted this ugly, anti-democracy, phenomenon and then used it to spearhead an all-out assault on racial justice, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, religious tolerance, economic progress, voter rights, and humane progressive values throughout American society.
Unfortunately, many progressives have been slow to “connect the dots” and insist that meaningful social justice change start with fixing the racial and gender bias problems in our Immigration Courts, tribunals that are under the complete control of the Biden Administration!
For example, current Attorney General Merrick Garland rather incredibly claims to be standing up for women’s rights in Texas and defending voting rights for minorities while continuing to run misogynistic, regressive “Star Chambers” at EOIR, staffed with many judges hand-selected by Jeff Sessions and Billy Barr, and tossing vulnerable women refugees of color back across our Southern Border into harm’s way without any “process” at all, let alone “Due Process of Law.” Garland also continues to enable human rights abuses in the “New American Gulag” of DHS civil detention! We can see this process of dehumanization of the “other” before the law, called “Dred Scottification” by many of us, spreading throughout our legal system and being endorsed and “normalized” all the way up to the Supremes.
From the summary in the announcement above, it appears that Denea, based on her own inspiring life and achievements as a “Dreamer,” will help us to “connect the dots” between racial justice, immigrant justice, and equal justice for all. Immigrants’ Rights = Human Rights = Everyone’s Rights!
“Due Process Forever!”Hmmm, where have I herd THAT before? Thanks, Dan, for all you do for the NDPA!
The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Alliance, and the Law Professors, all representing a number of other organizations, also filed in behalf of the “good guys, truth, justice, and the American way,” in this case. The respondents are expertly represented by my friend and legendary immigration advocate Ira J. Kurzban, Esquire, of Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt PA.
Ira Kurzban ESQUIRE Legendary American Immigration Lawyer
One could not imagine a group MORE in need of thorough, critical, independent Article III judicial review of its decisions than today’s dysfunctional EOIR!There, potentially fatal errors have been “institutionalized” and even “normalized” as just another “unavoidable” consequence of the anti-immigrant, “haste makes waste,” “culture” that constantly places churning out removal orders above due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!
Ironically, doubling the number of Immigration Judges, eliminating expertise as the main qualification in judicial selections, and forcing yet more “gimmicks” down their throats has actually nearly tripled the case backlog to an astounding 1.4 million cases, without producing any quantifiable benefit for anyone!
Obviously, it’s high time for Garland to “reinvent” EOIR with progressive experts, many with private sector Immigration Court experience, as judges and leaders at both the appellate and the trial level! Who knows what wonders might result from an emphasis on quality, humanity, and getting decisions correct in the first instance? Progressives are used to creatively solving difficult problems without stepping on anyone’s rights or diminishing anyone’s humanity! Those skills are in disturbingly short supply at today’s failed and failing EOIR! And, they aren’t exactly DOJ’s “long suit,” either.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
If you’re a person who believes it’s literally no one’s business who gets an abortion other than that of the pregnant individual undergoing the procedure, you’ve likely been incandescent with rage since the Supreme Court’s conservative majority decided to allow Texas to proceed with an insane law that prohibits terminating pregnancies after six weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. That anger likely stems from not just the law itself but having to listen to the chorus of dumbass voices who’ve come out backing Texas for effectively banning people from obtaining an abortion, from Tucker Carlson, who opined that the law shows “democracy does still exist,” to California gubernatorial candidate Caitlyn Jenner, who ironically commented that she supports Texas’s right to choose its own laws.
Of course, another one of those voices is the Lone Star state governor Greg Abbott, who signed the bill into law in May, saying at the time, “Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” and that the Texas Legislature “worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that…ensures that the life of every unborn child who has a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.” (That both sides of the aisle supported the bill would be news to Texas Democrats, as just a single one of them voted for it.)
Asked on Tuesday why his state felt the need to “force a rape or incest victim to carry a pregnancy to term,” Abbott responded like only a person who really, really hates women can, claiming, “It doesn’t require that at all.” He added: “Because obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion, so for one it doesn’t [require] that. That said, however, let’s make something very clear. Rape is a crime and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets.”
There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with the fact that Abbott is claiming that because the law allows for abortion up to six weeks, it’s not forcing anyone to do anything. As doctors, people who’ve been pregnant before, and people who’ve bothered to read a book on the subject before crafting legislation on it have noted, by the time a person misses her first period, she’s already roughly four weeks pregnant. That means that under Texas law, someone would have no more than two weeks, not six, to determine she’s pregnant and decide whether or not to get an abortion. Even in the case of people who are actively trying to get pregnant, that window can narrow even further for numerous reasons including if they have irregular cycles. Usually, then, one would make an appointment with a doctor to confirm the pregnancy, and as Abbott may or may not know, healthcare in America is not the greatest, so she may not be able to be seen for several weeks. And that hugely generous two weeks is not only a joke for many people actively trying to have a child, but for the majority of people who are not. “It is extremely possible and very common for people to get to the six-week mark and not know they are pregnant,” Jennifer Villavicencio, M.D., lead for equity transformation at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told The New York Times. In other words, Abbott should fuck all the way off with his “obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.”
Then there’s the hilarious remark that he’s going to eliminate rape in Texas, so not allowing individuals to terminate pregnancies that result from heinous crimes is a moot point. Really, Abbott is going to make Texas rape-free? If he had that power, why didn’t he do it prior to enacting this law? The victims of the 14,824 reported rapes in his state in 2019, when he was four years into his first term, would probably love to know! (For those of you keeping up at home, that figure made Texas the No. 1 state for rape that year.)
