"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.
Rev. Craig Mousin Ministry & Higher Education Wellington United Church of Christ U. of Illinois College of Law Greater Chicago Area PHOTO: DePaul U. Website
Restrictions To An Already Compromised Asylum System
This week we talk about a proposed rule from the Biden Administration that may change asylum proceedures and allow adjudicators to turn away people without proper research on their background.
Read the proposed rule: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/13/2024-10390/application-of-certain-mandatory-bars-in-fear-screenings
Read the NIJC’s breakdown: https://immigrantjustice.org/press-releases/nijc-denounces-new-biden-rule-adding-restrictions-already-compromised-asylum-system
Next week we should have a call to action with templates for you to help submit your comment. Watch this space!
********************
Thanks, Craig, for speaking up! Why does the Administration keep proposing likely unlawful restrictionist regulations that won’t help the situation at the border?
As Craig notes, there are “many positive ways” to improve the treatment of legal asylum seekers and promote fair and efficient consideration of their claims! Why is the Biden Administration “tuning out” the voices of those with border expertise who are trying to help them make the legal asylum system work?
Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)
In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:
Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1
This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.
Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.
Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5
This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.
This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7
Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8
And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9
As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.
So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.
However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.
In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12
I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.
Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.
As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.
Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).
James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.
Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.
480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).
Id. at 439.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.
Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).
The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum! PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!
For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.
Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!
Today, we’re celebrating the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Annor v. Garland. The court ruled that immigration judges must follow proper analytical steps in determining whether noncitizens have been convicted of a particularly serious crime (PSC).
This is an important decision because anyone convicted of a PSC is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal, so PSC determinations have life-or-death consequences for immigrants facing persecution if they are deported to their home countries.
“Today, the Fourth Circuit spoke clearly: the immigration court system must treat PSC determinations with the care they deserve,” stated Immigration Impact Lab Senior Attorney Peter Alfredson, who worked on the amicus brief alongside Lab Deputy Program Director Samantha Hsieh.
CAIR Coalition submitted an amicus brief, also signed by RAICES, in support of Mr. Annor, who was represented by Ben Winograd of the Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC.
Come on, man! How is this a competent adjudication by the BIA? It isn’t! So, why is it happening time and again under Garland?
“[T]he immigration court system must treat PSC determinations with the care they deserve!” Absolutely! But, it’s not happening in Garland’s “any reason to deny/defend garbage” DOJ! At least it’s not happening systemically under Garland!
Rather than correcting IJ errors and insisting that the legal rights of migrants be respected and protected, the BIA too often has been a big part of the problem! Sloppiness, lack of expertise, “any reason to deny,” “reject don’t protect” have all become hallmarks of Garland’s dysfunctional system!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Contrary to GOP White Nationalist restrictionist blather, accepted by many spineless Dem politicos and the media, and enabled by Garland, this system should be identifying, screening, facilitating representation, expediting protection (not rejection), and arranging reception and resettlement, NOT engaging in more mindless “deterrence” and “uber enforcement.”
Garland’s abject failure to insist on due process and stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers and other migrants has undermined our democracy! There is a huge “over-denial“ problem in our asylum adjudication system that skews the entire “debate!”
Our nation, our politicos, and our media are simply too gutless and morally vapid to admit that there are many, many more individuals arriving at our borders who should qualify for some sort of legal protection under a fair and legitimate screening and adjudication system!
Best comment, from Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis: “Something is seriously wrong at DOJ when a seasoned IJ and BIA member make these kinds of mistakes, and when OIL attorneys defend such errors in court. Crimmigration should not be so hard that it takes a team of litigation superstars to achieve a just result!”
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC) — “He ‘gets’ it! So why don’t Garland and Dem leaders? Is Dan THAT much smarter than they are? Sure looks like it!”
You betcha, Dan! “Something is seriously wrong at DOJ” is an understatement! Dan, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, and I are among the many who have been saying that since the Obama Administration. It’s painfully obvious that Garland isn’t the answer (nor is Mayorkas), and that NDPA superstars like Ben and others should be in charge of the human rights legal and adjudication bureaucracies at DOJ and DHS in a Dem Administration!
