"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.
How horrible is today’s BIA? Well, there are endless examples documented in Courtside and the Jeffrey S.Chase Blog from my friend and Round Table colleague. But, here’s a particularly striking recent travesty from our friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:
The case is Hylton v. Att’y Gen. Here, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, hardly a hotbed of judicial liberalism or anti-Government sentiment, reamed the “Star Chamber BIA” for 1) misreading the plain statutory language, and 2) ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to reach an anti-migrant result.
This is merely the latest in a long line of screw-ups resulting from a powerful appellate body that lacks independence, expertise, and the institutional courage to uphold individual rights against the constant overreach of DHS Enforcement (characterized as “partners” by Sessions & Barr — how would you like to be tried by a “court” where the prosecutors and the judges are “in partnership” to extinguish your legal rights and humanity?)
Two major legal errors by supposed “expert judges” in the same case? Oh, and get this! This case misreading the “plain language” of the statute and dissing binding precedent from the Supremes, just to produce an (illegal) order of removal, was deemed so “routine” at the “Falls Church denial factory,” that it was handled by a single appellate “judge” — didn’t even merit consideration by a three-member panel!
That’s what the DOJ’s politically-motivated “deny and deport culture” produces. And, it’s not like this is an aberration; the BIA cranks out this sloppy garbage on a daily basis. Most of it doesn’t get caught by the U.S. Courts of Appeals, who all too often are on their own type of “autopilot” when it comes to the legal rights of migrants — many of them people of color!
For Judge Garland to be credible on any racial justice issue, and for EOIR to provide due process, we need radical, not incremental, change!
The answer to the question posed is actually simple. As of today, DHS Enforcement and politicos at the DOJ “own” the so called Immigration “Courts” lock, stock, and barrel!
That’s an overt violation of the clear Fifth Amendment requirement that those whose lives and property are at stake be judged by a fair and impartial adjudicator — by definition one who is an expert in asylum law, human rights, and has demonstrated the ability to conduct fair hearings.
That’s also bad news for the Hispanic Community, because for the last four years those wholly owned “courts” have been operating with a clear bias against the civil and human rights of people of color, with Hispanic migrants and asylum seekers being a particular target — one that has adversely affected, even terrorized, Hispanic communities throughout the U.S. Hispanics are also grossly underrepresented among the “Immigration Judiciary” at both the trial and appellate levels, as well as on the Article III Bench — despite there being scores of Hispanic and other lawyers of color out here who would be head and shoulders above many of those currently holding these critical “life or death” judgeships!
The real questions are:
1) What can we do about it, and
2) How can we get Judge Garland and others in the Administration to listen, put an end to “Dred Scottification,” and get started on the task of bringing due process and fundamental fairness to a totally dysfunctional and dangerously biased system?
Tune in on April 7 to join the dialogue on how we can finally force the U.S. Government to make good on its unfulfilled, even mocked, Constitutional promise of due process for all persons!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
CELEBRATING WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH WITH THE BOYS FROM THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT!
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
PANEL: SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Arnold
Because you have to “see it to believe it” that these three guys actually graduated from law school and got promoted to the Federal Judiciary, the opinion is set forth in full here:
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 20-2248 ___________________________
Yeemy Guatemala-Pineda
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States1
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________
Submitted: February 17, 2021 Filed: March 26, 2021 ____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
After Yeemy Guatemala-Pineda entered the United States unlawfully, she applied for asylum so she wouldn’t have to return to her home country of El Salvador.
1Merrick B. Garland is serving as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).
She feared that if she returned there gangs would persecute her because of her religious activities. After a winding course of immigration proceedings that began more than ten years ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals ultimately denied her request for asylum. We deny the petition for review since we think substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision.
Guatemala-Pineda, whom we will call Pineda as her real name is Yeemy Michael Pineda, attempted to enter the United States in 2010 at age 22 but was apprehended by immigration authorities and charged with being inadmissible as an alien without proper documentation. See U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). She conceded that the charge was true but applied for asylum, which protects, among others, refugees present in the United States who are unable or unwilling to return to their home country because they have a well-founded fear that others will persecute them on account of their religion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A). Pineda testified before an immigration judge that she was a practicing Christian who had participated in a church project of door-to-door evangelization that specifically targeted gang members. She related that a handful of gang members had at one time “cornered” and “grabbed” her during a church function and tried to recruit her to their gang, explicitly telling her that they did not want to see her working with the church. Though they also threatened to “take [her] by force” and find her wherever she went, they did not otherwise physically harm her.
After that incident Pineda stopped attending church, opting instead to participate in religious services at other people’s homes. During one of these home services, Pineda testified, gang members appeared outside and demanded that the group stop singing. She believed they were the same gang members who had threatened her before; they specifically called her by name and said they were “coming for” her. Two weeks later, at another home gathering, gang members again appeared outside, announced they were armed, and demanded that she come outside
-2-
or “they were going to get” her. The people inside threw themselves on the ground and waited about two hours until the gang members departed.
At that point, Pineda testified, she obtained a job selling clothes in San Salvador, which was about ninety minutes from her home. She explained that gang members did not bother or threaten her while at work, though one time she had to crouch down when she heard gunshots directed toward another person.
The immigration judge concluded that, even though Pineda had not demonstrated past persecution, she did have a well-founded fear of future persecution, and so granted her application for asylum. When the government appealed to the BIA, the BIA remanded the case to the immigration judge to consider, among other things, whether Pineda could reasonably relocate within El Salvador to avoid future persecution. On remand, Pineda testified that, if forced to return to El Salvador, she would return to her mother’s house because she had no other place to go. She noted that her entire family lives in the same city and that she could not relocate to another city as a single Christian woman. She also elaborated on her time working in San Salvador, explaining that she commuted alone and worked three to five days a week for a few months before leaving for the United States. Pineda also testified that, though she did not experience difficulties from gang members in San Salvador or while commuting, thieves did steal her paycheck three or four times and her cell phone twice, often while she was riding on a bus.
Pineda also presented testimony from an expert on Central American gangs. He testified that El Salvador is “the most violent country in the world for women” and that four things put Pineda “at not only high but very predictable risk” of harm should she return to El Salvador: her religious practices and activities, her past refusal to comply with gang demands, her flight from El Salvador to escape gang threats, and the ability of gangs to learn of her return. Further, he opined, Pineda would be at high risk anywhere in El Salvador because she is a young, single woman with no
-3-
protective family network, making “internal relocation a very, very difficult proposition.”
The immigration judge again granted Pineda’s request for asylum, concluding that she had carried her burden to show that internal relocation was unreasonable, as “[s]he is a young single woman returning to a country the size of Massachusetts where abuse and violence against women is one of the principal human rights problems.” The judge acknowledged that Pineda had worked in San Salvador for three months without interference from gangs but pointed out that during that time she had been robbed of her paycheck or cell phone at least five times and “did not proselytize in the streets.” In sum, there were simply no other parts of the country “that are any better than the area that gave rise to [Pineda’s] original claim.” On appeal, however, the BIA pointed out that Pineda was able to avoid gang persecution while working in San Salvador. It also noted that, even though Pineda was the victim of crimes during her commute, it was unclear whether she could have avoided these and similar crimes by moving to San Salvador instead of commuting from her hometown. The BIA therefore remanded for the immigration judge “to reconsider the overall reasonableness of any relocation by the respondent throughout El Salvador.”
On remand, Pineda’s case was assigned to a different immigration judge. The new judge concluded, after receiving additional arguments from the parties and what he termed “extensive country condition evidence,” that Pineda had failed to shoulder her burden to show that she could not relocate elsewhere in El Salvador since she was able to avoid gang persecution while working in San Salvador. The BIA upheld that determination.
In her petition for review from that holding, Pineda challenges the determination that she failed to show she could not safely relocate to another part of El Salvador. We review both the BIA’s decision and the immigration judge’s decision to the extent the BIA adopted the findings or reasoning of the immigration judge. See
-4-
Degbe v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir. 2018). We will uphold the decision so long as substantial evidence supports it. See Cinto-Velasquez v. Lynch, 817 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 2016). When applying that “extremely deferential” standard, we will not reverse “unless, after having reviewed the record as a whole, we determine that it would not be possible for a reasonable fact-finder to adopt the BIA’s position.” See Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir. 2004).
Since Pineda does not contend that she has shown past persecution, she must show she has a well-founded fear of future persecution to prevail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). But “[a]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Because Pineda has not demonstrated past persecution, and the gangs she fears are not government or government sponsored, she bears the burden to show that relocation would not be reasonable. See id. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). In these circumstances relocation is presumed to be reasonable. See id. § 1208.13(b)(3)(iii).