Of course, Abbott is far from the first politician to say something ridiculously idiotic about abortion and rape. In fact, he joins a long line of assholes who’ve smugly offered their moronic two cents on the matter, an illustrious group that includes:
The Ohio state legislature, which introduced a bill in 2019 requiring doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into the uterus, or face charges of “abortion murder,” despite the fact that such a procedure is medically impossible;
Former Texas state representative Jodie Laubenberg, who claimed while in office that rape victims don’t need access to legal abortion, because they can get “cleaned out” with rape kits, which obviously is not at all how rape kits work;
Representative Michael Burgess, who somehow obtained a medical degree in 1977, and declared that male fetuses masturbate in utero—naturally, there is no evidence of this—, so abortions shouldn’t be allowed;
Former North Carolina state representative Henry Aldridge, who once said, “The facts show that people who are raped—who are truly raped—the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work, and they don’t get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.” (Medical authorities do not agree with this);
Former congressman Todd Akin, who boldly declared on the campaign trail: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Welcome to the club, Greg! Can’t wait to hear you parse the nuances of putting $10,000 bounties on the heads of individuals trying to help people escape your barbaric law.
In other Abbott news…
When he’s not signing and defending disgraceful abortion bills, he’s disenfranchising millions of his constituents. Per Bloomberg:
Greg Abbott on Tuesday signed one of the nation’s most aggressive laws curbing access to the ballot, joining a wave of such restrictions enacted after former President Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. The legislature passed the measure last month after an exodus from the state by Democratic lawmakers during the first of two special sessions. After the walkout sputtered, Republican lawmakers passed the bill without delay.
Republicans have spent months raising doubts about the 2020 election, which experts say was one of the nation’s most secure. Now, supporters of new state laws say too many voters have lost faith in voting systems, and must be reassured.
“We must have trust and confidence in our elections,” Abbott said at a signing ceremony in Tyler, Texas. “The bill that I’m about to sign helps to achieve that goal. It ensures that every eligible voter will have the opportunity to vote.” Of course, that’s an interesting way to describe a law that makes it harder to vote, by, among other things, ending drive-thru voting, limiting mail-in voting, and endowing partisan poll watchers with more power. In a tweet, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote “This law is unconstitutional and anti-democratic. Texas—we’ll see you in court. Again.” Beto O’Rourke, the former Democratic U.S. representative from El Paso, wrote in a statement: “Governor Abbott is restricting the freedom to vote for millions of Texans. Instead of working on issues that actually matter, like protecting school kids from Covid or fixing our failing electrical grid, Abbott is focused on rigging our elections and implementing extreme, right-wing policies.”
. . . .
*********************
You can check out the rest of the always lively and entertaining “Levin Report” at the above link. Like their lost idol, Abbott & DeSantis are plumbing the absolute bottom of American politics and actually killing and irreparably harming their “constituents” as they do it. Undoubtedly, that will make them “heroes” in today’s existentially dangerous “anti-heroic, anti-democracy” GOP!
There was a time in the distant past when all BIA judges were not required to be members of the pro-immigration enforcement “mob!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License.
“Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the Government must detain noncitizens who are removable because they committed certain specified offenses or have connections with terrorism, and it must hold them without bond pending their removal proceedings. This appeal asks us to decide what process is due when such detainees contend that they are not properly included within § 1226(c) and whether noncitizens who have substantial defenses to removal on the merits may be detained under § 1226(c). Because the District Court granted relief in the form of a class-wide injunction, we must also decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) permits class-wide injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the District Court that § 1226(c) is constitutional even as applied to noncitizens who have substantial defenses to removal. But for those detainees who contend that they are not properly included within § 1226(c) and are therefore entitled to a hearing pursuant to In re Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. 799 (BIA 1999), we hold that the Government has the burden to establish the applicability of § 1226(c) by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Government must make available a contemporaneous record of the hearing, consisting of an audio recording, a transcript, or their functional equivalent. Because we also conclude that § 1252(f)(1) does not authorize class-wide injunctions, we will reverse the District Court’s order in part, affirm in part, and remand for the entry of appropriate relief.”
******************
As as interesting footnote, like most of my colleagues at the Arlington Immigration Court, I always recorded bond hearings, long before this court ordered it as required by due process. One of the first things one of my colleagues told me when I arrived at Arlington was “record everything that happens in open court.” Recording protects everyone in the courtroom, including the judge!
It also helped our Judicial Law Clerks and interns “reconstruct” the bond record and understand our reasoning in the infrequent event that a “bond appeal” were filed. Otherwise, the “bond memorandum” would have to be based on the IJ’s notes and his or her recollection of what had transpired.
Talk about a defective system that should have been changed ages ago! But, that’s EOIR!And, it’s not going to improve without some major personnel changes and dynamic leadership that actually understands what happens in Immigration Court and is willing to think creatively, progressively, and change long-outdated practices and procedures, many of them in effect since EOIR was created in the early 1980s!
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Krause’s opinion:
Having considered the standards urged by the Government and by Plaintiffs, we settle on one in between: To comport with due process, the Government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the detainee is properly included within § 1226(c) as both a factual and a legal matter. See Addington, 441 U.S. at 423–24. It must show, in other words, that it is more likely than not both that the detainee in fact committed a relevant offense under § 1226(c) and that the offense falls within that provision as a matter of law. Cf. Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 809 (Schmidt, Chairman, dissenting) (contending that the Government must “demonstrate[] a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge” at the Joseph hearing).
Here’s a link to the full opinion, including my separate opinion, in Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999) (Joseph II):
Here’s the full text of my concurring/dissenting opinion (very “compact,” if I do say so myself):
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION: Paul W. Schmidt, Chairman; in which Fred W. Vacca, Gustavo D. Villageliu, Lory D. Rosenberg, and John Guendelsberger, Board Members, joined
I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
I join entirely in the majority’s rejection of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s appellate arguments and in the unanimous conclusion that, on this record, the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of the aggravated felony charge. Therefore, I agree that the respondent is not properly included in the category of aliens subject to mandatory detention for bond or custody purposes.
However, I do not share the majority’s view that the proper standard in a mandatory detention case involving a lawful permanent resident alien is that the Service is “substantially unlikely to prevail” on its charge. Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 3398, at 10 (BIA 1999). Rather, the standard in a case such as the one before us should be whether the Service has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge that the respondent is removable because of an aggravated felony.
Mandatory detention of a lawful permanent resident alien is a drastic step that implicates constitutionally-protected liberty interests. Where the lawful permanent resident respondent has made a colorable showing in cus- tody proceedings that he or she is not subject to mandatory detention, the Service should be required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge to continue mandatory detention. To enable the Immigration Judge to make the necessary independent determination in such a case, the Service should provide evidence of the applicable state or federal law under which the respondent was convicted and whatever proof of conviction that is available at the time of the Immigration Judge’s inquiry.
