Immigration & Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) – Page 3

🤮 AMERICAN ASYLUM POLICY: GOP POLITICOS PANDER, ADMINISTRATION BUILDS WALLS, DEMS PREPARE TO THROW ASYLUM SEEKERS UNDER THE BUS (AGAIN) — What Happens To Those Waiting To Use “CBP One” At The Border? — They Get Raped & Extorted! — “It’s the saddest, most horrible thing that can happen to a person!”

""Rape of the Sabine Women" — “Rape of the Sabine Women”
Peter Paul Rubens
Circa 1635
Public Domain

From Reuters:

https://www.voanews.com/a/migrants-being-raped-at-mexico-border-as-they-await-entry-to-us-/7291239.html

REYNOSA, MEXICO —

When Carolina’s captors arrived at dawn to pull her out of the stash house in the Mexican border city of Reynosa in late May, she thought they were going to force her to call her family in Venezuela again to beg them to pay $2,000 ransom.

Instead, one of the men shoved her onto a broken-down bus parked outside and raped her, she told Reuters. “It’s the saddest, most horrible thing that can happen to a person,” Carolina said.

A migrant advocate who assisted Carolina after the kidnapping, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, confirmed all the details of her account.

The attack came amid an increase in sexual violence against migrants in the border cities of Reynosa and Matamoros, both major transit routes for immigrants seeking to enter the U.S., according to data from the Mexican government and humanitarian groups, as well as interviews with eight sexual assault survivors and more than a dozen local aid workers.

“The inhumane way smugglers abuse, extort, and perpetrate violence against migrants for profit is criminal and morally reprehensible,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Luis Miranda said in response to questions about the rise in reported rapes.

Criminal investigations into the rape of foreign nationals, excluding Americans, were the highest on record in the two cities this year, according to state data from 2014 to 2023 obtained by Reuters through freedom of information requests.

The U.S. State Department considers Tamaulipas, where the two cities are located, to be the most dangerous state along the U.S.-Mexico border.

. . . .

A Venezuelan migrant said he was kidnapped in May in Reynosa by a cartel while traveling to the border for his confirmed CBP One appointment. He couldn’t raise the full $800 ransom, so he was forced to work for two months to pay off the remaining $200, he said.

Two other migrants who said they were held at the house during the same time period confirmed the man was forced to work against his will, and that they heard female migrants being raped.

On the nights the Venezuelan man was tasked with standing guard over the other migrants, he said he watched the cartel members ask the man in charge of the house for permission to rape the women of their choosing.

He said the answer was always the same: “Take her.”

***************************

Read the full article at the link.

Walls, detention, eliminating the right to asylum aren’t going to solve this. But, solving it doesn’t seem to be the objective. Blaming the victims is a lot easier than treating them as human beings.

As my friend Debi Sanders (who alerted me to this report) said: “Terrifying!” Yup! 🤯🏴‍☠️

How disingenuous is the Biden Administration’s latest attempt to “get tough” at the border with more proven to fail deterrence? Well, just this week, DHS announced plans to deport more individuals to Venezuela. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-restarting-direct-deportations-venezuela-senior-official-2023-10-05/

Yet, just a few days earlier, in deciding to extend TPS to nearly a half million Venezuelans in the US, that same DHS found:

Overview

Venezuela continues to face a severe humanitarian emergency due to a political and economic crisis, as well as human rights violations and abuses and high levels of crime and violence, that impacts access to food, medicine, healthcare, water, electricity, and fuel, and has led to high levels of poverty. Additionally, Venezuela has recently experienced heavy rainfall in the spring and summer of 2023 which triggered flooding and landslides. Given the current conditions in Venezuela, these issues contribute to the country’s existing challenges.

Venezuela is experiencing “an unprecedented political, economic, and humanitarian crisis.” ^[5]“Venezuela is suffering one of the worst humanitarian crises in the history of the Western Hemisphere,” which has been characterized by “[h]igh levels of poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, and infant mortality, together with frequent electricity outages and the collapse of health infrastructure.” ^[6]Though there were some positive developments in Venezuela in 2022 “as the economy stabilized and showed signs of economic growth,” the effects of these changes were not felt across the Venezuelan population and did not offset the impact of the large-scale economic contraction which resulted in significant humanitarian challenges that continue today and will take time to address.^[7]

Political Repression and Human Rights

The Maduro regime has closed off channels for political dissent, restricting enjoyment of civil liberties and “prosecuting perceived opponents without regard for due process.” ^[8]The UN Human Rights Council’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (IIFFM) found in its September 2022 report, “Venezuela’s military and civilian intelligence agencies function as well-coordinated and effective structures in the implementation of a plan” to “repress dissent.” ^[9]

Crime and Insecurity

Venezuela has one of the highest rates of violent deaths in the world.^[10]Additionally, “Venezuelans face physical insecurity and violence from several sources, including irregular armed groups, security forces, and organized gangs.” ^[11]Corruption in Venezuela exacerbates insecurity. InSight Crime has reported that “criminal groups and corrupt state actors together form a hybrid state that combines governance with criminality, and where illegal armed groups act at the service of the state, while criminal networks form within it.” ^[12]Human trafficking remains a serious concern. Traffickers exploit and subject Venezuelans, including those fleeing the country, to egregious forms of exploitation, including sex trafficking and forced labor.^[13]Members of non-state armed groups that operate in the country with impunity, subject Venezuelans to forced labor and forced criminality, and recruit or use child soldiers.^[14]

Economic Collapse

Since 2014, Venezuela has suffered from an “economic recession marked by hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods and a collapse in public services such as electricity and water.” ^[15]Recently, Venezuela’s economy has shown some signs of recovery; however, it is still in a precarious condition.^[16]In a report covering the period from May 2022 through April 2023, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) noted that while economic growth which occurred in 2022 “would bring hope for improved economic prospects, persistent challenges and other factors continued to negatively affect essential public services, transport, education, and health.” ^[17]

In its annual report covering 2022, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) noted “the high rates of poverty and inequality in the country, in which there are estimates that more than 90% of the population lives in poverty.” ^[18]The same report stated that “as of March 2022, HumVenezuela estimated that 94.5% of the population would not have sufficient income to cover items such as food, housing, health, education, transportation and clothing.” ^[19]

Health Crisis

Various sources have referred to severe problems with health systems in Venezuela, including the IACHR, Human Rights Watch, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).^[20]Per The Associated Press, Venezuela’s “health care system crumbled long before” the start of the COVID–19 pandemic.^[21]Likewise, in its 2022 annual report, the IACHR acknowledged that while the COVID–19 pandemic “has had significant impacts on the health sector and the population, the serious affectations of the system preceded the health emergency.” ^[22]Elaborating on this topic, the IACHR identified “shortages of medicines, supplies, materials and medical treatment” as of 2018, and that the “situation has been worsening since 2014, and it is important to highlight that the health system has reportedly collapsed due to its persistent precariousness, which would have been exacerbated by the pandemic.” ^[23]