We hold that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pineda could relocate to another part of El Salvador if forced to return. We believe that a reasonable factfinder could give substantial weight to the lack of gang harassment Pineda suffered while working in San Salvador for a number of months. Even if gangs generally have significant reach throughout the country and are able to locate people like her quickly, as Pineda maintains, the fact that they did nothing to her for months as she worked in San Salvador is hard to overlook. And even though the first immigration judge to preside over Pineda’s proceedings found that internal relocation would not be reasonable, that does not necessarily mean that substantial evidence did not support the second immigration judge’s decision. It might just go to show that the reasonableness of relocation in this case is one on which reasonable people could disagree.
-5-
To bolster her case, Pineda emphasizes that she suffered other serious harm in San Salvador when she had paychecks and cell phones stolen from her. Pineda is right that, to prevail, she need not show that she suffered other serious harm on account of a protected ground, such as religion. See Hagi-Salad v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1044, 1048 n.5 (8th Cir. 2004). But that other harm must rise to “the severity of persecution” for her to carry the day. Id. “Persecution is an extreme concept,” involving things like death or the threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom. See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 380 (8th Cir. 2013). Pineda did not describe anything that occurred to her during her commutes to and from San Salvador or her employment there that approaches this high standard.
We therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination, considering that Pineda worked for months in San Salvador without trouble from gangs. Though we recognize that Pineda’s expert opined that she was at risk, we think the BIA did not unreasonably focus on there being no evidence that she was persecuted during the months she worked in San Salvador. We have upheld a decision on this kind of question based on less, as, for instance, where an asylum seeker had stayed in another part of a country without being harmed for five weeks. See Molina-Cabrera v. Sessions, 905 F.3d 1103, 1106 (8th Cir. 2018).
Though we sympathize with Pineda’s subjective fear of returning alone to a different part of El Salvador, we cannot say that the BIA’s relocation determination is unsupported by substantial evidence. Because we uphold this portion of the BIA’s decision, we do not consider whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the government of El Salvador was unwilling or unable to control the gangs that Pineda feared.
Petition denied.
______________________________
-6-
***************************
No, it’s not, as Judge Arnold disingenuously claims “something on which reasonable people could disagree.” No reasonable adjudicator qualified in asylum law and due process could reach this ridiculously wrong result!
Naturally, not understanding asylum law (why would that be a requirement for an Article III Judge, just because it’s probably the #1 and certainly most hotly contested topic in Federal Civil Litigation these days), Judge Arnold and his “boys club” out on the Great Plains fail to give this credible respondent “the benefit of the doubt” to which she is entitled under UNHCR guidance.
Indeed, as I used to tell my former BIA colleagues, usually to little avail before launching another dissent, “if reasonable people could differ, the result should be clear — the respondent wins because she gets ‘the benefit of the doubt.’” Sadly, even at a time when the BIA functioned at a much much higher level than it does today, it was the Immigration Judge and immigration enforcement who often in practice got the “benefit of the doubt” from many of my former colleagues, not the asylum applicant.
As my friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Legal Community summed up: “Proves the point that ‘the only true refugee is a dead refugee.’” Unlike the various BIA Judges and Circuit Judges involved in this deadly travesty, Dan actually understands asylum law, due process, and human values.
One might fairly ask the question of why “practical scholars” like Dan are on the “outside” and lesser talents are on the Federal Bench at all levels? The answer has much to do with why there is an “institutionalized racism crisis” in today’s American justice system. “Trial By Ordeal,” really isn’t that great a “look” for 21st Century American Justice! (Any more than is institutionalized racism and “The New Jim Crow”).
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Conveniently, this “gang of three” CJs showed little real understanding of 8 C.F.R. 208.13 as it existed at the time of the BIA’s second decision, which states:
adjudicators should consider, but are not limited to considering, whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties. Those factors may, or may not, be relevant, depending on all the circumstances of the case, and are not necessarily determinative of whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.
Just on the information regurgitated in their opinion, Ms. Guatemala-Pineda showed by expert witness testimony and by her own credible testimony and experiences that there is no “reasonably available relocation alternative” in El Salvador. There clearly is “ongoing civil strife” in El Salvador. And, anyone with even minimal knowledge of the country would know that (to put it charitably) the “administrative, economic, and judicial infrastructures” are somewhere in the zone between dysfunctional to non-existent. She also credibly pointed out why it would not be reasonable under the circumstances to require her to leave her mother’s home and move to San Salvador.
Forcing someone to commute to a job 90 minutes away, for 3-5 days per week work, in what is perhaps the most dangerous city in the country, during which she already suffered “three or four paycheck robberies and a cell phone robbery” in about three months — that’s a total of five robberies” in a relatively short span — is by no means a “reasonable internal relocation alternative” based on all relevant factors!
Additionally, that she felt unable to proselytize in accordance with her religious beliefs in San Salvador also indicates that relocation there is unreasonable. Freedom to carry out reasonable religious commitments without fear of harm is a fundamental human right.
Very interesting to compare how GOP Circuit Judges treated very clear interference with Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s ability to fulfill her religious beliefs in this case with how many GOP judges in the U.S. swoon over every minor interference with right wing religious beliefs — even those grounded in obvious bigotry — in the U.S. Here, by contrast, the GOP Circuit Judges fobbed off the interference with Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s evangelical activities — at one point she felt unable to worship publicly at her church — as of no particular concern.
Not to mention that Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s expert confirmed that:
El Salvador is “the most violent country in the world for women” and that four things put Pineda “at not only high but very predictable risk” of harm should she return to El Salvador: her religious practices and activities, her past refusal to comply with gang demands, her flight from El Salvador to escape gang threats, and the ability of gangs to learn of her return. Further, he opined, Pineda would be at high risk anywhere in El Salvador because she is a young, single woman with no protective family network, making “internal relocation a very, very difficult proposition.”
In plain terms, it’s only a matter of time before Ms. Guatemala-Pineda is persecuted, seriously harmed, or killed if returned to El Salvador. But, her life, as a woman of color, is obviously of little concern to the “gang of three.”
Let’s look at it another her way. Suppose we were tell Judges Smith, Arnold, and Staus that they had to relocate in a way that meant every third or fourth paycheck would be stolen and that they would be robbed of their cellphone every three months, with no recourse to a functioning police system. (Note that these dudes would be much better able to absorb such losses of income and expensive property than Ms. Guatemala-Pineda.) Or, that we were going to relocate their cushy ivory tower jobs to a place where they would be required to commute 90 minutes by public transportation every day. Or, that they might occasionally have to get down behind the bench to avoid rampant gunfire. Or, that they no longer could worship at their church of choice or openly engage in religious activities in their communities, but must limit themselves to “in-home worship” — not just during the pandemic, but permanently. Or, they had to live in a place where “GOP-Judiciacide” was at the highest level in the world and the police offered little or no protection, indeed were often involved themselves in abuse and killings of judges or turned a blind eye to the perpetrators.
Think our “tone-deaf group of guys in robes” would take a different view of “reasonable” if they put themselves in Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s place and it were happening to them? You betcha!
A few other things to note about this gross miscarriage of justice:
Two panel members were appointed by Bush II, one by Trump;
Ms. Guatemala-Pineda originally won her case before the Immigration Judge, who after hearing all the evidence and carefully considering relocation found that Ms. Pineda has shown that there was no “reasonably available relocation alternative” in El Salvador;
The BIA baselessly remanded the case on ICE’s appeal to a new IJ to get the “preferred result” — a denial of relief and potential death sentence for a woman of color (See, e.g., Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions & Matter of A-B-);
In a functioning system staffed by asylum experts, this case could easily have been granted at the Asylum Office rather than kicking around the dysfunctional EOIR system for a decade — two merits hearings before the IJ — two appeals to the BIA — and Circuit Court review — all to REACH A CLEARLY INCORRECT AND UNJUST RESULT THAT NO TRUE ASYLUM EXPERT I KNOW WOULD AGREE WITH!
And, we wonder why EOIR has more than doubled the number of IJs yet still almost tripled their uncontrolled backlog to a mind-boggling 1.3 million cases! Ten years to turn an easy asylum grant into a denial (yet other cases are rushed through to denial on an assembly line without any real deli]beration or analysis) might give us a hint of why the system is totally dysfunctional and completely unfair (not to mention patently unconstitutional)!
Since EOIR is known for its incompetent record keeping, I’m willing to bet that there are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of additional “lost in space” files, warehoused somewhere that are simply “off docket” and unaccounted for.
Cases like this aren’t “academic exercises” — the judicial attitude that “screams off the pages” of this gross miscarriage of justice. They have real life, potentially deadly consequences for real humans beings, the most vulnerable of human beings, like Ms. Guatemala-Pineda. She has the same right to live as do the Circuit Judges, the BIA Judges, and the second Immigration Judge who got her case wrong!