The majority’s enunciated standard of “substantially unlikely to prevail” is inappropriately deferential to the Service, the prosecutor in this matter. Requiring the Service to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge would not unduly burden the Service and would give more appropriate weight to the liberty interests of the lawful permanent res- ident alien. Such a standard also would provide more “genuine life to the regulation that allows for an Immigration Judge’s reexamination of this issue,” as referenced by the majority. Matter of Joseph, supra, at 10.
The Service’s failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits would not result in the release of a lawful permanent resident who poses a threat to society. Continued custody of such an alien would still be war- ranted under the discretionary criteria for detention.
In conclusion, mandatory detention should not be authorized where the Service has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge. Consequently, while I am in complete agreement with the decision to release this lawful permanent resident alien, and I agree fully that the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of this aggravated felony charge, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s enunciation of “substantially unlikely to prevail” as the standard to be applied in all future cases involving mandatory detention of lawful permanent resident aliens.
“Pushback” from appellate judges actually committed to the then-EOIR vision of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all,” was essential! Once the “Ashcroft purge” “dumbed down” the BIA and discouraged dissent and intellectual accountability, the system precipitously tanked! It got so bad that it actually provoked harsh criticism and objections from Circuit Judges across the political/ideological spectrum.
Eventually the Bush II DOJ was forced to back off a few steps from their all-out assault on immigrants’ rights. But, the damage was done, and there were no meaningful attempts to restore balance and quasi-judicial independence at EOIR thereafter. Indeed, Ashcroft’s Bush-era successors blamed the Immigration Judges for the meltdown engineered by Ashcroft, while sweeping their own role in creating “disorder in the courts” under the carpet in the best bureaucratic tradition!
EOIR continued to languish under Obama before going into a complete “death spiral” under the Trump DOJ kakistocracy.
Despite unanimous recommendations from experts that he make progressive reform and major leadership and personnel changes at EOIR one of his highest priorities, AG Garland has allowed the mess and the fatal absence of progressive, due-process-focused, expert judges and best practices at EOIR fester.
Long-deposed progressive judges willing to speak up for due process and fundamental fairness, even in the face of a “go along to get along” culture at DOJ, are still making their voices heard, even decades after they were sent packing! It’s tragic that Garland is letting the opportunity to create a long-overdue and necessary independent progressive judiciary at EOIR slip through his fingers. Progressive Dems might “dream” of transforming the Article III Judiciary; but, it’s not going to happen while Dems are running a “regressive judiciary” at the “retail level” in the one potentially powerful judiciary they do completely control.
Sadly, vulnerable individuals, many of them women, children, and people of color, will continue to suffer the brunt of Garland’s indifferent approach to judicial justice at EOIR. Beyond that, however, his failure to transform EOIR into an independent progressive court system willing to stand up for constitutional due process, equal justice, racial equity, best judicial practices, and the rule of law undermines democracy and diminishes the rights of everyone in America!
Norma Pimentel, a sister of the Missionaries of Jesus, is executive director of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley.
Dear Mr. President:
I write today to appeal to your sense of morality, human dignity and as a fellow Catholic. While the Supreme Court has blocked your efforts to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), better known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, while litigation against it proceeds through the court system, I urge you to act. These legal complications, and our backlogged immigration courts system, cannot become an excuse to strand thousands of people in dire conditions, especially when other options are available.
I know from firsthand experience just how desperate the situation is. MPP was implemented in my community in early 2019. Its effect was to force thousands of people into a makeshift “tent city” along the Mexican side of the Rio Grande river as they awaited rulings on whether they would be granted asylum.
I would visit the camp almost every single day. It was a blessing that hundreds of compassionate Americans crossed the border between Brownsville, Tex., and Matamoros, Mexico, several times a day to bring tents, food, clothing, and to tend to these families’ medical needs and legal issues. While supported by the good nature and assistance that staff and others provided, I often worried about how the women, men and children at the camp could survive in such conditions. How could they stand the scorching heat of our region’s hot sun or the occasional torrential downpours that turned their encampment into a mud pit?
The lack of care for humanity and the sounds of human misery accompanied me daily as I moved through the camp. I know that reports of these conditions have reached your ears, too: I met your wife, Jill Biden, here in 2019 as she donned rubber boots to wade through the mud and see for herself the misery in which asylum seekers, including many women and children, lived for as long as two years.
So, I rejoiced when you declared an end to this immoral policy on your first days in office, and despaired when the Supreme Court required your administration to implement it once again.
I pray for the Supreme Court justices as I do for all leaders. But in my heart, I know that surely, we can do better than return to the conditions and suffering I witnessed in 2019.
. . . . .
I invite you to come and see for yourself, as your wife did in 2019, what is happening on the border. There are many layers to the immigration realities behind the strident political rhetoric that dominates and obscures the issue today. But we must find ways to counter what Pope Francis calls a “globalization of indifference.”
Mr. President, please demonstrate to the world that the words of Jesus — whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me — are the foundation of not only our faith, but of the moral structure of our country.
******************
Read the rest of Sister Norma’s letter at the above link.
She’s right: “We cannot allow a lack of creativity and fortitude to become an excuse to abandon the principle of compassion.” But, sadly, that’s exactly what the Biden Administration is doing by listening to the wrong advice from those wedded to the failed, illegal, and cruel concept of misusing the law and perverting process as a “deterrent.”
The experts, “practical scholars,” NGOs, intellectual leaders, and courageous progressive judicial talent who can solve this problem, folks like Sister Norma, Karen Musalo, Marielena Hincappie, Kevin Johnson, Michelle Mendez, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Lenni Benson, Michele Pistone, Geoffrey Hoffman, Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow, and Judge Ilyce Shugall, are all “on the outside looking in.” Moreover, rather than working with them to fix the asylum system at the border and bring essential progressive reforms to our dysfunctional Immigration Courts, the Administration has actively alienated and disrespected their views in favor of recycling “guaranteed to fail, Miller-Lite” deterrence only policies of the past.