According to OHCHR, health centers in Venezuela “report structural underfunding and understaffing resulting in for example, regular blackouts and water shortages.” ^[24]In its report on the humanitarian situation in Venezuela in 2022, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) noted that “[h]ealth services continue to be affected by insufficient water and sanitation conditions and the lack of electricity supply in facilities.” ^[25]Similarly, Human Rights Watch stated in its annual report covering 2022 that “[p]ower and water outages at healthcare centers—and emigration of healthcare workers—were further weakening operational capacity.” ^[26]Furthermore, the IACHR has reported that “98% of the hospitals in the country lack medicines, electrical plants and water, as well as failures in laboratories, reagents and wards. As a result, it is estimated that only between 3 and 10% of the hospitals have medical and surgical material to solve medical circumstances.” ^[27]

Food Insecurity

In a humanitarian response plan published in 2023, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) identified food insecurity as “the most pressing challenge for the population.” ^[28]Human Rights Watch stated in its annual report covering 2022 that HumVenezuela reported in March 2022 that “most Venezuelans face difficulties in accessing food, with 10.9 million undernourished or chronically hungry. Some 4.3 million are deprived of food, sometimes going days without eating.” ^[29]Moreover, the IACHR noted in its 2022 annual report that “32% of children live in a situation of chronic malnutrition.” ^[30]

Heavy Rains and Flooding

Since May 26, 2023, as hurricane season began, Venezuela has experienced heavy rains which resulted in flooding that affected several areas of the country.^[31]According to ACAPS, “Between June and July there have been 19 tropical waves, that have brought heavy rains, floods and landslides across the country.” ^[32]As of July 11, 2023, the meteorological situation in Venezuela indicated “that rainfall and resulting damages are expected to be more severe than previous years.” ^[33]Reports of the damage caused by the heavy rains include 5,100 people affected with damage to houses and blockages in the drainage system in the state of Portuguesa.^[34]In another area—Delta Amacuro state—around 7,500 people are affected by the 2023 floods.^[35]

In summary, extraordinary and temporary conditions continue to prevent Venezuelan nationals from returning in safety due to a severe humanitarian emergency which has resulted in food insecurity and the inability to access adequate medicine, healthcare, water, electricity, and fuel. Additionally, human rights violations and abuses, high levels of poverty, high levels of crime and violence, and heavy rains and flooding prevent Venezuelan nationals from returning in safety and permitting Venezuelan noncitizens to remain in the United States temporarily would not be contrary to the interests of the United States.

Based on this review and after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that:

• The conditions supporting Venezuela’s designation for TPS continue to be met. See INA sec. 244(b)(3)(A) and (C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A) and (C).

• There continues to be extraordinary and temporary conditions in Venezuela that prevent Venezuelan nationals (or individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Venezuela) from returning to Venezuela in safety, and it is not contrary to the national interest of the United States to permit Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries to remain in the United States temporarily. See INA sec. 244(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C).

• The existing designation of Venezuela for TPS (Venezuela 2021) should be extended for an 18-month period, beginning on March 11, 2024 and ending on September 10, 2025. See INA sec. 244(b)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C).

• Due to the conditions described above, Venezuela should be redesignated for TPS beginning on October 3, 2023, and ending on April 2, 2025. See INA sec. 244(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2).

For the redesignation, the Secretary has determined that TPS applicants must demonstrate that they have continuously resided in the United States since July 31, 2023.

Initial TPS applicants under the redesignation must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States since October 3, 2023, the effective date of the redesignation of Venezuela for TPS.

There are approximately 243,000 current Venezuela TPS beneficiaries who are eligible to re-register for TPS under the extension.

It is estimated that approximately 472,000 additional individuals may be eligible for TPS under the redesignation of Venezuela. This population includes Venezuelan nationals in the United States in nonimmigrant status or without immigration status.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-10-03/pdf/2023-21865.pdf

Does this sound like a country that will “ensure orderly, safe and legal repatriation?” Duh!

As for the DHS attempt to “blame the victims” for not taking advantage of legal opportunities, the legal right to apply for asylum in the U.S. attaches at the border to ANYONE “who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status.” INA, section 208.

With huge backlogs at both the Asylum Office and EOIR, and some problematic adjudicators, judges, administrators, and poor precedents, just how could hundreds of thousands of legal removals take place without huge systemic changes that to date the Administration has failed to make at either DHS or EOIR? Sounds like a prescription for massive legal and human rights violations!☠️

Yes, we’re going to hear chants of “we can’t take them all” from all sides. But, the truth that few acknowledge is that we haven’t and won’t be “taking them all” — not by a long shot! Of the more than 7 million who have fled the Maduro regime in Venezuela, only approximately 10% (about 750,000) have come to the U.S.! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66875264. The vast, vast majority — approximately 90% — have taken refuge elsewhere in Latin American, in poorer countries far less able than the U.S. to absorb them! But, hey, when does truth and reality ever enter into the U.S. political debate on immigration?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-05-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑‍⚖️👨🏾‍⚖️ ATTENTION NDPA: BETTER COURTS MEAN A BETTER AMERICA, FROM THE “RETAIL LEVEL” TO THE SUPREMES! — The Future Immigration Courts Are Being Formed Today — We Need NDPA All-Stars 🌟 On The Bench! — You Can’t Be Selected If You Don’t Apply (My History Notwithstanding)!

I want you — Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it!
Public Domain

EOIR is looking for “many judges in many locations:”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/many-immigration-judge-positions-open

https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/immigration-judge-26

**************************

Some folks who should be applying for these jobs tell me they “couldn’t work with such an unfair law.” I say “poppycock.” To a large extent, the law and the unfair results are only as bad as EOIR judges choose make them.