Given our familiarity with the record at this point, we are prompted to note that it is not at all apparent to us how an application of the Frentescu factors to Dor’s case would lead to a particularly-serious-crime determination. For instance, consider again the June 1 incident — the BIA relied on a police officer’s assessment that Dor had a “large amount” of marijuana on him, but this on-the-scene appraisal by an officer is largely irrelevant to an immigration-law-driven determination that a crime is particularly serious pursuant to the guiding statutes, especially when the actual amount (25 grams, a small amount) is available. See Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. at 703; Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 194 n.7. Consider, too, that while the BIA identified the type of sentence imposed as a Frentescu factor but never mentioned (or weighed) Dor’s sentences, we observe that
– 23 –
Dor received lenient sentences with respect to both offenses (a two-year probation and a one-year suspended sentence that never went into effect since Dor completed a violation-free probation period).
As to Dor’s involvement in trafficking as part of the calculus here, based on the amount in question, and again on the face of this record, this characterization seems ambitious. The May 20 offense officers observed Dor sell “20 bucks[‘ worth]” of marijuana to another individual; the June 1 incident revealed Dor had in his possession a digital scale, a large amount of U.S. currency, and 25 grams of marijuana.
Bottom line: The BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion is devoid of any actual application of the Frentescu factors, and even if we considered it a solid application of the law to Dor’s case, we still do not have a sufficiently rational explanation of the BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion as to Dor’s minor marijuana offenses, and a rational explanation is necessary to ensure Dor was appropriately precluded from obtaining the humanitarian relief he seeks.
DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :
Edward Crane, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, Shaiba Rather, Lena Melillo, and Katie Quigley, Law Student Advocates, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, were on brief, for petitioner.
In sum, the Government has identified no evidence that supports divisibility. The statute, the case law, and the available state court documents all support the opposite conclusion.11 Because Pennsylvania’s stalking statute is indivisible as to intent, we apply the categorical approach. And under the categorical approach, Section 2709.1(a)(1), which sweeps more broadly than its generic counterpart in the INA, is not a categorical match. Vurimindi’s offense of conviction therefore does not qualify as a removable offense.
The Dor case also presents a familiarly outrageous characteristic of American immigration policy — still going strong in the era of Biden, Harris, and Garland — “Dred Scottification” — that is systemic injustice — directed at Black Haitian refugees. Indeed, Dor is lucky to be in the “system” at all — no matter how biased and poorly functioning. Following in the footsteps of the overtly racist and xenophobic Trump Administration, under Biden more than 25,000 potential Haitian refugees have been arbitrarily returned under Title 42 with no process at all — not even the “veneer of due process” provided by EOIR! Seehttps://www.wola.org/2022/05/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-title-42-ruling-family-self-separations-more-drownings-haiti-expulsion-flights/.
The cases described above have been pending for three and six years, respectively. EOIR presents the worst of both worlds: lengthy delays and backlogs without due process and careful expert consideration of the issues involved. Injustice at a high cost, in more ways than one!
After trips to three levels of our broken immigration justice system, countless hours of legal time, and untold trauma and uncertainty for the individuals subjected to this dysfunctional system, these cases remain far from final resolutions. Now they go back into Garland’s incredible nearly two million case backlog!
Sometimes, the BIA uses this as an opportunity to invent a new “bogus theory of denial.” Other times, the files get lost or reassigned. In other words, they are subject to EOIR’s “specialty:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”
Garland doesn’t lose any sleep over it because: 1) not his life on hold, 2) not his time and money being wasted, and 3) he isn’t paying attention! This is unacceptable public service! Plain and simple! And, there appear to be few, if any, real consequences for anybody except the individuals whose lives and futures are at stake and their (often pro bono) lawyers!
How completely “out of touch” is Garland? He has put bogus, “Mickey Mouse” time limits on new asylum adjudications. Doing incompetent and biased adjudications faster isn’t going to solve the problem. It will actually make backlogs worse and more importantly, increase the number of defective asylum denials — already at beyond unacceptable levels.
You can’t fix a broken system by making it “pedal faster!” Why, after all these years, Garland doesn’t understand that “fundamental rule of Goverment bureaucracy” is totally beyond me!