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — Beyond bad GOP judges, corrupt and evil GOP State AGs, “Miller Lite” bureaucratic retreads, and feckless and timid Biden policy wonks, this is the harsh reality of our continuing, failed, “border deterrence” policies and our abrogation of asylum laws and human morality. EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
The solutions are out there! Too bad the Administration has become “part of the problem,” rather than having the guts and creativity to solve the problem while saving lives! No courage, no convictions, no solutions! It’s a formula for disaster☠️ and death!⚰️
As Sister Norma says, using the words of Jesus, in her powerful conclusion: “whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me — are the foundation of not only our faith, but of the moral structure of our country.” Right now, He couldn’t be very pleased with the conduct of the GOP nativists, the Supremes, righty Federal Judges, horrible GOP AGs, and the feckless bureaucrats and timid policy officials of the Biden Administration!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — According to the NYT, Biden immigration policy officials always shared this vision of “ultimate border deterrence” with Gauleiter Stephen Miller. Now, they are secretly relieved that Trump’s righty judges have “forced” them to continue running a lawless border and killing asylum seekers without legal process. EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
MATAMOROS, Mexico — When the Supreme Court effectively revived a cornerstone of Trump-era migration policy late last month, it looked like a major defeat for President Biden.
After all, Mr. Biden had condemned the policy — which requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico — as “inhumane” and suspended it on his first day in office, part of an aggressive push to dismantle former President Donald J. Trump’s harshest migration policies.
But among some Biden officials, the Supreme Court’s order was quietly greeted with something other than dismay, current and former officials said: It brought some measure of relief.
Before that ruling, Mr. Biden’s steps to begin loosening the reins on migration had been quickly followed by a surge of people heading north, overwhelming the southwest border of the United States. Apprehensions of migrants hit a two-decade high in July, a trend officials fear will continue into the fall.
Concern had already been building inside the Biden administration that the speed of its immigration changes may have encouraged migrants to stream toward the United States, current and former officials said.
In fact, some Biden officials were already talking about reviving Mr. Trump’s policy in a limited way to deter migration, said the officials, who have worked on immigration policy but were not authorized to speak publicly about the administration’s internal debates on the issue. Then the Supreme Court order came, providing the Biden administration with the political cover to adopt the policy in some form without provoking as much ire from Democrats who reviled Mr. Trump’s border policies.
Now, the officials say, they have an opportunity to take a step back, come up with a more humane version of Mr. Trump’s policy and, they hope, reduce the enormous number of people arriving at the border.
. . . .
*******************
Read the rest of Natalie’s article at the link.
Who would have thought that neo-Nazi Stephen Miller would be the real winner of the 2020 election?
When he ”wins,” America and humanity “lose.” But, apparently that’s “A-OK” with some Biden Administration officials who lack the expertise, ability, courage, and political will to establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at our Southern Border! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com.
Five decades of experience, including plenty of wall and fence building, civil detention, expedited dockets, restrictive interpretations, criminal prosecutions, family detentions, toddlers without lawyers, money to corrupt foreign governments, “don’t come, we don’t want you and care nothing about your lives messages,” in English and Spanish, says the Biden version of the “Miller Lite” approach will fail and ultimately expand the extralegal population of the U.S.
Of course, it also will kill more desperate humans in the desert, in Mexico, in squalid “camps,” and back in their home countries. Just so long as it’s “out of sight, out of mind.” The great thing about desert deaths is that often the bodies are never found or identified. Therefore, nothing can be proved, and it’s like these people “never happened.” It’s a real bureaucratic triumph! Foreign deaths are almost as good, as they seldom get much “play” in U.S. media and always can be blamed on something other than failed U.S. policies or foreign interventions.
I’d already observed that the DOJ’s “defense” of undoing Trump immigration policies seemed as half-hearted as it was ineffective. Perhaps their lackadaisical approach came right from the top!
And, the “policy geniuses” in the Biden Administration who think “Miller-Lite Time” will be a political “happy hour” (at humanity’s expense) should remember that the right will still successfully label them as “open borders” just as they did when Obama established himself as “deporter-in-chief!”
Meanwhile, their former progressive supporters will see through the false humane rhetoric. Does it really matter if we call individuals “foreign nationals” rather than “illegals” while we’re illegally exterminating them?
I’m afraid we know the answer to “Casey’s question:” NO!
”Sorry, Casey! Not only can’t anyone in the Biden Administration ‘play this game,’ they don’t even have the guts to suit up! They view a ‘forfeit’ to “Team Miller” as good as a ‘W.’ Remember, it’s not THEIR family, friends, or relatives dying at our border. It’s just ‘the other guys,’ so who cares? When it comes to U.S. immigration policy, foreign nationals all too often find that their lives and human dignity are just another form of expendable political capital.” PHOTO: Rudi Rest Creative Commons
“A federal judge declared unlawful the U.S. government’s turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry along the U.S southern border. The court ruled that the United States is required by law to inspect and process asylum seekers when they present themselves at ports of entry, and condemned the practice of denying access to the asylum process through metering and similar practices.
The decision came after oral arguments were held before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern District of California on Tuesday.
The case, Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, was brought 4 years ago by Al Otro Lado and a group of 13 individuals seeking asylum in the United States whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection turned back. The Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center, American Immigration Council, and the law firm Mayer Brown challenged the policy.
Nicole Ramos, Border Rights Project Director of Al Otro Lado, said, “After over four years, a U.S. federal court concluded what our team at Al Otro Lado has known all along, that CBP’s turning away of asylum seekers from ports of entry and metering are illegal and violate the rights of the individuals and families most in need of our protection. Despite DHS’s lies about their capacity to process asylum seekers, the reasons behind why metering exists, and the agency’s destruction of evidence in the case, today the rule of law and justice prevail.”
Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “This is such an important victory for our heroic partners at Al Otro Lado, who have fought for asylum seekers for years against every variation of government lie, denial, and abuse of power. The decision will protect thousands of vulnerable people at the border.”