After a decade, this monstrosity is the best our “justice system” can offer? Gimme a break! I think I could choose any three students over at the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law who would run circles around the cavalier analysis of these three supposedly “senior jurists” in this case! Cases like this basically are indictments of our Article III system, not to mention the ongoing mockery of justice at EOIR.
The anti-asylum, anti-immigrant bias, incompetent adjudication, and systemic mis-management at EOIR are of monumental proportions! The gross inconsistencies, lack of overall immigration, human rights, sensitivity to racial justice, and “practical due process” expertise at the appellate level of the U.S. Courts and particularly at the Supremes is very disturbing and threatens the very existence and legitimacy of our legal system.
Judge Garland has the power to start fixing this, today! He must vacate all the bogus Trump-era anti-immigrant precedents; toss the entire BIA, and replace them with real judges who possess the required subject matter expertise and overriding commitment to due process and fundamental fairness; establish merit-selection criteria for Immigration Judges honoring experience representing asylum applicants in court, immigration knowledge, human rights expertise, commitment to due process for individuals under law, sensitivity to racial justice, and demonstrated practical problem solving experience.
Then, apply those criteria to new Immigration Judge selections as well as to retention decisions for all current Immigration Judges. And, for Pete’s sake, “can” the incompetent bureaucracy and get some real professionals in there who can run an independent court system — starting with a functioning nationwide e-filing system and some competent judicial training as well as assisting IJs in managing their own dockets rather than constantly interfering and trying to “micromanage” from Falls Church and the 5th Floor of the DOJ (a process known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” honed by the Trump kakistocracy @ DOJ).
When you’re done, Judge Garland, you’ll have: 1) many fewer bad decisions heading off the the Courts of Appeals; 2) a functioning Immigration Judiciary of experts who can help keep order and provide helpful expert guidance to the rest of the now out of control system; and 3) a great source of “battle trained and proven” well-qualified, progressive judicial talent who can change the trajectory of the now often moribund (yeah, even some of the younger Trump appointees are basically “brain dead,” so the term fits) and dilatory Article III Judiciary and who are also available to fill other high-level policy positions with competence, common sense, and humanity.
You’d also go down in history as a judge who got out of the ivory tower and actually solved pressing problems, implemented our Constitution, and built a better, fairer court system that made a difference in human lives and the future of our nation. Perhaps, even something like “thorough teamwork and innovation, built the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” That’s quite a legacy for future generations.
I can only hope Judge Garland finally pays attention to what’s happening across the river in Falls Church and takes immediate action to end the deadly and debilitating clown show 🤡🦹🏿♂️ @ EOIR. Otherwise, I fear he will find himself buried in immigration litigation and his tenure mired in the muck of responsibility for grotesque racial injustice and “running” the worst, most incompetent, unfair, and blatantly unconstitutional “court” system in America!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! Hey Hey, Ho Ho, The Deadly EOIR Clown Show ☠️🤡 Has Got to Go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Hey, maybe next year, we could all celebrate Women’s History Month with some decisions incorporating serious scholarship by progressive women judges that actually recognize, honor, and institutionalize relief from the unfair struggles faced by refugee women and people of color.
Leon Krauze in the WashPost tells us what’s really happening at the border. WARNING: It has little to do with the myths and false narratives being peddled by the GOP, the Administration, and the media.
The current emergency at the border has found the U. S. media at its most solipsistic. Coverage seems more focused on whether the emergency should be called “a crisis” (it should) and what the political fallout for the Biden administration will be. With few exceptions — like the remarkable work of MSNBC’s Jacob Soboroff or Politico’s Sabrina Rodriguez — many news outlets seem utterly uninterested in the stories of the migrants themselves.
This is wrong because it fails to provide one crucial piece of the puzzle: the very concrete context of human suffering.
. . . .
This by no means excuses the stories of anguish and confinement that have emerged over the last few weeks from within the facilities set up by the Biden administration to deal with the number of young migrants crossing the border, nor does it absolve the president himself from delivering on his promise of a humane immigration system, diametrically opposed to Trump’s cruel policies, designed in collaboration with unapologetic racist xenophobes like Stephen Miller.
The Biden administration can and should do better. But the current debate cannot ignore the very concrete despair facing thousands of immigrant families who, under the direct threat of violence or abuse, chose to push their young children to the United States, in search of safety.
If the alternative was famine, gang violence, kidnapping, rape or sexual slavery, wouldn’t you bet it all on the journey north? If more people understood this, the political debate and the coverage surrounding the crisis would be much more empathetic and we would get closer at delivering concrete, humane solutions.
Now, let’s hear more “simple truth” from Suzanne Gamboa over at NBC News:
Suzanne Gamboa, Political Editor, NBCLatino, NBC NewsDate: October 21, 2013 Place: Washington, DC Credit: Maria Patricia Leiva/OAS Creative Commons License
America’s immigration impasse — an endless loop across different administrations — is largely self-inflicted, because Congress has repeatedly failed to acknowledge one simple thing: Immigration happens.
Accordingly, immigration laws must be continually adjusted, reformed and revised, experts say.
“People will always want to come to the U.S., and the U.S. will always need people,” said former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who was a top immigration adviser to President George W. Bush.
Until there is a system that allows enough legal immigration to meet the economy’s needs, there will be illegal immigration, Gutierrez said.
“That’s just part of how our economy is set up. It’s part of demographics,” Gutierrez said. “Our birthrate is not high enough to be able to fill the needs of our economy.”
The coronavirus pandemic reinforced the importance of immigrant labor to the American economy, including labor by the undocumented.
All of those people and many other immigrants, including young immigrants — often called “Dreamers” based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act — will play a key role in helping the economy recover from its pandemic bust.
But immigration requires periodic calibration, and the economics and the changing patterns are lost in the politics.
“People are going to move — as they are all around the world — where they think they can find places to better feed their children. That’s the bottom line, and that’s the history of migration to the United States,” said Luis Fraga, director of the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame.
. . . .
*******************
Everyone should read the rest of the stories at the above link.
Degrading Ourselves As A Nation Won’t Stop Human Migration
By Judge (Ret) Paul Wickham Schmidt
“Courtside” Exclusive
March 26, 2021
Notwithstanding the endlessly disingenuous and self-centered alarmist rhetoric coming from all directions on the border mess, often mindlessly regurgitated by the press (not just Fox News), the real “crisis” involves the human lives at stake and the unnecessary human misery we are causing by failing to establish, professionally staff, and fairly and competently operate the legal refugee and particularly asylum systems required by law. This “due process crisis” actually has devastating and debilitating practical effects, starting with the dysfunctional immigration, refugee, and asylum system and the beyond dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
Heck, we don’t even pretend to comply with Constitutionally-required due process of law for asylum seekers who present themselves to us seeking life-saving refuge. Most of those who show up at legally-established border ports are told that the border is “closed” and that there is no way for them to apply. OK, so they attempt to cross between ports and immediately present themselves to the Border Patrol. But, they also are told there is no way to apply and are orbited back to some of the most dangerous countries in the world without any process whatsoever, let alone due process of law. Who are we kidding with all our dishonest pontificating about “the rule of law?”
It’s a strange way to implement the statutory command that any foreign national “irrespective of . . . status, may apply for asylum,” along with a constitutional guarantee that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Gee, you don’t even need one of those fancy Ivy League law degrees to understand that language. You just have to be able to read, comprehend, and act.
What you do have to do to get where we are today is to view asylum seekers and other migrants (predominantly people of color) as less than human — “non-persons” in a constitutional sense. It’s what some of us call “Dred Scottification of the other” and it has accelerated over the past four years — not just in immigration.
The whole idea of a “court system” being run by the Executive who also is the chief of enforcement is beyond constitutionally preposterous. It’s a “negative tribute” to the Supremes and other Article III life-tenured judges who have grown so distant from their own humanity and immigration stories as to become willfully blind to the ongoing farce that constitutes “justice” and “due process of law” for asylum seekers and other immigrants in the U.S.
Today’s nearly non-existent “asylum system” is a deadly and illegal “catch 22,” with the Supremes sitting in their marble palace refusing to do the primary task that justifies their continued existence: enforce the Constitution against Government misbehavior and in favor of the “little guys” and the “vulnerable.” No thanks, not up to the job!
The real tragedy is that there are plenty of folks out here with the knowledge, integrity, courage, and ability to establish a legal system that would actually comply with out laws, our Constitution, and further offer the hope of constructively addressing some problems before refugees arrive at our borders. But, they remain “benched,” even by the Biden Team. So the “good guys”are going to keep attacking the corrupt and broken system in court and at the polls for as long as it takes to get some course correction — years, decades, centuries — ask most African Americans how long it takes to achieve the true justice that America promises to all, but historically has only delivered to some.