The obvious solution: Put emphasis on getting these cases right at the first instance. That means “canning” the “anti-immigrant default and assembly line process” and getting expert IJs willing to rule in favor of individuals where appropriate and a revamped BIA of expert judges willing to issue precedents favorable to individuals and insure that IJs properly follow them. It also means a BIA who will follow precedent even where it doesn’t produce a “DHS Enforcement-friendly result.”
Additionally, “lose” OIL’s often-dilatory or quasi-frivolous arguments designed to cover up EOIR failures and block justice! (HINT: The Assistant AG, Civil, one of the key sub-cabinet positions at DOJ, and OIL’s “boss,” remains unfilled approaching the halfway point of the Biden Administration.) This system is broken from top to bottom, including the litigation “strategy” that attempts to shield unfair and legally incorrect EOIR decisions from critical substantive review by Article III judges independent from the Executive.
Yes, Garland recently has “pruned” some of the deadwood at EOIR and brought in a few widely-respected expert “real judges.” That’s some progress.
But, he’s barely scratched the surface of the anti-immigrant culture, “haste makes waste” atmosphere, and shoddy decision making at EOIR and the poorly conceived litigation strategies at OIL! In particular, the dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy glaringly lacks inspired progressive due-process-committed, human-rights-focused, racial-justice-sensitive leadership willing to stand up for individual rights against Government overreach and abuses!
Of course, the “real” solution is to get the Immigration Courts out of DOJ and into an independent Article I structure. But, unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen tomorrow.
In the meantime, there is plenty that Garland could be doing to improve due process and professionalism and to “pave the way” for the eventual transition to Article I. The more dysfunctional Garland makes his system the more difficult and rocky that transition will be.
Garland isn’t getting the job done! Everyone who cares about the future of our nation and the rule of law should be asking why and demanding better from Garland and his “asleep at the switch” lieutenants!
High-powered lawyers like Courtney Saleski, National Co-Chair of DLA’s White Collar Practice, who successfully litigated Vurimindi in the 3rd Circuit have some “juice.” They need to team up with the ABA, FBA, AILA, ACLU, Human Rights First, NIJC, the NAACP,Catholic Conference, HIAS, and other human rights and civil rights groups and “camp on Garland’s doorstep” until he “pulls the plug” on his dysfunctional, unprofessional EOIR and brings in due-process-focused competence! How many resources and human lives can our nation afford to waste on Garland’s EOIR disgrace?
Individuals whose lives are subject to systemic injustice and their hard-working, often pro bono, attorneys might “dissent” from Garland’s dilatory approach to long overdue due process reforms and key personnel changes in his stunningly dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“The BIA reviews de novo the IJ’s determination of “questions of law, discretion, and judgment,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), including whether an alien’s prior offense is a “particularly serious crime.” It is unclear whether the BIA undertook that de novo review here, because it applied a “presumption” that Petitioner’s conviction was a particularly serious crime and required him to “rebut” this presumption. But for those offenses that are not defined by the statute itself as “per se a particularly serious crime,” the BIA’s precedent establishes “a multi-factor test to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a crime is particularly serious.” Bare, 975 F.3d at 961. Moreover, we have rejected the view that there is any subset of such cases that is exempt from this multi-factor analysis “based solely on the elements of the offense.” Blandino-Medina, 712 F.3d at 1348. The BIA’s application of a rebuttable presumption is difficult to square with these precedents, and the Government concedes in its brief that the BIA’s application of such a presumption “appears erroneous.” The BIA committed an error of law, and abused its discretion, in failing to apply the correct legal standards in assessing whether Petitioner’s offense was a “particularly serious crime.” We therefore remand to the BIA to consider Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal under the correct standards.”
[Hats off to Nancy Alexander, Kari E. Hong, Boston College Law School, Newton, Massachusetts; Elisa Steglich, Attorney; Simon Lu and Jill Applegate, Supervised Law Student; University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas; for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association!]
Nancy Alexander ESQUIRE
**************************
Congrats to Nancy, Kari, and the rest of their team!
Even OIL couldn’t defend the BIA’s shoddy work here!
Know what builds unnecessary backlog fast?