Melissa Crow, Senior Supervising Attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said, “This decision affirms what people fleeing persecution and immigrant rights advocates have argued for years: the U.S. government’s denial of access to the asylum process at ports of entry is blatantly illegal. The Court properly recognized the extensive human costs of metering, including the high risk of assault, disappearance, and death, when CBP officers flout their duty to inspect and process asylum seekers and instead force them to wait in Mexico.”
“Turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry unconstitutionally stripped people of their right under U.S. law to access the asylum process in the United States. Ports of entry are a critical part of our nation’s asylum system and serve as the front door for arriving asylum seekers. Today’s decision underscores that the government may not simply shut that door and deny asylum seekers this right. The law protects asylum seekers arriving at our doorstep as it does those who stepped over the threshold. CBP must inspect and process arriving asylum seekers,” said Karolina Walters, senior attorney at American Immigration Council.
“Today’s decision is not just a victory for justice and the rule of law, it takes a significant step towards ending a troubling chapter in our nation’s history,” said Stephen Medlock, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP. “Under the turnback policy that was at issue in this case, the very government officials that should have been welcoming and assisting victims of persecution and torture were told to turn them away from the United States. The district court found that to be unequivocally illegal.”
Maria Frausto at the American Immigration Council, mfrausto@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7526; Marion Steinfels at SPLC, marion.steinfels@splcenter.org or 202-557-0430; Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, 212-614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org; Melissa Flores, Al Otro Lado, melissa@alotrolado.org, 213-444-6081.”
*******************
Not surprisingly to those of us who understand the system, this illegal, inane, and unnecessary policy instituted by the Trump kakistocracy and inexplicably continued under Biden has fueled illegal entries, as we effectively gave asylum seekers no legal avenue to make their applications.
As noted above, the Trump Administration also lied to the court and the public about the justification for the program, which clearly was fabricated.
But, to be fair, the Biden Administration has done little to re-establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at the Southern Border. Obviously, this case demands a long overdue investigation into the DOJ attorneys who handled and defended the indefensible, and the misconduct of those attorneys and CBP officials in hiding or destroying evidence and creating bogus scenarios to “justify” their illegal actions. But, don’t hold your breath for Garland, who seems largely indifferent to misconduct at the DOJ or anywhere else in Government, to take any action.
Legal asylum seekers suffer severe consequences for the Government’s concerted attack on their legal rights and humanity. The “perps on our payroll” — not so much. No wonder our legal system is in free fall!
It isn’t clear to me how this case interacts with Biden’s continuation of Title 42 which illegally bars many asylum seekers from pursuing their claims in any manner. There are exceptions, but they appear to be somewhat arbitrary and depend mostly on what CBP feels like doing on any particular day.
For those allowed to pursue claims in the U.S., the Biden Administration still doesn’t have a functioning way of promptly and fairly determining their cases. “Dedicated Dockets” at EOIR are just another “designed to fail” gimmick, almost certain to increase backlogs without promoting fairness and efficiency.
That which would make the asylum system functional for all — immediate EOIR reform, including new progressive leadership, a progressive BIA, much better asylum precedents, some progressive IJs well-qualified to handle asylum cases fairly and efficiently (e.g., getting them right initially, insisting that Asylum Officers do likewise, and cracking down on frivolous behavior by DHS in Immigration Court, rather than the haste makes waste “any reason to deny culture” that drives EOIR’s incredibly poor and inept performance on asylum cases today) and working agreements with the private bar for representation and reasonable scheduling — has been of little visible interest to Garland and his lieutenants to date.
With Congress more or less living on another planet, that’s likely to leave reshaping the asylum system to the Federal Courts. There, as this case shows, there is still a smattering of Article III Judges committed to due process and the rule of law for asylum seekers. But, there are now enough right wing extremists put on the bench by the GOP to make it highly likely that any hard won progressive judicial reforms will eventually be undone.
The one place where progressive reforms could actually take place, and be made to endure, at least for the balance of this Administration — EOIR — has been mishandled by Garland to date.
What an awful, disgraceful mess — with no viable plans for improvement on the horizon!
Proposed asylum regulation changes that rely heavily on a currently broken, dysfunctional, non-expert EOIR to protect the rights of asylum seekers — after years of intentionally bashing them on behalf of their nativist overlords — is an obvious non-starter that fails to “pass the straight face test” as those who actually are condemned to practice before EOIR know all to well. Of course, the regulatory proposal wasn’t drafted by those actually familiar with the human trauma of litigating asylum cases at EOIR.
Ah, Casey, “why can’t anyone out there in ‘Bidenland’ play this game?”
“Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland. The rest of us not so much.” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
These two op-eds make compelling cases for the 5th Circuit rivaling the Supremes as the most scofflaw, out of control, and dangerous court in America! But, hey, is there a “dark horse” in this righty “race to the bottom?” 🐴 (Curiously enough, “owned” and “trained” by Biden-Garland Stables!)
First, let’s hear from my friend, NDPA Stalwart, Houston Law Immigration Clinic Director, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman:
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
CAT a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit? I respectfully dissent
By Geoffrey A. Hoffman
This week a panel of the Fifth Circuit issued Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, interpreting the Convention Against Torture’s (CAT’s) state action requirement so restrictively that it led the dissenting judge to call CAT a virtual “dead letter” in most cases (in the Fifth Circuit, at least).
In this piece, I want to consider this dire prognostication and also think about what it may mean for future practice – at least for those of us in the Fifth Circuit.
Two panel members found that petitioner failed a key requirement for relief: that the government in Honduras “consented or acquiesced” to the torture. In dissent, Judge W. Eugene Davis remarked, “I agree with the IJ, the BIA, and the majority that [petitioner] will likely be tortured by MS-13 gang members. . .[but] I read the record to compel a conclusion that the torture will be with the acquiescence of a public official.” According to Judge Davis, the majority raised the bar so high regarding this requirement under CAT that “for most if not all” people CAT will be out of reach, if they are from countries with (merely) corrupt policy or police without the will or courage to protect them from brutal gangs. While I agree with Judge Davis, the fact is CAT need not be a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit.
