"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“In sum, the BIA erred in finding that Chicas-Machado was not a refugee under the INA due to a lack of nexus to a protected ground, religion. Chicas-Machado demonstrated past persecution on account of religion, and is therefore entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 176-77. Recognizing the BIA’s error, we grant the petition for review and remand the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the BIA must determine whether the Government can rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 If the BIA concludes that Chicas-Machado is eligible for asylum on remand, it should reconsider her withholding of removal claim. See Sorto-Guzman, 42 F.4th at 450. We decline to reach all other issues raised on appeal as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims, and direct the BIA to reevaluate those claims following its reconsideration of Chicas-Machado’s asylum application. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 361 n.10 (4th Cir. 2021) (declining to reach the merits of withholding of removal appeal after finding error in the BIA’s asylum analysis).”
“This petition raises important questions about proper notice in removal proceedings. Federal immigration law mandates that the government provide a noncitizen with a written notice to appear that contains certain critical details about her removal hearing, including the “time and place” of the proceedings. In a pair of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that the notice to appear must be a single document containing all statutorily required information. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021); Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. The immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. Because Lazo-Gavidia and her son received defective notices to appear, we grant their petition, vacate the Board’s order dismissing their appeal, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Glenn Fogle! Listen to the oral argument here.]
“Because an offender can be convicted under Nebraska’s shoplifting statute when he acts with an intent not encompassed by a generic theft offense, we hold that the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic federal offense. Accordingly, the BIA erred in finding that Thok was removable for having committed a theft offense—and, thus, an aggravated felony—based upon his Nebraska shoplifting convictions. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“Mercy Naah, a native of Cameroon, was charged as removable from the United States. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Naah demonstrated that she is unable or unwilling to return to Cameroon because of past persecution on account of her political opinion. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports for the Round Table 🛡️⚔️:
5. Experts
Unpublished 1st Cir. Victory [Experts]
[T]o keep it brief, we were on the winning side in an unpublished 1st Cir. decision issued today in which the IJ and BIA wrongly gave little weight to an country expert’s opinion on the risk petitioner faced in a CAT case. Decision attached. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in this one. Another great win for SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and the ACLU of New Hampshire!
More to follow. We continue to make a difference!
Best, Jeff
I have just learned that counsel is filing a motion to publish. There is good language regarding the evidentiary weight of one qualified as an expert who testifies credibly. The decision points out that an expert need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying their opinion, as long as such opinion is based on sufficient facts or data;” that “An expert cannot be “undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed;” and that where an IJ makes factual findings not consistent with the expert’s opinion, it is important for the IJ to explain the reasons behind those findings.
Why do Dems routinely shoot themselves in the foot on immigration while driving a wedge between Dems in power and the immigration/social justice advocates who helped them get there?
In each of the 4th Circuit cases here, our Dem AG aligned himself with restrictionist positions advocated by dissenting Bush II and Trump appointees, while eschewing the far better-reasoned, more practical approaches advocated by expert advocates and adopted by the jurists in the majority who are committed to due process.
As the 4th Circuit majority in Chicas-Machado cogently points out, the BIA’s “excessively narrow reading” of nexus conflicts with both the statutory language and practical considerations regarding the motivation of persecutors (not to mention riding roughshod over existing, binding Circuit precedent). The BIA has a long and troubling history of ignoring “mixed motive” to deny asylum.
Yet, instead of improving under Dems, the BIA’s abuse of nexus to wrongfully disqualify qualified refugees from protection has continued to metastasize under Garland! It’s all part of the anti-immigrant, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR, promoted by Sessions and Barr and not effectively addressed by Garland.
Happy to see another Round Table victory on use of experts. But, the 1st Circuit should have published this instructive decision. Hopefully, they now will!
As we know, the BIA’s systemic mishandling of experts is a chronic problem, particularly as the BIA intentionally overcomplicates the law, as a “deterrent,” so experts are almost a requirement for success. (Even though it is well-known that many asylum applicants have difficulty just getting competent pro bono lawyers to represent them, let alone the services of “pro bono experts.”). Every example helps expose the BIA’s professional misconduct, for which Garland and his DOJ leadership have shown an unusual and disturbing tolerance.
If you don’t bring an expert, they deny for failure to sustain your B/P! If you do bring an expert, they minimize, misconstrue, or ignore their testimony!
“Catch 22” — the applicant loses either way!
Experts are also important because it’s an area where the Article IIIs’ experience with experts in civil litigation far exceeds the BIA’s. Therefore, they are apt to recognize the BIA’s sharp divergence from the weight and respect ordinarily given to experts in civil litigation. Hence, we have had substantial success with the Circuits in challenging the BIA’s continuing, inappropriately dismissive, treatment of experts.