But, it doesn’t have to be that way! For example, you can choose to:

Apply Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, and other precedents favorable to applicants fairly and robustly;
Honestly apply the presumption of future persecution set forth in 8 CFR 208.13 and actually put the burden on DHS to rebut it with evidence, not mere conjecture;
Carefully consider the possibility of a discretionary grant of asylum under the regulations (“so-called Chen grant”), even where the government rebuts the presumption of a well-founded fear;
Make realistic, practical, proper credibility determinations based on “the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors;”
Require only “reasonably available” corroborating evidence;
Actually follow the legal principle that credible testimony, in an of itself, can be enough to grant relief;
Apply the “reasonableness of internal relocation” regulation set forth at 8 CFR 208.13(b)(3) honestly;
Fairly apply the properly generous interpretation of the “well founded fear” standard required by the Supremes in Cardoza and described by the BIA in Mogharrabi to cases where there is no past persecution;
Incorporate the latest scholarship on “country conditions,” rather than “cherry picking” DOS Country Reports looking for ways to deny;
Use the latest body of scholarship on “best interests of the child” in deciding cancellation of removal for non-LPRs;
Schedule cases in a reasonable manner, in consultation with both counsel, to eliminate endemic “aimless docket reshuffling;”
Take measures to promote and facilitate representation of individuals, rather than throwing up roadblocks;
Make ICE counsel do their jobs, rather than doing it for them, particularly in cases where ICE unilaterally declines to appear at the merits hearing;
Use all of your practical skills and knowledge of the law and practice to solve problems and promote efficiency;
Consider all interpretations available to you, not just “defaulting” to the one offered by ICE;
Make careful, analytical, findings of fact, rather than just glossing over facts favorable to the individuals and over-emphasizing or fabricating the facts most favorable to DHS;
Make your “courtroom a classroom” where exceptional scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, teamwork, practical solutions to human problems, and best practices are promoted and institutionalized.

You might well find, like I did, that being guided by Cardoza and Mogharrabi, sticking to your guns, providing full due process, and faithfully following the law actually leads to grants of relief in the majority of individual hearings. Notably, ICE seldom appealed my grants, and I was rarely reversed by the BIA, no matter who appealed.

I actually did better with my former BIA colleagues as an IJ than I had during my eight years of service on the Board. Indeed, as I sometimes quipped, as an IJ, I finally got that which my colleagues often denied me during my tenure as BIA Chair and an Appellate Judge/BIA Member: deference!

Worried about “life after EOIR!” Yes, there is such a thing!

And, a quick survey of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members 🛡⚔️ would show everything from partners and of counsel in law firms, professors and educators, major NGO supervisors and attorneys, community activists, consultants and coaches, to those, like me, who claim to be “fully retired and just enjoying life.” The Round Table actually has great credibility with the Federal Courts and the media because, unlike sitting judges and their “handlers,” we can actually speak truth to power outside the courtroom!

Whether you serve for a year or the rest of your career, what you learn as an EOIR judge if you pay attention, will give you a “leg up” and otherwise unobtainable practical knowledge of how America’s most important, yet least understood, court system actually works (or not)!

Every week, almost every day in fact, we see in Federal Court reversals and remands to EOIR and reports from practitioners about unpublished successes the fundamental difference that great litigation and equally “great judging” can make in reaching correct results! Making it happen every day, in every court, at the “retail level,” rather than counting on the uncertainties and limitations of Circuit review, will save lives and change the delivery of justice throughout America!

NDPAers, the “EOIR train” is leaving the station. 🚅 As a nation, we can’t afford the “best and the brightest” of today’s legal profession not to be on board! So, get those “many applications” in for those “many jobs” and let’s see if we can fix this “life or death system” from both the inside and the outside! We won’t know if we don’t try!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-27-23

☠️🤯 CAL. PRISONS ILLEGALLY REFERRING U.S. CITIZENS FOR REMOVAL, REPORTS ACLU, LA TIMES!

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA times:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-08-29/californa-prisons-ice-records-us-citizens

WASHINGTON — On Aug. 18, 2022, a records department employee at the California Correctional Center emailed federal immigration authorities a list of people they believed could be subject to deportation. The list noted that most of those named were born outside the U.S. or had an unknown birthplace. But 12 people were listed as having been born in this country.

That email was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and shared with The Times. The advocacy group says California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff routinely assume people in their custody are deportable immigrants — even when their own records indicate they are U.S. citizens or immigrants who should not be deported — and report those individuals to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while denying them rehabilitation opportunities.

The records stem from a public records request filed last year by the ACLU NorCal, which sought communications between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or CDCR, and ICE. The ACLU and other advocacy groups said they analyzed about 2,500 uniquerecords from August and September 2022, during which the agency transferred more than 200 people from CDCR facilities to immigration custody.

The groups detailed the results in a report to be published Tuesday that they say describes the practices employed by the CDCR in cooperation with ICE and provides examples of alleged actions by department staff that are discriminatory, including against immigrants.

“In their zeal to collude with ICE, CDCR is not only targeting people who have served their time and are set to return home for detention and deportation but is also sweeping up U.S. citizens and Green Card holders, relying on racist assumptions and ignoring their own records,” the report states.

. . . .

************************

Read the rest of Andrea’s report at the link.

Totally outrageous!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-30-23

☠️🤮🏴‍☠️ “NO EXCUSE,” SAYS NDPA MAVEN DEBI SANDERS AS NPR REPORTS THAT BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PLAYED “HIDE THE BALL” ON HORRIFIC CONDITIONS IN THEIR “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” (“NAG”)! — Tom Dreisbach Reports For NPR On Yet Another Grotesque Failure By Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, & Prelogar To Do Their Jobs!

Inside the Gulag
The legacy of Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, Prelogar and others will be truly ugly for the abuses in the “New American Gulag” that Mayorkas continues to operate while DOJ aids cover up and inexcusably defends grotesque human rights abuses! What happened to the concept of integrity and ethics at DOJ?

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/16/1190767610/ice-detention-immigration-government-inspectors-barbaric-negligent-conditions

In Michigan, a man in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was sent into a jail’s general population unit with an open wound from surgery, no bandages and no follow-up medical appointment scheduled, even though he still had surgical drains in place.

A federal inspector found: “The detainee never received even the most basic care for his wound.”

In Georgia, a nurse ignored an ICE detainee who urgently asked for an inhaler to treat his asthma. Even though he was never examined by the medical staff, the nurse put a note in the medical record that “he was seen in sick call.”

“The documentation by the nurse bordered on falsification and the failure to see a patient urgently requesting medical attention regarding treatment with an inhaler was negligent.”

And in Pennsylvania, a group of correctional officers strapped a mentally ill male ICE detainee into a restraint chair and gave the lone female officer a pair of scissors to cut off his clothes for a strip search.

“There is no justifiable correctional reason that required the detainee who had a mental health condition to have his clothes cut off by a female officer while he was compliant in a restraint chair. This is a barbaric practice and clearly violates … basic principles of humanity.”

. . . .

*******************************************

Many thanks to my friend Debi Sanders for sending this my way with her succinct, “says it all,” two-word comment! Read and listen to the full report at the link.

Yet one more example of the failed Attorney Generalship of Merrick Garland! Where is the integrity, decency, and adherence to the rule of law that we were promised from a former Federal Judge and Supreme Court nominee?

Sure, the inhumanity flourished under the Trump regime! But, the last election was about a change and improvement, particularly in immigration. Garland’s performance on immigration, human rights, and racial justice should be a totally unacceptable to Dems!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-17-23

🤯 MAYORKAS & GARLAND ARE WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY DETAINING INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE WON THEIR PROTECTION CASES IN VIRGINIA — CAIR, NIP/NLG, & ACLU Are Suing to Stop This Abuse!