I was moved to comment on another split panel decision previously in the Fifth Circuit in Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr, see my prior post here, and I am similarly moved to write about this present decision.
Significantly, the majority here carefully acknowledges up front that the BIA and IJ below found petitioner “likely to be tortured or killed” if returned to Honduras, and even catalogued the horrible injuries he had already suffered, mentioning “gruesome photos” that are part of the record in the case.
Because I think the majority erred, and would agree with most of what the dissenting judge says, let me address three issues where I think the majority got it wrong: (1) what it means for a record to “compel” a different conclusion on appeal; (2) what it means for a government to consent or acquiesce to torture and (3) the notion that Petitioner waived his argument about the correct standard of review merely by failing to bring it up in a motion to reconsider.
I address all three of these points below.
First, the majority importantly conceded in its opinion that the police “failed to investigate” petitioner’s injuries. However, because the Board and IJ interpreted these “failures” of the police as “better explained” by the fact the petitioner “was unable to disclose the specific identity of any of his attackers” this showed the police did not “willfully ignore” the attacks. The majority reasoned that the “evidence” did not “compel” a contrary conclusion and therefore the IJ’s findings, adopted by the BIA, were considered “conclusive.”
I am struck here by the notion that just because the BIA and IJ had inserted their own explanations for the unrebutted record evidence showing lack of any police action that this must have meant (according to the majority) that the appellate court was constrained to accept this explanation and would not disturb the lower tribunal’s interpretation of the evidence.
Such a reading of the word “compel” means that judges can have an “out” anytime they want to rubber stamp any decision of the Board, all they have to do is say the explanation offered characterizing the evidence in one way or another was good enough and must not be disturbed. But this is a very troubling proposition.
Take, for example, the present case where the supposition on the part of the BIA and IJ was that the petitioner was somehow at fault for not being able to identify his attackers by name. Think about that for a minute…Police are not acquiescing and not at fault and should not be held to have “turned a blind eye” because the victim was unable to identify his attackers.
But this does not make sense.
Such a blame-the-victim mentality goes against the motivation and underlying rationale behind other federal types of relief immigrants have available, for example, U visas for crime victims, VAWA, T visas, etc., premised in many cases on the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement and their investigation. Just because a victim does not know the exact identities of their attackers does not disqualify them from relief. Would that be a reasonable interpretation for example of the U visa statute and attendant regulations?
In addition, let’s consider the use of the “compel” standard for a minute and where it came from exactly. This standard, as acknowledged by the majority, comes from a previous case, Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006), among other cases. Chen in turn cites 8 USC 1252(b)(4)(B) and emanates from the Supreme Court’s famous decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), authored by Justice Scalia.
Chen was a case about a Chinese petitioner who converted to Christianity after entry into the U.S. and so her applications did not rely on past persecution but a well-founded fear of future persecution based on religion. The IJ in the former case found that there were “many Christians in China” and that Chen’s claims of future persecution were allegedly “highly speculative.” The facts of Chen and the current case relating to police inaction in Honduras could not be further apart. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit in Chen was not considering past persecution, as here, but the more difficult to prove “future persecution” and well-founded fear standard.
Similarly, Justice Scalia in Elias-Zacarias was concerned about proof supporting a political opinion claim. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner could not produce evidence “so compelling” that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution on account of political opinion. The “so compelling” language has been used by many courts to deny asylum on many other grounds throughout the past decades and has not been limited to political opinion claims.
But the reliance in the present case for the “compel” standard on the statute in question, 8 USC 1252(b) here is misguided. The statute states in pertinent part as follows: “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary . . . .” But the “consent and acquiescence” determination under CAT is not a determination of “administrative facts” but is certainly a mixed question of law and fact. As such, the entire structure of the “compel” standard should not have been applied but instead de novo review applied.
And this brings me to the practice pointer that this case so unfortunately stands for. Although on appeal before the circuit court the issue of standard of review was raised by petitioner, it was rejected by the majority on the theory that he had to have filed a “motion to reconsider” before the Board to preserve the issue for appellate review.
This waiver argument has always seemed to me a weak and tenuous one.
For example, what if the petitioner (i.e., the respondent before the BIA) argued in his brief to the Board that the correct standard of review was de novo due to the mixed question raised by a very complicated “consent or acquiescence” determination under CAT, and courts have so held, but the BIA decided to just rubber stamp the IJ and refused to overturn the IJ’s finding based on clear error. Wouldn’t that have preserved the issue? Why is there a need for a litigant to then file a motion to reconsider after the fact to preserve an issue which had already been preserved? To make matters worse it appears Mr. Tobora Gutierrez appeared pro se, see page 3 of the Fifth Circuit majority decision, at least initially. The decision does not reveal if he had appellate counsel before the BIA. But if he did not it would be an especially onerous requirement to impose an “after the fact” requirement that a litigant must file a “motion to reconsider” to preserve an issue for appellate review, especially if he is unrepresented.
All of that said, the practice take-away here is: (1) everyone must file a very carefully drafted and thorough motion to reconsider on all issues that could be in any way (mis-)interpreted to be subject to waiver so you preserve all issues for review before the circuit courts; and (2) everyone should read Judge Davis’ cogent and reasoned dissenting opinion, which hopefully will be followed instead of the majority’s strained application of the “compel” standard. Judge Davis was right: the evidence does compel a different outcome. Judge Davis does a wonderful job also of distinguishing the prior case law in this area and showing how Mr. Tobora Gutierrez’s case is fundamentally different. As he says, “if the egregious facts of this case are not sufficient to support a finding of public-official acquiescence, CAT relief will be a dead-letter to most if not all individuals who live in countries where the police are corrupt or simply do not have the will or courage to protect them from brutal gang attacks.”
Judge Davis is right, this is a most troubling decision but not just for the reason he provides. It is troubling for the further reason that the majority applies the wrong legal standard here, the “compels” standard versus a de novo review. The majority also leaves the door open for “deferred action,” for this sympathetic and horrendous case, although it declines to recommend it. Most importantly, it also leaves the door open for de novo review, in future cases, at least where those litigants are perceived to have preserved the issue. Litigants can do this by filing a motion to reconsider with the BIA, then filing (another, second) petition for review when the motion to reconsider is denied, and then (following the procedure mandated by section 1252) consolidating the two cases.