The BIA routinely uses sloppy, often internally inconsistent, “boilerplate” in their decisions. Yet, they somehow find time to “nitpick” expert testimony looking for every minor or insignificant “omission” or “discrepancy” to discredit the expert! What a disgrace!
Finally, on Naah v. Garland, a special “shout out” to long-time NDPA stalwart and role model Danielle Beach-Oswald on her victory in a Cameroonian political persecution case in the 5th Circuit. As the decision reflects, asylum victories on non-procedural issues are hard to come by in the 5th. Danielle was a “Legacy Arlington Immigration Court regular” during my time on the bench. This just further cements her status as “one of the best in the business!”
Congrats, Danielle, and thanks for all you do!
Think how much better this system would function with a BIA of real subject-matter experts focused on due process and fundamental fairness — rather than helping out their “partners” at DHS enforcement and protecting their careers in the process! And, what if we also had a Dem AG focused on due process for immigrants in “his” courts, rather than being asleep at the switch and complicit in some of the worst, anti immigrant, biased, backlog building “jurisprudence” rolled out by the Federal “justice” system!
What if once in office, Dems actually courageously stood up for the immigrants, advocates, and values they claim to represent during elections?
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The content of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
TRAC: The largest segment where age was recorded, some 32,691, were children from zero to four years of age. This represents 12 percent of cases received this fiscal year, or a little less than one out of every eight.
Reuters: DHS in a notice published in the Federal Register said the “expedited removal” process is best focused on people who recently entered the U.S. and remain in close proximity to the border, rather than those targeted by Trump’s sweeping 2019 expansion, who have been in the country longer and developed ties to their communities.
Watchdog recommends relocation of detainees from ICE facility, citing unsanitary conditions and staff shortages CBS: The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a damning report on Friday documenting unsanitary conditions, staff shortages and security lapses at ICE’s Torrance County Detention Center in New Mexico. The OIG found the conditions so unsafe that it took the highly unusual step of urging ICE to immediately remove all persons detained at the facility. ICE is refusing to comply with this recommendation and has contested the integrity of the OIG’s investigation.
AP: Faced with the likelihood of eventually reopening its southern border to asylum seekers, the United States government is urging allies in Latin America to shore up immigration controls and expand their own asylum programs.
AP: In 2019, Jackson temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to expand fast-track deportations of people in the country illegally, no matter where they are arrested.
Politico: When it comes to immigration, Durbin said, “I don’t want to hear the word reconciliation,” referring to the budgetary rules that can allow for the Senate to sidestep a filibuster. “That holds up false hope. … The question is: is there anything we can do on the subject of immigration that can win 60 votes in the Senate? We’re going to test that.”
WaPo: The towers use thermal imaging, cameras and radar to feed an artificial intelligence system that can determine whether a moving object is an animal, vehicle or person, and beam its location coordinates to U.S. Border Patrol agents.
BIA: Larceny in the third degree under section 53a-124(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes is not a theft offense aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2018), because it incorporates by reference a definition of “larceny” under section 53a-119 of the Connecticut General Statutes that is overbroad and indivisible with respect to the generic definition of a theft offense. Almeida v. Holder, 588 F.3d 778 (2d Cir. 2009), and Abimbola v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2004), not followed.
SCOTUSblog: Biden v. Texas (April 26): Whether the Department of Homeland Security must continue to enforce the Migrant Protection Protocols, a policy begun by President Donald Trump that requires asylum seekers at the southern border to stay in Mexico while awaiting a hearing in U.S. immigration court.
Law360: Foreigners locked out of the U.S. due to former President Donald Trump’s now-defunct travel bans will get a new chance to fight their case, after a California federal judge reopened two lawsuits over the policy on Tuesday.
Law360: A recent HIV diagnosis alone does not put a Mexican national at greater risk of state-sanctioned violence if he’s returned home, the Fifth Circuit ruled Monday in a unanimous published opinion denying the man’s asylum bid.
LexisNexis: Because the BIA erred in concluding its affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination effectively disposed of Thraiyappah’s pattern-or-practice claim for CAT protection based on his Tamil ethnicity, we Grant the petition, Vacate in part and Remand to the BIA.
Law360: A man facing deportation from the U.S. for burglarizing an empty Florida property got another chance to challenge his removal after the Eleventh Circuit questioned a finding by immigration judges that his crime constituted “moral turpitude.”
