"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.
Here’s the list with bios:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1295301/download
This list includes what appears to be a municipal traffic court judge and someone who spent the last four years working for a white nationalist hate group (per the SPLC).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mesbqxTSzEM
PWS
07-19-20
In our most recent story (https://reut.rs/2ZFjksB) about the dangers of coronavirus in U.S. immigration detention centers. Using immigration court records and ICE data we found 268 transfers of detainees between detention centers in April, May and June, half that involved detainees who were either moved from centers with COVID-19 cases to centers with no known cases, or from centers with no cases to those where the virus had spread.
At least one transfer resulted in a super-spreading event. On June 2, 74 detainees were transferred to a detention center in Farmville, Virginia from three detention centers in Florida and Arizona, two of which had confirmed COVID-19 cases. Before the transfer the center only had only 2 positive cases (also from transferees from another nearby detention center). After the transfer, more than half of the detainees moved tested positive for the virus. Now Farmville is the hardest hit detention center in the country, with 315 cases.
Previously we reported on how hospital resources are scarce in many rural areas where detainees are held, and how some asylum seekers are giving up their claims because they fear catching the virus in detention and how one couple faced double jeopardy both inside and outside of immigration lock up.
Please keep in touch about other stories we should be pursuing in these difficult times!
Best,
Mica
………………………………………………….
Mica Rosenberg
Reuters News
National Immigration Reporter
*******************************
Than is so much, Mica! Go on over to Reuters at the above links to get all of Mica’s great, very timely reporting on this topic!
The truth is out, and, predictably, it’s ugly for the “malicious incompetents” in Trump’s outrageous immigration kakistocracy.
While the Administration has falsely claimed that draconian, clearly illegal and unnecessary, immigration restrictions are required to “protect” America from COVID-19 (a threat that they otherwise downplay or deny through false narratives and pseudo-science), it’s actually ICE that is a key spreader of disease, both in the U.S. and in other countries!☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻
PWS
07-17-20
Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis Immigration Community reports on the on the latest “Medley of Deadly Mistakes” —
CA2 on One Year Filing Deadline, PSG: Ordonez Azmen v. Barr
“Mario Ordonez Azmen petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal of the denial of his asylum and statutory withholding claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA did not adequately explain its conclusion that Ordonez Azmen’s proposed social group of former gang members in Guatemala was not particular. Nor did the BIA adequately explain its reasons for denying Ordonez Azmen’s motion to remand based on evidence of new country conditions. Finally, we hold that under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D), changed circumstances presenting an exception to the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application need not arise prior to the filing of the application, and the BIA erred when it refused to consider Ordonez Azmen’s alleged changed circumstances on the ground that the change occurred while his application was pending. We GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for reconsideration of Ordonez Azmen’s application for asylum and statutory withholding of removal and his motion to remand, consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to Zachary A. Albun, Albert M. Sacks Clinical Teaching & Advocacy Fellow, Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School, who writes: “The Court found the INA unambiguously provides that “material changed circumstances” excepting the one year filing deadline need not precede filing of the asylum application (i.e., you can rely on a changes that occur during proceedings). The court further held that W-G-R- & M-E-V-G- do not create a per se rule that “former gang member” PSGs lack cognizability. Another important point is that the Court relied on two unpublished BIA decisions that we’d submitted in determining it need not defer to the agency, but instead decide the case based on its own reading of the governing statute and regulations. Major credit and a huge thanks goes to my co-counsel at the University of Minnesota Federal Immigration & Litigation Clinic and the National Immigrant Justice Center, and to my colleagues and students at HIRC.”]
*************************
CA2 on Suppression: Millan-Hernandez v. Barr
“Maria Cared Millan-Hernandez petitions for review of a 2018 Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of her motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, we consider whether Millan-Hernandez provided sufficient evidence of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation to warrant an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that she did and that the agency applied an incorrect standard in determining otherwise. Accordingly, the petition for review is GRANTED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
[Hats off to AADHITHI PADMANABHAN, The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY (Nicholas J. Phillips, Joseph Moravec, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, Buffalo, NY, on the brief), for Petitioner!]
**************************
CA11 on Retroactivity: Rendon v. Atty. Gen.
“Carlos Rendon began living in the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1991. Then in 1995, he pled guilty to resisting a police officer with violence. Under immigration law this offense qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). At the time, Mr. Rendon’s sentence of 364 days in state custody did not affect his status as a lawful permanent resident. But Congress later changed the law. In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) made him deportable based on his CIMT conviction. And in 1997, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) created the “stop-time rule,” which meant people convicted of certain crimes were no longer eligible for a discretionary form of relief known as cancellation of removal. Approximately 25 years after his guilty plea, an immigration judge found Mr. Rendon removable and ruled he was no longer eligible for cancellation of removal on account of the stop-time rule. On appeal, Mr. Rendon now argues that it was error to retroactively apply the stop-time rule to his pre-IIRIRA conviction. After careful review, we conclude that Mr. Rendon is right. We reverse the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Anthony Richard Dominquez at Prada Urizar, PLLC!]
**********************
CA4 on CIMT: Nunez-Vasquez v. Barr
“David Nunez-Vasquez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) finding that he was removable because he had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”)—a conviction for leaving an accident in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2–894 and a conviction for use of false identification in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2–186.3(B1). We hold that neither conviction is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. We therefore grant Nunez-Vasquez’s petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order of removal, order the Government to return Nunez-Vasquez to the United States, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Ben Winograd, Trina Realmuto, Kristin Macleod-Ball, Nancy Morawetz and Samantha Hsieh!]
**********************
CA2 on Antique Firearms: Jack v. Barr
“In these tandem cases, Jervis Glenroy Jack and Ousmane Ag each petition for review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordering them removed based on their New York firearms convictions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (a)(2)(C). We principally conclude that the statutes of conviction, sections 265.03 and 265.11 of the New York Penal Law, criminalize conduct involving “antique firearms” that the relevant firearms offense definitions in the Immigration and Nationality Act do not. This categorical mismatch precludes the petitioners’ removal on the basis of their state convictions. We therefore GRANT the petitions, VACATE the decisions of the BIA, and REMAND both causes to the agency with instructions to terminate removal proceedings.”