(Institution for identification only)
Geoffrey Hoffman
Clinical Professor, UHLC Immigration Clinic Director
Let’s not forget that Garland’s DOJ defended this grotesque miscarriage of justice. In a grim way, Geoffrey’s “practical scholarship” ties in nicely with Ruth Marcus’s recent op-ed in WashPost on the righto-wacko 5th Circuit’s dangerous assault on American justice:
Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus, moderates a panel discussion about chronic poverty with Education Secretary John B. King (blue tie) and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (striped tie), during the National Association of Counties (NACo), at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park, in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture photo by Lance Cheung.
Opinion: The 5th Circuit is staking out a claim to be America’s most dangerous court
Opinion by Ruth Marcus
August 31 at 6:37 PM ET
The Supreme Court is, no doubt, the nation’s most powerful court. But the 5th Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is staking out a claim to be the most dangerous — the least wedded to respecting precedent or following an orderly judicial process.
The 5th is arguably the most conservative among the country’s dozen appeals courts. It inclined in that direction even before President Donald Trump managed to install six nominees. And they constitute quite a bunch: Stuart Kyle Duncan, who said the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling establishing a right to same-sex marriage “imperils civic peace” and “raises a question about the legitimacy of the court.” Cory Wilson, who tweeted about Hillary Clinton using the hashtag #CrookedHillary, called the Affordable Care Act “illegitimate” and said he supported overturning Roe v. Wade. James C. Ho, who issued a concurring opinion lamenting the “moral tragedy of abortion.”
How conservative is the court, where 12 of 17 active judges were named by Republican presidents? “As conservative a federal appeals court as any of us have seen in our lifetimes,” says Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, noting that even as the circuit’s conservatives tend toward the extreme end of the spectrum, its liberals aren’t all that liberal.
One measure: During each of the last two Supreme Court terms, with conservative justices firmly in the majority, the high court has reviewed seven cases from the 5th Circuit. It reversed 6 of 7 decisions in the 2019-2020 term and 5 of 7 in 2020-2021.
These included the appeals courts’ rulings striking down the Affordable Care Act and upholding the constitutionality of a Louisiana abortion law, identical to a Texas statute the justices had tossed out several years earlier — another 5th Circuit special reversed by the high court. If you thought the appeals court judges would have learned their lesson the first time, you don’t know the 5th Circuit.
Texas can ban the abortion procedure most commonly used to end second-trimester pregnancies, a federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 18. (Reuters)
The circuit’s latest shenanigans involve, unsurprisingly, abortion, and Texas’s latest attempt to eviscerate abortion rights. This Texas law, which goes into effect Wednesday, is both blatantly unconstitutional (it purports to prohibit abortion once there is a detectable fetal heartbeat, around six weeks into pregnancy) and an audacious effort to evade judicial review (it leaves enforcement of the ban up to private vigilantes, not state officials.)
In this effort to end-run and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, the 5th Circuit has already proved itself an eager co-conspirator. Texas abortion clinics filed suit in federal court challenging the law and seeking to block it from taking effect. A federal judge had scheduled a hearing on whether to grant such an injunction.
But on Friday a panel of the 5th Circuit — two Trump judges and one Reagan appointee — issued an extraordinary order preventing the district judge from going ahead with the hearing, thus letting the law take effect in the interim — all this even as the appeals court refused to speed up its consideration of the case. In a sign of their desperation, the clinics appealed that action to the Supreme Court, not exactly a friendly venue these days for abortion rights.
. . . .
Read the rest of Ruth’s op-ed at the link.
But, the right-controlled Supremes aren’t going quietly into the night in this competition. The right to a reasoned decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker is fundamental to Constitutional due process — except at the Supremes. The righty majority now employs the “shadow docket” to avoid explanation and accountability for some of it’s most outrageously scofflaw decisions! Many of these have hurt or even killed migrants. David Leonhardt @ NY Times explains:
Davide Leonhardt Journalist NY Times PHOTO: Wikipedia
This one came out shortly before midnight on Wednesday. It consisted of a single paragraph, not signed by the justices who voted for it and lacking the usual detailed explanation of their reasoning. And there had been no oral arguments, during which opposing lawyers could have made their cases and answered questions from the justices.
Instead, the opinion was part of something that has become known as “the shadow docket.” In the shadow docket, the court makes decisions quickly, without the usual written briefings, oral arguments or signed opinions. In recent years, the shadow docket has become a much larger part of the Supreme Court’s work.
Shadow-docket rulings have shaped policy on voting rights, climate change, birth control, Covid-19 restrictions and more. Last month, the justices issued shadow decisions forcing the Biden administration to end its eviction moratorium and to reinstate a Trump administration immigration policy. “The cases affect us at least as much as high-profile cases we devote so much attention to,” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, told me.
Shadow-docket cases are frequently those with urgency — such as a voting case that must be decided in the final weeks before an election. As a result, the justices don’t always have time to solicit briefs, hold oral arguments and spend months grappling with their decision. Doing so can risk irreparable harm to one side in the case.
For these reasons, nobody questions the need for the court to issue some expedited, bare-bones rulings. But many legal experts are worried about how big the shadow docket has grown, including in cases that the Supreme Court could have decided in a more traditional way.
“Shadow docket orders were once a tool the court used to dispense with unremarkable and legally unambiguous matters,” Moira Donegan wrote in The Guardian. “In recent years the court has largely dispensed with any meaningful application of the irreparable harm standard.”
Why the shadow docket has grown
Why have the justices expanded the shadow docket?
In part, it is a response to a newfound willingness by lower courts to issue decisions that apply to the entire country, as my colleague Charlie Savage explains. By acting quickly, the Supreme Court can retain its dominant role.
But there is also a political angle. Shadow-docket cases can let the court act quickly and also shield individual justices from criticism: In the latest abortion case, there is no signed opinion for legal scholars to pick apart, and no single justice is personally associated with the virtual end of legal abortion in Texas. The only reason that the public knows the precise vote — 5 to 4 — is that the four justices in the minority each chose to release a signed dissent.