“Over-denial”
Lack of positive guidance
Sloppy work
Assembly line justice
Remands
Lack of practical expertise and “big picture” perspective.
So, why hasn’t Garland replaced his “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” at the BIA with real “practical expert judges” — NDPA all-stars 🌟 like Kari Hong and Nancy Alexander! Judges like Kari and Nancy would “get ‘em right” in the first place and insure that Immigration Judges do the same!
Why is his system struggling and failing when the top-flight judicial talent to fix it is out there in the “real world?”
With human lives and the future of our democracy at stake, why is inferior work product and poor judging acceptable in Garland’s Immigration Court system?
How is “make it up as you go along justice” Due Process in Garland’s Courts?
Why isn’t Garland being held accountable for the “parody of justice” that plays out every day in his dysfunctional “courts?”
The constant stream of proposed regulations relating to our immigration laws has led to a continuous call to the public to submit comments to those rules. Individuals and organizations have responded in large numbers, in spite of the short 30 day comment windows this administrative has generally afforded. For those who have questioned the purpose of submitting comments or have wondered if the effort was worth it, I point to the recent decision of U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston in the Northern District of California in Pangea Legal Services v. DHS granting a temporary restraining order against regulations that classify a wide range of crimes as bars to asylum eligibility.
As background, I would like to point to the explanation of the notice and comment procedures provided by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly last year in CAIR Coalition v. Trump. In that case, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security attempted to bypass the process by publishing final rules with no opportunity to comment. Judge Kelly (who happens to be a Trump appointee) found that the avoidance of comments invalidated the regulations, explaining that the “procedures are not a mere formality. They are designed (1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment; (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”
It is further worth noting that comments become part of the public record, and that the Administrative Procedures Act requires the agency to respond to all significant comments before the regulations can become final.
In accordance with this scheme, a brief comment period was provided as to the regulations covered in Pangea. The proposed rule sought to expand the category of “particularly serious crimes” that Congress has designated as a bar to asylum. Instead of allowing immigration judges to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, the new rule sought to add a broad range of criminal conduct that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security originally argued should categorically bar asylum as particularly serious crimes.
Commenters pointed out the flaws with this proposal, not the least of which was some of the offenses are not particularly serious. The crimes include harboring certain noncitizens (even if they are family members), or possessing or using false identity documents (for example, to work and support one’s family). These offenses are a far cry from the type of behavior that would pose such a threat to society as to outweigh the obligation to provide refugee protection. In publishing the final rule, the Departments did acknowledge these concerns raised in the comments. However, as explained above, more than mere acknowledgement was required.
Although Judge Illston found numerous reasons to support the granting of the temporary restraining order, one of those reasons was the Departments’ failure to respond to the above comments as required. As Judge Illston wrote, “when commenters pointed out that the new bars would include minor conduct and conduct that cannot be categorized as particularly serious or even dangerous, the Departments either declined to respond or else relied on their authority under § 1158(b)(2)(C).”
In other words, when the comments received caused the Departments to realize that their claimed justification for the rule under the statute’s “particularly serious crime” provision was problematic, instead of addressing those comments as they were required to do, the agencies instead replied “Particularly serious crimes? Is that what you thought we said? We meant they were similar to particularly serious crimes. Sorry for the confusion; let’s just say the changes fall under section 1158(b)(2)(C) for the sake of clarity.”
That section which the Departments now chose to rely on contains vague language allowing the Attorney General to establish by regulation “additional limitations and exceptions, consistent with this section” under which noncitizens might be ineligible for asylum. The Departments might not have noticed the words “consistent with this section,” which would seem to rule out their disregarding the fact that Congress had allowed only a few narrow statutory limitations to the right to asylum that tend to be consistent with international law. That might explain their reading of the clause as an invitation to impose any limitation on asylum the Departments desired, with no regard to international law obligations.
But besides from the permissibility of the Departments’ interpretation of the clause, Judge Illston categorized their tactics as evasion. The judge wrote that “the Departments initially stated they were relying in part on their authority to designate new offenses as particularly serious crimes. They then disclaimed reliance on that authority but said the new offenses were ‘similar to’ particularly serious crimes… And they declined to address commenters’ concerns that the Rule now bars crimes that do not rise to the level of particularly serious because, according to the Departments, they are not, in fact, designating new particularly serious crimes and any comments to that point ‘are outside the scope of this rulemaking.’”