[Hats off to Nicholas J. Phillips, Joseph Moravec, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, Buffalo, NY; Alan E. Schoenfeld, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, for Jervis Glenroy Jack, Petitioner in No. 18-842-ag., Stephanie Lopez, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, New York, NY; Alan E. Schoenfeld, Andrew Sokol, Beezly J. Kiernan, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, for Ousmane Ag, Petitioner in No. 18-1479-ag.!]
************************
Remember, unlike most so-called “civil litigation,” lives and futures are at stake in every one of these cases. It’s like sending in brain surgeons trained by the “American Academy of Morticians.” Over and over, the Trump DOJ has shown itself more interested in “upping the body count” than on fairness, due process, and just results at EOIR. Is there a “breaking point” at which the Article IIIs will finally get tired of correcting the BIA’s mistakes and doing their work for them?
Good thing the BIA isn’t sitting for the final exam in my “Immigration Law & Policy” course at Georgetown Law. Even “the curve” might not be enough to save them.
PWS
07-15-20
Matter of M-D-C-V-, 28 I&N Dec. 18 (BIA 2020)
BIA HEADNOTE:
Under section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C) (2018), an alien who is arriving on land from a contiguous foreign territory may be returned by the Department of Homeland Security to that country pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols, regardless of whether the alien arrives at or between a designated port of entry.
PANEL: Board Panel: MALPHRUS and CREPPY, Appellate Immigration Judges; MORRIS, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.
OPINION BY: Judge Malphrus
**************************
The deny, deny, deny message is very clear!
To keep what the BIA and the Administration are doing to our fellow humans in perspective, however, remember that:
That’s a high kill/abuse rate. But, that’s exactly what human rights criminals like Stephen Miller “get off on.” “Death to the other!”
And, so far, the Supremes have obliged the White Nationalists’ program of “Dred Scottification” as long as it applies to “the others,” primarily persons of color, not deserving in the elitists’ view of being treated as “persons” under the law or as “human beings” under any laws. Eventually, however, posterity will have something to say about Trump, Miller, Roberts, McConnell, Barr, Wolf, Sessions, Pence, Alito and a host of others who have knowingly participated in these intentional degradations of humanity and furthering of White Supremacy!
PWS
07-14-20
🏴☠️☠️🤮THE UGLY TRUTH BEHIND TRUMP’S COVID-19 LIES: Immigrants Don’t Spread COVID-19, But ICE Spreads It Throughout The U.S. & The World, According To a New Report From The NY Times & The Marshall Project!
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/07/10/how-ice-exported-the-coronavirus
By Emily Kassie & Barbara Marcolini
This video was produced in collaboration with The New York Times.
Admild, an undocumented immigrant from Haiti, was feeling sick as he approached the deportation plane that was going to take him back to the country he had fled in fear. Two weeks before that day in May, while being held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Louisiana, he had tested positive for the coronavirus — and he was still showing symptoms.
He disclosed his condition to an ICE official at the airport, who sent him to a nurse.
“She just gave me Tylenol,” said Admild, who feared reprisals if his last name was published. Not long after, he was back on the plane before landing in Port-au-Prince, one of more than 40,000 immigrants deported from the United States since March, according to ICE records.
Even as lockdowns and other measures have been taken around the world to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, ICE has continued to detain people, move them from state to state and deport them.
An investigation by The New York Times in collaboration with The Marshall Project reveals how unsafe conditions and scattershot testing helped turn ICE into a domestic and global spreader of the virus — and how pressure from the Trump administration led countries to take in sick deportees.
We spoke to more than 30 immigrant detainees who described cramped and unsanitary detention centers where social distancing was near impossible and protective gear almost nonexistent. “It was like a time bomb,” said Yudanys, a Cuban immigrant held in Louisiana.
At least four deportees interviewed by The Times, from India, Haiti, Guatemala and El Salvador, tested positive for the virus shortly after arriving from the United States.
. . . .
*******************
Read the rest of the introduction and view the video at the link.
There is no reliable evidence that migrants and asylum seekers are a significant source of COVID-19 spread, particularly if they are properly screened, tested, and quarantined when necessary. https://www.cato.org/blog/no-mr-president-immigration-not-correlated-covid-19-united-states
On the other hand, as this report as well as numerous Federal Court actions have shown, there is powerful evidence that the “maliciously incompetent” immigration policies of the Trump regime are spreading COVID-19 in the U.S. and the world.
Consequently, Trump’s COVID-19 based immigration and asylum restrictions are a bad faith pretext for a White Nationalist, racist, xenophobic agenda. It’s a cowardly coverup for the truth that the Trump Administration threatens America’s health, not migrants and asylum seekers.
Reality is actually pretty straightforward, even if some Federal Courts and most GOP legislators pretend otherwise.
PWS
07-13-20
By Catherine Rampell
July 9 at 7:30 PM ET
The Trump administration is turning legal immigrants into undocumented ones.
That is, the “show me your papers” administration has literally switched off printers needed to generate those “papers.”
Without telling Congress, the administration has scaled back the printing of documents it has already promised to immigrants — including green cards, the wallet-size I.D.’s legal permanent residents must carry everywhere to prove they are in the United States lawfully.
In mid-June, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ contract ended with the company that had been printing these documents. Production was slated to be insourced, but “the agency’s financial situation,” USCIS said Thursday, prompted a hiring freeze that required it to ratchet down printing.
. . . .
USCIS, which is funded almost entirely by fees, is undergoing a budget crisis, largely caused by financial mismanagement by political leadership. The printing disruptions are no doubt a preview of chaos to come if the agency furloughs about 70 percent of its workforce, as it has said it will do in a few weeks absent a congressional bailout.