Michelle N. Mendez of NIP/NLG reports:

Today, National Immigration Project alongside our partners at CAIR Coalition and the ACLU of Virginia sued Immigration & Customs Enforcement for refusing to release people detained in Virginia who already won their immigration cases. Read the press release below.

ICE is unlawfully detaining non-citizens who already won their immigration cases nipnlg.org • 5 min read

The Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition, the Natio

***********************************

So, how is this type of legal and human abuse acceptable from a Dem Administration that promised good government and to do better than the Trumpsters?

Just to be clear, the chances of a third country volunteering to take a non-national granted CAT relief are very slim. I don’t remember it happening on any case on my docket during my time on the bench in Arlington. Also, were that to happen, the DHS would be obligated to give the respondent an opportunity to seek CAT to that third country, likely a lengthy process.

So, detention in this circumstance doesn’t make sense from a practical, legal, or fiscal standpoint!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-06-23

⚖️🤯 UNJUSTIFIED! — Federal Judge Charges USG $22,601 For DHS’s Scofflaw Actions & DOJ’s Mindless “Defense Of The Indefensible” In Colorado Detention Case! — Wanton Cruelty & Stubborn Stupidity Cost In More Ways Than One!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexusNexus Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/habeas-eaja-fee-victory-in-colorado-viruel-arias-v-choate

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.217942/gov.uscourts.cod.217942.16.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.217942/gov.uscourts.cod.217942.28.0.pdf

Michael Karlik, Colorado Politics, Aug. 2, 2023

“A federal judge has determined the government was unjustified in its fight to keep a woman locked up in an Aurora immigrant detention center while her deportation case proceeded. U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney ordered the federal government last September to hold a hearing to determine whether Brenda Viruel Arias should be released from custody. Sweeney found the circumstances of Viruel Arias’ 14-month confinement required a bond hearing to avoid infringing on her constitutional right to due process. Shortly afterward, an immigration judge permitted Viruel Arias’ release after the government failed to prove she should remain behind bars. Viruel Arias’ lawyers then requested $22,601 in attorney fees from the government. Under federal law, victorious parties in civil cases against the government may receive attorney fees if, among other things, the government’s position was not “substantially justified.” On July 12, Sweeny agreed the government was not substantially justified in resisting a release hearing for Viruel Arias. In recent years, she observed, federal judges in Colorado have been sympathetic to non-citizens’ claims of unconstitutional confinement where the detention has exceeded one year. The government, as a party those cases, was aware of the judiciary’s attitude toward prolonged detention. “(T)hey do not justify why they did not follow a clear legal trend,” Sweeney wrote.”

[Hats off to Conor Gleason and Laura Lunn!]

Connor Gleason, Esquire
Senior Staff Attorney, Detention Program
Rocky Mountain Imm

Laura Lunn, Esquire
Director of Advocacy & Litigation
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”)
PHOTO: RMIAN

************************

RMIAN is “on a roll” these days. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=34101&action=edit.

Garland’s DOJ, “not so much.”

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Sweeney’s decision: “At bottom, Respondents were not substantially justified in their pre-litigation and litigation practices because they disregarded a clear legal trend in the District and their own agency policies in the underlying action.”

Similar to the Trump Administration, the Biden Administration is wasting taxpayer money on cruel, unnecessary, expensive, illegal detention, and then squandering even more money on the arguably frivolous, and clearly mindless, defense thereof! Somebody should be asking Garland why?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-05-23

⚖️☠️ BLOWING THE BASICS! — IJ Misapplies “Under Color Of Law Doctrine” In CAT Case; BIA Affirms; 10th Circuit Reverses, Blowing Away Garland DOJ’s BS “No Jurisdiction” Argument In The Process — “[The IJ’s] interpretation defies logic and the law.” — We Deserve Much Better From Dem AG!

Laura Lunn, Esquire
Director of Advocacy & Litigation
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”)
PHOTO: RMIAN

Colorado AILA reports:

From: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io> on behalf of Aaron Hall via groups.io <aaron=immigrationissues.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:29 PM
To: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io>
Subject: [ColoradoAILA] Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland

A HUGE congratulations to RMIAN and Laura Lunn on today’s 10^th Circuit win in Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland. I was lucky enough to be in the court at oral argument to watch Laura expertly navigate tough questions from a difficult panel and today the published decision came out holding (1) that the PFR filed within 30 days of the BIA order affirming the IJ denial of relief in withholding-only proceedings is timely filed and (2) that the IJ and BIA “defied logic and law” in misapplying the under-color-of-law element of the CAT claim, requiring remand.

Incredible work to Laura and all others involved!

Please note that you can contact your attorney and paralegal at their direct phone lines. For all future phone communications, please contact us directly instead of using the main phone number. Our direct phone lines are listed at the bottom of our emails, located in our signature blocks.

Aaron C. Hall

Senior Partner

Pronouns: he/him/his

12203 East Second Avenue

Aurora, CO 80011

Direct: 303.962.6630

www.immigrationissues.com

***************************

Folks, the IJ’s “reasoning to denial” in this case was beyond totally absurd! It’s an example of the type of judicial misconduct and incompetence that still flourishes in parts of Garland’s “any reason to deny” dysfunctional EOIR!

Russian Roulette — AG Merrick Garland thinks it’s fine to play “roulette” with human lives in his arbitrary, capricious, and dysfunctional EOIR. Those trying to help his victims obtain justice disagree! Is this REALLY the way things ran when Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? If not, why is it “good enough for Immigration Court?”
IMAGE: tvtropes

After more than two years of the Biden Administration under Garland, we still have not seen the type of systemic, merit-based “house cleaning” of biased and incompetent judges and the replacement of deadwood (and worse) at the totally unjust and dysfunctional EOIR that could and should have been a “day one priority” for Garland’s DOJ.

There is simply no excuse for this type of disingenuous, life-threatening performance by both EOIR and OIL under Garland’s deficient leadership! There are literally thousands of qualified experts out here who could have done a better job than the IJ and the BIA in this case!

It’s Garland’s job to get better judges on the EOIR bench — judges who will be fair, impartial, due-process focused, and experts in all facets of immigration and human rights laws! His failure to do his job is undermining our justice system and endangering human lives! How is this “OK?”

In the “real world,” folks who “can’t do their jobs” find themselves “out of a job!” Why is Garland’s DOJ an “exception,” with lives and the future of American justice on the line? Isn’t it past time to “just say no” to continuing to treat the ongoing national disgrace at EOIR as “just an afterthought” in the elitist, disconnected world of Garland’s DOJ, where the human lives being destroyed by DOJ’s failures are treated as “somebody else’s problem?”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-23

⚖️🤯 BIA SEEKS AMICUS INPUT ON HOW THEY CAN HELP DHS “REMEDY” ITS OWN MISTAKES!