In the long run, a fair system would undoubtedly accept many more legal refugees and asylum seekers. That’s what happens in refugee situations — it’s the core of what we call “forced migration” — when you sign on to international conventions intended to prevent the “next holocaust,” and you fairly and humanely apply the rules meant to protect refugees and those who face torture. And, as they have in the past, the overwhelming number of refugees and asylees, like the overwhelming majority of immigrants (essentially all of us, except Native Americans) will adapt, fit in, and contribute to the health, wealth, and future of our nation. They will change, but so will we — ultimately for the better!
Sure, America wouldn’t be as white, “Christian” (to the extent that adherence to a nominal Christian denomination, rather than actually performing Christ’s extremely difficult, self-sacrificing, risky, compassionate mission, defines Christianity), and nominally heterosexual as it was when White Nationalist myths and whitewashed history ruled the roost. But, it would be a better nation — one that actually has a chance of prospering, realizing the full potential of all its residents, and leading the world in the 21st century. A nation that could devote more human, natural, and monetary resources to building and exporting greatness, rather than to an endless stream of cruel, inhuman, stupid, and wasteful enforcement and deterrence gimmicks.
Bottom line, folks are going to come to America, as they have throughout history. Some will stay, some won’t. But, come they will, unless and until those like Trump and the GOP create such a mess that our own people start fleeing to foreign shores. Immigration, regardless of status, is a sign of strength. Xenophobia a sign of fatal weakness.
Our real choice isn’t whether we want to “close” borders, bar refugees, and abuse children as the Cottons, Cruzes, Millers, and Hawleys advocate. It’s whether we create a robust, orderly, rational legal system to screen, regulate, and distribute the inevitable flow or whether, as we have for the past decades, we force millions to reside and work underground — part of an “extralegal” or “black market” system that pols of both parties and those who profit from that underground system have created.
Sprawling mismanaged enforcement bureaucracies, dysfunctional “courts,” armies of publicly-paid lawyers defending the indefensible, for-profit civil prisons, big agriculture, hospitality giants, loads of upwardly mobile professionals who need child care to pursue careers, communities that live off of marketing ethnic culture, meat packing conglomerates, architects and construction firms who are “building America,” even news media fixated on hyping the problem rather than fixing it (see, e.g., yesterday’s Biden press conference), the list of those who profit from a talented, hard working, reliable, loyal, yet politically and socially disenfranchised, workforce is endless.
Even the GOP’s “Cotton-Cruz crowd” benefits from having an imaginary enemy to rant and rail and gin up hate against — safe in the knowledge that the tanking of our economy, upheaval of society, and possible threat to their privilege that would result from realizing their disingenuous call to boot the entire undocumented population will never happen. Their kids and grandkids can continue to reap the privilege that comes from exploiting an essential, yet politically neutered, workforce. It’s really more about institutionalizing racism to maintain economic and political power over the eventual non-white majority that drives their bogus and ugly narratives.
We can degrade ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! It’s a vision based on a written promise, not a “pipe dream!”
“Petitioner Wilber Agustin Acevedo Granados (“Acevedo”), a native of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an order of removal and the denial by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of Acevedo’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Acevedo’s petition is based on his fear that, if returned to El Salvador, he would face persecution or torture on account of his membership in a particular social group, defined based on his intellectual disability. The BIA rejected Acevedo’s claims on the ground that the proposed group definition was not cognizable. The BIA held that Acevedo’s proposed social group was not sufficiently particular, finding that the terms “intellectual disability” and “erratic behavior” rendered the proposed group “amorphous, overbroad, diffuse,[and]subjective.” The BIA further determined that the group was not a “meaningful social unit, distinct from the larger population of mentally ill individuals” in El Salvador. We conclude that the agency misunderstood Acevedo’s proposed social group, and thus grant the petition for review with respect to the claims for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA and IJ treated the term “intellectual disability” as if it were applied by a layperson. Instead, that term as used in Acevedo’s application referred to an explicit medical diagnosis with several specific characteristics. Recognized that way, the clinical term “intellectual disability” may satisfy the “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements necessary to qualify for asylum and withholding of removal. However, because the IJ did not recognize the proposed social group before her, we remand to the agency for fact-finding on an open record to determine if the group is cognizable.”
[Hats off to Prof. Evangeline Abriel and her Certified Law Students Keuren A. Parra Moreno (argued) and Jared Renteria (argued)!]
2) 8th Cir. — BIA Goofs On “Aggravated Felony” Analysis
“In May 2017, an Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Lopez-Chavez is ineligible for cancellation of removal because his 2006 federal conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 qualifies as an aggravated felony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s ruling and dismissed Lopez-Chavez’s administrative appeal the following year. The question now before the court is whether Lopez-Chavez’s 2006 conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under the INA, thus making Lopez-Chavez statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We hold that it does not. … Because Lopez-Chavez’s 2003 Missouri marijuana conviction is not a categorical match for the corresponding federal offense in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), the 2006 conviction for illegal reentry under § 1326 does not qualify as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(O). Accordingly, Lopez-Chavez is not statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. We grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“[T]o decide whether his 2018 conviction renders him removable, we need to determine whether we can parse MMB-Fubinaca from those other drugs; we decide that by determining whether Penalty Group 2-A is divisible. The government says it’s divisible, Alejos-Perez says not. … Because the government has not shown that the modified categorical approach is called for, we apply the categorical approach. … Because Penalty Group 2-A is not a categorical match, we must identify the appropriate result. … Once it’s clear that Penalty Group 2-A is not a categorical match to its federal counterpart, AlejosPerez “must also show a realistic probability . . . that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of the crime” under federal law. We are unable to resolve that issue, because the BIA didn’t address it, and we can “only affirm the BIA on the basis of its stated rationale for ordering an alien removed from the United States.” … We thus remand for consideration of whether Alejos-Perez has shown a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute conduct that falls outside the relevant federal statute.”
Significantly, the 5th Circuit’s rejection of the BIA’s analysis was written by very conservative Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee. Judge Smith wrote the majority opinion upholding the legally questionable injunction against President Obama’s “DAPA Program” — something many scholars believe to have been a entirely legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. (The case later was lamely affirmed w/o opinion by an evenly divided Supremes.)
Even conservative Federal Judges not known for sympathy to immigrants and their legal rights appear to have grown weary of the BIA’s consistently sloppy attempts to rule against foreign nationals, regardless of the merits. This is the second rejection by the normally reliably pro-Government 5th Circuit in the last several weeks!
Ironically, one (former) Federal Judge who appears not bothered by the BIA’s defective jurisprudence is the current Attorney General, Judge Garland. He’d better get himself a “tomato resistant”🍅 raincoat to wear at work. This is just the beginning. His reputation and credibility will diminish every day that he fails to replace the BIA with competent jurists who will give migrants the fair and impartial treatment that our Constitution demands, but the DOJ’s “captive court” constantly fails to deliver!
And, leaving aside the legal ineptitude, there can be no excuse for the stunning level of dysfunction and incompetence in how one of the nation’s largest so-called “court” systems is administered by EOIR under DOJ. No tribunal in America issues more potential “death sentences” with less due process! Not exactly what Mies Van Der Rohe had in mind when he famously said “the less is more.”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Poor “Belly-Up Eyore.” He was forlornly, and apparently vainly, hoping to be “put out to pasture” after Judge Garland took over the helm at DOJ. Such high expectations!
But, he is already exhausted again by all the continuing “calls to duty on Courtside” after just 22 days of Judge Garland’s “where’s Falls Church” approach to the ongoing EOIR disaster/travesty! Judge, here’s the key; just think like it wereyour children or grandchildren, actual human beings, being orbited into the abyss without much attention to the law, our Constitution, common sense, or human decency! Maybe starting each day with a briefing on each Article III case that was wrongly decided in your name by the BIA and a live reading of each outrageous media story about disorder in your Immigration Courts would help raise your consciousness? Maybe you should speak with a few of the “customers” of your “courts” that put public service last. Men, women, children, and their lawyers are being abused out there every day by EOIR and you are legally and morally responsible.
You can’t lead the fight for racial justice in America while running a bogus court system that denies and mocks it on a daily basis!
Hon. Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of The United States & Eyore’s Boss, Official White House Photo Public Realm
Republican pundits and lawmakers are, once again, warning of an immigration crisis at our southern border.
Texas governor Greg Abbott says that if coronavirus spreads further in his state, it will not be because of his order to get rid of masks and business restrictions, but because President Biden is admitting undocumented immigrants who carry the virus. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is also talking up the immigration issue, suggesting (falsely) that the American Rescue Plan would send $1400 of taxpayer money “to every illegal alien in America.”