In recent conversations with congressional staffers about cutting contracts to save money, USCIS mentioned only one contract, for a different division, that was being reduced — and made no reference to this printing contract, according to a person who took part in those discussions. The company that had this contract, Logistics Systems Inc., did not respond to emails and calls this week requesting comment.
The administration has taken other steps in recent months that curb immigration. Presidential executive orders have almost entirely ended issuance of green cards and work-based visas for people applying from outside the country; red tape and bureaucracy have slowed the process for those applying from within U.S. borders. For a while, the agency refused to forward files from one office to another. The centers that collect necessary biometric data remain shuttered.
These pipeline delays are likely to dramatically reduce the number of green cards ultimately approved and issued this year.
Under normal circumstances, immigrants who need proof of legal residency but haven’t yet received their green card would have an alternative: get a special passport stamp from USCIS. But amid covid-related changes, applicants must provide evidence of a “critical need,” with little guidance about what that means.
“The bottom line is that applicants pay huge filing fees, and it appears that these fees have apparently been either squandered through mismanagement or diverted to enforcement-focused initiatives, to the great detriment of applicants as well as the overall efficiency of the immigration process,” says Anis Saleh, an immigration attorney in Coral Gables, Fla. “The administration has accomplished its goal of shutting down legal immigration without actually changing the law.”
**************************
Read the rest of Catherine’s article at the link.
It should come as no surprise that an agency under unqualified White Nationalist Ken “Cooch Cooch” Cuccinelli is being run into the ground and has lost its mission through misdirection and mismanagement. That’s basically Cooch’s story in a nutshell as those of us know in Virginia, where we count ourselves most fortunate not to have him as our Governor.
I have written previously about how the regime’s “malicious incompetence” has bankrupted once self-sustaining USCIS while destroying our legal immigration and asylum systems that benefit the US and individual migrants and refugees in numerous ways. I made the rather obvious point that the House Dems should not bail out this regime on USCIS, but rather require that the money be found by reprograming funds from bloated, wasteful, ineffective, and inhumane DHS enforcement programs, starting with the wall.
The solution to maliciously incompetent freeloaders like the Trump immigration kakistocracy is not to provide more bailouts as rewards for their misconduct and mismanagement.
A recent report from the American Immigration Council shows how DHS enforcement spending has bloated to over $25 billion annually at then same time the Trump kakistocracy has mismanaged USCIS into bankruptcy. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/the-cost-of-immigration-enforcement-and-border-security
And, we haven’t really gotten much return on that investment, Here’s a key quote from the AIC Report:
What has this spending bought? The United States currently has roughly 700 miles of fencing along the Southern border, record levels of staff for ICE and CBP, as well as a fleet of drones, among other resources. Some of these resources have been spent on ill-conceived projects, such as the $1 billion attempt to construct a “virtual fence” along the Southwest border, a project initiated in 2005 that was later scrapped for being ineffective and too costly. CBP announced a similar project in July 2020 to install a total of 200 “Autonomous Surveillance Towers” along remote areas of the southern border at a reported cost of several hundred million dollars.
Even with record level spending on enforcement, enforcement alone is not sufficient to address the challenges of undocumented migration. It also has significant unintended consequences; according to U.S. Border Patrol statistics, the Southwest border witnesses close to one death per day. All of these efforts that have accumulated in the name of security, however, do not necessarily measure border security properly, or make the border more secure. It is past time for the United States to turn away from costly and haphazard efforts to secure the border and instead focus on reining in the costs of border enforcement.
I argue that the regime’s focus on removing folks who were peacefully residing in the U.S. and contributing to our economy, many with U.S. citizen family members who are then left in dire straits, has actually been detrimental to America, in addition to killing the Immigration Courts.
Likewise, the shutdown of our legal refugee, asylum, and immigration systems without legislation has not only placed our nation among the ranks of human rights violators and harmed or endangered human lives, but also deprived us of individuals with a powerful history of making outsized contributions to our society and our economy.
I doubt that a rational immigration policy and system that looked at the real national interest, rather than the mythologized White Nationalist, fundamentally racist version of it, would require such a huge, yet largely counterproductive, enforcement apparatus. At a minimum, costs for civil detention and removals could be cut substantially in a better system.
PWS
07-12-20
NBC 4 Washington reports in this video:
************************
This is justice? Unhappily, it’s what passes for justice for people of color in the era of Trump.
PWS
07-11-20
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201911193.pdf
CANAL A MEDIA HOLDING, LLC v. USCIS, 11th Cir., 07-09-20, published
PANEL: MARTIN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS,* District Judge.
MARTIN, Circuit Judge:
OPINION BY: Judge Martin
CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Newsom
KEY QUOTE:
Plaintiffs Canal A Media Holding, LLC (“Canal A Media”) and Erick Archila appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They seek to challenge the decision by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to deny Canal A Media’s petition for a work visa for Mr. Archila. Having carefully reviewed this case, and with the benefit of oral argument, we have decided that the denial of Canal A Media’s visa petition was final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Also, we hold that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) and (g) do not bar the Plaintiffs’ challenge to the visa petition denial. In keeping with these decisions, we reverse the District Court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
JUDGE NEWSOM’S FULL CONCURRING OPINION:
I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately only to emphasize (what is to me, anyway) the obvious correctness of the Court’s holding that USCIS’s denial of Canal A Media’s Form I-129 visa petition constituted “final agency action” within the meaning of § 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 704.
In determining whether agency action is “final” for APA purposes, the Supreme Court has emphasized, first and foremost, that “the action must mark the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process,” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997) (emphasis added) (quotation omitted), or, alternatively, that “the agency has completed its decisionmaking process,” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 797 (1992) (emphasis added). Those formulations tee up an important—and here, apparently dispositive—question: What is the relevant “agency”? It seems to me self-evident—and so far as I can tell, all agree—that the “agency” whose “decisionmaking process” we have to evaluate here is USCIS, the instrumentality of the federal government responsible for evaluating I-129 petitions. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l).