Critics argue that judges in a democracy owe the public more transparency. “This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,” Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, has said. “If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power.”
During a House hearing on the shadow docket in February, members of both parties criticized its growth. “Knowing why the justices selected certain cases, how each of them voted, and their reasoning is indispensable to the public’s trust in the court’s integrity,” Representative Henry Johnson Jr., a Georgia Democrat, said. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said, “I am a big fan of judges and justices making clear who’s making the decision, and I would welcome reforms that required that.”
The shadow docket also leaves lower-court judges unsure about what exactly the Supreme Court has decided and how to decide similar cases they later hear. “Because the lower-court judges don’t know why the Supreme Court does what it does, they sometimes divide sharply when forced to interpret the court’s nonpronouncements,” writes William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Baude coined the term “shadow docket.”
Six vs. three
The court’s six Republican-appointed justices are driving the growth of the shadow docket, and it is consistent with their overall approach to the law. They are often (though not always) willing to be aggressive, overturning longstanding precedents, in campaign finance, election law, business regulation and other areas. The shadow docket expands their ability to shape American society.
The three Democratic-appointed justices, for their part, have grown frustrated by the trend. In her dissent this week, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this court’s shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.” In an interview with my colleague Adam Liptak last week, Justice Stephen Breyer said: “I can’t say never decide a shadow-docket thing. … But be careful.”
Roberts also evidently disagrees with the use of the shadow docket in the Texas abortion case. In his dissent, joining the three liberal justices, he said the court could instead have blocked the Texas law while it made its way through the courts. That the court chose another path means that abortion is now all but illegal in the nation’s second-largest state.
The justices are likely to settle the question in a more lasting way next year. They will hear oral arguments this fall in a Mississippi abortion case — the more traditional kind, outside the shadows — and a decision is likely by June.
Read more from David in “The Morning” e-mail from the NYT.
******************************
Abrogating a treaty, intellectual dishonesty, neutering Federal statutes and regulations, scoffing at Constitutional due process, disregarding decency and human life (at least “life after birth”), AND illegally sending another human back to be tortured to death is indeed a “hard act to follow” and makes the 5th a serious contender. But, remember where this “opportunity to dump on migrants” came from!
Immigration practitioners will tell you never to underestimate the sloppiness, lack of expertise, irresponsibility, disdain for due process, and disregard for human lives that has become institutionalized at Garland’s “Miller Lite” captive appeals “court,” the BIA! And, like the Supremes and unlike the 5th Circuit, the BIA has nationwide jurisdiction and sets national precedents. But, unlike the Supremes, who decide fewer than 100 cases in an average year, the BIA assembly line charms out 20,000 to 30,000 cases annually through its defective processes, and it’s lousy, one-sided, anti-immigrant precedents and reactionary guidance that destroy thousands of lives and futures in Immigration Court every day!
So, when it comes to worst court of today, don’t count out the BIA!
Charlotte Klein Staff Writer Vanity Fair PHOTO: Twitter
The “Commanding Generals” of this effort are unprincipled, far-right GOP jurists. Their initial targeted victims are, of course, the usual vulnerable suspects: migrants, asylum seekers, women, voters of color, transgender kids, the poor, union members, etc. But, eventually, all of us who reman true to liberal democratic values will be targeted for some kind of punishment. Immigration “led the way” in the “Dred Scottfication of the other” by the Supremes at the behest of the Trump kakistocracy. But, don’t think that’s where this heinous resuscitation of one of the worst cases in American jurisprudence will end!
Meanwhile, this latest phase of the assault has unleashed the usual Dem arsenal of feckless weaponry, including:
Statements of outrage untied to realistic possibilities;
Largely meaningless public demonstrations that are “media events” and not much else;
Idle threats of reprisals;
A barrage of op-eds decrying that the fringe radical right and their relatively unpopular agenda has once again outflanked liberals who represent the views and values of the majority;
Statements of fact that have no material effect (public support for the complete elimination of abortion, al la Texas, the 5th, and the Supremes holds steady at 8%, while a large majority of Americans favor abortion in some form or another — explain how that has made a difference — also, does anybody really think that these right wingers give a fig that many women will die from illegal abortions and others will be saddled with unwanted children — the only part of human life that creates much compassion or empathy for this righty gang is that which occurs prior to birth);
Appeals to precedent, fairness, decency, reasonableness, confirmation promises, and respect for the law addressed to a party and its jurists who value none of these things if they get in the way of their authoritarian agenda.
But, Dems, here’s a better idea! For once, why not try a different approach and actually work within what you DO control and CAN change? Something that will showcase the positive attributes of honest, expert, progressive judging while developing best practices and saving lots of lives in the process. What do you have to lose, Dems? Can actually doing something to combat right-wing control of the judiciary rather than just impotently raging against it produce a worse result than you have already achieved — even when controlling the Executive, House, and Senate?
There is not much in the immediate future that Biden and the Dems can (and are willing to) do to change the composition and tenor of the Supremes and the 5th Circuit. But Biden and Garland have complete control over the “Miller Lite” BIA and the Immigration Courts!
A new, well-qualified, BIA comprised of progressive expert judges unswervingly committed to scholarship, quality, due process, respect for migrants and their attorneys, and correct results could (and should) be installed by now. But, disgracefully, it isn’t! Progressives need to hold Biden’s and Garland’s feet to the fire until they create the positive change they promised, but have not delivered!
Then, once a new BIA is in place, go to work on re-competing all Immigration Judge jobs on a merit basis, incorporating key progressive values and real-life experiences, and also involving input from practitioners and outside experts in the area. Create a better progressive Federal Immigration Judiciary and let it lead the way to restoring due process, best practices, efficiency, humanity, fundamental fairness, and integrity to our broken immigration system!
Humanity is suffering! Garland must pull the plug 🔌 on the “BIA Clown Show” 🤡 before it kills ⚰️ anyone else! Pull the BIA from the “Most Dangerous Court In America Competition” before they can “win” it. A “win” for the BIA would certainly be a “loss” for America!