Right-wing media is also running with stories of a wave of immigrants at the border, but what is really happening needs some untangling.
When Trump launched his run for the presidency with attacks on Mexican immigrants, and later tweeted that Democrats “don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country,” he was tangling up our long history of Mexican immigration with a recent, startling trend of refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (and blaming Democrats for both). That tendency to mash all immigrants and refugees together and put them on our southern border badly misrepresents what’s really going on.
Mexican immigration is nothing new; our western agribusinesses were built on migrant labor of Mexicans, Japanese, and poor whites, among others. From the time the current border was set in 1848 until the 1930s, people moved back and forth across it without restrictions. But in 1965, Congress passed the Hart-Celler Act, putting a cap on Latin American immigration for the first time. The cap was low: just 20,000, although 50,000 workers were coming annually.
After 1965, workers continued to come as they always had, and to be employed, as always. But now their presence was illegal. In 1986, Congress tried to fix the problem by offering amnesty to 2.3 million Mexicans who were living in the U.S. and by cracking down on employers who hired undocumented workers. But rather than ending the problem of undocumented workers, the new law exacerbated it by beginning the process of guarding and militarizing the border. Until then, migrants into the United States had been offset by an equal number leaving at the end of the season. Once the border became heavily guarded, Mexican migrants refused to take the chance of leaving.
Since 1986, politicians have refused to deal with this disconnect, which grew in the 1990s when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) flooded Mexico with U.S. corn and drove Mexican farmers to find work, largely in the American Southeast. But this “problem” is neither new nor catastrophic. While about 6 million undocumented Mexicans currently live in the United States, most of them–78%– are long-term residents, here more than ten years. Only 7% have lived here less than five years. (This ratio is much more stable than that for undocumented immigrants from any other country, and indeed, about twice as many undocumented immigrants come legally and overstay their visas than come illegally across the southern border.)
Since 2007, the number of undocumented Mexicans living in the United States has declined by more than a million. Lately, more Mexicans are leaving America than are coming.
What is happening right now at America’s southern border is not really about Mexican migrant workers.
. . . .
**************************
Read Heather’s complete article at the link.
The Biden Administration needs to stay the course and continue to treat this as the humanitarian situation that it is, rather than portraying desperate kids and families like an invading army. These issues can be addressed without engaging in egregious violations of international laws, domestic laws, and our Constitution. Even with the current flow, we are not going to be “overrun” with migrants. Indeed, by most reliable accounts, we will need increased immigration for our recovery and long-term economic well-being.
A critical piece will be revoking the Sessions/Whitaker/Barr precedents, replacing the current BIA with real judges who are experts in immigration, asylum, human rights, and due process, removing most of the cases unnecessarily lingering on the self-bloated EOIR docket, and getting some real expert guidance on asylum law and due process out there from the “new BIA” to guide decision-making at both DHS and EOIR.
Our asylum, refugee, and immigration systems can be fixed. But, not with the “players” left behind by the past regime. And, certainly not with more scofflaw, uber-enforcement-only gimmicks, cruelty, and inhumane policies like those that have failed time after time in the past.
Currently before the Supreme Court is a little-noticed immigration case with profound significance. Sanchez v. Mayorkas offers the Biden administration an opportunity to make major progress, without waiting for legislative action, on one of its central humanitarian goals – providing durable status to long-resident noncitizens.
A straightforward change in the government’s policy and its litigation stance could help remove a barrier blocking critical relief to several tens of thousands of noncitizens who have resided in the United States with official government permission under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Because of a longstanding but misguided agency reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), these noncitizens are stuck in limbo and practically unable to get the permanent resident status for which they are independently eligible based on family or employment relationships. Those most affected are TPS recipients married to U.S. citizens. The case turns on a highly technical question of statutory interpretation over which six courts of appeals have so far split evenly, but the human stakes are substantial, and a change of position by the administration would have significant impact.
The plaintiff TPS holders in Sanchez may well win the case based on the plain language of the relevant statutes, as ably argued in their brief and by supporting amici. But until now, the government has argued, to the contrary, that the language of the statute compels the agency’s current restrictive interpretation. This essay contends that the administration could provide crucial support for the TPS holders under a different legal framework that, for understandable reasons, neither side has given much emphasis.
The alternative approach is for the administration to acknowledge – in light of the statutory text, the deep and abiding circuit split, and a surprising November ruling by the Justice Department’s own Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) – that the statutory language is ambiguous. On that foundation, the government has the discretion to adopt a new (and better) interpretation that would permit eligible TPS recipients to make use of adjustment of status to obtain a green card.
In 2019, the Trump administration entrenched the restrictive interpretation through an obscure process rather clearly invoked to complicate a later policy change. The Biden administration should nonetheless undertake immediate reconsideration of the government’s position and seek to defer the pending Supreme Court briefing schedule to allow that agency process to proceed. A more refined position by the new administration would promote family unity and avoid compelling spouses of U.S. citizens to return to the very country from which they have escaped in order to seek the immigrant visa for which they already qualify.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of David’s article, explaining his suggestions, at the link.
This issue came up before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. After holding “oral argument,” I simply followed the statutory language and granted adjustment of status to the TPS holder.
In that case, following the literal statutory language produced the most reasonable policy result. As I pointed out to DHS counsel, the mis-interpretation they were pushing would not only violate the statutory language, but also result in a long-time TPS resident with work authorization who was paying taxes and supporting an American family being deprived of the legal immigration status to which he was entitled.
The result desired by DHS would have been highly nonsensical. Why make individuals who fit the legal immigration system established by Congress, and who actually have been contributing to our nation and our economy for many years, remain in limbo? In many cases, lack of a green card limits the both the earning and career potential of such individuals, plus adding unnecessary stress and uncertainty to the situation of their U.S. citizen family members.
The DHS reserved an appeal. I don’t believe it was ever pursued, however. And, of course, as a mere Immigration Judge (even before the position was “dumbed down” by the Trump DOJ) my decision only affected that particular case.It wasn’t a precedent.
But, it does illustrate my oft-made point that having “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights as Immigration Judges, BIA Judges, Article III Judges, and policy officials would be a huge positive change, making our immigration system fairer, more efficient, and more responsive to our national needs, even without major legislative changes. Also, these adjustments could be handled at USCIS, promoting uniformity while eliminating unnecessary litigation from the bloated Immigration Court docket.
Certainly, both the Solicitor General’s Office and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) urgently need new leadership with practical experience in immigration and human rights policies and litigation. It’s definitely out here in the private/NGO/academic sectors. The only question is whether Judge Garland and his team will go out and get the right talent in the key jobs.
Talk about taking a potential win-win-win-win and converting it to a lose-lose-lose-lose! But, the latter was a “specialty” of the Trump regime and their DOJ.
As David astutely points out, cases such as Sanchez v Mayorkas might appear “hyper-technical” to some; but, to those who truly understand our current broken immigraton system, they have huge implications. We need the expertise of the “practical scholars” of the NDPA throughout our governing structure — starting, but not ending, with a complete “housecleaning” at the disgracefully dysfunctional EOIR.
The only question is whether Judge Garland, Secretary Mayorkas, and the others in charge of the Government’s immigraton bureaucracy will (finally, at long last) bring in the right talent to solve their problems!
Reade Levinson Reporter, ReutersKristina Cooke Reporter, ReutersMica Rosenberg National Immigration Reporter, ReutersBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Reade Levinson, Kristina Cooke, & Mica Rosenberg report for Reuters:
(Reuters) – On a rainy September day in 2018, Jeff Sessions, then U.S. attorney general, addressed one of the largest classes of newly hired immigration judges in American history.
“The vast majority of asylum claims are not valid,” he said during a swearing-in ceremony in Falls Church, Virginia, according to his prepared remarks. If judges do their job, he said, “the number of illegal aliens and the number of baseless claims will fall.”
It was a clear message to the incoming class: Most of the immigrants who appear in court do not deserve to remain in the United States.
As U.S. President Joe Biden works to undo many of the restrictive immigration policies enacted by former President Donald Trump, he will confront one of his predecessor’s indelible legacies: the legion of immigration judges Trump’s administration hired.
The administration filled two-thirds of the immigration courts’ 520 lifetime positions with judges who, as a whole, have disproportionately ordered deportation, according to a Reuters analysis of more than 800,000 immigration cases decided over the past 20 years.
Judges hired under Trump ordered immigrants deported in 69% of cases, compared to 58% for judges hired as far back as the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Because hundreds of thousands of immigrants have cases before the court each year, that 11 percentage-point difference translates to tens of thousands more people ordered deported each year. Appeals are rarely successful.
Biden has promised to dramatically expand the courts by doubling the number of immigration judges and other staff. That’s a worthwhile effort, said Stephen Legomsky, a former chief counsel of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who is now a professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. “But the challenge is going to be tremendous.”