The government contends here—and the district court held—that USCIS’s denial of Canal A Media’s I-129 petition didn’t constitute “final agency action” because Mr. Archila, on whose behalf Canal A Media sought the I-129, was still in
15
Case: 19-11193 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Page: 16 of 17
the middle of removal proceedings before an immigration judge. That is triply wrong—and, it seems to me, at the most basic level(s).
First, the government asks us to agency-jump. USCIS’s decisionmaking process hasn’t run its course, the government says, because an immigration judge is still working. But USCIS and the immigration court are altogether different “agenc[ies].” Cf. 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1) (defining “agency” to mean “each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency”). More than that, they are housed in altogether different departments—USCIS exists within the Department of Homeland Security,1 whereas the immigration court operates under the auspices of the Department of Justice.2 The executive branch has an architecture—granted, not always perfectly elegant, but an architecture nonetheless—and the government’s position defies it.
Second, not only are the agencies themselves different, the participants in the proceedings before them are different. The only party properly before USCIS was Canal A Media, the visa petitioner; Mr. Archila, although the petition’s intended beneficiary, was not a party to the I-129 proceedings. See 8 C.F.R.
1 See Operational and Support Components, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., https://www.dhs.gov/operational-and-support-components (last visited July 7, 2020).
2 See Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/eoir (last visited July 7, 2020).
16
Case: 19-11193 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Page: 17 of 17
§ 103.2(a)(3). Conversely, in the ongoing removal proceedings before the IJ, Mr. Archila is the lone participant; Canal A Media has no right to appear.
Finally, not only are the agencies different, and the parties before them different, but their respective jurisdictions—for purposes of this case, anyway—are different, as well. While USCIS and immigration courts share jurisdiction over a limited range of issues—for instance, eligibility for Temporary Protected Status, see, e.g., Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 562 F.3d 1137, 1140 (11th Cir. 2009)—only USCIS has authority to decide Canal A Media’s I-129 visa petition, see 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(i); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I. & N. Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987). The IJ handling Mr. Archila’s removal proceedings has no jurisdiction to consider, grant, or deny Canal A Media’s petition, let alone to review USCIS’s denial.
At 30,000 feet, then, the government’s position just can’t be right. USCIS’s rejection of Canal A Media’s I-129 petition is not non-“final” simply because a different agency that is housed in a different executive-branch department and is vested with jurisdiction over different issues and is presiding over a different proceeding involving a different party hasn’t finished its different business.
********************
My take:
PWS
07-10-20
Trump Administration Makes Immigration Courts an Enforcement Tool by Appointing Prosecutors to Lead
AILA Doc. No. 20070696 | Dated July 6, 2020
CONTACTS: George Tzamaras
202-507-7649
gtzamaras@aila.orgBelle Woods
202-507-7675
bwoods@aila.org
WASHINGTON, DC — The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) condemns the Trump administration’s recent ramp-up of efforts to turn the immigration court system into an enforcement tool rather than an independent arbiter for justice. The immigration courts are formally known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and are overseen by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
AILA President Jennifer Minear, noted, “AILA has long advocated for an independent immigration court, one that ensures judges serve as neutral arbiters of justice. This administration has instead subjected the courts to political influence and exploited the inherent structural flaws of the DOJ-controlled immigration courts, which also prosecutes immigration cases at the federal level. The nail in the coffin of judicial neutrality is the fact that the administration has put the courts in the control of a new Chief Immigration Judge who has no judicial experience but served as ICE’s chief immigration prosecutor. No less concerning is DOJ’s recent choice for Chief Appellate Immigration Judge – an individual who also prosecuted immigration cases and advised the Trump White House on immigration policy. This administration continues to weaponize the immigration courts for the sole purpose of accelerating deportations rather than dispensing neutral justice. Congress must investigate these politically motivated appointments and pass legislation to create an independent, Article I immigration court.”
Among the recent actions taken by this administration to bias the immigration courts:
- Attempting to decertify the immigration judges’ union.
- Blocking immigration judges’ ability to educate the public about the court system.
- Endangering lives through haphazard and inconsistent responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Attempting to buy out and then outright dismantling the Board of Immigration Appeals.
More AILA resources on the immigration courts can be found at: https://www.aila.org/immigrationcourts.
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 20070696.
**************************
As a friend and former colleague said recently “I would have thought that the one thing everyone could get behind, regardless of political philosophy, would be a neutral court system.” Sadly, not so in today’s crumbling America.
There are three groups blocking the way:
The end result is “Dred Scottification” — that is, dehumanization or “de-personification” of “the other.” The GOP has made it a centerpiece of their failed attempt to govern, from voter suppression, to looting the Treasury for the benefit of the rich and powerful, to immunity for law enforcement officers who kill minorities, to greenlighting cruel, inhuman,and counterproductive treatment of lawful asylum seekers and immigrants. Not surprisingly, this essentially “Whites Only” view of social justice is ripping our nation apart on many levels.
I find it highly ironic that at the same time we are rightfully removing statutes of Chief Justice Roger Taney, a racist who authored the infamous Dred Scott Decision, Chief Justice Roberts and four of his colleagues continue to “Dred Scottify” asylum seekers and other immigrants, primarily those of color, by denying them the due process, fundamental fairness, fair and impartial judges, and, perhaps most of all, racist-free policies that our Constitution demands!
Compare the “due process” afforded Trump by the GOP Senate and the pardon of a convicted civil and human rights abuser like “Racist Sheriff Joe” with the ugly and dishonest parody of due process afforded Sister Norma’s lawful asylum seekers whose “crime” was seeking fair treatment, justice, and an acknowledgement of their humanity from a nation that has turned it’s back on those values.
What Sister Norma’s article did not mention is that those who survive in Mexico long enough to get to “court” have their asylum claims denied at a rate of about 99% by an unfair system intentionally skewed and biased against them. Most experts believe that many, probably a majority, of those being denied actually merit protection under a fair and impartial application of our laws.