Law360: The Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Wednesday seeking records it says will show whether the Biden administration followed through on a promise to reform immigration enforcement policies.
AILA: USCIS stated that following the February 7, 2022, court decision in Asylumworks v. Mayorkas, USCIS must process all initial EAD applications from asylum applicants within 30 days. Given certain conditions regarding Form I-765, some applicants may be considered Rosario class members.
AILA: Advance copy of DHS notice rescinding the July 23, 2019, notice Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, which expanded the application of expedited removal procedures. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 3/21/22 and will be effective on that date.
AILA: Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas announced the designation of Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months. The designation will take effect upon publication of a forthcoming Federal Register notice, which will also include instructions for applying for TPS and an EAD.
AILA: The Attorney General issued a memo to heads of executive departments and agencies with guidelines for the fair and effective administration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The memo includes guidelines for removing barriers to access and reducing FOIA request backlogs, among other things.
AILA: DOS states that U.S. citizens physically present overseas with their Afghan, Ethiopian, and Ukrainian immediate family members can request to locally file a Form I-130 petition at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate that processes immigrant visas. DOS specifies who citizens can file for.
AILA: DHS has automatically extended the validity of certain EADs with a Category Code of A12 or C19 issued under TPS for Somalia through September 12, 2022. Information on updating expiration dates and reverification is available.
AILA: ICE issued directive 10036.2, which states that ICE personnel are generally prohibited from using or disclosing information protected by Section 1367 to anyone other than DHS or DOJ employees. This includes information on applicants for T & U visas, continued presence, or VAWA based benefits.
AILA: USCIS temporary final rule extending the expiration date of the temporary final rule on interpreters at asylum interviews published at 85 FR 59655, which was set to expire on 3/16/22, through 3/16/23. (87 FR 14757, 3/16/22)
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the group page and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Many congrats to Attorney Shernette G. Noyes of Stratford, CT for doing the near impossible: Notching a well-deserved win for an immigrant in a “crimmigration” case before one of the toughest BIA panels this side of Dodge City!
Trump’s lie that the election was stolen has cost $519 million (and counting) as taxpayers fund enhanced security, legal fees, property repairs and more
President Donald Trump’s onslaught of falsehoods about the November election misled millions of Americans, undermined faith in the electoral system, sparked a deadly riot — and has now left taxpayers with a large, and growing, bill.
The total so far: $519 million.
The costs have mounted daily as government agencies at all levels have been forced to devote public funds to respond to actions taken by Trump and his supporters, according to a Washington Post review of local, state and federal spending records, as well as interviews with government officials. The expenditures include legal fees prompted by dozens of fruitless lawsuits, enhanced security in response to death threats against poll workers, and costly repairs needed after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. That attack triggered the expensive massing of thousands of National Guard troops on the streets of Washington amid fears of additional extremist violence.
Although more than $480 million of the total is attributable to the military’s estimated expenses for the troop deployment through mid-March, the financial impact of the president’s refusal to concede the election is probably much higher than what has been documented thus far, and the true costs may never be known.
. . . .
**********
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Bad government doesn’t come cheap! The absurdity of the biggest liar, grifter, fraudster in American Presidential history falsely claiming fraud — and having cowardly dishonest pols like Cruz, Hawley, and McCarthy fan the flames — isn’t lost on the majority of us outside of “magamoron world.”
And remember, the “GOP — Party Of Insurrection, Lies, Conspiracy Theories, Bad Government, & Irresponsibility — still refuses to stand up to this vile traitor and his magamoron supporters!
”The Supreme Court will hear four oral argument in four cases in the first two weeks of the 2017 Term. And the cases raise challenging constitutional law issues that could forecever change immigration law. Watch this blog for previews of the oral arguments in the cases.
Sessions v. Dimaya, Oral Argument October 2. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by the liberal lion Judge Stephen Reinhardt, held that a criminal removal provision, including the phrase “crime of violence,” was void for vagueness.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, Oral Argument, October 3. The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, found that the indefinite detention of immigrants violated the U.S. Constitution.
Dimaya and Jennings are being re-argued, both having originally been argued before Justice Scalia. One can assume that the eight Justice Court was divided and that Justice Gorsuch may well be the tiebreaker.
The final two immigration cases are the “travel ban” cases arising out of President Trump’s March Executive Order:
Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project. Oral Argument October 10.
Trump v. Hawaii. Oral Argument October 10.”
************************************
Go on over to ImmigrationProf Blog at the above link where they have working links that will let you learn about the issues in these cases.