Although there are no statutory limits on the number of judges who can be hired, expanding the court would be costly and could take years, immigration law experts said.
“The fact that these (Trump-era) judges are already in place inhibits him a great deal,” Legomsky said of Biden.
Stephen Miller, the key architect of Trump’s immigration agenda, told Reuters that the administration had aimed to hire more immigration judges as part of an effort to “create more integrity in the asylum process” and quickly resolve what he termed meritless claims to cut down on a massive backlog.
“Most of the people that are coming unlawfully between ports of entry on the southwest border are not eligible for any recognized form of asylum,” Miller said in an interview. “There should be a very high rejection rate.”
Under U.S. law, immigrants are eligible for asylum only if they can prove they were being persecuted in their home countries on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or their political opinions. Miller said many migrants arriving at the border are coming for economic reasons and present fraudulent asylum claims.
Sessions, who as attorney general had the final say in hiring immigration judges, told Reuters that “the problem is not with the Trump judges. The problem was with some of the other judges that seemed to not be able to manage their dockets, or, in many cases, rendered rulings that were not consistent with the law.
The Trump administration’s successors to Sessions, who was forced out in 2018, did not respond to requests for comment.
. . . .
“There has been a significant lack of basic understanding of immigration law and policy with many – not all – but many of the new hires under the Trump administration,” said Susan Roy, an attorney and former immigration judge appointed during the administration of President George W. Bush who has represented immigrants before some new judges.
Reuters spoke with eight other former immigration judges, five of whom served under Trump, who generally echoed her view. Sitting immigration judges are not permitted to speak to the media.
Even for judges with immigration backgrounds, the type of experience they have has been controversial. In 2017, a report commissioned by the Justice Department found a lack of diversity of experience among judges hired, due to an excess of former prosecutors here from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of the report at the link.
Hon. Sue Roy is a distinguished member of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges 🛡⚔️ now in private practice representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court.
Hon. Charles Honeyman, quoted elsewhere in the article, is also a member of the Round Table who actually was removed from a case for failing to carry out what he believed to be improper instructions from his “supervisors” who were implementing Sessions’s anti-immigrant policies.
Stephen Legomsky is a former USCIS SeniorExecutive and esteemed retired Professor who generally is acknowledged as one of American’s leading scholar-experts on immigration and human rights.
Judge Dana Leigh Marks, quoted elsewhere in the article, is a former President of the NationalAssociation of Immigration Judges who also successfully argued the landmarkSupreme Courtcase INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, which established the generous well-founded fear standard for asylum.
Sessions and Miller are notorious White Nationalist xenophobes who have neither represented asylum seekers nor been Immigration Judges. Their efforts to eradicate international norms and legal protections for vulnerable asylum seekers, and their particular bias against female asylum seekers, have been widely criticized and panned by human rights experts throughout the world, as well as enjoined or overruled by some U.S. Courts. They were architects of the widely condemned child separation policy and the New American Gulag (“NAG”).
EOIR is the failed DOJ agency that houses the dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
The Biden administration has signaled that it would like to narrow arrests and deportations to those persons convicted of national security threats and other serious felonies. That would keep many of those, like the fast-food worker in Indianapolis, from immigrant court.
But there’s a bigger challenge facing the Biden administration.
Can it wipe away rules that have fed into a mindset that seemed to take root nationally among some court and immigration enforcement officials?
The rules were meant to erase an immigrant presence in the U.S. And they came to life far away from the nation’s borders in the daily grind of the immigration courts. For well over two years, I sat in Chicago’s immigration court watching, reporting and wondering how his could be happening.
Day by day I watched as the crowds huddled anxiously in the Chicago court’s major waiting room grew. Judges’ caseloads, as listed on the waiting room walls, eventually doubled for some to as many as 100 a day.
Why?
When Trump took office there were 542,411 deportation cases in the nation’s immigration courts. When he left, the number was 1.29 million. The backlog grew as arrests grew, as more were detained, as bonds went up, and new rules raised new hurdles for immigrants in the courts. The average wait for a case in Chicago’s court was 945 days in 2016, and that grew to 1,014 in 2021, 14% higher than the national average.
The long wait perplexed a judge one day as she scanned her computer looking to schedule a new hearing. The best she could find, she told an Iraqi woman in her 80s, was a date four years down the road. The long delay was not lost on the woman’s lawyer’s face. The woman’s husband was not in court because he was facing brain surgery.
A series of canceled hearings left a middle-age Palestinian’s life dangling in the court for seven years. The long delay left him anxious and panicked about the fate of his family back home, where they faced the threat of violence that had already taken several relatives’ lives. He won asylum but several months later, and before he could bring his family to the U.S., his teenage son was killed, a targeted victim of the violence that had haunted him and his relatives.
I took note after the Trump administration said in August 2019 it would push older cases back in 10 courts across the U.S., including Chicago, so that cases involving newly arrived immigrant families could move more rapidly through the courts. It was a clear warning that the U.S. would deal quickly with immigrants arriving at its borders.
. . . .
**********
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
The solutions are not rocket science. As many of us have suggested they include:
New leadership at EOIR firmly committed to judicial independence, due process, best practices and competent judicial Administration;
New judges at the BIA — “practical experts” in asylum and immigration laws committed to due process, fair application of the law, and humane treatment of individuals;
Slash the docket immediately to manageable levels by removing aged cases that would fit the legalization proposals in the Biden Bill or where relief could be granted by USCIS;
Get recent arrivals represented and decide their cases on a fair, reasonable, timely, predictable schedule (e.g., end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”);
Establish and implement merit-based criteria for recruitment and retention of judges.
It won’t happen without new personnel and different attitudes. There’s plenty of talent out here to rebuild a high-quality, expert, due-process oriented immigration judiciary. Judge Garland and his team just have to move out those who have created and furthered dysfunction and replace them with better-qualified pros who can get the job done for American justice and the millions of individuals whose lives, hopes, and futures are tied up in the EOIR mess !
Article I is the ultimate solution! But, Judge Garland can start making long overdue changes the day he is sworn in as AG (probably later this week). The only question: Will he?
A Better EOIR For A Better America!🇺🇸It’s not rocket science!🚀
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have created a new appeals process that will allow immigrants and their advocates to challenge arrests, detentions, and deportations as the Biden administration continues to focus enforcement actions on certain populations, officials said Friday.
The new program, which establishes the ICE Case Review Process led by a senior reviewing officer based in Washington, DC, is part of President Joe Biden’s efforts to overhaul the agency and reform not only how it works but which immigrants are arrested and detained.
. . . .
****************************
Read Hamed’s complete article at the link.
Shows that somebody in charge in the Biden Administration understands the scope of the problems they face in bringing ICE under control.
Compliance with agency policies has always been an issue at ICE, going all the way back to the days of the “Legacy INS.” Both on and off the bench, I observed that most policies applied only to the extent that local directors and agentschose to follow them.
I can remember essentially being told “We don’t follow that policy here,” or words to that effect. Or the time that an ICE Assistant Chief Counsel cheerfully told me in court: “Judge, you can enter any order you want. But, our deportation officer will decide whether this respondent actually gets released from custody.”
No wonder that ACC didn’t feel it necessary to appeal my custody decision after I had ruled against him. Of course, DOJ regulations (actually enacted by the Clinton Administration) give ICE Counsel unilateral authority (“The Clamper”) to stay compliance with IJ release and bond orders pending appeal. So, ICE always holds the “trump card” in bond proceedings.
Fortunately, represented respondents can threaten to go to U.S. District Court to force ICE compliance with an administrative order, if necessary. (The respondent in my case was represented.) But, for unrepresented individuals facing ICE intransigence, not so much.
That’s probably why a culture of disdain for immigrants’ rights and dislike of lawyers has grown up in so many ICE operations.
I also recollect that even in the Obama Administration, under pressure from ICE Enforcement, EOIR Management pushed Immigration Judges to “keep out of” the manner in which ICE complied with things like the “Morton Memo” or “PD” that should have been keeping certain cases out of court. And the BIA has traditionally stayed away from commenting on or reviewing prosecutorial policies, even when they directly affect court workloads or individual outcomes.
There were creative ways of skirting many of these bureaucratically-imposed blinders and pushing ICE, at least in court, to act in accordance with their own policies. But, it had to be done subtilely. EOIR was usually eager officially to announce its own fecklessness when it came to getting compliance from ICE.
I often marveled at the BIA’s ability to explain why it didn’t have authority to solve problems or do justice. In some instances, the Article III Courts actually had to instruct the BIA that they had authority to do things that they had claimed to be powerless to do.