But, as pointed out by AILA, that’s not why Billy the Bigot has appointed prosecutors as top “judges” and notorious asylum deniers as “appellate judges.” He intends to perpetuate a highly unfair “deportation railroad” designed by infamous White Nationalist racist Stephen Miller. In other words, our justice system is being weaponized in support of an overtly racist agenda formulated by a racist regime that has made racism the centerpiece of its pitch for remaining in office. Incredible! Yet true!
The Supremes have life tenure. But, the other two branches of our failing Government don’t. And, a better Executive and a better Legislature that believe in our Constitution and equal justice for all is a necessary start on a better Federal Judiciary — one where commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all is a threshold requirement for future judicial appointments. Time to throw the “non-believers” and their enablers out of office.
PWS
07-07-20
https://apple.news/AHkgjeG2HQQKcxUA5LntKNg
Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:
A Top Immigration Court Official Called For Impartiality In A Memo He Sent As He Resigned
The judge was replaced by the Trump administration with the former top Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor.
Posted on July 3, 2020, at 1:52 p.m. ET
Hamed Aleaziz
BuzzFeed News Reporter
A leading immigration court official stepped down Thursday after sending a pointed email to court employees emphasizing the importance of the appearance of impartiality and the benefits of providing protections for people fleeing to the US. The message came on the same day the Trump administration tapped the former top Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor to take his position, a move that outraged immigrant advocates.
The Trump administration selected Tracy Short, previously the lead ICE prosecutor, for the chief immigration judge role. ICE prosecutors often take up roles as immigration judges, but the selection of Short, formerly ICE’s principal legal adviser, left some claiming the move would undercut the appearance of neutrality at the court.
Christopher Santoro, the acting chief immigration judge, appeared to signal that in his message to court employees announcing his resignation.
His resignation and Short’s hiring comes as the Trump administration has undertaken a monumental overhaul of the way immigration judges work: placing quotas on the number of cases they should complete every year, restricting when asylum can be granted, and pouring thousands of previously closed cases back into court dockets. In the meantime, the case backlog has increased and wait times have continued to skyrocket to hundreds of days.
“There will always be those who disagree with a judge’s (or jury’s) decision and our court system is no different,” he wrote in the email on Thursday, which was obtained by BuzzFeed News. “But for the public to trust a court system, for the public to believe that a court is providing fair and equitable treatment under the law, that court system must not only dispense justice impartially but also appear to be impartial. Maintaining the appearance of impartiality and fairness can often be more difficult than being impartial and is a goal each of us – regardless of our role – must strive for every day.”
Santoro, who had himself served as a senior ICE advisor during the Obama administration, said he delivers this message in training to immigration judges and it applied to everyone involved with the court.
“Santoro’s emphasis on impartiality and protecting vulnerable populations is a sharp departure from this administration’s priorities, which have focused around speedy adjudications and reducing the backlog,” said Sarah Pierce, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. “Someone who recognizes the dire need for impartiality in this system has to watch a prosecutor lead the charge in his wake.”
Two Department of Justice employees said the decision to tap Short was misguided. The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge “provides overall program direction, articulates policies and procedures, and establishes priorities” for the court.
“His hiring is further confirmation that the Executive Office for Immigration Review leadership wishes EOIR to be a tool for enforcement agencies, focused on removal orders and nothing else,” said one employee, who could not speak publicly on the matter. The employee said that Santoro is “incredibly respected, and, in normal times, he would have been the chief immigration judge.”
Another DOJ employee said that Short’s appointment was “one step closer to the death knell for impartiality at the Immigration Court and more persuasive evidence that our code of American justice and fairness is not being followed at the Department of Justice.”
Ashley Tabaddor, who heads the union that represents immigration judges, said they were sad to hear of Santoro’s departure, adding that he is “a well-respected judge and will be tremendously missed.”
In his email, Santoro praised the immigration court for its work in recent years.
“Despite the many challenges thrown our way – ranging from changing priorities to lapses in appropriations to the temporary loss of our case management system to our million-plus pending caseload – you have risen to meet and exceed expectations each and every time. I have never worked with a finer group of professionals,” Santoro wrote.
He later said that the “nation benefits when we welcome those who bring different skills, perspectives, and experiences, and when we protect those who would be persecuted or tortured in their home country. We also benefit when we ensure that our laws are enforced fairly and consistently.”
Observers of the court — including current and former officials — said the email was eye opening.
“I’m heartened, but not surprised, to see Judge Santoro join the dozens of judges who have resigned from this administration and expressed a deep concern for the due process rights of vulnerable asylum seekers in our immigration court system,” said Rebecca Jamil, a former immigration judge who stepped down due to the administration’s immigration policies. “For a court system to mean anything, the public has to trust that it is fair and unbiased, and the Immigration Court simply does not have that important contract with the current Attorney General. I’m grateful that Judge Santoro reached the same conclusion that I did.”
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of Hamed’s article at the link.
This is yet another disgraceful incident in three years of unconstitutional bias and failure of due process at EOIR. The competent, scholarly, fair, and impartial are driven out and replaced by unqualified politicos.
Just heard this statement on TV in connection with yet another racially motivated killing: “We have a morality problem in America!” EOIR has both a competency and a morality problems. When will someone put an end to this unconscionable and deadly nonsense?
As I have said before, Judge Santoro was our Assistant Chief Immigration Judge during some of my time in Arlington. A “straight-up” professional who cared about both public service and the health and welfare of Court employees in very stressful situations.
What a squandering of public funds and goodwill when the competent are pushed out and replaced by those stunningly unqualified to serve in any type of judicial position, let alone one calling for ethical and moral leadership.
Thanks for your service, Chris.😎
Also, proud to be a member of the Round Table along with our courageous colleague, Judge Rebecca Jamil!