Former AG Jeff Sessions openly despised immigrants and their attorneys and encouraged “his judges” at EOIR to help out their “partners at DHS Enforcement.” That attitude lives on even under AG Merrick Garland!
This caricature of Jeff Sessions was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Gage Skidmore’s Flickr’s photostream.
DonkeyHotey
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1592111/download

Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08

AMICUS INVITATION (NOTICE TO APPEAR) DUE August 31, 2023

AUGUST 1, 2023

The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue(s):

ISSUE(S) PRESENTED:

Pursuant to Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022):

1. Should an Immigration Judge allow DHS to remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear?

2. To remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear, is either (1) issuing an I-261, or (2) amending the Notice to Appear, permitted by the regulations, and would either comport with the single document requirement emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)? If not, how can a non-compliant Notice to Appear be remedied?

Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a written request labeled “REQUEST TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE” pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix A (Directory), and Appendix E (Cover Pages) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.

Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider an amicus brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.

Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case, including the parties’ contact information, may be available. Please contact the Clerk’s Office at the below address for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.

Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 25 double-spaced pages.

Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by August 31, 2023. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief may not be entertained. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.

Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.

Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae) and Chapter 4.6(i) (Amicus Curiae Briefs) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.

Notice: A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae may only be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(d). A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.

Attribution: Where more than three attorneys or representatives sign an amicus brief or filing, the Board will name only the first three individuals in the published case. If you wish a different set of three names or have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.

Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:

To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:

Amicus Clerk

Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041

Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.

*****************************

Seems like the obvious “remedy” would be to require that DHS issue a new compliant NTA!

Respondents don’t get to “remedy” all mistakes, even inadvertent ones! Why should the USG be allowed to weasel its way out of a situation they intentionally created in a misguided effort (aided and abetted by EOIR “management”) to cut corners and generate statistics to please their political masters?

Ever since the “Ashcroft purge,” the BIA has functioned less and less as an independent quasi adjudicative body and more and more as an apologist for, enabler, or justifier of each Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda! In other words, the BIA’s role has become largely to slap a “quasi-judicial veneer” on DHS enforcement policies and priorities so that OIL can argue Chevron deference or even “Brand X” in the Article IIIs!

Of course, using EOIR as a “deterrent” and “enforcer” over the past two decades has been a spectacular failure! It has led to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on Steroids,” absurdly insurmountable backlogs, and frequent rebukes from the Article IIIs.

Indeed, having helped create and magnify exponentially the mess at EOIR, many of the Trump and Biden Administration’s “gimmicks” appear aimed at avoiding or sidestepping the EOIR process altogether.

It’s the height of disingenuousness! At the urging of the White House, DOJ and DHS “break” the fair hearing system at EOIR. They then use their own misconduct and mismanagement as an excuse to deny asylum seekers and others access to the fair and impartial adjudication system to which they are legally entitled!

And, while the Article IIIs, even the Supremes, have “called out” EOIR on frequent, particularized errors, they have been happy to sweep the obvious “big problem” under the rug in a monumental exercise of “judicial task avoidance!”

That problem is that as currently operated, the EOIR system is a clear violation of the Constitutional principle that individuals facing removal, an often irreparable, even deadly, loss, are entitled to a reasonable decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). While justice is served in some EOIR decisions, the systemic failures push in the exact opposite direction.

Without the necessary systemic safeguards in place, life and death decisions are largely an arbitrary and capricious “crap shoot” where wildly inconsistent results on the same or similar facts too often depend on the attitude of the judge, the whimsical decisions by “management” on whether to interfere in decision-making, and the location and circumstances of the hearing.

This is NOT the way to run a legitimate court system in compliance with due process and fundamental fairness!

For now, advocates should continue to vocalize their strong opposition to “how can we help our partners at DHS Enforcement” adjudication passing for justice at EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-02-23

🤯 INCREDIBLE! — 2d Cir. Schools EOIR On Adverse Credibility — Chen v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/58f9e14a-e986-4263-9590-1f525ff8d4f9/2/doc/19-715_opn.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-credibility-chen-v-garland

“Zhi Bo Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and ordered him removed from the United States. The IJ’s decision was based, in part, on its finding that Chen was not credible. Because certain reasons for that credibility finding were erroneous, and because we cannot be confident that the IJ would have made the same determination absent those errors, Chen’s petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Gary Yerman!]

Gary Yerman, Esquire
Managing Partner
The Yerman Group
NY, NY

*****************************

My favorite quote from the Circuit’s decision by Judge Raymond J. Lohier (Obama appointee): “We conclude that the IJ misidentified part of Chen’s testimony as inconsistent, improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, and misconstrued as an omission a part of Chen’s testimony that comported with his Form I-589 asylum statement.”

But, even with all these glaring defects, the IJ’s findings were affirmed by the BIA without much, if any, critical analysis. What does this say about EOIR under AG Garland?

Credibility should be “bread and butter” for EOIR Judges and particularly the BIA. But, when the “culture” is “any reason to deny,” bad things happen!

As my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffery” Chase commented: “You have to wonder what percentage of all BIA decisions contain significant errors.”

I think that’s a particular concern in unrepresented cases, which are much less likely to reach the Circuits. Additionally, the unduly restrictive legal standard for judicial review means that marginal BIA adverse credibility findings will often get “rubber stamp” affirmances from the Circuits.

Essentially, EOIR often denies the respondent “the benefit of the doubt” in close credibility cases and then the Courts of Appeals give the BIA “the benefit of the doubt.” So, it ends up being a “double whammy” for the respondent!

That’s why it is critical to have individuals effectively represented at the trial level! At each level thereafter, the law skews heavily in favor of the Government!

That also supports the position that “dedicated dockets” and “expedited dockets” that discourage and impede (one could argue intentionally) effective representation and full presentation of all the evidence should be held to be prima facie denials of due process!

It’s also why I argue that it’s so important that exceptionally well qualified experts with experience representing asylum seekers be appointed to these hugely important (yet widely ignored and under-appreciated) EOIR judgeships! Better judges would make the entire EOIR system fairer and more efficient, without sacrificing due process!

That’s also why appellate victories like this by Attorney Gary Yerman are so impressive and telling about the continuing dysfunction at EOIR!

Additionally, given the “loading of the system” against the respondent on credibility, the BIA has to REALLY screw up to get reversed, as they did in this case! That, in turn, raises a fundamental unresolved issue: Why is a Dem Administration running a specialized court system that all too often lacks the expertise and judgement to get “bread and butter” issues like this correct in the first instance?