“We grant Lozano-Arredondo’s petition and remand to the BIA. We hold, first, that petit theft under Idaho law does not qualify categorically as a crime involving moral turpitude. We also hold that under the modified categorical approach, the record of conviction is inconclusive. Because the effect of that inconclusive record presents an open legal question now pending before another panel of this court, our analysis ends there. On remand, once this burden of proof question is resolved, the BIA should determine whether Lozano- Arredondo’s conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude under the modified categorical approach, unless the case is resolved on other grounds.
Second, we hold the BIA erred by deciding at Chevron step one that an “offense under” § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) does not include the within-five-years element. Because the BIA “erroneously contends that Congress’ intent has been clearly
24 LOZANO-ARREDONDO V. SESSIONS
expressed and has rested on that ground, we remand to require the agency to consider the question afresh.” Delgado, 648 F.3d at 1103–04 n.12 (quoting Negusie, 555 U.S. at 523) (internal quotation marks omitted); see INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16–17 (2002). In light of this holding and the explanations we have given, the BIA must reconsider its interpretation of the phrase “offense under” in § 1229b(b)(1)(C).”
PANEL: Circuit Judges William A. Fletcher, Raymond C. Fisher and N. Randy Smith
Com’ on Man! This case has been around the system since 2005 — 12 years! The conviction is now two decades old. The case depends on two legal questions.
The 9th Circuit should answer the legal questions and either 1) affirm the BIA’s final order of removal, or 2) remand the case to the BIA to apply the law that has been determined by the 9th Circuit to the facts of this case. The court’s prose is impenetrable; the court’s rationale, based on Chevron, is irrational.
It’s time for Chevron to go and for Article III Courts to do their job of deciding legal questions rather than bogging down the system with infinite delays through needless remands to have the BIA pass on difficult legal questions. That’s the Article III Courts’ Constitutional function; they have been avoiding it for years under the Supreme’s judge-made facade of Chevron and Brand X.
(Yes, I know the 9th Circuit is only following Chevron, as they are bound to do. This is something the Supremes need to address, sooner rather than later. The result in this case is pure legal obfuscation.)
Oh yeah, while we’re at it, if there is an “open legal question” before another panel of the 9th Circuit, why remand the case to the BIA which can’t resolve that? Why not send this case to the “other panel” or ask your colleagues on the other panel if they could expedite their consideration of this issue?
Eugene Robinson writes in a Washington Post op-ed:
“The “health-care bill” that Republicans are trying to pass in the Senate, like the one approved by the GOP majority in the House, isn’t really about health care at all. It’s the first step in a massive redistribution of wealth from struggling wage-earners to the rich — a theft of historic proportions.
Is the Senate version less “mean” than the House bill, to use President Trump’s description of that earlier effort? Not really. Does the new bill have the “heart” that Trump demanded? No, it doesn’t. The devil is not in the details, it’s in the big picture.
Fundamentally, what Republicans in both chambers want to do is cut nearly $1 trillion over the next decade from the Medicaid program, which serves almost 70 million people. Medicaid provides health care not just for the indigent and disabled but also for the working poor — low-wage employees who cannot afford health insurance, even the plans offered through their jobs.
Additionally, about 20 percent of Medicaid spending goes to provide nursing home care, including for middle-class seniors whose savings have been exhausted — a situation almost any of us might confront. Roughly two-thirds of those in nursing homes have their care paid by Medicaid.
Why would Republicans want to slash this vital program so severely? You will hear a lot of self-righteous huffing and puffing about the need for entitlement reform, but the GOP’s intention is not to use the savings to pay down the national debt. Instead, slashing Medicaid spending creates fiscal headroom for what is euphemistically being called “tax reform” — a soon-to-come package of huge tax cuts favoring the wealthy.
That’s the basic equation in both the House and Senate bills: Medicaid for tax cuts. Both bills start with various of the taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act, but those are mere appetizers. The main course is intended to be big cuts in individual and corporate tax rates that would benefit the rich.
There is no other point to this whole exercise. All the “Obamacare is in a death spiral” talk is Republican wishful thinking, aided and abetted by active sabotage.”
****************************************
Undoubtedly, many of those who would die or suffer needlessly as a result of the GOPs “Reverse Robin Hood” operation would be Democrats and non-voters (like children). But, many in the GOP base also fall within the group of poor and “lower middle class” folks who would be sentenced to death or suffering by the GOP. Killing off your own voters, with their support, is an interesting new twist in modern GOP politics. But, obviously Trump, McConnell, Ryan, and their Fat Cat handlers are confident in the gullibility and inability of many in their base to discern either their own or the general public’s best interests. Difficult to comprehend.