PWS
07-03-20
Practice Advisory: Opening Statements and Closing Arguments in Immigration Court
Last UpdatedJuly 2, 2020
Topics Litigation Removal Proceedings Appeals
Opening statements and closing arguments can win cases for clients, if the practitioner is able to deliver a performance that is both concise and compelling. This practice advisory offers guidance and tips that will help practitioners deliver concise and compelling opening statements and closing arguments in immigration court.
**********************
Read more and download this wonderful resource at the link.
Michelle and her team @ CLINIC promise more “great stuff” next week.
Going in Opposite Directions: Ironically, as the Trump DOJ has worked overtime to “dumb down” EOIR, Michelle and many others in the Immigration & Human Rights communities, particularly AILA, other NGOs, Clinical Professors, and pro bono counsel at “Big Law,” have been working even harder to promote “best immigration and legal practices” before all tribunals. And, despite the Supreme’s “willful blindness” to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human dignity as it applies to asylum seekers and migrants, the results are showing elsewhere in the justice system.
It also points to the obvious unconscionably overlooked untapped source for better Federal Judges in the future, from the Supremes to the Immigration Courts: the pro bono and clinical immigration and human rights bars — actually the main fount of courageous opposition to the regime’s concerted attack on our Constitution, our justice system, and our humanity.
If these folks and others like them were on the Supremes, American justice wouldn’t be in shambles and equal justice justice for all under our Constitution would actually be enforced, rather than degraded or intentionally skirted with legal gobbledygook. The lack of both legal and moral leadership from our highest Court in the face of a clearly out of control and unqualified White Nationalist Executive and his toadies is simply astounding, not to mention discouraging.
It’s little wonder that the tensions caused in no small measure by the Court’s systemic failure to stand up for voting rights, civil rights, the rights of other persons of color in the U.S., and to hold abusers at all levels accountable, is now overflowing into the streets. No, an occasional vote for a correct result from Roberts or another member of “The Five” is not going to solve the problem of Constitutional, racial, and moral dereliction of duty by our highest Court.
Almost every day, “real” Article III Lower Courts “out” some aspect of the outrageously biased and unprofessional performance of EOIR and the rest of Trump’s immigration kakistocracy before the courts. Even some GOP and Trump appointed Article III Judges have “had enough” and don’t want their professional reputations and consciences sullied by association with the regime’s unlawful White Nationalist agenda.
Unfortunately, however, the Federal Courts generally have failed to follow through by sanctioning the often unethical and dishonest performance of the regime in court and by shutting down EOIR’s unconstitutional “kangaroo courts,” DHS’s equally unconstitutional “New American Gulag,” and the fraudulent operation of bogus “Safe Third County Agreements,” “Remain in Mexico,” and patiently disingenuous ridiculously overbroad COVID-19 “immigration bars” (which are actually thin cover for Stephen Miller’s preconceived White Nationalist nativist agenda). Moreover, lower Federal Court Judges who courageously stand up against the regime’s unconstitutional agenda and program of “dehumanization” are too often improperly undermined by the Supremes (sometimes without explanations or “short circuiting” the system), thereby “greenlighting” further “crimes against humanity” by an unscrupulous and unethical Executive.
We’re making a permanent record of both the “crimes against humanity” committed by the regime and those public officials, be they so-called “public servants,” feckless legislators, or life-tenured judges who have actively aided, abetted, been complicit, or “gone along to get along” with Trump’s countless lies and abuses. Later judicial “corrections” by a better Court or legislative “fixes” by a real Congress will not reclaim the lives of those shot on the streets by police, infected with COVID-19 in the Gulag, kidnapped and abused by gangs in Mexico while waiting for fake hearings, or “rocketed” back to persecution and torture in the Northern Triangle and elsewhere in violation of U.S. and international laws without any meaningful process at all. Nor will they wipe out the abuses by governments at all levels elected without the full participation of American citizens of color and in poverty whose votes were purposely suppressed or political authority diminished by corrupt GOP pols and their Supreme enablers.
As we can see by the long-overdue historical reckoning coming to Confederates and other racists who actively worked to undermine our Constitution, block equal justice for all, and dehumanize other humans in America, there will be an eventual historical reckoning here, and justice ultimately will be served, even if not in our lifetimes. That’s bad news for Roberts, his right-wing colleagues, and a host of others who have willfully enabled the worst, most abusive, and most clearly lawless presidency in U.S. History, as well as the most overtly racist regime since Woodrow Wilson.
PWS
07-03-20
From the WashPost:
https://apple.news/AJGOptsSWSUqO9DzDOLgXaA
U.S. judge rules ICE unlawfully jails unaccompanied migrant children once they turn 18
BY SPENCER S. HSU
JULY 2 AT 5:18 PM
A federal judge ruled Thursday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has unlawfully transferred thousands of unaccompanied children who turned 18 to adult detention facilities without considering alternatives, in violation of a 2013 law.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras of Washington, D.C., said he will order changes “in the near future” after a bench trial in a class-action lawsuit brought in March 2018 on behalf of immigrant teenagers by the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC).
Contreras found that ICE does not train field offices to search for or select less-restrictive options than contractor or ICE prisons and jails for minors aging out of refugee resettlement facilities, and in fact guides aofficers to act contrary to a law protecting trafficking victims.
As a result, the judge ruled, many officers choose not to review minors’ files, contact group homes or shelters, or respond to their attorneys suggesting alternatives. Many of ICE’s largest field offices “nearly automatically” send minors to adult jails, even when in extreme cases their parents in the United States or other sponsors would take them, the judge wrote.
“These are not the decisionmaking processes that Congress required” in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act or federal rulemaking law, Contreras wrote in a 180-page opinion. “By failing to make decisions in the way Congress dictated, and based on the factors Congress identified as relevant, ICE fails to fulfill its obligations under the statute.”
The Justice Department did not have a comment, spokeswoman Alexa Vance said.
In a statement by plaintiffs, pro bono lead counsel Steve Patton of Kirkland & Ellis said: “This is a great victory for thousands of current and future unaccompanied immigrant children who turned 18 in government custody. We could not be happier with the court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision.”
. . . .