In addition to the ICE policy described in Hamed’s article, there are other obvious ways in which compliance could be strengthened. Judge Garland could create a “New EOIR” dedicated to the original vision of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices. He could also empower Immigration Judges to hold ICE accountable for following its own policies. As part of this, he could confer the long-existing but never implemented authority of EOIR judges to hold attorneys on both sides in contempt of court.
An independent Immigration Judiciary could be an important part of enforcing the rule of law and holding DHS accountable for its actions. But, that’s not possible with the current structural, personnel, and cultural defects that have corrupted EOIR and prevented it from being a progressive force for due process, equal justice under law, and best practices.
Indeed, under the departed regime, lack of accountability, irrationality, open bias, scofflaw behavior, and “worst practices” were institutionalized and celebrated from top to bottom! This was in a “system” already heavily weighted in favor of ICE Enforcement and against individual rights.
It will require “radical due process reforms @ EOIR” from Judge Garland and his team. We’ll soon see whether or not that will be forthcoming.
Folks who have been happily assisting in abusing and dehumanizing asylum seekers, other migrants, and their lawyers for the past four years are not lightly going to be able to “switch over” to insuring due process and fundamentally fair adjudications under the best interpretations and practices — which actually favor the granting of relief in a timely and efficient manner in many cases. Indeed, in some cases, those serving as “judges” at EOIR appear to lack the capacity, expertise, and will to treat those coming before them fairly, impartially, and humanely, even these requirements are at the heart of constitutionally required due process!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Oh Boy! Three material mistakes in one asylum case! Do you think our superiors in the enforcement bureaucracy will give us extra credit on our ‘move ‘em out without due process quotas?’ Being a Deportation Judge sure is fun!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published
PANEL:GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan
KEY QUOTE:
Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.
Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.
***************************
After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “NotQuite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!
Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!
This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.
Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!
I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!
Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab CAIR Coalition PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.
Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?
Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.
Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.
To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!
Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!
Elections truly do have consequences. The Biden administration in its early days has removed some high profile immigration cases from the Supreme Court docket, moving in a different direction than the Trump administration. NBC News reports (see also CNN and Bloomberg) that, yesterday, the Justice Department asked the Court to dismiss three lawsuits over the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s efforts to de-fund “sanctuary’ cities.
In brief letters to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said the cases should be dismissed, indicating that the government will no longer seek to enforce that policy.
Lower courts were divided on the legality of the Trump de-funding policy. The Supreme Court had been deferring action on the appeals while the new administration decided how to handle the cases. The cases are Wilkinson v. San Francisco, 20-666; New York v. Department of Justice, 20-795; and City of New York v. Department of Justice, 20-796.
KJ
***********************
Thanks for the nice summary and links, Kevin!
The Trump regime waged a four-year unsuccessful war against American local governments who were seeking to protect their ethnic communities from ICE abuses and to encourage community cooperation with police in addressing violent crime in those communities. How did they go about it: By threatening to cut off certain Federal funding for local law enforcement.
If it sounds stupid and wasteful, that’s because it was. It also helped make ICE probably “the most despised law enforcement agency in America.” Again, not an effective strategy for real cooperative law enforcement.
But, despite all his bluster and false claims, Trump never, ever was about “law enforcement.” That was clear even before he sent his “magamorons” out to attack our Capitol. No, it always was about stoking fear, hate, and throwing “red meat” to his base for political purposes.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–438. Argued October 14, 2020—Decided March 4, 2021
Immigration officials initiated removal proceedings against Clemente Avelino Pereida for entering and remaining in the country unlawfully, a charge Mr. Pereida did not contest. Mr. Pereida sought instead to establish his eligibility for cancellation of removal, a discretionary form of relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 8 U. S. C. §§1229a(c)(4), 1229b(b)(1). Eligibility requires certain nonper- manent residents to prove, among other things, that they have not been convicted of specified criminal offenses. §1229b(b)(1)(C). While his proceedings were pending, Mr. Pereida was convicted of a crime under Nebraska state law. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §28–608 (2008). Ana- lyzing whether Mr. Pereida’s conviction constituted a “crime involving moral turpitude” that would bar his eligibility for cancellation of re- moval, §§1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), the immigration judge found that the Nebraska statute stated several separate crimes, some of which involved moral turpitude and one—carrying on a business without a required license—which did not. Because Nebraska had charged Mr. Pereida with using a fraudulent social security card to obtain employment, the immigration judge concluded that Mr. Pereida’s conviction was likely not for the crime of operating an unli- censed business, and thus the conviction likely constituted a crime in- volving moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Eighth Circuit concluded that the record did not establish which crime Mr. Pereida stood convicted of violating. But because Mr. Pereida bore the burden of proving his eligibility for cancellation of removal, the ambiguity in the record meant he had not carried that burden and he was thus ineligible for discretionary relief.
Held: Under the INA, certain nonpermanent residents seeking to cancel
2
PEREIDA v. WILKINSON Syllabus
a lawful removal order bear the burden of showing they have not been convicted of a disqualifying offense. An alien has not carried that bur- den when the record shows he has been convicted under a statute list- ing multiple offenses, some of which are disqualifying, and the record is ambiguous as to which crime formed the basis of his conviction. Pp. 5–17.
(a) The INA squarely places the burden of proof on the alien to prove eligibility for relief from removal. §1229a(c)(4)(A). Mr. Pereida accepts his burden to prove three of four statutory eligibility requirements but claims a different rule should apply to the final requirement at issue here—whether he was convicted of a disqualifying offense. Mr. Pereida identifies nothing in the statutory text that singles out that lone requirement for special treatment. The plain reading of the text is confirmed by the context of three nearby provisions. First, the INA specifies particular forms of evidence that “shall constitute proof of a criminal conviction” in “any proceeding under this chapter,” regardless of whether the proceedings involve efforts by the government to re- move an alien or efforts by the alien to establish eligibility for relief. §1229a(c)(3)(B). Next, Congress knows how to impose the burden on the government to show that an alien has committed a crime of moral turpitude, see §§1229a(c)(3), 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), and yet it chose to flip the burden when it comes to applications for relief from removal. Fi- nally, the INA often requires an alien seeking admission to show “clearly and beyond doubt” that he is “entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible,” §1229a(c)(2), which in turn requires the alien to demonstrate that he has not committed a crime involving moral turpi- tude, §1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Mr. Pereida offers no account why a rational Congress would have placed this burden on an alien who is seeking admission, but lift it from an alien who has entered the country ille- gally and faces a lawful removal order. Pp. 5–7.
(b) Even so, Mr. Pereida contends that he can carry the burden of showing his crime did not involve moral turpitude using the so-called “categorical approach.” Applying the categorical approach, a court considers not the facts of an individual’s conduct, but rather whether the offense of conviction necessarily or categorically triggers a conse- quence under federal law. Under Mr. Pereida’s view, because a person could hypothetically violate the Nebraska statute without committing fraud—i.e., by carrying on a business without a license—the statute does not qualify as a crime of moral turpitude. But application of the categorical approach implicates two inquiries—one factual (what was Mr. Pereida’s crime of conviction?), the other hypothetical (could some- one commit that crime of conviction without fraud?). And the Ne- braska statute is divisible, setting forth multiple crimes, some of which the parties agree are crimes of moral turpitude. In cases involving
Cite as: 592 U. S. ____ (2021) 3 Syllabus
divisible statutes, the Court has told judges to determine which of the offenses an individual committed by employing a “modified” categori- cal approach, “review[ing] the record materials to discover which of the enumerated alternatives played a part in the defendant’s prior convic- tion.” Mathis v. United States, 579 U. S. ___, ___. This determination, like many issues surrounding the who, what, when, and where of a prior conviction, involves questions of historical fact. The party who bears the burden of proving these facts bears the risks associated with failing to do so. This point is confirmed by the INA’s terms and the logic undergirding them. A different conclusion would disregard many precedents. See, e.g., Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575, 600. Just as evidentiary gaps work against the government in criminal cases where it bears the burden, see, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. 133, they work against the alien seeking relief from a lawful removal order. Congress can, and has, allocated the burden differently. Pp. 7– 15.
(c) It is not this Court’s place to choose among competing policy arguments. Congress was entitled to conclude that uncertainty about an alien’s prior conviction should not redound to his benefit. And Mr. Pereida fails to acknowledge some of the tools Congress seemingly did afford aliens faced with record-keeping challenges. See, e.g., §1229a(c)(3)(B). Pp. 15–17.
916 F. 3d 1128, affirmed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J.,andTHOMAS,ALITO,andKAVANAUGH,JJ.,joined. BREYER,J.,filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:
Finally, it makes particularly little sense to disregard this core feature of the categorical approach here. See id., at 203–204. As already noted, cancellation of removal is discretionary. Thus, when a conviction is not disqualifying under the categorical approach, the Government may still deny the noncitizen relief. If it turns out that an individual with a record like the one here in fact violated the statute in a reprehensible manner, that can be accounted for during the discretionary phase of the proceedings, when the categorical approach does not apply.