Much thanks are owed to the lawyers and organizations who litigated and filed supporting briefs in Pangea; they managed to block yet another effort by this administration that sought to undermine the very nature of refugee protection. But thanks are also due to those who took the time and effort to submit comments. Hopefully, this will provide inspiration to continue to submit comments to new regulations still being proposed in these final days before what will hopefully be a return to normalcy, decency, and respect for the rule of law.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
***************************
While many Federal Judges have been receptive and stopped illegal (and often immoral) regulations in their tracks, there is one key group of jurists so in the regime’s White Nationalist pocket that they don’t pay any much attention. That is the GOP majority on the Supremes, who have happily treated the Trump/Miller racist agenda of “Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants with kid gloves. At the request of an “ethics free” Solicitor General, the majority has used corrupt procedural moves to interfere with the lower courts and advance the regime’s agenda while accepting obvious factually and legally inaccurate “pretexts” to “justify” the regime’s extreme, racist, dehumanizing actions.
Imagine all the positives for America that could be accomplished ifall of the time and resources devoted to blocking an avalanche of illegal regulations and litigating them through the Federal courts were instead devoted to working for the public good. That’s actually what government is supposed to do. But, fascist regimes and their enablers, not so much.
Ultimately, better qualified, more scholarly, human, and humane Justices — judges distinguished for their wisdom, courage, humanity and constructive problem solving abilities rather than adherence to some far-right agenda — on the Supremes will be necessary for a better, more equal, America.
Life tenure means it will be a slow process of getting the right “Supreme Team” in place. But, one that needs to begin somewhere. A remade U.S. Immigration Court seems like a good starting place for building a better Federal Judiciary at all levels, bottom to top!
THE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND HOMELAND SECURITY PUBLISH FINAL RULE TO RESTRICT CERTAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS’ ELIGIBILITY FOR ASYLUM
New Mandatory Bars Prevent Convicted Felons, Drunk Drivers, Gang Members, and Other Criminal Aliens from Receiving Asylum
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security announced the publication of a Final Rule amending their respective regulations to prevent certain categories of criminal aliens from obtaining asylum in the United States. The rule takes effect 30 days after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register, which is scheduled to occur on Wednesday, Oct. 21.
Asylum is a discretionary immigration benefit that generally can be sought by eligible aliens who are physically present or arriving in the United States, irrespective of their status, as provided in section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1158. However, in the INA, Congress barred certain categories of aliens from receiving asylum. In addition to the statutory bars, Congress delegated to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to establish by regulation additional bars on asylum eligibility to the extent they are consistent with the asylum statute, as well as to establish “any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum” that are consistent with the INA. To ensure that criminal aliens cannot obtain this discretionary benefit, the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security have exercised their regulatory authority to limit eligibility for asylum for aliens who have engaged in specified categories of criminal behavior.
The new bars apply to aliens who are convicted of:
(1) A felony under federal or state law;
(2) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) or § 1324(a)(1)(2) (Alien Smuggling or Harboring);
(3) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry);
(4) A federal, state, tribal, or local crime involving criminal street gang activity;
(5) Certain federal, state, tribal, or local offenses concerning the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant;
(6) A federal, state, tribal, or local domestic violence offense, or who are found by an adjudicator to have engaged in acts of battery or extreme cruelty in a domestic context, even if no conviction resulted; and
(7) Certain misdemeanors under federal or state law for offenses related to false identification; the unlawful receipt of public benefits from a federal, state, tribal, or local entity; or the possession or trafficking of a controlled substance or controlled-substance paraphernalia.
Aliens who have committed certain domestic violence offenses, even if not convicted, will also be barred from asylum.
I adopt the comment of my friend and colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall, the “lead drafter” of the Round Table’s 🛡⚔️🗽⚖️comments in opposition:
This is so awful, but not unexpected. We will keep filing comments in the hopes that a new administration reads them carefully and can un-do the harm that has been done.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Knightess of the Round Table