****************
Read the rest of Spencer’s article at the link.
While a majority of the Supremes seem committed to willfully furthering a program of racist-motivated human rights violations by the Trump kakistocracy, lower Federal Courts appear to be disassociating themselves from the Illegal activities and racist agenda of a lawless regime.
PWS
O7-02-20
💀☠️⚰️🏴☠️
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1291891/download
July 2, 2020
EOIR Announces New Chief Immigration Judge
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Tracy Short as the Chief Immigration Judge of EOIR’s Office of the Chief Immigration Judge.
Biographical information follows:
Tracy Short, Chief Immigration Judge
Attorney General William Barr appointed Tracy Short as the Chief Immigration Judge in June 2020. Chief Judge Short received a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from Texas Christian University and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the Louisiana State University Law Center. Chief Judge Short began his legal career in 1995 as a judicial law clerk for Judge James M. Dozier, Jr., of the Third Judicial District Court of Louisiana. From 1997 to 1998, he served as a public defender, representing indigent criminal defendants in Louisiana state courts, while also practicing civil law. From 1998 to 1999, Chief Judge Short was an assistant attorney general for the Louisiana Department of Justice where he represented the State of Louisiana in civil litigation. From 1999 to 2000, he also served as a judicial law clerk for Justice Chet D. Traylor of the Louisiana Supreme Court. From 2000 to 2001, Chief Judge Short was a judicial law clerk for Judge Robert B. Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. From 2001 to 2003, Chief Judge Short litigated removal cases on behalf of the Department of Justice as trial attorney with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in Dallas. From 2003 to 2005, Chief Judge Short served as Assistant Chief Counsel in the Dallas office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). In 2005, he was appointed as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney (SAUSA) in the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the Northern District of Texas, where he handled complex civil litigation involving ICE. In 2007, Chief Judge Short was appointed as a SAUSA in the USAO for the Eastern District of Texas, where he litigated criminal cases. From 2007 to 2009, he served as the Acting Deputy Chief Counsel and Senior Attorney in OPLA’s Dallas office. As a Senior Attorney, he litigated significant and complex immigration cases and served as the lead attorney for matters involving customs law and criminal investigations. From 2009 to 2015, he served as Deputy Chief Counsel in OPLA’s Atlanta office, where he managed litigation operations and client services in a multi- state field office. From 2015 to 2017, Chief Judge Short served as Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border
Communications and Legislative Affairs DivisionPage 2
Security. From January 2017 to June 2020, he served as the ICE Principal Legal Advisor and, later, as a Senior Advisor to the ICE Acting Director. He is a member of the Louisiana State Bar Association and the State Bar of Texas.
— EOIR —
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all the cases it adjudicates.
************************
The final paragraph above is, of course, a sick joke.
I predict that we will hear more from the legal and the human rights communities about this latest abuse of authority by a corrupt White Nationalist regime committed to a program of crimes against humanity.
07-02-20
https://www.thenation.com/authors/felipe-de-la-hoz/
Just eight miles from the White House, the Trump administration has quietly opened a new front in its war against immigrants. Inside a 26-story office tower next to a Target in Falls Church, Virginia, the Board of Immigration Appeals has broken with any pretense of impartiality and appears to be working in lockstep with the administration to close the door on immigrants’ ability to remain in the country.
Created in 1940, when the immigration system was moved from the Department of Labor to the Justice Department, BIA serves as the appellate court within the immigration system, where both ICE prosecutors and noncitizen respondents can appeal decisions by individual immigration court judges around the country. It not only decides the fate of the migrants whose cases it reviews; if it chooses to publish a decision, it sets precedent for immigration courts across the country.
Under previous administrations, the BIA was ostensibly impartial and bipartisan, though mainly out of a long-standing tradition of promoting judicial objectivity. Since the entire immigration court system is contained in the Department of Justice—within an administrative agency known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—immigration judges, including those serving as board members on the BIA, are employees of the DOJ, and, by extension, are part of the executive branch. Unlike their counterparts in the federal judiciary, immigration judges are not independent.
TOP ARTICLES2/5READ MOREPence Masks Up While Trump Keeps Dog-Whistling
Since 2018, the Trump administration has exploited its powers over the BIA by expanding the board from 17 to 23 members to accommodate additional anti-immigrant hardliners. Justice Department memos obtained by the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) show that EOIR pushed shorter hiring timelines, which were used to bring on judges with more restrictionist records.
Now the court is stacked with members who have consistently ruled against immigrants, such as one judge who threatened to unleash a dog on a two-year-old boy during a hearing. Numbers obtained by a law firm through a Freedom of Information Request show that the six BIA judges appointed by Attorney General William Barr all had granted asylum in less than 10 percent of cases in fiscal year 2019. (One never granted asylum, despite hearing 40 cases.) An EOIR spokesperson told The Nation in an e-mail that“EOIR does not choose Board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics” and that “Board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.”
The most notable example of the administration’s preference for ultraconservative judges came in late May, when Barr appointed David H. Wetmore as BIA chairman. Wetmore, a former immigration adviser to the White House Domestic Policy Council, was around for some of the Trump administration’s most egregious policies, including the travel ban and family separation policy.
Although only two decisions have been issued since Wetmore was appointed chair, he seems set to pick up where his predecessor, former Acting Chair Garry G. Malphrus, left off. Malphrus, a George W. Bush holdover, became the face of the court’s lurch to curtail immigrants’ legal protections since Trump took office. He had the hawkish bona fides that made him an ideal chairman under the Trump DOJ: From 1997 to 2001, he served as chief counsel to one-time segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he was made associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council after his roleas a Brooks Brothers rioter during the 2000 Bush v. Gore recount in Florida—during which GOP operatives staged a protest that disrupted a recount and may have handed Bush the presidency.
Malphrus was made acting chair in 2019, and authored 24 of the 78 BIA precedential decisions issued under the current administration. Almost all of these precedential decisions have made it more difficult for immigrants to win their cases. The board made it harder for victims of terrorism to win asylum and raised the bar of evidence needed for several types of protections.