***
In my view, the Court should follow Congress’ statute. Congress has long provided that immigration courts apply- ing the INA provision here, like sentencing courts applying ACCA, must follow the categorical approach. See Mellouli, 575 U. S., at 805–806. Our cases make clear how that approach applies in a case like this one. We should follow our earlier decisions, particularly Taylor, Shepard, and John- son. And, were we to do so, ineluctably they would lead us to determine that the statutory offense of which Mr. Pereida was “convicted” is not “necessarily” a “crime involving moral turpitude.”
Because the Court comes to a different conclusion, with respect, I dissent.
**********************
“When in doubt, throw ‘em out,” seems to be the majority’s refrain. As pointed out by Justice Breyer, a decision that allowed Mr. Pereida, who has lived in the U.S. for a quarter of a century, to apply for cancellation of removal because of the uncertainty as to whether his 2010 conviction for “attempted criminal impersonation” under Nebraska law involved “moral turpitude,” would not have guaranteed him relief. It merely would have allowed the Immigration Judge to weigh the substantial equities that Mr. Pereida and his family had developed against his decade-old criminal conviction.
The Immigration Judge could then have decided, on the basis of a fully developed record, in the exercise of discretion whether or not Mr. Pereida merited a “second chance” in the U.S. And, of course, if the application were granted, ICE would still have the ability to appeal to the BIA, which exercises “de novo” review on questions of discretion.
There is lots that needs to be changed about our current immigration system. It’s too bad that Congress appears too deadlocked to get the job done.
PWS
03-04-21
UPDATE:
”Sir Jeffrey” Chase just reminded me that our Round Table 🛡⚔️filed an amicus brief in support of the respondent’s position in this case. Sadly, we didn’t carry the day, here! ☹️
But, we’ll be heard from again on the “categorical approach.” I guarantee it!
Here’s a recent unpublished decision from the 9th Circuit in Deepak Lama v. Wilkinson, (Feb. 24, 2021):
Before: HURWITZ and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,** District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Deepak Lama, a citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand.
The IJ found that Lama had suffered past persecution on account of his political activity and was entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). But, the IJ also found that the government had rebutted the presumption, and the BIA then dismissed Lama’s appeal on the sole basis that Lama could safely and reasonably relocate within Nepal, to Chitwan, where he previously resided for five years without incident. Our review is limited to the ground on which the BIA relied. Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019).
When the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution applies, the government bears the “burden of showing that relocation is both safe and reasonable under all the circumstances” by a preponderance of the evidence. Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 934 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017). “Relocation analysis consists of two steps: (1) ‘whether an applicant could relocate safely,’ and (2) ‘whether it would be reasonable to require the applicant to do so.’” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 934). We
1 The BIA found that Lama forfeited his claim under the Convention Against Torture. Lama does not challenge that ruling in this court.
2
conclude that the BIA’s limited relocation analysis does not satisfy the applicable legal requirements.
First, the agency “failed to take into account the numerous factors for determining reasonableness outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3).” Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1215 (9th Cir. 2004). Relying on Lama’s stay in Chitwan between 2003 and 2008, the agency provided no analysis of whether it would be reasonable for Lama to relocate there at the time of his hearing, in 2017. Lama demonstrated that he experienced persecution in Nepal both in his hometown and later in Kathmandu, and that this persecution took place both before and after he lived in Chitwan. While his time in Chitwan appears to have been without incident, he last lived there many years ago. The government presented no evidence that Lama could safely and reasonably return there now, considering both the current political situation in Chitwan and Lama’s personal circumstances. See Singh, 914 F.3d at 661.
Second, the BIA’s analysis rests on an apparent misapprehension of the record. The BIA stated that “[t]he record contains no evidence that it would no longer be safe or reasonable for [Lama] to once again return to [Chitwan] where he had previously voluntarily relocated and resided for approximately 5 years without incident.” (Emphasis added.) But the record contains a 2016 letter written to Lama from his uncle, with whom he lived in Chitwan, indicating that Lama would not be
3
safe there. The BIA did not consider this evidence. And to the extent the BIA “erroneously presumed that relocation was reasonable and improperly assigned the burden of proof to [Lama] to show otherwise,” Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 935, it erred in that respect as well. See also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii) (burden of proof).
Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2005), does not support the government’s position that because Lama once resided in Chitwan without incident, “it is axiomatic that he can do so again.” In Gomes, unlike this case, the petitioners had not shown past persecution and thus bore the burden to show that relocation was unreasonable. Id. at 1266–67 & 1266 n.1. In addition, unlike Lama, it appears that the petitioners in Gomes had safely resided in the area in question immediately prior to entering the United States. See id. at 1267. Gomes also did not involve the BIA failing to address evidence (here the letter from Lama’s uncle) indicating that relocation to the designated area could be unsafe.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition and remand this matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Any relocation analysis must comport with the governing regulations and this court’s precedents. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); Singh, 914 F.3d at 659–61. We also dismiss as moot the portion of Lama’s petition challenging the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART; REMANDED.
4
*******************
Once again, this is nothing profound, difficult, or controversial. Just basic application of EOIR’S own regulations, consideration of all the evidence presented by the respondent, and basic analysis, with some fundamental fairness and common sense thrown in. That’s probably why the panel didn’t deem it worthy of publication. But, it does further illustrate a disturbing pattern at the BIA and the Immigration Courts.
During my time as an Immigration Judge, I was sometimes involved in the nationwide judiciallaw clerk (JLC)training program. One of my key points to the JLCs was that many Immigration Judges, even then, continued to get basic “burden shifting” and further analysis wrong once the respondent established past persecution, thereby invoking the regulatory presumption of future persecution.
The DHS then has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence either 1) fundamentally changed conditions that would eliminate any well-founded fear of individualized persecution; or 2) a reasonably available internal relocation alternative under the applicable regulations.
Because conditions seldom materially improve in most refugee-sending countries, and reasonable relocation alternatives that would eliminate a well-founded fear of persecution (not hiding in someone’s basement or in a cave in the forest) can seldom be established, in my experience, the DHS almost always failed to rebut the presumption. This was particularly the case because then, as now, the ICE counsel usually presented no testimony or other evidence to rebut the presumption beyond that contained in the State Department Country Report, whichseldom was definitive on this type of highly individualized analysis.
Even where the DHS rebuts the regulatory presumption, the respondent still can win protection if she or he shows 1) compelling reasons for not returning arising from the past persecution, or 2) a reasonable possibility of other serious harm if returned.
These regulatory standards are consistent with the generous intent of the refugee definition as described by the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. They should result in rather easy grants of protection in most cases involving past persecution,
However it appears that EOIR judges haven’t improved in this area. If anything, result-oriented decision-making geared to make denial of asylum the “administrative norm” evidently has been substituted for careful, professional, expert analysis. Indeed, correct analysis by expert judges knowledgeable in asylum law would probably result in most cases like this being granted at the Immigration Judge level, or even the Asylum Office, thus discouraging the DHS from taking largely meritless appeals to the BIA and reducing the workload in the Circuit Courts.
Instead the sloppy, biased, “any reason to deny” attitude that infects today’s EOIR means that justice for asylum seekers requires skilled lawyers, a “lucky draw” on judges at some level of the system, and, all too often, endless remands and time spent on “redos” to correct elementary errors. No wonder this system is running an astounding 1.3 million case backlog, even with many more IJs on the bench at both the trial and appellate levels!
This is a “system designed to fail.” And, failing it is, at every level, spilling over into the Article III Courts and placing the foundation of our entire U.S. justice system — due process for all under law — in jeopardy.
Quality, expertise, understanding, and a fair and humane attitude toward asylum seekers is much more important than quantity in asylum adjudication!This the exact opposite of the message delivered by the last Administration.
Here’s my basic thesis:
Granting relief wherever possible and at the lowest possible levels of the system speeds things up and promotes best practices and maximum efficiency without stomping on anyone’s rights. (And, it saves lives).
En masse denials and trying to run a “deportation railroad” eventually leads to gross inefficiencies and systemic failure. (And, it kills innocent individuals).
I’m not the only one who believes this. As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues recently quipped: “The sloppiness of the BIA in case after case is alarming.” Indeed it is; but, sadly, not particularly surprising or unusual.
Thanks for speaking out Andrea!Andrea is a former Arlington Immigration Court intern and one of the “charter members” of the NDPA. As captured on this video, she was assaulted by ICE while trying to assist her child client in reuniting with his mother! A civil suit against the agent involved is pending.