It’s obvious that a BIA that goofs up cases like this is NOT providing the type of clear, expert guidance to IJs necessary to achieve due process and fundamental fairness on a continuing systemic basis! That should be of huge concern to everyone who values justice in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-01-23

🤯🏴‍☠️ BIA BLUNDERS BUILD BACKLOG! — 4th Cir. (2-1) & 2d Cir. Continue To Call Out BIA’s Lawless, Anti-Immigrant Behavior In Dem Administration! — PLUS, BONUS COVERAGE — Commentary From Michelle Mendez & Me!😎

“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Public Realm

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221463.P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-psg-political-opinion-and-cat-santos-garcia-v-garland

“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”

[Hats way off to pro bono publico counsel Jessica L. Wagner!]

Jessica Wagner
Associate
Gibson Dunn
D.C. Office
PHOTO: Gibson Dunn

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

******************************

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/05b1e9ea-e5da-493a-8b94-45bc8e3d4757/3/doc/21-6043_opn.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-iac-prejudice-hardship-continuance-paucar-v-garland

“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Prof. Lindsay Nash and Paige Austin!]

Lindsay Nash
Associate Professor of Law
Co-Director, Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic
Cardozo Law
PHOTO: Cardozo Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

****************

In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!

Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4^thCircuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.

Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!

Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.

Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.

Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases? Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”

In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.

So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4^th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.

What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!

Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7

Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong! Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!

My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.

Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:

“In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”

“Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”

“We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”

There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.

Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!

For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!

In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.

Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.

Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing. Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!

Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?

This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better! American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!

Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes!

Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-24

🤯COURTING FAILURE: GOP HAS “LEVERAGED” COURT CONTROL TO ENACT UNPOPULAR FAR-RIGHT ANTI-DEMOCRACY AGENDA BY FIAT — MEANWHILE, DEMS WON’T BRING PROGRESSIVE PRO-EQUAL-JUSTICE CHANGE TO COURTS THEY “OWN!”☹️ — The GOP Plays Hard Ball ⚾️, While Garland & Dems Play Whiffleball @ EOIR!🤮

Whiffle Ball — When it comes to playing “judicial hardball” with the GOP, Garland and the Dems are ill-equipped!
Creative Commons 3.0

Stephen Collinson writes at CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/conservatives-remake-america-courts

. . . .

In recent years, the [GOP’s] blind loyalty to Trump’s radicalism – especially his election lies – has caused it to even challenge the structure of democracy. A sense of national crisis and imminent political extinction, for example, ran through Trump’s rhetoric in the aftermath of the 2020 election, prompting some of his followers to use violence as a way of settling their political grievances on January 6, 2021.

Conservative Supreme Court decisions over the last two years have been especially hard for liberals to accept because they believe that the current majority is ill gotten.

The right’s dominance of the court happened in large part because then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even grant a confirmation hearing to Obama’s final pick for the top bench, Merrick Garland, who now serves as attorney general in the Biden administration. This allowed Trump to name Justice Neil Gorsuch as his first Supreme Court nominee in 2017. But McConnell later turned his back on his own questionable principle that Supreme Court nominees should not be elevated in an election year by rushing through the confirmation of Trump’s final pick, Amy Coney Barrett, in 2020 – which enshrined the current 6-3 conservative majority.

The move not only confirmed Trump’s status as a consequential president whose influence will be felt decades after he left office. It cemented McConnell among the ranks of the most significant Republican Party figures in decades and ensured conservative policies will endure even under Democratic presidencies and congressional majorities.

Recent revelations about questionable ethics practices by some of the conservative justices have further fueled fury about the legitimacy of the court among liberals.

But not all of the court’s recent decisions have infuriated the White House and Democrats. Earlier this week, for instance, liberals were hugely relieved when the court rejected a long-dormant legal theory that held that state courts and other state entities have a limited role in reviewing election rules established by state legislatures when it comes to federal elections. The so-called Independent State Legislature Theory, a favorite of the Trump campaign, had led to fears that Republican state legislatures in some states could simply decide how to allocate electoral votes regardless of results.

Still, the broad trajectory of the court – on issues including gun control, race, business, regulation, climate and many other issues – is firmly to the right.

*****************

It’s no coincidence that the Trumpist far-right assault on democracy began during the 2016 campaign with unprovoked attacks on Mexican migrants and bogus claims about the border and immigration. It was skillfully, if corruptly, followed up with weaponization of the immigration bureaucracy and packing of the Immigration Courts by the likes of Miller, Sessions, Barr, and Cooch.

We have seen the GOP’s assault and dehumanization of migrants carry over into attacks on a wide range of disadvantaged groups in American society including African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and many others.

Although the Supremes have held that every “person” in the United States is entitled to due process under law, that concept is ludicrous as applied to the U.S. Immigration Courts, where anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, pro-DHS bias still drives much of the decision making, prosecutors appoint the judges and write the rules, the Government can change results that don’t match its political agenda, and individuals are on trial for their lives without a right to appointed counsel or many times even the ability to fully understand the proceedings against them. Predictably, the overwhelming number of individuals stuck in this abusive system are persons of color, many women and children!

This is “colorblind” American justice? Gimmie a break!

Although Dems acknowledged many of these outrageous defects in the Immigration Courts while campaigning for votes in 2020, once in power, they have shown little inclination to correct this unacceptable situation that undermines our democracy.

In particular, given a chance to reform the Immigration Courts, re-compete on a merit basis judicial positions filled under questionable procedures (at best) during the Trump Administration, bring in competent judicial administrators laser-focused on due process and best practices, and remake the Immigration Courts into a bastion of great progressive judging — driven by due process and equal protection, Garland and the Dems have whiffed. In that way they have largely followed the Obama Administration’s failure to take seriously due process for persons who happen to be in Immigration Court.

The failure of Dems to take immigrant justice seriously, and their inexcusable blown opportunity to reshape the Immigration Courts into a training and proving ground for the best and most qualified candidates for Article III judgeships ties directly into the anti-democracy shift in the Article IIIs and the GOP’s ability to carry out its right-wing agenda through a Supremes majority highly unrepresentative of Americans and our values.

An informed observer might well wonder “If the Dems are unwilling and unable to reform and improve the Federal Courts they do control — and apparently are ashamed of the progressive values they espouse — how will they ever counter the right’s anti-democracy agenda?”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-02-23

☠️⚰️ DETENTION KILLS: R. Andrew Free Seeks YOUR Help, NDPA, To End The “DHS Detention Death Tax!”

Border Death — Sometimes, even “Detention Until Death” (“DUD”) is insufficient “punishment” for the USG to inflict on those whose “crime” is to assert their legal rights under U.S. law. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border.
Tomas Castelazo
In order to comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

https://action.mijente.net/petitions/end-the-detention-death-tax?source=rawlink&utm_medium=social&utm_source=actionrawlink&share=54194d63-6e64-4a5f-bb38-3b448745f7f3

Join Andrew F. in signing this petition.

TO: SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS

END THE DETENTION DEATH TAX

End the Detention Death Tax – a draconian policy that fails to make funds available to the families of people who die in ICE custody for the return and transportation of their loved ones’ remains.