“It’s not a court anymore, it’s an enforcement mechanism,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, who was himself chair of the BIA between 1995 and 2001 and now writes a popular immigration blog called Immigration Courtside. “They’re taking predetermined policy and just disguising it as judicial opinions, when the results have all been predetermined and it has nothing to do or little to do with the merits of the cases.”
Consider this: In a case decided in January, the BIA was considering whether an immigration judge had erred in refusing to postpone a removal decision for a person awaiting a decision on a U visa application—a visa type reserved for victims of certain crimes or those cooperating with authorities investigating a crime—to be resolved. (ICE had recently changed their policies to make it easier to deport people in this situation.) The BIA sided with the judge, acknowledging that the crime victim was “eligible for a U visa” but was not entitled to wait to receive it, in part due to his “lack of diligence in pursuing” one. The decision signals that immigrants eligible for crime victim visas, and who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement, can still be ordered deported.
While federal courts hear public oral arguments and largely deliberate openly, the BIA typically uses a paper review method, which means they receive briefs from opposing parties and hand down a decision some time later with the whole intervening process shrouded in secrecy. “Unlike federal courts, where unpublished decisions are still accessible by the public, and so you can track what judges are saying in decisions that do not make precedent, the [BIA] only sporadically releases those decisions,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council.
. . . .
*****************************
Read the rest of Filipe’s article at the link.
Filipe’s final point in the article is one we should all keep in mind:
For hundreds of thousands of immigrants, it doesn’t matter if the anti-immigrant paper pushers in this obscure administrative body are tossed out and all of the policy is slowly reversed by another administration; for most, one shot is all they get. Whether a case was winnable before or even after the Trump BIA is irrelevant. The chance to stay in the United States will be lost forever.
The damage to our humanity and our national conscience inflicted by Trump’s White Nationalist regime, wrongfully enabled by complicit Supremes, and aided and abetted by a GOP Senate will not be “cured” by inevitable later “reforms,” be they next year under a better Administration or decades from now, as is happening with other racial justice issues. Undoubtedly, as eventually will be established, the current anti-immigrant and particularly the anti-asylum policies of the Trump regime are deeply rooted in racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. One need only look at the well-documented careers of “hate architects” like Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, and Jeff Sessions to see the intentional ignorance and ugliness at work here.
I frankly don’t see how we as a nation ever can come to grips with the racial tensions and demands for equal justice now tearing at our society without recognizing the unconscionable racism and immorality driving our current immigration and refugee policies and the failure and untenability of too many leaders in all three branches who have either helped promote racial injustice or have lacked the moral and intellectual courage consistently to stand up against it. They are the problem, and their departure or disempowerment, no matter how long it takes, will be necessary for us eventually to move forward as one nation.
PWS
06-30–20
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA8 on CIMT: Ortiz II (Obstruction)
“[In Ortiz I, this] Court determined that a conviction under Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.50, subdiv. 2(2) [obstruction of legal process, arrest, or firefighting] is not categorically a crime of violence—and, thus, not an aggravated felony—because the minimum amount of force required to sustain a conviction under that statute is less than the level of force required to constitute a crime of violence under Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010). Ortiz v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 932, 935-36 (8th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we granted Ortiz’s petition for review, vacated the order of removal, and remanded to the BIA to decide whether Ortiz’s prior conviction nonetheless subjected him to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) as a crime involving moral turpitude.
… Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the BIA remanded the case to the IJ to decide the issue. Ortiz again moved to terminate removal proceedings, arguing that a conviction for obstruction of legal process under Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.50, subdiv. 2(2) is not a crime involving moral turpitude. The IJ denied the motion, finding that Ortiz’s prior conviction was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because (1) the statute requires intentional conduct, and (2) using or threatening force or violence to obstruct legal process entails conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved and contrary to accepted rules of morality. Accordingly, the IJ sustained the charge of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and ordered Ortiz’s removal from the United States to Mexico on that basis. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, adding that the minimum conduct punishable by the statute falls within the definition of “moral turpitude” because it involves some aggravating level of force or violence in the context of interference with important and legitimate government functions. Ortiz again filed a timely petition for review.
… [W]e conclude that the BIA erred in finding that a conviction under Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.50, subdiv. 2(2) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. For the foregoing reasons, we hold a conviction under Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.50, subdiv. 2(2) is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). We, therefore, grant Ortiz’s petition for review and vacate the order of removal.”
[Attorney David L. Wilson writes: “This statement is particularly helpful and could go unnoticed. The court wrote, “Further, because subdivision 2(2) is a penalty provision, rather than a “statutory element[] that criminalize[s] otherwise innocent conduct,” the presumption in favor of a scienter requirement does not apply. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 72 (1994).” The government has been trying to invoke this argument for some time, and the Eighth just shut it down. A round of applause to Anne Carlson for the first round of the fight, and Brittany Bakken for bearing with me for the second round.”]
*********************
Bottom line: For more than five years over two Administrations on a number of charges, EOIR has been attempting to wrongfully deport this individual. This falls below the “minimum level of competence” that should be expected of an “expert tribunal” that is nothing other than a deportation factory with a fancy title. And, let’s remember that the 8th Circuit, out in the middle of “America’s Heartland,” is hardly the 9th Circuit, the 7th Circuit, or even the 4th Circuit, all of which have been much more openly critical of the BIA’s lousy performance.
The cost of “deportation at any cost” is too high for America! Whatever happened to due process, fundamental fairness, and impartial judging? Gone by the wayside! No wonder this unfair and dysfunctional system is running a largely self-inflicted backlog of more than 1.4 million known cases and “who knows how many” that are lost or otherwise “off-docket” in the EOIR morass of biased judging and gross mismanagement.
When will it end? How many will be wrongfully deported or die because one of American’s largest “court” systems (that isn’t’ a “court” at all) is allowed to continue to operate far below minimum levels of constitutionality and competence?
PWS
06-29-30