We urge ICE to alter its Detainee Death policies so that Field Office Directors and the Director’s Office have discretion to authorize payment for the prompt return and transport of the remains of people who die in ICE custody.

It is, quite literally, the very least ICE could do when it fails to keep humans alive.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) currently has no defined limit on the amount of money it will spend to cage the body of a person in removal proceedings.

When one of ICE’s deadly cages claim the life from that body, the limit ICE will spend to return them to their loved ones is $0.

This Death Tax presents grieving family members with a bill alongside the devastating news that their loved one is gone forever. Forcing families to pay for the retrieval and transportation of loved ones is cruel, inhumane, and unnecessary.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-30-23

⚖️😎 THE BLUM REPORT: Roberto Covers A “212(c) Redux” In Houston, Highlighting Garland’s Disturbing Failure to “Harvest The Low Hanging Fruit” 🍒 @ EOIR!

Roberto Blum, Esquire, reports from Houston:

Hello Judge, it has been a while since I reported from Houston. Although I have not reported, I have kept reading (and learning from) your writings. So it was a pleasant surprise when I recently came across some BIA decisions and saw your name written on them.

They are Matter of Arreguin, 21 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 1995) and Matter of Fuentes-Campos, 21 I&N Dec. 905 (BIA 1997).

You see, I was preparing for a individual hearing on the merits, where the client, a 65-year old Mexican national, who has lived in the U.S. since about 1979, and was admitted as a Legal Permanent Resident in 1991, was found to be deportable under INA section 237(a)(2)(b)(i) due to a controlled substance conviction from 1994. His relief: Section 212(c).

The saga started in early January 2012, when he was encountered by ICE, was detained, and placed into removal proceedings. The firm I work for began to represent him at that point. While waiting for his detained merits date, the client suffered a medical condition and was not expected to survive, so ICE released him to family members, essentially so he wouldn’t die in their custody. However, he did not die, he survived, and made a full recovery.

Fast forward to today. Ever since his release, his case got stuck in the “aimless docket reshuffling” that you so often write about. It was not until today, June 28, 2023, that he finally got his day in court for an immigration judge (IJ) to consider his case.

Not knowing whether the assigned IJ or DHS trial attorney (TA) would have any experience with Section 212(c) because this is an old type of relief that is not very common anymore and also due to the hostility often encountered at Houston EOIR, I prepared for the worst case scenario, and feared that the client might not get a fair shake.

Fortunately on the day of trial, I saw an experienced TA was representing the government. Before the IJ went on the record the TA and I discussed the case, and the TA told me that he did not have any issues with the case. I asked if he would stipulate to a grant of relief and he said yes, but warned the IJ might still want to take testimony. The IJ came on the record shortly thereafter, and asked if we had any agreements, at which point I told the IJ that we had an agreement for stipulation to a grant of relief because the evidence submitted was sufficient to carry our burden. The TA confirmed our agreement, and the IJ responded that she had reviewed the record, and also agreed that the client was eligible and deserving of relief because of his long-time physical presence, the conviction was very old, and the client had not had any recent criminal history.

In less than 5 minutes, this case that had been pending over 11 years and 5 months (or about 4,184 days), was resolved by agreement of all parties! The client was stunned and did not even know what happened. He did not expect it to be this fast after waiting so long. The client confided in me that his mother passed away a few days ago in Mexico, and he had been very worried because all of his witnesses (family members) went to Mexico to attend the funeral and were not available to testify on his behalf. I remembered something my grandmother would tell me as a child, that when a close loved one dies, they go to heaven and become your guardian angel, so I thought… just maybe… his mother had been his guardian angel today and whispered in the TA and IJ’s ear before the hearing.

In all seriousness, I ask myself (as this is not the only case I have had that has been pending for over 10 years, only to be resolved by stipulation at the final hearing in less than 5 minutes) how much $$$ is the government spending to fight a case like this for more than a decade–only for it to be resolved in 5 minutes of discussion. (Of course if it had not been resolved favorably, we would have continued litigating the case and appealed to the BIA, something that under current wait times would last another 3 or more years and who knows how much more resources). I imagine that between the IJ and TA’s salary, the court staff, support staff, and even utilities of operating a court, the price tag might be well above $100,000 for a case like this. This is not sustainable.

I asked the client for permission to share the photo we took after the hearing, and if I get the permission I will share it with you.

I am glad the case was resolved favorably by agreement, however, I was ready to use your cases to help defend my client.

DPF!

RB

************************

Love this, Roberto! Makes my day! Good precedents, great scholarship, collegiality, good judging, teamwork combining to make the system work in a just and humane manner! Thanks for forwarding and DPF!

Matter of Arreguin, written by the late Judge Fred W. Vacca, was one of the first precedents issued, in Volume 21 of the I&N Dec., during my time as BIA Chair. That Volume also reflected the “new style” of BIA precedent format with the “bound volume” citation and pagination available in the “slip opinion” and the individual author of the majority and separate opinions clearly identified.

Always gratifying to see that the now “old” precedents turned out by the long-gone “Schmidt Board” still have something to say and teach. It was a time when intellectual dialogue and meaningful debate of important issues was encouraged, rather than being discouraged and avoided as has happened in today’s “assembly line culture” at EOIR!

Additionally, Roberto’s report raises a continuing question. What if rather than misusing EOIR as a “deterrent,” and thereby engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” Garland and the other “powers that be within the Administration” returned EOIR to its original purpose of insuring due process, fundamental fairness, and best, most efficient judicial practices?

I’m sure there is lots of “low hanging fruit,” 🍒exemplified by this case, that could be prioritized for quick disposition or reassigned to a better-functioning version of USCIS for more efficient completion. Indeed, with guidance and some institutional discipline by a “Better BIA” of true asylum expert Appellate Judges, I’d guess that the majority of the hundreds of thousands of asylum cases pending for more than two years could be granted without full hearings, either at EOIR or a better functioning Asylum Office. Additionally, many of the long-pending “Non-LPR Cancellation Cases” now clogging the EOIR docket could be more efficiently handled by a better functioning and better staffed USCIS.

It appears that nobody with any realistic vision of what the future could and should look like, and an appreciation of both the cosmic importance and great positive potential of a functional EOIR, has paid any attention to 1) the composition of the EOIR backlog, 2) the abundant opportunities for positive resolutions that would benefit everyone, 3) the lack of quality control at today’s EOIR, and 4) the glaring absence of practical problem solving skills among senior EOIR management and the BIA (not to mention DOJ management and leadership in this area, such as it is).

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-29-23

👎🏼9TH CIR. SAYS “NO CHEVRON DEFERENCE FOR YOU BIA!” — Misinterpretation Of Citizenship Removal Ground “Unmoored,” “Unreasonable,” “Untenable,” “Incoherent!” — (But, Evidently “Good Enough For Government Work” @ Garland’s EOIR!)

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9: BIA’s Application of Richmond Untenable, Unmoored, Unreasonable, Incoherent: Ramírez Muñoz v. Garland

June 26, 2023

(1 min read)

Ramírez Muñoz v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/21-70431.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-bia-s-application-of-richmond-untenable-unmoored-unreasonable-incoherent-ramirez-munoz-v-garland

“We must decide whether Ramírez’s conduct—lying to local authorities about U.S. citizenship—was for a “purpose or benefit under” a particular law. The BIA, relying on its Richmond decision, concluded that Ramírez lied about his citizenship “for the purpose of avoiding removal proceedings.” See In re Richmond, 26 I. & N. Dec. 779, 788 (B.I.A. 2016) (holding that a “purpose” under a law “includes the avoidance of negative legal consequences— including removal proceedings”). The BIA’s interpretation of § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) is untenable. We agree with our sister circuit that “the BIA’s construction of the ‘purpose or benefit’ language [is] . . . ‘unmoored from the purposes and concerns’ of the statute.” Castro v. Att’y Gen., 671 F.3d 356, 370 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 64 (2011)). … We conclude that Richmond’s construction of “under” is unreasonable and do not afford it any deference. Consequently, we reject Richmond’s derivative holding that “[t]he term ‘purpose’ . . . includes the avoidance of negative legal consequences—including removal proceedings.” … We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the agency to either grant Ramírez’s application for adjustment of status or explain, consistent with this opinion, why not.”

[Hats way off to Marco A. Jimenez!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

**********************

Trust the BIA under Garland to come up with “teaching examples” of what’s wrong with EOIR!

Just last week we were discussing “Chevron deference” (a/k/a “Article III judicial task avoidance”) in my Immigration Law & Policy class at Georgetown Law. “Unreasonable interpretation” was one of the three ways we discussed for the Article IIIs to avoid giving Chevron deference to the BIA (the other two being “plain meaning” and “not your field of expertise”).

This is a classic (if rather brutal) example of the “unreasonable” exception to Chevron.

One reason why the “21st Century BIA” has become “unmoored” is that it is basically “tethered” to whatever DHS Enforcement wants and what appears to line up with an Administration’s “immigration enforcement agenda.” In other words, the BIA tends to interpret ambiguous statutes with “career preservation” rather than “best interpretations” in mind. That’s generally bad news for individuals seeking due process and fundamental fairness in life or death matters before EOIR!

As I recently pointed out, there is a BIA Appellate Immigration Judge position open for applications until July 5, 2023. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/06/23/🇺🇸⚖️🗽👩🏽⚖️👨🏻⚖️-calling-ndpa-practical-scholars-experts-no/.

That’s a chance for NDPA “practical scholar/experts” to start counteracting what has been a two-decade downward spiral of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at this oft-ignored “life or death tribunal” with nationwide jurisdiction.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-27-23

🤯 SUPREMES TIRING OF GOP RIGHTY EXTREMIST JUDGES? — MAYBE, BUT DON’T COUNT ON IT! — U.S. v. Texas Was A Refreshing 8-1 (x Alito) Beatdown Of “Trump Hack” Judge Drew Tipton — Yet, Inexplicably, The Court Had Allowed Tipton & His GOP Nativist AG Cronies To Run Roughshod Over Immigration Policy For More Than A Year, Damaging Democracy & Humanity In The Process! 🏴‍☠️

Kangaroos — Trump & McConnell stuck a mob of these unqualified righty extremists on the lower Federal Courts. Even a super conservative Supremes might be tiring of the overt bias and lack of basic judicial competence exhibited by these judicial hacks. https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/23/23771310/supreme-court-united-states-texas-ice-immigration-drew-tipton-brett-kavanaugh

Ian Millhiser reports for Vox:

More than a year ago, a Trump-appointed judge named Drew Tipton effectively seized control of parts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that enforces immigration laws within the United States. On Friday, the Supreme Court ended Tipton’s reign over ICE’s enforcement priorities.

The Court’s decision in United States v. Texas was 8–1, with all eight justices in the majority concluding that Tipton didn’t even have jurisdiction to hear this case in the first place — though they split 5-3 on why Tipton lacked jurisdiction. Only Justice Samuel Alito, the Court’s most reliable Republican partisan, dissented.

The case concerned 2021 guidelines, issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, that instructed ICE agents to prioritize enforcement efforts against undocumented or otherwise removable immigrants who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America’s well-being.”

Two red states, Texas and Louisiana, sued, essentially arguing that ICE must arrest more immigrants who do not fit these criteria. Moreover, because Texas federal courts often allow plaintiffs to choose which judge will hear their case by deciding to file their lawsuits in specific parts of the state, these two red states chose Tipton — a staunchly anti-immigrant judge who has been a thorn in the Biden administration’s side since the first week of his presidency — to hear this lawsuit.

In one of the most predictable events in the US judiciary’s history, Tipton promptly obliged the two states by striking down Mayorkas’s guidelines.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Texas holds that no federal judge should have ever even considered this case. As Kavanaugh explains, the plaintiff states “have not cited any precedent, history, or tradition of courts ordering the Executive Branch to change its arrest or prosecution policies so that the Executive Branch makes more arrests or initiates more prosecutions.” To the contrary, the Court held in Linda R. S. v. Richard D. (1973) that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”

. . . .

That said, the decision does contain some language that anti-immigrant judges may latch onto to impose their preference on the country — including a paragraph that reads like it was written to preserve lawsuits challenging the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

And there is one other very frustrating thing about this case. Although the Supreme Court eventually ruled that Tipton is not the head of ICE and cannot decide who its agents arrest, it rejected a request to temporarily block Tipton’s decision last July.

. . . .

**************************

Read the complete article at the link.

Compare the Supreme’s inexplicable rejection of the Biden Administration’s compelling request for a stay of Tipton’s outrageous interference (which had been allowed to stand by a the 5th Circuit in a stunning dereliction of duty) with their overly generous treatment of totally unjustified stay requests by Trump scofflaws during the last Administration. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/10/13/🏴‍☠️👎🏻only-the-beginning-supremes-again-interfere-with-lower-court-ruling-in-aid-of-trumps-census-undercount-scheme-commun/.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-26-23

From Reuters:

Overview

Political Repression and Human Rights

Crime and Insecurity

Economic Collapse

Health Crisis

Food Insecurity

Heavy Rains and Flooding

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

EOIR is looking for “many judges in many locations:”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Andrea Castillo reports for the LA times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexusNexus Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Colorado AILA reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Stephen Collinson writes at CNN:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Roberto Blum, Esquire, reports from Houston:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Ian Millhiser reports for Vox:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: