⚖️🗽👩🏽‍⚖️ASSOCIATE DEAN STACY CAPLOW @ BROOKLYN LAW ON CYRUS MEHTA BLOG — Our Immigration Courts Are Sinking — Can Lucas Guttentag Lead The Transformational Practice & Culture Changes Necessary to Save Them? — “[O]ne of the two obvious source of experienced immigration attorneys—immigrant advocates—is barely represented [among the many Immigration Judges selected over the past two decades.]”

http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2021/08/the-sinking-immigration-court-change-course-save-the-ship.html

Immigration Court, where hundreds of judges daily preside over wrenching decisions, including matters of family separation, detention, and even life and death, is structurally and functionally unsound. Closures during the pandemic, coupled with unprecedented backlogs, low morale, and both procedural and substantive damage inflicted by the Trump Administration, have created a full-fledged crisis. The Court’s critics call for radical reforms. That is unlikely to happen. Instead, the Biden Administration is returning to a go-to, cure-all solution: adding 100 Immigration Court judges and support personnel[1] to help address the backlog that now approaches 1.3 million cases.[2]

No one could oppose effective reform or additional resources. Nor could anyone oppose practical case management changes that do not require legislation and that could expedite and professionalize the practice in Immigration Court. Linked with a more transparent and more inclusive process for selecting Immigration Judges, these changes would make the Immigration Courts more efficient, more accurate and fairer but not at the expense of the compelling humanitarian stakes in the daily work of the Court. Immediate changes that do not require legislation but do require the will to transform the practice and culture of the Court would be a major step forward in improving the experiences and the outcomes in Immigration Court.

. . . .

Is there a life preserver on this sinking ship? Courts reopening following the pandemic are facing an unprecedented backlog with cases already postponed years into the future. The new Administration, in the position to institute real reform to the way business is conducted, has started to steer in a positive direction due to a now shared interest of the Court and ICE to address the burdensome and shameful backlog. This is a potentially defining moment when change may actually happen. Meanwhile, the new administration is articulating goals to ameliorate not only the backlog but to seriously change enforcement priorities. If these two agents of potential change take advantage of the crisis that is affecting everyone involved with the system to work collaboratively with each other and consult sincerely with the immigrant advocates bar and other stakeholders, there may be some hope. To make this happen, a true cultural change must occur at every level. A few small steps have been taken: The EOIR is reacting to the prosecutorial discretion directive but the jury is still out on the buy-in to any kind of genuine reform.[48]

Like a lifeboat, survival depends on a commitment to problem-solving, trust and collaboration until rescue arrives. Someday structural reform may truly reshape the court to enough to eliminate the qualifier quasi. IJs will become full-fledged judges capable of making legally sound decisions in courtrooms where dignity, respect, patience and compassion are the norm without fear of retribution. Give the judges the tools they need to manage their courtrooms and the parties to achieve goals of integrity, efficiency and fairness. Recalibrate the balance between the parties. Recognize the demands of presiding over life-altering matters on their own wellbeing by giving them the resources, the power and the trust to be full-fledged judges.

Until then, directives from the top down are an important start; transformation still depends on change in the field in order to bring this court in conformity with general adjudication norms and practices, as well as to successfully implement the policy instructions that have the potential address the court crisis from the government’s standpoint without sacrificing fairness and humanitarian considerations.

Guest author Professor Stacy Caplow teaches Immigration Law at Brooklyn Law School where she also has co-directed the Safe Harbor Project since 1997.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

I just hope that Stacy and Cyrus have sent copies of this article to Lucas, Lisa Monaco, Merrick Garland, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and the Chairs of the House and Senate Immigration Subcommittees!

Anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, misogynist culture (actively promoted by Sessions and Barr), biased and clearly defective judicial selection procedures, and the resulting lack of practical scholarship and human rights expertise are festering problems at EOIR. They must be solved now!

The virtual exclusion of progressive practical scholars and advocates — essentially, the best and brightest — from the “21st Century Immigration Judiciary” has been both systematic and intentional. Disturbingly, the Obama Administration produced results only marginally different from Bush II and Trump!

That’s why many of us were so shocked and outraged when Judge Garland continued to “honor” fatally flawed, biased, and exclusionary hiring practices by his predecessors.

Culture also plays a role in creating a biased judiciary. Why would a talented progressive expert, particularly a women of color, want to serve in a “bogus” judiciary that basically furthers racist narratives and myths, demeans women and minimizes their persecution (probably the most significant persecuted group in the world right now), and where the AG publicly slanders courageous private advocates while treating his “personally owned judges” like enforcement stooges.

The BIA has been “inflated” back to its “Schmidt-era” 23 Appellate Judges, after Ashcroft’s transparent “purge” cut the number to an unworkable 12 to remove the liberal judges (who were in the minority anyway). Yet, for Pete’s sake, there hasn’t been an outside appointment to the BIA since the Clinton Administration — more than two decades ago! Totally inexcusable.

And, this lack of outside expertise is a primary reason why EOIR is in deep trouble that threatens the stability of our entire justice system and democracy itself. A number of the existing BIA Members were selected NOT because of their demonstrated reputations for fairness, scholarship, respect, and timeliness, but because of their notoriety for denying almost every asylum case that came before them.

Here’s an excerpt from a letter that SPLC court observers sent to then Director Juan Osuna in 2017 describing the in-court bias of two Immigration Judges sitting in Atlanta:

In one hearing, an attorney for a detained respondent argued that his client was neither a threat to society nor a flight risk. 19 In this hearing, IJ Cassidy rejected the respondent’s request for bond, stating broadly that “an open border is a danger to the community.” He then analogized an immigrant to “a person coming to your home in a Halloween mask, waving a knife dripping with blood” and asked the attorney if he would let that person in. The attorney disagreed with IJ Cassidy, who then responded that the “individuals before [him] were economic migrants and that they do not pay taxes.” The attorney again disagreed with both claims. IJ Cassidy concluded the hearing by stating that the credible fear standard is not a proper test for review of asylum seekers, wholly disregarding the established legal standard for such cases.20 In a private conversation after this case, IJ Cassidy told the observer that the cases that come before him involve individuals “trying to scam the system” and that none of them want to be citizens. He also remarked that he thought the U.S. should be more like Putin’s Russia, where “if you come to America, you must speak English.”21 In another hearing, IJ Wilson told a respondent that “this case is like every case . . . came in from Mexico for medical treatment then try to claim asylum.”22 [text of footnotes omitted].

Director Osuna resigned a short time later, apparently in response to his concerns about the legitimacy of policies that the Trump immigration kakistocracy at DOJ intended to pursue. (Tragically, he died a short time later.) I am unaware that James McHenry, Osuna’s successor, hand-picked by AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions to “deconstruct due process @ EOIR” ever undertook a thorough investigation or that any sanctions were imposed upon these judges. But, stunningly, both were later appointed to the BIA by former AG Barr and continue to serve today under Garland.

These are the types of life-threatening, humanity-degrading, anti-due-process actions that became routine at EOIR over the past four years, and caused my friend and expert Professor Karen Musalo of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law to ask in a recent press report: “How can you have a fair game when the referee is unfair?” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/03/😎👍🏼good-news-justice-even-as-latest-report-shows-massisive-failure-👎🏽🤮-eoir-poor-judging-politicized-practices-unhel/

Obviously, you can’t have a “fair game” under these circumstances. That was the whole point of the Trump DOJ, along with some gratuitous cruelty, malicious incompetence, and outright scofflaw behavior thrown in!

As Dean Caplow points out, the solutions aren’t “rocket science.” 🚀 But, so far, the problems EOIR continue to fester and undermine American justice!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-21

😎👍🏼GOOD NEWS @ JUSTICE, EVEN AS LATEST REPORT SHOWS MASSISIVE FAILURE 👎🏽🤮 @ EOIR! — Poor Judging, Politicized Practices, Unhelpful Precedents, Uncontrollable Backlogs, Lousy Technology — Can Lucas Guttentag, New Senior Counselor To DAG Lisa Monaco Get Garland, Monaco, & Gupta To Make The Personnel Changes & Other Long-Overdue Progressive Reforms Necessary To Save This System From Collapse? — “”How can you have a fair game when the referee is unfair,” Asks Asylum Expert Professor Karen Musalo!

Dean Kevin Johnson reports for ImmigrationProf Blog:

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/08/immigration-law-professor-named-senior-counselor-on-immigration-policy-in-bidens-justice-department.html

Immigration Law Professor Named Senior Counselor on Immigration Policy in Biden’s Justice Department

Monday, August 2, 2021

By Immigration Prof

Good immigration news from Washington D.C.!Immigration law professor Lucas Guttentag has been named senior counselor on immigration policy and report to the Department of Justice’s Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. Guttantag served in the Obama administration as a senior adviser on immigration policy, including as senior counselor to the secretary of Homeland Security.Anita Kumar for Politico states that “Guttentag will not only help dismantle Trump-era policies but will coordinate Biden policy among various agencies and departments.”

Kumar writes that “[p]rior to entering the administration, Guttentag served as law professor at Stanford Law School and lecturer at Yale Law School. He launched the Immigration Policy Tracking Project in 2017 to develop and maintain a complete record of Trump administration immigration actions.

In total, Trump made more than 400 alterations to immigration policy during his time in office, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank with staffers across the political spectrum that provides data and analysis on immigration policy. The Immigration Policy Tracking Project put that number closer to 1,000.”

KJ

Current Affairs | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

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

Meanwhile, Tyche Hendricks reports @ KQED News on the ongoing mess @ EOIR:

https://www.kqed.org/news/11883227/backlogged-immigration-courts-could-get-help-from-biden-plan-but-some-want-a-total-overhaul

If you are an immigrant requesting asylum or fighting deportation before the federal immigration court in San Francisco, it’s likely to take nearly three years for your case to be resolved — the average processing time, as of June, was 1,057 days.

That’s because the San Francisco court’s 26 judges are working their way through close to 76,000 cases — the third highest number of pending cases in the country, after New York and Miami. Nationwide, the backlog has grown to an unprecedented 1.3 million cases, more than twice what it was when President Donald Trump took office.

What’s at stake, says Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington DC, is the credibility of the entire immigration system — both for the individuals whose futures are on the line, and for broader public confidence.

. . . .

The epic case backlog results from a convergence of factors.

Immigration enforcement, which had increased under President Barack Obama, ballooned during the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump ended Obama-era prosecution priorities that focused on immigrants with serious criminal histories, and instead pursued deportation of any undocumented immigrant. As of last December, more than 98% of the cases in immigration court were for people whose only charge was an immigration violation, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Also in the past several years, a much larger share of the migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border are people requesting asylum, rather than trying to evade border authorities to come work or join family in the U.S. And if migrants can establish a “credible fear” of persecution in a screening interview with an asylum officer, they can’t be quickly removed from the country. Instead, their cases go straight into the immigration court system.

RELATED STORIES

US to Expedite Immigration Cases of Families Arriving at Southern Border

Immigration Court Fees Set to Jump Dramatically Unless Judge Intervenes

San Francisco DA Joins Calls to Release ICE Detainees During Pandemic

But that court system is chronically underfunded, with not enough judges or support staff, according to a 2019 report by the American Bar Association. While the Trump administration hired more judges and imposed a case completion quota on judges meant to speed up their work, neither made a dent in the backlog. Meanwhile the ABA report found that hiring practices became politicized and the administration’s policies threatened due process.

On top of all of that came the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to months of closed courts, suspended hearings and delayed processing.

While many state and federal courts moved quickly to conduct hearings over video conference calls, the Executive Office of Immigration Review, as the immigration court system is known, was behind the curve, according to longtime San Francisco immigration judge, Dana Leigh Marks, who is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

“What the pandemic and quarantine restrictions revealed is just how abysmally prepared EOIR has been from the technology aspect,” said Marks, speaking in her role with the NAIJ, the judge’s union. “And we do not have universal electronic filing… so there’s roughly a million cases or more that are still paper-based. And that really makes hearings from a judge’s home much more problematic.”

. . . .

Advocates for asylum seekers are also looking forward to seeing new regulations from the Biden administration in another area: establishing clear eligibility standards for asylum so as to prevent future instances where an attorney general can override decades of case law, as Sessions did in the case of a Salvadoran woman fleeing domestic violence, known as the Matter of A-B-.

Karen Musalo, director of the Center on Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings in San Francisco, said she was relieved when Garland reversed that ruling in June, but she called that just a first step in restoring fairness to the asylum system.

“What is much more important is asylum regulations that specifically look at aligning U.S. law with international norms,” she said. “We need to get the law back on track.”

‘What is much more important is asylum regulations that specifically look at aligning U.S. law with international norms. We need to get the law back on track.’Karen Musalo, Center on Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings

That regulation is being drafted jointly by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security and is expected by late October, she said.

Musalo also called on the Biden administration to improve training and oversight for immigration judges, who are appointed to the bench by the U.S. attorney general. The fact that asylum grant rates vary wildly between judges suggests that rulings can be influenced by political leanings more than an impartial application of the law, she said.

“You could have very good rules and laws, but if you don’t have fair, unbiased, competent, professional individuals applying the rules in the law, you don’t solve the problems,” she said. “How can you have a fair game when the referee is unfair?”

. . . .

Legal organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and NAIJ, the judges’ union, have long called on Congress to overhaul the immigration courts by taking them out of the Department of Justice altogether. And this summer there’s a move to do just that.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, the chair of the House immigration subcommittee, will soon introduce a bill to make the immigration court system a so-called Article I court, akin to federal tax court or bankruptcy court. Staff involved in drafting the bill say the new system would better protect due process of law and would be shielded from political pressure from presidents, be they Democratic or Republican.

Some observers, including Meissner and Musalo, say such a change is needed but they aren’t convinced the bill could win enough support to pass.

But Marks, the immigration judge, says the current dysfunction shows how badly the immigration courts are compromised and how urgently they need independence from the Department of Justice.

“It’s an uncomfortable and inappropriate placement for a neutral court system. And that’s the inherent structural flaw that we need Congress to fix,” she said. “I really feel like it is an idea whose time has come… now.”

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

You can read Tyche’s complete article at the link.

With deep experience in advocacy, Government, academics, senior management, and scholarship, Lucas is definitely the person for this job! A proven problem solver, to be sure! Many congrats, Lucas! Your appointment is like a breath of fresh air at what has been a mostly “stale show” at Justice so far!

Nevertheless, as Professor Karen Musalo cogently points out, without better judges and leaders at EOIR — high caliber, proven progressive experts “in the Guttentag-Musalo mold,” — any favorable regulatory or even legislative changes will likely founder. As currently staffed and led, EOIR simply lacks the expertise, independence, moral/intellectual leadership, courage, and “judicial firepower” to achieve a progressive, practical, due-process-compliant immigration and human rights system. Due process, fundamental fairness, and a correct application of U.S. asylum law — one that honors Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi — can only be realized by replacing “Club Denial @ EOIR” — actively encouraged and promoted by Sessions and Barr, with competent, expert, progressive judges committed to fair and humane treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants under law.

Simply adding more judges to an incredibly broken system, without correcting the legal, personnel, and judicial administration issues that led to this massive (largely self-created) dysfunction will not solve the problem! Lucas knows this as well as anyone! So does Judge Dana Marks, who actually litigated and won the landmark “well-founded fear” case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca before the Supremes!

Hon. Diana Leigh Marks — Hon. Dana Leigh Marks
U.S. Immigration Judge
San Francisco Immigration Court
Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges

But even with experts like Lucas at DOJ, Ur Jaddou, John Trasvina, and Judge Ashley Tabaddor in place at DHS, it’s going to take a huge additional infusion of progressive expertise at EOIR, DHS, HHS, and throughout Government to get immigration and refugee policy under control.

GOP Administrations have proved willing to make the bold, often-criticized personnel and policy moves necessary to carry out a nativist, restrictionist, anti-immigrant agenda. Their “response” to criticism has basically been: “We’re in power, you’re not! So, go pound sand!”

Will the Biden Administration “break the Dem mold” and be bold and visionary enough to make the available, necessary, yet potentially controversial, moves to restore and improve due process and efficiency to the Government immigration bureaucracy? Will Lucas finally be able to get Team Garland to see and realize the cosmic importance of developing a progressive Immigration Judiciary: One that will eventually provide the “Article III ready” judicial candidates who will bring balance and quality to the Article III system perverted by four years of Trump-McConnell extremest right-wing, ideological, far out of the mainstream, judicial picks? Contrary to the timid, ineffective, ultimately destructive Obama Administration approach, EOIR is “a boat that needs to be rocked” — big time!

It’s an ambitious task to be sure. But, those with the vision and courage to accomplish it might well go down in history as the saviors of American democracy. It’s that important!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-21

😎👍YES! IN A HUGE WIN FOR DUE PROCESS, EFFICIENCY, JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, & SANE GOVERNMENT, AG GARLAND OVERRULES SESSIONS’S IDIOTIC MATTER OF CASTRO-TUM PRECEDENT & RESTORES IJs’ AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASES — Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021)

Judge Merrick Garland — Atorney General Merrick B. Garland
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

The Attorney General has issued a decision in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021).

(1) Matter of Castro‑Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), is overruled in its entirety.

(2) While rulemaking proceeds and except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, immigration judges and the Board should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), and Matter of W‑Y‑U‑, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).

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

Sessions’s Castro-Tum abomination had to be one of the stupidest and most maliciously incompetent aspects of his White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-due-process agenda! Not surprisingly, that decision and the illegal attempt to convert it into a regulation have mostly been losers in the Article III Courts.

Hats 🎩 off to Judge Garland for doing the right thing (even if it did take longer than some of us thought it should)! This also ties in perfectly with the recent common sense restoration of enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion at ICE by OPLA head John Trasvina! https://immigrationcourtside.com/category/department-of-homeland-security/immigration-customs-enforcement-ice/office-of-principal-legal-adviser-opla/john-d-trasvina/

After four years of virtually unrelenting illegality, mismanagement, and outright idiocy at DHS and DOJ, that has caused “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and generated ever-mushrooming court backlogs, finally some much-needed and long overdue teamwork and reasonability in restoring to Immigration Judges and the parties the necessary tools for rational, cooperative docket management. Presumably, the hundreds of thousands of cases “waiting in the wings” to be “re-docketed” pursuant to “Sessions’s folly” can now remain administratively closed or be “re-closed” and removed from the EOIR docket!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Along those same lines, “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports some more good news:

More Good News!

Ms. A-B- (i.e. the respondent in Matter of A-B-) was granted asylum yesterday.The BIA granted pursuant to a joint motion from DHS and respondent’s counsel to grant asylum.

It took far too long, but justice prevailed.

Best, Jeff

That’s the type of cooperative action among the parties and EOIR that, if repeated on a larger scale, could restore functionality and some semblance of justice to our broken Immigration Courts!

Also, many congrats to my friend Karen Musalo and her team at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law for their outstanding, persistent, and ultimately successful defense of Ms. A-B- against Sessions’s misogynistic “war on asylum seekers of color.”

It’s a telling commentary that finally getting the law back to where it was in 2016, “pre-Sessions,” now seems like a major victory! Just think of what might have been accomplished if all the effort expended on combatting the Trump immigration kakistocracy’s illegality, nonsense, and wasteful gimmicks had instead been devoted to advancing and promoting due process and fundamental fairness for all persons in America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-15-21

🏴‍☠️SUPREMES’ GOP MAJ. SLAMS GULAG DOOR SHUT ON REFUGEES IN “WITHHOLDING ONLY PROCEEDINGS” 👎🏽 — “NO BOND HEARINGS FOR YOU, ALIENS!” — Johnson v. Guzmán Chavez (6-3) — Oh, To Be A “Pipeline Builder” Endowed With Legal & Human Rights That Even Elite GOP Supremes Will Recognize!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-deported-immigrants-penneast-pipeline/2021/06/29/3e83164e-d8dc-11eb-8fb8-aea56b785b00_story.html

This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!

Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders

By Robert Barnes

June 29 at 5:22 PM ET

. . . .

In the immigration case, the court was considering the rights of a relatively small subset of immigrants: those who were deported once before but reentered the United States illegally because they say they faced threats at home.

At issue was a complex federal law that authorizes the government to detain immigrants and which section of it applies to these types of cases.

One piece of the law says, “the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge” and thus the chance to be free while proceedings continue, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. In the other, the immigrant is considered “removed,” and indefinite detention is warranted.

Alito and his fellow conservative justices said it was the second that applied, and the detainees do not get a bond hearing. The court’s three liberals objected.

The case involved people who an immigration officer found had credible fears of danger or persecution in their home countries. For instance, Rodriguez Zometa said he was threatened with death by the 18th Street Gang when he was removed to his home country of El Salvador.

The question of whether the government could hold the immigrants without a hearing before an immigration judge had divided courts around the country. The case was argued before President Biden took office, and lawyers for the Trump administration told the court immigrants were not entitled to a hearing.

Alito said Congress had good reason to be more restrictive with those who came back into the country after being deported. “Aliens who reentered the country illegally after removal have demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order, and they therefore may be less likely to comply with the reinstated order” that they leave, he said.

He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The court’s liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, saw it differently and would have affirmed the victory the plaintiffs won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.

“Why would Congress want to deny a bond hearing to individuals who reasonably fear persecution or torture, and who, as a result, face proceedings that may last for many months or years?” Breyer wrote. “I can find no satisfactory answer to this question.”

The case is Johnson v. Guzman Chavez.

. . . .

Here’s the “full text” of the decision:

19-897_c07d

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

Nice summary, Robert! You can read the rest of Barnes’s report at the link. Indeed, Justice Breyer’s cogent question quoted in the article remains unanswered by the wooden legal gobbledygook in the majority decision, devoid of much understanding of how the dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the DHS “New American Gulag” actually operate and dismissive of what it actually means to be a refugee seeking to exercise legal rights in today’s world.

At issue: The right of non-criminal foreign nationals who have established a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture if deported to apply for bond pending Immigration Court hearings on the merits of their cases. Getting a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge does not in any way guarantee release; just that the decision to detain or release on bond will be based on the individual facts and circumstances. Individuals released from detention have a much better chance of obtaining counsel and gathering the documentation necessary to win their cases. They are also much less likely to be “coerced” by DHS detention into surrendering viable claims and appeal rights.

Majority’s response: These “aliens” have neither rights nor humanity that any life-tenured GOP-appointed judge is bound to respect.

Alternative: There is a readily available alternative statutory interpretation, adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent, that would recognize the human and legal rights of vulnerable refugees seeking legal protection and give them hearings on continuing custody in substandard conditions (in some instances, conditions in the “DHS New American Gulag” fall well below those that would be imposed on convicted felons).

You can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table was one of many organizations filing an amicus brief on behalf of the refugees and in support of the position adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent. While we were unsuccessful on this one, at least we are on the “right side of history.”

Creative suggestion: Detainees should incorporate, perhaps as a pipeline company, or better yet a gun rights’ group, so that they would have legal rights and be treated as “persons” (e.g., “humans”) by the Supremes’ GOP majority.

Next steps:

Advocates should prevail on the Biden Administration to change the regulations to give this limited subclass of applicants for protection a chance to seek bond before an Immigration Judge;
Advocates should keep up the pressure on the Biden Administration and Garland to appoint better judges at EOIR: progressive practical experts, who know how to grant legal protection efficiently and fairly and who will establish appropriate legal precedents to help these cases move through the EOIR system on the merits in a timely and fundamentally fair manner consistent with due process. The length of time it takes “Withholding Only” cases to move through the Immigration Courts has lots to do with: unfair, coercive detention practices by DHS; poor judging and bad precedents at EOIR; incompetent “judicial administration” and politicized “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR by DOJ politicos and their EOIR “retainers.”

Long term solution:

Support and vote for progressive legislators who will revise the immigration laws to do away with the unnecessary and wasteful “New American Gulag;”
Vote progressive candidates for President and the Senate: political officials committed to putting better Federal Judges on the bench at all levels — “practical scholars” with real experience representing the most vulnerable in society and who will tirelessly enforce due process, equal protection, human rights, and fundamental fairness for all persons regardless of race, religion, or status; judges who understand and will seriously reflect on the “real life” human consequences of their decisions. Better judges for a better America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-30-21

🤮👎🏽ULTIMATE HIPOCRACY: EVEN AS AMERICA FINALLY CELEBRATES JUNETEENTH HOLIDAY, DRED SCOTT & INSTITUTIONALIZED RACIST DEHUMANIZATION REMAIN REALITIES FOR BLACKS & OTHER MIGRANTS OF COLOR AT EOIR & DHS — Imprisonment Without Trial, Bogus Bonds, Mistreatment In The New American Gulag, Jim Crow “Courts,” No Rule Of Law, Still Realities For Those Of Color Exercising Legal Rights In Broken System!

“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”

Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, March 1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)

“Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien’s lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the due process clause.”

Justice Samuel Alito, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)

Dred Scott (circa 1857)
Public Realm — Black asylum seekers and other migrants aren’t celebrating the continuing disgraceful “Dred Scottification of the other” in Mayorkas’s “New American Gulag” and Garland’s “Miller Lite” Immigration “Courts” that aren’t “courts” at all!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/institutional-racism-immigration-system_n_60cbc554e4b0b50d622b66d7

By Rowaida Abdelaziz in HuffPost:

Yacouba, a political activist in Ivory Coast, knew if he didn’t immediately flee his home country, he wouldn’t survive.

After being threatened, attacked and tortured by people sympathetic to those in power, Yacouba fled his country in 2018. He went to Brazil for a few years, then made a perilous trek through Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras and Mexico before finally arriving in the United States.

The journey was one of the two most challenging periods of his life. The second was being detained as a Black immigrant in the U.S.

As the nation celebrates Juneteenth — a day commemorating the emancipation of African Americans who had been enslaved in the United States — as a federal holiday for the first time, Black Americans and immigrants are fighting to dismantle institutional racism, including within the immigration system. Black immigrants are disproportionately detained, receive higher bond costs, and say they face racist treatment within detention centers.

Recognizing and celebrating the emancipation of slaves is vital, activists say ― but continuing to take down systemic racism needs to come with it.

“From an immigration perspective, Black immigrants face disproportionate levels of detention and exclusion,” Diana Konate, policy director at the advocacy group African Communities Together, said Thursday on a press call. “These can be life-threatening, as Black immigrants often get deported back to unsafe and dangerous conditions. While we celebrate the victories, we keep in mind that a lot of work remains.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Rowaida’s article at the link.

Every day that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke drag their collective feet on ending “Dred Scottification,” racial bias, and xenophobia at EOIR diminishes their credibility on all racial and social justice issues. To date, Garland has appointed zero (O) progressive judges at EOIR, has only scratched the surface of the White Nationalist bias in decision-making in the Immigration Courts, and has failed to re-establish due process and the rule of law for Blacks and other migrants of color at the border.

Justice Alito and his colleagues in the majority disgracefully basically “dressed up” the core of Dred Scott dehumanization and bias in “21st century faux constitutional gobbledygook and intentional, disingenuous fictionalization!” Make no mistake: asylum seekers applying at our borders with their lives and humanity at stake are “persons” subject to our jurisdiction and are entitled to full Constitutional due process and statutory rights that are being denied to them every day, currently by the Biden Administration.

While Alito & Co. are wrong, DEAD WRONG in all too many cases, nothing in their dishonest and misguided “jurisprudence” prevents Garland from providing due process to individuals, regardless of status, in Immigration Court and to ending the racism and dehumanization underneath both the mess at EOIR and the cowardly abdication of duty by the Supremes’ majority in Thuraissigiam! In human rights, you either solve the problem or become part of it. And, experts, journalists, and historians are making a permanent record of the actions of the Supremes and the Biden Administration when democracy and racial justice are under stress!

You don’t have to look very far to “connect the dots” between Alito’s dismissive attitude toward the human rights of Asians and other asylum seekers of color and the increase in hate crimes directed against Asian Americans and unfair policing of African Americans. Once courts and government officials endorse “dehumanization of the other based largely on ethnicity” the “protections” and “distinctions” of citizenship tend to also vanish. If the lives of migrants of color can be declared worthless, what difference does citizenship mean for those of the same ethnic heritage that Alito deems below humanity? Obviously, the Trump kakistocracy’s attack on migrants of color was just a “place holder” for their attack on the rights of all persons of color in America!

How can Garland’s DOJ demand racial justice in state law enforcement while operating America’s most notorious “Jim Crow Court System?”

James “Jim” Crow
Symbol of American Racism — He still “rules the roost” at Garland’s EOIR!

It’s time for all civil rights and civil liberties organizations to join forces in demanding an end to bias and “Dred Scottification of the other” in Garland’s disgracefully dysfunctional Immigration “Courts.” Not rocket science!🚀 Just human decency, common sense, available (yet ignored) progressive expertise, and Con Law 101!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-21-21

⚠️FIFTH CIRCUIT REMAND IS JUST FIRST OF MANY THAT WILL RESULT FROM BIA’S TOTALLY AVOIDABLE NIZ-CHAVEZ SCREW-UP! — Garland’s Backlog Likely To Mushroom Until He Cleans House @ EOIR! — “Culture of Denial” At BIA Crippling American Justice! — Garland Needs Qualified Judges & Professional Court Administrators @ EOIR, To Replace The “Continuing Clown Show!”🤡

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/unpub-ca5-niz-chavez-remand-villegas-de-mendez-v-garland

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

18 Jun 2021

Niz-Chavez

Unpub. CA5 Niz-Chavez Remand: Villegas de Mendez v. Garland

Villegas de Mendez v. Garland

“The NTA sent to Villegas de Mendez does not contain the information required to trigger the stop-time rule. See id. at 1478-79, 1485; see also § 1229(a)(1)(A)-(G). Neither does the subsequent notice of hearing sent to her. Thus, she did not receive the “single compliant document” required by statute. Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1485. The BIA consequently abused its discretion by committing an error of law. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 958 (5th Cir. 2019); Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further consideration in light of Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 1474, and consistent with this judgment.”

Hats off to Raed Gonzalez!

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

One major problem with constantly going with DHS interpretations is that many are both legally wrong and practical disasters. After the initial Pereira v. Sessions debacle the BIA had a chance to solve the problem. Instead, undoubtedly spurred on by the “deny everything culture” promoted by the Trump regime’s White Nationalist agenda, the BIA chose the worst possible legal interpretation with disruptive practical implications. Any real immigration expert could have seen this coming!

When was the last time in a potential “Chevron-type” situation that the BIA or the AG adopted the migrant’s proffered interpretation rather than DHS’s? Yet even with all the (in my view highly inappropriate) advantages conferred on the Government by the Supremes’ intellectual indolence in Chevron and its absurdist companion “Brand X,” Article III Courts, including the Supremes, reject BIA/AG interpretations on a regular basis. Pereira and Niz-Chavez are just two of the most prominent recent examples.

Moreover, because neither the AGs nor the BIA are respected experts in immigration and human rights, and, shockingly, none have significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court, the mis-interpretations that they choose are often impractical and unworkable. This, in turn leads to confusion, unnecessary remands, and unmanageable backlogs, not to mention patent injustice and deadly results for the mere humans caught up in this ongoing disaster! This is what “Dred Scottifcation” is all about!

The case highlighted above should have been reopened in 2017. In a “real” court system, with qualified judges, professional administration, and no political interference, it could have been completed by now. Instead, it’s no closer to completion than it was four years ago!

But, lots of time and resources have been wasted in defending the BIA’s wrong attempt to deny reopening! This nonsense by the Government, NOT dilatory tactics by migrants and their attorneys trying to navigate this intentionally user-unfriendly and often illegal and illogical system, is what “builds backlog!”

Indeed, a wiser system would have turned preliminary adjudication of these cases over to USCIS so that only those that could not be granted and were not appropriate for prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) would have been sent to Immigration Court. Virtually none of the “non-LPR cancellation” cases are legitimate enforcement priorities. A similar approach was used with the NACARA program under better overall management.

Instead, as a result of poor BIA decision-making and even worse “leadership” at the Trump DOJ, this case is no closer to a final resolution than it was in 2017. And, DHS and EOIR still haven’t systemically corrected the completely fixable practical problems that generated Pereira and Niz-Chavez in the first place. Nor have Garland and Mayorkas announced systemic plans for removing the unnecessary “cancellation backlog” from Immigration Court dockets even though they would be “low priorities” for ICE under the criteria announced by OPLA’s John Trasvina!

That’s why we have unmanageable backlogs! And they will continue until Garland cleans house at EOIR, brings in a diverse group of qualified expert judges, and empowers them to act independently, stand up to the frequent nonsense pushed by DHS, and “laser focus” on due process for individuals and instituting and enforcing best practices!

One of the most obvious of those “best practices,” totally missing from Garland’s mismanaged Immigration Courts to date, would be returning “docket control” to local Immigration Courts and ending the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR Headquarters and DOJ politicos that has helped generate the out of control backlog.

Many cancellation of removal cases could and should be “administratively closed.” But, inexplicably, Garland has yet to revoke Sessions’s ridiculously wrong Matter of Castro-Tum, and restore to Immigration Judges their power to administratively close cases. That’s notwithstanding that Castro-Tum has been rejected in whole or in part by every Circuit Court of Appeals to consider it.

How long is Garland going to continue to “sponsor” inferior, non-independent, pro-DHS “judging” and amateurish, politicized mismanagement that is destroying our entire legal system?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-20-21

🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️

Circus — This appears to be Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for migrants and people of color @ Bailey’s Crossroads. Isn’t it time to put the past behind us and move forward with housecleaning and reforms at EOIR? Ask Judge Garland “What are you thinking, man?” Is this YOUR vision of due process and expert “judging?” — Public Realm

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201912019.pdf

Thamotar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 11th Cir., 06-17-21, Published

PANEL: WILSON, JILL PRYOR and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge

KEY QUOTE:

Visavakumar Thamotar, a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of his application for asylum and grant of withholding of removal. Mr. Thamotar argues that because removal was withheld, federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e)1 required reconsideration of his asylum claim, which the Immigration Judge and BIA failed to give. We agree with Mr. Thamotar that the agency failed to conduct the proper reconsideration. When an asylum applicant is denied asylum but granted withholding of removal, 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(e) requires reconsideration anew of the discretionary denial of asylum, including addressing reasonable alternatives available to the petitioner for family reunification.2 And where the Immigration Judge has failed to do so, the BIA must remand for the Immigration Judge to conduct the required reconsideration.

Here, the Immigration Judge failed to reconsider Mr. Thamotar’s asylum claim under § 1208.16(e). The BIA’s failure to remand on this issue was therefore

1 Mr. Thamotar refers to both 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(e) and 1208.16(e) in his briefing. The two provisions are identical in substance, but § 1208.16(e) specifically applies to the BIA (and Immigration Judges) because of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtits. D, E, F, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov. 25, 2002) (as amended), and the promulgation of final rule 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, effective February 28, 2003. 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, 9824–25, 9834 (Feb. 28, 2003); see Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89, 90 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing this legislative history). For consistency, we will refer only to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e).

2 Because we vacate the BIA’s order on this ground, we do not address Mr. Thamotar’s additional challenges to the order, which included that the BIA erred by affirming the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination, which he contends was not supported by substantial evidence, and relying on his method of entry into the United States when affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision.

2

USCA11 Case: 19-12019 Date Filed: 06/17/2021 Page: 3 of 32

manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. It is clear that neither the Immigration Judge nor the BIA conducted the proper reconsideration because the record contained no information about Mr. Thamotar’s ability to reunite with his family, information that the agency must review under § 1208.16(e). Thus, the BIA should have remanded the case for further factfinding. We grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the Immigration Judge for reconsideration of the discretionary denial of asylum.

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

Lots of work for a bogus asylum denial by EOIR! And the utter nonsense isn’t over! Just a “remand” to give EOIR yet another chance to deny for specious reasons (as they have already done twice). This idiocy will continue until Judge Garland replaces the BIA with real judges who will properly, fairly, and timely apply the law and regulations!

The poor analysis of the IJ, mindlessly affirmed by the BIA, failed to come anywhere close to the “most egregious adverse factors” requirement of the BIA’s own precedent in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357, 367 (BIA 1996):

A grant of asylum to an eligible applicant is discretionary. The final issue is whether the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. The danger of persecution will outweigh all but the most egregious adverse factors. Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467, 474 (BIA 1987).

Get this, folks! The IJ and the BIA both found that meeting the higher standard for withholding of deportation based on probability of persecution somehow was an “adverse factor” that outweighed family separation! That’s right, an “adverse factor!”

I can’t imagine how this gang of so-called “judges, got through law school and admitted to the bar! Maybe “imposters” took their exams for them! THIS is the best American justice has to offer? If not, why are they making life or death decisions and imposing potential permanent family separation on refugees?

Notwithstanding the assembly line climate and lackadaisical approach to law in Garland’s Immigration “Courts,” these are NOT TRAFFIC COURTS! They are more like “death penalty courts” or “courts of last resort” and those humans appearing before them and their representatives deserve better.

Judge Garland and his team should hypothesize that this type of inferior justice were being meted out in life or death cases to THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND LOVED ONES — actual human beings, NOT “just migrants” who, according to Garland’s EOIR, appear to exist in a twilight zone beneath the rest of humanity. That’s what the ongoing “Dred Scottification of the other” still being permitted and promoted by Garland at DOJ is all about!

A fitting celebration of the first Federal Juneteenth Holiday would have been to remove the entire BIA so that they can no longer inflict “Dred Scottification” on migrants of color, their families, their friends, and their communities, among others! Symbolism is only effective if followed by action. And, so far, Garland’s actions on wiping out the “vestiges of Dred Scott at Justice” have fallen woefully short!

This raises serious, unaddressed questions of why such weakly qualified individuals are on the bench in the first place when there are many immigration experts out there who can and would do better. Much better! And it wouldn’t take them years and multiple hearings, appeals, and trips to the Circuit to grant asylum.

This isn’t a “deep” case except that it represents the “deep dodo” 💩 at EOIR, the stench of which is fouling our entire justice system and shaking the foundations of our democracy! This case is about following the Code of Federal Regulations, properly applying precedent, and fairly treating asylum seekers. It’s “Law 101” — things L-1s would have to know to get to L-2! I can’t begin to think what the paper would look like like if one of my students gave me this kind of garbage on a final exam. Fortunately, to date, nobody ever has!

Nor is this a Circuit renowned for critical analysis or holding the Government to a high standards in immigration cases. Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit itself bears some responsibility for this mess! They are well aware of the anti-asylum bias and poor decision-making emanating from the Atlanta Immigration Court, within their jurisdiction, and have chosen to ignore it. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/04/22/11th-circuit-judge-adelberto-jose-jordan-outs-the-atlanta-immigration-court-for-equal-protection-charade-in-a-dissenting-opinion-in-my-view-ms-diaz-r/

Those who want a more complete run down of the ongoing “Atlanta disgrace” — a cancer on our justice system — should just go to the “Atlanta Immigration Court” tab on immigrationcourtside.com. There is more than enough compiled to have triggered an investigation, removals from office, and corrective action in a functioning Government! And my collection is just “the tip of the iceberg” on what has been written about the disgraceful, systemic denial of fairness, impartiality, and justice in Atlanta!

And, why was OIL defending this ridiculous mess in the first place? It’s a “comedy” of errors, questionable ethics, and amateurish legal work that the DOJ should be ashamed of and which Garland should end — NOW! No wonder this ridiculous national embarrassment has created an unnecessary 1.3 million case backlog that continues to grow under Garland!

Don’t let Garland or anyone else in the Administration tell you that this self-created backlog justifies a truncation of due process or more “bogus attempts to expedite” asylum cases. NO! What it requires is for Garland to bring in real judges and experts from the private/NGO sector to fix the Immigration Courts so they comply with due process and fundamental fairness!

Judge Garland, “come on man!” These deadly robed clowns and their “defenders” represent YOU — “the top legal officer in our Executive Branch!” YOU have a responsibility to the American people (NOT just the failed DOJ or the President) to “get out the big hook” and “yank” these anti-due process, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, anti-racial-justice clowns 🤡 off YOUR bench and replace them with competence and fairness. A little (now missing) diversity wouldn’t hurt either! It’s called fulfilling the promises made by Biden and Harris during the election!

It’s not going to improve until Garland replaces the BIA with qualified judges, hires only Immigration Judges who know how to fairly adjudicate asylum cases, (with outstanding public reputations for fairness, scholarship, timeliness, teamwork, and respect), and AAG Vanita Gupta brings in better leadership at OIL to put an end to this tragic, totally unnecessary, disgracefully wasteful abuse of our Federal Judicial system and the resulting human carnage!

NDPA warriors, don’t be fooled or lured into complacency by this week’s long overdue positive developments in A-B- and L-E-A- — things that experts said should have been done by Judge Garland on “Day 1.” Keep showing your total dis-satisfaction and disgust with the glacial pace of reform at DOJ and the myriad of highly unqualified “judges” still being allowed to continue to inflict racial injustice and “worst imaginable practices” on vulnerable individuals (and their lawyers) who are entitled to due process and justice — not a continuing deadly ☠️ clown 🤡 show! Keep letting Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, Biden, Harris, Congress, the Article IIIs, and the American people know that “The EOIR Clown Show Has Got To Go!” NOW! There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all in America (wake up, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke) while Garland operates his “star chamber courts” at EOIR!

Star Chamber Justice — Hi, Judge Garland! This is how “justice” is administered in the 11th Circuit Immigration Cours and at the Bailey’s Crossroads’ Tower. Glad you like it! I guess the screams of the innocent can’t be heard across the river! Not even sure why you would need a law school degree to be “judges” in your EOIR star chambers. It’s really just about dehumanization, degradation, and “productivity!” — Public realm

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Asylum Free Zones,” Never!

PWS

06-19-21

NDPA STALWART JASON “THE ASYLUMIST” DZUBOW 🌟 QUOTED IN AP ARTICLE ABOUT REPEAL OF A-B- & L-E-A-!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=a9dc6320-82bc-4db8-bb6b-cfba11a536cb

AP reports:

The U.S. government on Wednesday ended two Trump administration policies that made it harder for immigrants fleeing violence to qualify for asylum, especially Central Americans.

Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland issued a new policy saying immigration judges should cease following the Trump-era rules that made it tough for immigrants who faced domestic or gang violence to win asylum in the United States. The move could make it easier for them to win their cases for humanitarian protection and was widely celebrated by immigrant advocates.

“The significance of this cannot be overstated,” said Kate Melloy Goettel, legal director of litigation at the American Immigration Council. “This was one of the worst anti-asylum decisions under the Trump era, and this is a really important first step in undoing that.”

Garland said he was making the changes after President Biden ordered his office and the Department of Homeland Security to draft rules addressing complex issues in immigration law about groups of people who should qualify for asylum.

Gene Hamilton, a key architect of many of then-President Trump’s immigration policies who served in the Justice Department, said in a statement that he believed the change would lead to more immigrants filing asylum claims based on crime and that it should not be a reason for the humanitarian protection.

. . . .

In the current fiscal year, people from countries such as Russia and Cameroon have seen higher asylum grant rates in the immigration courts than those from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the data show.

One of the Trump administration policies was aimed at migrants who were fleeing violence from nonstate actors, such as gangs, while the other affected those who felt they were being targeted in their countries because of their family ties, said Jason Dzubow, an immigration attorney in Washington who focuses on asylum.

Dzubow said he recently represented a Salvadoran family in which the husband was killed and gang members started coming after his children. While Dzubow argued they were in danger because of their family ties, he said the immigration judge rejected the case, citing the Trump-era decision among the reasons.

Dzubow welcomed the change but said he doesn’t expect to suddenly see large numbers of Central Americans winning their asylum cases, which remain difficult under U.S. law.

“I don’t expect it is going to open the floodgates, and all of a sudden everyone from Central America can win their cases. Those cases are very burdensome and difficult,” he said. “We need to make a decision: Do we want to protect these people?”

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

Read the full article at the link.

You know for sure you’re doing the right thing when anti-asylum shill and Stephen Miller crony Gene Hamilton criticizes it!

I tend to agree with my friend Jason that under present conditions, asylum cases for women refugees from Central America are likely to continue to be a “tough slog” at EOIR. The intentionally-created anti-asylum, misogynist, anti-Latino, anti-scholarship, anti-quality, anti-due-process culture at EOIR that emerged under Sessions and Barr isn’t going to disappear overnight, particularly the way Judge Garland is approaching it. He needs to “get out the broom,🧹 sweep out the current BIA and the bad, anti-asylum judges, get rid of ineffective administration, and bring in human rights and due process professionals to get this system operating again!

Jason, for one, would be an outstanding judicial choice for building a functioning, fair, efficient Immigration Court; one that would fulfill the long-abandoned vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Under the Trump regime, EOIR was the antithesis of that noble vision!

Cases such as that described by Jason (incorrectly decided by the Immigration Judge) utilizing A-R-C-G- and “family friendly” precedents from the Fourth Circuit were usually well-represented and well-prepared by attorneys like Jason, Clinics, and NGOs like CLINIC, CAIR Coalition, Human Rights First, and Law School Clinics. After review by ICE Counsel, many were candidates for my “short docket” in Arlington where asylum could easily be granted based on the documentation and short confirming testimony.

To their credit, even before the BIA finally issued A-R-C-G-, the Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office was not opposing well-documented asylum grants based on domestic violence under what was known as the “Martin Brief” after former DHS/INS Senior Official, renowned immigration scholar, and internationally recognized asylum expert, now emeritus Professor David A. Martin of UVA Law. I remember telling David after one such case that his brief was still “saving lives” even after his departure from DHS and return to academia.

David Martin — Professor (Emeritus) David A. Martin
UVA Law
PHOTO: UVA Law

Rather than building on that real potential for efficiency, cooperation, quality, and due process, under Sessions those things that were working at EOIR and represented hope and potential for future progress were maliciously and idiotically dismantled. From the outside, throughout the country, I saw DV cases that once would have been “easy short docket grants” in Arlington require lengthy hearings and often be incorrectly decided in Immigration Court and the BIA. Sometimes the Circuits corrected the errors, sometimes not.

At best, what had been a growing census around recognizing asylum claims based on DV became a “crap shoot” with the result almost totally dependent on what judges were assigned, what Circuit the hearing was held in, and even the composition of the Circuit panel! And, of course, unrepresented claimants were DOA regardless of the merits of their cases. What a way to run a system where torture or death could be the result of a wrong decision!

But, it doesn’t have to be that away! Experts like Jason and others could get this system functioning fairly and efficiently in less time than it took Sessions and Barr to destroy it.

However, it can’t be done with the personnel now at DOJ and EOIR Headquarters. If Judge Garland wants this to function like a real court system (not always clear to me that he does), he needs to recruit and bring in the outside progressive experts absolutely necessary to make it happen. At long last, it’s time for “Amateur Night at the Bijou” to end its long, disgraceful, debilitating “run” @ EOIR!

Time for this long-running show at DOJ/EOIR to end! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk
Creative Commons
Amateur Night

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-18-21

🤯THIS IS THE “CHANGE” PROGRESSIVES VOTED FOR? — 🏴‍☠️ GARLAND DEFENDS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMMIGRATION DETENTION AS LOSSES CONTINUE TO MOUNT — U.S. Judge In N.D. Cal. Unimpressed With Biden Administration’s Continued Intransigence!

Judah Lakin — Judah Larkin
Partner, Lakin & Wille
Oakland, CA
PHOTO: Larkin & Wille

Subject: [fedcourtlitigation] Habeas Win on Post-Preap Constitutional Challenge to 236(c)

Dear All:

We wanted to share an exciting decision we received on Friday from Judge Freeman in the Northern District of California on Friday granting our client a bond hearing.

We, together with our co-counsel Jenny Zhao and Monica Ramsy from Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Asian Law Caucus, and Scott Mossman, brought a habeas challenging mandatory detention under 1226(c) for an individual who was arrested by ICE in the community, 6 years after he finished his criminal sentence. Our client is an LPR with an aggravated felony conviction (drug trafficking). We asked for the local ICE office to follow the Johnson memo and release him, but they refused. We elevated it to headquarters and they likewise refused.

As a result, we brought an as-applied constitutional challenge to his detention without a bond hearing—a claim which was expressly left open by the Supreme Court in Preap. He had been detained for about 6 weeks at the time we filed the habeas, so it is a non-prolonged detention case.

Judge Freeman applied the Mathews framework and granted our TRO motion, concluding that the Constitution requires a bond hearing in this case. The bond hearing is scheduled for this week, pursuant to the TRO order, so we are optimistic he will be free soon. We’re also hopeful that this case can be used by others as we continue to work to dismantle mandatory detention.

The TRO decision is attached and is available at: Perera v. Jennings, No. 21-CV-04136-BLF, 2021 WL 2400981 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2021).

Judah Lakin (he/him/his/Él)

Attorney at Law | Lakin & Wille LLP

Here’s a copy of Judge Freeman’s decision, basically a “primer” on Matthews v. Eldridge due process and its blatant violation under immigration bureaucracies of Administrations of both parties.

Judge Freeman’s Order

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

Seems like “Con Law 101” to me! So, how come it’s “above Garland’s pay grade?”

Many congrats to Judah and all others involved to this effort!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-16-21

EOIR ISSUES TOOTHLESS 😶 GUIDANCE ON ICE PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION — Obvious Problem — Failure To Repeal Sessions’s Abominable ☠️ Matter of Castro-Tum — Remains Unaddressed In Garland’s Failed “Courts” That Aren’t “Courts” At All By Any Reasonable Measure!🤡

EYORE — “Come on, Judge Garland! Repeal Matter of Castro-Tum already! Gimme a break! Stop issuing weak-kneed policy memos and give me some qualified, expert, progressive leadership! It’s not rocket science!” “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/book/file/1403401/download

To: From: Date:

PURPOSE:

OWNER: AUTHORITY: CANCELLATION:

I. Introduction

Provides EOIR policies regarding the effect of Department of Homeland Security enforcement priorities and initiatives.

Office of the Director 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b) None.

OOD PM 21-25

Effective: June 11, 2021

All Immigration Court Personnel & Board of Immigration Appeals Personnel Jean King, Acting Director

June 11, 2021

EFFECT OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

President Biden issued Executive Order 13993 on January 20, 2021, and directed relevant agencies to take appropriate action to review and “reset the policies and practices for enforcing civil immigration laws to align enforcement” with the Administration’s priorities “to protect national and border security, address the humanitarian challenges at the southern border, and ensure public health and safety.” Exec. Order No. 13993, 86 Fed. Reg. 7,051 (Jan. 20, 2021).

Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a number of memoranda and guidance documents regarding its enforcement priorities and framework for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.1 Those memoranda establish the DHS general enforcement and removal priorities as three categories of cases of noncitizens who present risks to (1) national security, (2) border security, and (3) public safety.2

1 See, e.g., Memorandum from John D. Tasviña, Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), to All OPLA Att’ys, Interim Guidance to OPLA Att’ys Regarding Civil Immigr. Enf’t and Removal Policies and Priorities (May 27, 2021), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/opla/OPLA- immigration-enforcement_interim-guidance.pdf; Memorandum from Tae D. Johnson, Acting Dir., ICE, to All ICE Emps., Interim Guidance: Civil Immigr. Enf’t and Removal Priorities (Feb. 18, 2021), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2021/021821_civil-immigration-enforcement_interim-guidance.pdf.

2 These DHS memoranda and DHS priorities do not change EOIR’s current adjudication priorities, which remain in effect. See, e.g., PM 21-23, Dedicated Docket (May 28, 2021); Exec. Office for Immigr. Rev. Mem., Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures (Jan. 2018).

1

Through individualized review of pending cases, DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), attorneys will be determining which cases are enforcement priorities and which are not. Overall, these memoranda explain that DHS will exercise discretion based on individual circumstances and pursue these priorities at all stages of the enforcement process. This includes a wide range of enforcement decisions involving proceedings before EOIR, such as deciding whether to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel Notices to Appear; to oppose or join respondents’ motions to continue or to reopen; to request that proceedings be terminated or dismissed; to pursue an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); and to agree or stipulate to bond amounts or other conditions of release. Accordingly, these memoranda are likely to affect many cases currently pending on the immigration courts’ and BIA’s dockets.

II. Role of the EOIR Adjudicator

The role of the immigration court and the BIA, like all other tribunals, is to resolve disputes. Cf. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d) (“The Board shall resolve the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the Act and regulations.”), 1003.10(b) (“In all cases, immigration judges shall seek to resolve the questions before them in a timely and impartial manner consistent with the Act and regulations.”) (emphasis added). At the present time, there are over 1.3 million combined cases pending before the immigration courts3 and the BIA.4 In light of the DHS memoranda, it is imperative that EOIR’s adjudicators use adjudication resources to resolve questions before them in cases that remain in dispute.

A. Immigration Court

Immigration judges should be prepared to inquire, on the record, of the parties appearing before them at scheduled hearings as to whether the case remains a removal priority for ICE and whether ICE intends to exercise some form of prosecutorial discretion, for example by requesting that the case be terminated or dismissed, by stipulating to eligibility for relief, or, where permitted by case law, by agreeing to the administrative closure of the case.5 The judge should ask the respondent or his or her representative for the respondent’s position on these matters, and take that position into account, before taking any action.

In addition, immigration judges are encouraged to use all docketing tools available to them to ensure the fair and timely resolution of cases before them.

3 Exec. Office for Immigr. Rev., Adjudication Statistics: Pending Cases, New Cases, and Total Completions, Apr. 19, 2021, available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1242166/download.

4 Exec. Office for Immigr. Rev., Adjudication Statistics: Case Appeals Filed, Completed, and Pending, Apr. 19, 2021, available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1248501/download.

5 Administrative closure is currently permitted in the Third, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits. See Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen. U.S.A., 997 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2020); Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2019). Administrative closure is currently permitted in the Sixth Circuit, but only to allow respondents to apply with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for provisional unlawful presence waivers. See Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, __ F.3d __, 2021 WL 2310055 (6th Cir., June 4, 2021). Administrative closure is not currently permitted in the other circuits. See Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).

2

B. Board of Immigration Appeals

Appellate immigration judges should be prepared to review and adjudicate motions from DHS regarding prosecutorial discretion. In addition, appellate immigration judges may solicit supplemental briefing from the parties regarding whether the case remains a removal priority for ICE or whether the parties intend to seek or exercise some form of prosecutorial discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(9) (“[T]he Board may rule, in the exercise of its discretion . . . , on any issue, argument, or claim not raised by the parties, and the Board may solicit supplemental briefing from the parties on the issues to be considered before rendering a decision.”).

III. Conclusion

EOIR expects the parameters of the new DHS memoranda to focus DHS resources on cases that meet the DHS-determined priorities. All EOIR adjudicators are encouraged to use docketing practices that ensure respondents receive fair and timely adjudications, and act consistently with the role of the immigration courts and the BIA in resolving disputes. That includes disposing of cases as appropriate, based on the specific circumstances of the individual matter, with consideration of ICE’s determinations that 1) a case does not fit within the Secretary’s enforcement priorities, and 2) accordingly, pursuit is no longer in the best interest of the Government. If you have any questions, please contact your Assistant Chief Immigration Judge or the Chief Appellate Immigration Judge.

Nothing in this PM is intended to replace independent research, the application of case law and regulations to individual cases, or the decisional independence of immigration judges and appellate immigration judges as defined in 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), 1003.10.

3

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

“In addition, immigration judges are encouraged to use all docketing tools available to them to ensure the fair and timely resolution of cases before them.”

Unfortunately, the primary “docketing tool” — Administrative Closing — is largely UNAVAILABLE to most Immigration Judges outside the 3rd, 4th, 7th, and (sort of) 6th Circuits. Rather than fix this on “day one” by vacating Matter of Castro-Tum — as recommended by almost all immigration experts — Garland’s inaction has resulted in continuing unnecessary confusion and inefficiency in his dysfunctional “court” system sporting an astounding, continually growing, largely unnecessary 1.3 million plus case backlog! Come on, man!!

Under OPLA’s John Trasvina, ICE is actually taking more aggressive and sensible action to restore due process, sanity, and docket control in Immigration Court than EOIR has under Garland! What sense does that make?

Due Process Forever! Happy Flag Day!🇺🇸

PWS

06-14-21

TRASVINA RESTORES “PD” @ ICE; 6TH CIR. REJECTS CASTRO-TUM! BUT GARLAND’S FAILURES @ EOIR CONTINUE TO HAMPER BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, CAUSE CONFUSION, INCREASE BACKLOGS! — “In performing their duties, including through implementation of this memorandum, OPLA attorneys should remain mindful that ‘[i]mmigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done.’”

John D. Trasvina
Principal Legal Adviser
ICE — Finally, some common sense, practical scholarship, leadership, and “good government” from someone in the Biden Administration’s Senior Immigration Team! Not surprisingly, it’s from one of the few who has actually “walked the walk” on the relationship between racial justice and immigrants’ rights. He appears to be the “right person” for ICE. Would he have been a better choice to clean up the mess at DOJ?
PHOTO: Wikipedia

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/opla/OPLA-immigration-enforcement_interim-guidance.pdf

MEMORANDUM FOR: FROM:

SUBJECT:

May 27, 2021 All OPLA Attorneys

John D. Trasvifia Principal Legal Advisor

JOHN D TRASVINA

DigitallysignedbyJOHN0 TRASVINA

Date:2021.05.27 07:04:19 -07’00’

Interim Guidance to OPLA Attorneys Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 13993, Revision ofCivil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities, 86 Fed. Reg. 7051 (Jan. 20, 2021), which articulated foundational values and priorities for the Administration with respect to the enforcement of the civil immigration laws. On the same day, then-Acting Secretary ofHomeland Security David Pekoske issued a memorandum titled, Review o fand Interim Revision to Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities (Interim Memorandum).

The Interim Memorandum did four things. First, it directed a comprehensive Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department)-wide review of civil immigration enforcement policies. Second, it established interim civil immigration enforcement priorities for the Department. Third, it instituted a 100-day pause on certain removals pending the review. Fourth, it rescinded several existing policy memoranda, including a prior U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office ofthe Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) memorandum, as inconsistent with EO 13993.2 The Interim Memorandum further directed that ICE issue interim guidance implementing the revised enforcement priorities and the removal pause.

On February 18, 2021, ICE Acting Director Tae D. Johnson issued ICE Directive No. 11090.1,

1

On January 26, 2021, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining DHS and its components from enforcing and implementing Section C ofthe interim Memorandum titled, Immediate JOO-Day Pause on Removals. See Texas v. United States, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2021 WL 247877 (S.D. Tex. 2021); see also Texas v. United States, 2021 WL 411441 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2021) (extending TRO to February 23, 2021). On February 23, 2021 , the district court issued an order preliminarily enjoining DHS from “enforcing and implementing the policies described in … Section C.” Texas v. United States, 2021 WL 723856 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2021). In light of the expiration of the 100-day period described in Section C, that case has been dismissed as moot. Similarly, in light ofthe preliminary injunction, and the fact that the 100-day period described in the Interim Memorandum has now expired, this interim OPLA guidance does not implement Section C of the Interim Memorandum.

2 The Interim Memorandum revoked, as inconsistent with EO 13993, the memorandum from former Principal Legal Advisor Tracy Short, Guidance to OPLA Attorneys Regarding the Implementation ofthe President’s Executive Orders and the Secretary’s Directives on Immigration Enforcement (Aug. 15, 2017). OPLA attorneys should no longer apply that prior guidance.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Office o fthe Principal Legal Advisor

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20536

U.S. Immigration

and Customs Enforcement

www.1ce.gov

1

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 2 of 13

Interim Guidance: Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Priorities (Johnson Memorandum). And, on May 27, 2021, Acting General Counsel Joseph B. Maher issued a memorandum titled, Implementing Interim Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities (Maher Memorandum). In accordance with these memoranda, and pending the outcome of the Secretary’s review and any resulting policy guidance, I am providing this additional interim direction to OPLA attorneys to guide them in appropriately executing the Department’s and ICE’s interim enforcement and removal priorities and exercising prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion is an indispensable feature of any functioning legal system. The exercise ofprosecutorial discretion, where appropriate, can preserve limited government resources, achieve just and fair outcomes in individual cases, and advance the Department’s mission of administering and enforcing the immigration laws ofthe United States in a smart and sensible way that promotes public confidence. In performing their duties, including through implementation ofthis memorandum, OPLA attorneys should remain mindful that “[i]mmigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done.” 3 As a result, they are both authorized by law and expected to exercise discretion in accordance with the factors and considerations set forth in the Interim Memorandum, the Johnson Memorandum, the Maher Memorandum, and in this guidance at all stages of the enforcement process and at the earliest moment practicable in order to best conserve prosecutorial resources and in recognition o f the important interests at stake.

I. Enforcement and Removal Priority Cases

The Johnson Memorandum identifies three categories of cases that are presumed to be enforcement and removal priorities for ICE personnel. Subject to preapproval from supervisory personnel, other civil immigration enforcement or removal actions also may be deemed priorities. OPLA attorneys assigned to handle exclusion, deportation, and removal proceedings are directed to prioritize agency resources consistent with those presumed priorities and other matters approved as priorities under the Johnson Memorandum or by their Chief Counsel. The presumed priority categories are:

1. NationalSecurity.Noncitizens.4 whohaveengagedinoraresuspectedof

3 Matter ofS-M-J-, 21 l&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997) (en bane). In remarks delivered at the Second Annual Conference of United States Attorneys more than 80 years ago, Attorney General Robert H. Jackson said, “[n]othing better can come out of this meeting of law enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor. Your positions are ofsuch independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won ifjustice has been done.” Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 24 J. AM. JUD. Soc’Y 18, 18-19 (1940).

4 Consistent with ICE guidance, this memorandum uses the word “noncitizen” to refer to individuals described in section 10l(a)(3) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). See Memorandum from Tae Johnson, ICE Acting Director, Updated Terminologyfor Communications and Materials (Apr. 19, 2021). OPLA attorneys should familiarize themselves with this ICE guidance and use the appropriate terminology set forth therein when engaged in outreach efforts, drafting internal documents, and communicating with stakeholders, partners, and the general

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 3 of 13

ten-orism or espionage or terrorism-related or espionage-related activities, or whose apprehension, arrest, or custody, is otherwise necessary to protect the national security ofthe United States..5

2. Border Security. Noncitizens who were apprehended at the border or a port ofentry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States on or after November 1, 2020, or who were not physically present in the United States before November 1, 2020.

3. Public Safety. Noncitizens who have been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or who have been convicted ofan offense for which an element was active pa1ticipation in a criminal street gang, as defined in

18 U.S.C. § 52 l(a), or who are not younger than 16 years of age and intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang or transnational criminal organization to further the illegal activity ofthe gang or transnational criminal organization; and are determined to pose a threat to public safety.6

Neither the presumed priorities nor the guidance regarding other priority cases subject to preapproval are intended to require or prohibit taking or maintaining a civil immigration enforcement or removal action against any individual noncitizen. Rather, OPLA attorneys are expected to exercise their discretion thoughtfully, consistent with ICE’s important national security, border security, and public safety mission. Civil immigration enforcement and removal efforts involving a noncitizen whose case fits within the three areas just listed are presumed to be a justified allocation ofICE’s limited resources. Enforcement and removal efforts may also be

justified in other cases, under appropriate circumstances. 7 Prioritization of finite agency

public. Formal legal terminology (e.g., “alien,” “alienage”) should continue to be used by OPLA attorneys when appearing before judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals, and when quoting or citing to sources of legal authority or other official documents like immigration forms.

5 For purposes of the national security presumed enforcement priority, the tenns “terrorism or espionage” and “terrorism-related or espionage-related activities” should be applied consistent with (I) the definitions of”terrorist activity” and “engage in terrorist activity” in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv) of the INA, and (2) the manner in which the term “espionage” is generally applied in the immigration laws. In evaluating whether a noncitizen’s “apprehension, arrest, and/or custody, or removal is otherwise necessary to protect” national security, officers and agents should determine whether a noncitizen poses a threat to United States sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interests, or institutions. General criminal activity does not amount to a national security threat.

6 In evaluating whether a noncitizen currently “pose[s] a threat to public safety,” consideration should be given to the extensiveness, seriousness, and recency ofthe criminal activity, as well as to mitigating factors, including, but not limited to, personal and family circumstances, health and medical factors, ties to the community, evidence of rehabilitation, and whether the individual has potential immigration relief available. See Johnson Memorandum at 5.

7 As reflected in the Johnson Memorandum, Field Office Director (FOD) or Special Agent in Charge (SAC) approval is generally required in advance ofcivil immigration enforcement or removal actions taken by ICE officers and agents in cases other than presumed priority cases. Where exigent circumstances and public safety concerns make it impracticable to obtain pre-approval for an at-large enforcement action (e.g., where a noncitizen poses an imminent threat to life or an imminent substantial threat to property), approval should be requested within 24 hours following the action. See Johnson Memorandum at 6.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 4 of 13

resources is a consideration in all civil immigration enforcement and removal decisions, including but not limited to the following:

• Deciding whether to issue a detainer, or whether to assume custody of a noncitizen subject to a previously issued detainer;

• Deciding whether to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear (NTA);

• Deciding whether to focus resources only on administrative violations or conduct;

• Deciding whether to stop, question, or arrest a noncitizen for an administrative violation of the civil immigration laws;

• Deciding whether to detain or release from custody subject to conditions or on the individual’s own recognizance;

• Deciding whether to settle, dismiss, oppose or join in a motion on a case, narrow the issues in dispute through stipulation, or pursue appeal in removal proceedings;

• Deciding when and under what circumstances to execute final orders of removal; and

• Deciding whether to grant defe1Ted action or parole.

This non-exhaustive list ofcivil immigration enforcement and removal decisions identifies opportunities at every stage ofthe process to ensure the most just, fair, and legally appropriate outcome, whether that outcome is a grant of relief, an order of removal, or an exercise of discretion that allows the noncitizen to pursue immigration benefits outside the context of removal proceedings. This memorandum provides interim guidance regarding the following enforcement decisions within OPLA’s purview: filing or canceling an NTA; moving to administratively close or continue proceedings; moving to dismiss proceedings; pursuing appeal;

joining in a motion to grant reliefor to reopen or remand removal proceedings and entering stipulations; and taking a position in bond proceedings, as discussed below..8 While discretion may be exercised at any stage of the process and changed circumstances for an individual denied prosecutorial discretion at one stage may warrant reconsideration at a later stage, discretion generally should be exercised at the earliest point possible, once relevant facts have been established to properly inform the decision.

8 While resources should be allocated to the presumed priorities enumerated above, “nothing in [the Interim M]emorandum prohibits the apprehension or detention ofindividuals unlawfully in the United States who are not identified as priorities herein.” Interim Memorandum at 3. See also Johnson Memorandum at 3 (“[J]t is vitally important to note that the interim priorities do not require or prohibit the atTest, detention, or removal ofany noncitizen.”); Maher Memorandum at 3 (“Neither the presumed priorities nor the guidance regarding other priority cases subject to preapproval are intended to require or prohibit taking or maintaining a civil immigration enforcement action against an individual noncitizen.”). OPLA may dedicate its resources to pursuing enforcement action against a noncitizen who does not fall into one of the presumed enforcement priorities where the FOD or SAC has approved taking enforcement action in the case, where the NTA-issuing agency has exercised its own discretion to prioritize the noncitizen for enforcement under the Interim Memorandum, or where the ChiefCounsel, in their discretion, decides that OPLA resources should be committed to the case.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 5 of 13

This memorandum is intended to provide guidance pending completion ofthe DHS-wide comprehensive review of civil immigration enforcement and removal policies and practices contemplated in the Interim Memorandum. To that end, additional guidance will be fo1thcoming.

II. Prosecutorial Discretion

OPLA will continue to fulfill its statutory responsibility as DHS’s representative before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) with respect to exclusion, deportation, and removal proceedings. See 6 U.S.C. § 252(c). In that capacity, prosecutorial discretion plays an important role in OPLA’s enforcement decision making. The following general guidance on prosecutorial discretion should inform how OPLA attorneys apply the enforcement priorities of DHS and ICE.

OPLA attorneys may exercise prosecutorial discretion in proceedings before EOIR, subject to direction from their chain ofcommand and applicable guidance from DHS. In exercising such discretion, OPLA attorneys will adhere to the enduring principles that apply to all o f their activities: upholding the rule oflaw; discharging duties ethically in accordance with the law and professional standards of conduct; following the guidelines and strategic directives of senior leadership; and exercising considered judgment and doing justice in individual cases, consistent with DHS and ICE priorities.

Prosecutorial discretion is the longstanding authority o f an agency charged with enforcing the law to decide where to focus its resources and whether or how to enforce, or not to enforce, the law against an individual. In the context of OPLA’s role in the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws, prosecutorial discretion arises at different stages of the removal process, takes different forms, and applies to a variety ofdeterminations. As the Supreme Court explained more than two decades ago when discussing the removal process, “[a]t each stage the Executive has discretion to abandon the endeavor . . . .”.9

OPLA’s policy is to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a manner that furthers the security ofthe United States and the faithful and just execution ofthe immigration laws, consistent with DHS’s and ICE’s enforcement and removal priorities. While prosecutorial discretion is not a formal program or benefit offered by OPLA, OPLA attorneys are empowered to exercise prosecutorial discretion in their assigned duties consistent with this guidance. Among other decisions, the exercise of discretion also generally includes whether to assign an attorney to represent the department in a particular case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.2(b) (creating expectation that DHS will assign counsel to cases involving mental competency, noncitizen minors, and contested removability, but that otherwise, “in his or her discretion, whenever he or she deems such assignment necessary or advantageous, the General Counsel may assign a [DHS] attorney to any other case at any stage of the proceeding”) (emphasis added). OPLA Chief Counsel are permitted to exercise this discretion on my behalf, in appropriate consultation with their chain of command.

In determining whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion, OPLA should consider relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Relevant mitigating factors may include a noncitizen’s length

9 Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 47 1, 483-84 ( 1999). FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 6 of 13

of residence in the United States; service in the U.S. military; family or community ties in the United States; circumstances ofarrival in the United States and the manner oftheir entry; prior immigration history; current immigration status (where lawful permanent resident (LPR) status generally warrants greater consideration, but not to the exclusion ofother noncitizens depending on the totality ofthe circumstances); work history in the United States; pursuit or completion of education in the United States; status as a victim, witness, or plaintiff in civil or criminal proceedings; whether the individual has potential immigration relief available; contributions to the community; and any compelling humanitarian factors, including poor health, age, pregnancy, status as a child, or status as a primary caregiver ofa seriously ill relative in the United States. Relevant aggravating factors may include criminal history, participation in persecution or other human rights violations, extensiveness and seriousness ofprior immigration violations (e.g., noncompliance with conditions of release, prior illegal entries, removals by ICE), and fraud or material misrepresentation. Where a criminal history exists, OPLA should consider the extensiveness, seriousness, and recency ofthe criminal activity, as well as any indicia of rehabilitation; extenuating circumstances involving the offense or conviction; the time and length ofsentence imposed and served, ifany; the age ofthe noncitizen at the time the crime was committed; the length oftime since the offense or conviction occurred; and whether subsequent criminal activity supports a determination that the noncitizen poses a threat to public safety. These factors are not intended to be dispositive or exhaustive. Discretion should be exercised on a case-by-case basis considering the totality ofthe circumstances.

Requests for prosecutorial discretion may be made in accordance with the instructions provided in Section IX of this guidance. Where a request for prosecutorial discretion is made, the OPLA attorney handling the case must document that request in PLAnet, identifying the requester and the substance of the request and uploading any supporting documentation consistent with standard operating procedures (SOPs). 10 Based on my experience working with you over the past few months, I believe strongly in the professionalism, legal skill, and judgment of OPLA’s attorneys, working through their supervisors to advise our clients and manage an enormous workload with limited resources. I trust and expect that all OPLA field attorneys, under the leadership ofourChiefCounsel, will work strenuously to ensure the timely and appropriate exercise ofdiscretion in meritorious removal cases. That being said, given the tremendous importance of achieving just and correct outcomes on these issues, it is entirely pe1missible for any OPLA attorney to raise prosecutorial discretion decisions through their chain ofcommand to OPLA headquaiters (HQ) for additional review or discussion.

Appropriate exercises ofprosecutorial discretion are in the mutual interest of both the person benefitting from the exercise ofdiscretion and the government itself. This mutual interest is no less significant because a noncitizen does not affirmatively request prosecutorial discretion. In the absence of an affirmative request for prosecutorial discretion by a noncitizen or a noncitizen’s representative, OPLA attorneys should nonetheless examine the cases to which they are assigned to determine independently whether a favorable exercise ofdiscretion may be

10 If the case involves classified information, the OPLA attorney must transmit such information only in accordance with the DHS Office ofthe ChiefSecurity Officer Publication, Safeguarding Classified & Sensitive But Unclassified Information Reference Pamphlet (Feb. 2012, or as updated), and all other applicable policies governing the handling ofclassified information.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 7 of 13

appropriate. This affirmative duty to evaluate assigned cases is central to an OPLA attorney’s job. Chief Counsel should include in their local SOPs ways to address these cases including how

OPLA attorneys should document their affirmative consideration ofprosecutorial discretion in PLAnet.

III. Notices to Appear

When a legally sufficient, appropriately documented NTA has been issued by a DHS component consistent with the component’s issuing and enforcement guidelines, 11 it will generally be filed with the immigration court and proceedings litigated to completion unless the Chief Counsel exercises prosecutorial discretion based on their assessment of the case. 12 As prosecutorial discretion is expected to be exercised at all stages of the enforcement process and at the earliest moment practicable, it may be appropriate for the Chief Counsel to conclude that a legally

sufficient, a ro riatel documented administrative immi ration case warrants non-filin of an

NTA_ (b)(S) (b)(5)

(b)(S) Where an NTA is issued but not filed with the immigration court pursuant to this section, OPLA should document the reasoning for this position in PLAnet and the OPLA Field Location should work with its local Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Field Office to cancel the NTA and inform the noncitizen of the cancellation. 13

IV. Administrative Closure and Continuance of Proceedings

In the past, OPLA had broad authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion by agreeing to

administrative closure of cases by EOIR. However, due to conflicting court of appeals decisions

11 This includes NTAs submitted to OPLA by ICE operational components as well as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for review. “Appropriately documented” in this context means that, in OPLA’s litigation judgment, sufficient information has been provided by the NTA-issuing component to carry any DHS burden of proof. See INA§ 240(c), 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8.

12 Separate and apart from the enforcement priority framework outlined in the Interim Memorandum and Johnson Memorandum, certain noncitizens have an established right to be placed into removal proceedings. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. §§ 208. l4(c)(l) (requiring referral for removal proceedings ofa removable noncitizen whose affirmative asylum application is not granted by USCIS); 216.4(d)(2) (requiring NTA issuance to noncitizen whose joint petition to remove conditional basis ofLPR status is denied by USCIS); 216.S(f) (same; USCIS denial ofapplication for waiver of the joint petition requirement). In other cases, USCIS may issue an NTA on a discretionary basis to a noncitizen who wishes to pursue immigration benefits before the immigration court. Although such cases do not fall within the priority framework, absent an affirmative request by the noncitizen prior to the merits hearing for the favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion to dismiss removal proceedings, OPLA attorneys should generally litigate them to completion. If such noncitizens are ordered removed, requests for prosecutorial discretion would then most properly be made to ERO for evaluation in accordance with the Department’s and ICE’s stated priorities.

13 The NTA cancellation regulation vests immigration officers who have the authority to issue NTAs with the authority to also cancel them. 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(a). The regulation expresses a preference for certain NTAs to be cancelled by the same officer who issued them “unless it is impracticable” to do so. Id. § 239.2(b). Given the enormous size ofthe EOIR docket, current OPLA staffing levels, and complexities associated with routing any significant number ofNTAs back to specific issuing officers stationed around the country, it would be impracticable to require OPLA attorneys to do so. By contrast, the local ERO Field Offices with which OPLA Field Locations routinely interact are well suited to assist with this function promptly and efficiently.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 8 of 13

on the validity ofMatter ofCastro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018) (limiting administrative closure by EOIR adjudicators to circumstances where a previous regulation or judicially approved settlement expressly authorizes such an action), the availability ofadministrative closure as a form ofprosecutorial discretion for ICE and a tool ofdocket management for EOIR is limited in certain jurisdictions for certain types of cases. 14 Nevertheless, OPLA retains authority to handle pending cases on EOIR’s docket by deciding whether to agree to a continuance for “good cause shown” under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, see also Matter ofL-A-B-R-, I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018) (interpreting this regulation), and whether to seek, oppose, or join in a motion for dismissal of proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c).

The presumed priorities outlined above will be a significant factor informing the position that OPLA attorneys take in response to continuance motions made by noncitizens in removal proceedings. Indeed, given the comprehensive review of immigration enforcement and removal policies and practices directed by Section A ofthe Interim Memorandum, OPLA attorneys are authorized to take the general position that “good cause” exists in cases in which noncitizens who fall outside the presumed priorities seek to have their cases continued to await the outcome of that comprehensive review. 15 Continuing cases in these circumstances may conserve OPLA resources in cases where the ultimate arrest, detention, and removal of a noncitizen are unlikely. Accordingly, while immigration judges (Us) will make case-by-case assessments whether continuance motions are supported by “good cause shown” under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, and OPLA attorneys should assess each continuance motion on its own terms, in the absence ofserious aggravating factors, the fact that a noncitizen is not a presumed priority should weigh heavily in favor of not opposing the noncitizen’s motion. Before opposing a continuance in such cases, OPLA attorneys should confer with their supervisors. The reason for opposing the motion should also be documented in PLAnet.

V. Dismissal of Proceedings

With approximately 1.3 million cases on the immigration courts’ dockets nationwide, and the varied procedural postures of such cases, including many set for future merits hearings on re.lief or protection from removal, OPLA will cover, at a later date and in a comprehensive fashion, how to address the potential dismissal ofproceedings consistent with its limited resources and DHS and ICE guidance. The size ofthe court backlog and extraordinary delays in completing cases impede the interests ofjustice for both the government and respondents alike and underminepublicconfidenceinthis importantpillaroftheadministrationofthenation’s

14 Compare Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2020) (agreeing with Castro-Tum), with Arcos Sanchez, 2021 WL I774965, — F.3d — (3d Cir. 2021) (rejecting Castro-Tum and finding that EOIR regulations giving broad case management authority to its adjudicators includes administrative closure authority), Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2020) (Coney Barrett, J.) (same), and Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2019) (same). Notwithstanding this variation in circuit law, administrative closure remains available under Castro-Tum for T and V nonimmigrant visa applicants. See 8 C.F.R. §§ I214.2(a) (expressly allowing for administrative closure for noncitizens seeking to apply for T nonimmigrant status), 1214.3 (same; V nonimmigrant status).

15 This does not imply that “good cause” cannot exist in cases ofnoncitizens who fall into the presumed priority categories or are otherwise a civil immigration enforcement or removal priority. OPLA attorneys retain discretion to, as appropriate, agree to continuances in such cases.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 9 of 13

immigration laws. In advance of future guidance, cases that generally will merit dismissal in the absence of serious aggravating factors include:

I. MilitaryServiceMembersorImmediateRelativesThereof16

A favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion (i.e., concurrence with or non-opposition to a motion for dismissal ofproceedings without prejudice) generally will be appropriate if a noncitizen or immediate relative is a current or former member (honorably discharged) of the Armed Forces, including the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force, or a member of a reserve component of the Anned Forces or National Guard, particularly if the individual may qualify for U.S. citizenship under sections 328 or 329 ofthe I N A . _1 1

2. Individuals Likely to be Granted Temporary or Permanent Relief

When a noncitizen has a viable avenue available to regularize their immigration status outside of removal proceedings, whether through temporary or pennanent relief, it generally will be appropriate to move to dismiss such proceedings without prejudice so that the noncitizen can pursue that relief before the appropriate adjudicatory body. 18 This may be appropriate where, for instance, the noncitizen is the beneficiary of an approved Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, and appears prima facie eligible for either adjustment of status under INA section 245 or an immigrant visa through consular processing abroad, including in conjunction with a provisional waiver of unlawful presence under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e), immediately or in the near future; appears prima facie eligible to register for Temporary Protected Status (TPS);.19 or is a child who appears prima facie eligible to pursue special immigrant juvenile status under INA section 101(a)(27) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.11. In such a circumstance, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion itselfcan help to promote the integrity ofour immigration system by enhancing the ability of certain noncitizens to come into compliance with our immigration laws.

3. Compelling Humanitarian Factors

The favorable exercise ofprosecutorial discretion- including agreeing to dismissal of proceedings without prejudice-generally will be appropriate when compelling humanitarian factors become apparent during NTA review or litigation of the case. While some factors will weigh more heavily than others, this can include cases where, for instance, the noncitizen has a serious health condition, is elderly, pregnant, or a minor; is the primary caregiver to, or has an

16 See Email from Kenneth Padilla, DPLA, Field Legal Operations, to all OPLA attorneys, Refresher Guidance Regarding United States Veterans and Military Service Members in Removal (Nov. 18, 2019).

17

citizenship. See ICE Directive 16001 .2, Investigating the Potential U S. Citizenship o fIndividuals Encountered by

Relatedly, OPLA attorneys must continue to follow ICE guidance related to the evaluation of claims to U.S. ICE (Nov. 10, 2015).

18 DHS regulations expressly contemplate joint motions to tenninate removal proceedings in appropriate cases in which the noncitizen is seeking to apply for U nonimmigrant status. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(I)(i).

19 Stipulation to TPS in such cases may also be an option, in the exercise ofdiscretion. Cf Matter ofD-A-C-, 27 I & N . D e c . 5 7 5 ( B I A 2 0 I 9 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y o f I J s t o g r a n t T P S ) ; S e c t i o n V I I , i n fr a .

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 10of13

immediate family or household member who is, known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness; is a victim ofdomestic violence, human trafficking, or other serious crime;.20 came to the United States as a young child and has since lived in the United States continuously; or is party to significant collateral civil litigation (e.g., family court proceedings, non-frivolous civil rights or labor claims).

4. Significant Law Enforcement or Other Governmental Interest

Where a noncitizen is a cooperating witness or confidential informant or is otherwise significantly assisting state or federal law enforcement, it may be appropriate in certain cases to agree to the dismissal ofproceedings without prejudice. “Law enforcement” in this context includes not only conventional criminal law enforcement, but also enforcement of labor and civil rights laws. In exercising discretion related to law enforcement equities, OPLA attorneys should be guided by the perspectives of the relevant investigating agency components (e.g., the Office ofInspector General, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Libe1ties, Depa1tmentofJustice Immigrant and Employee Rights Section, Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, other federal agencies, ERO, Homeland Security Investigations, and any relevant state counterparts). Additionally, such law enforcement entities may have tools at their disposal that OPLA does not, including stays of removal, deferred action, T and U nonimmigrant status law enforcement certification, and requests for S nonimmigrant classification. In any event, national security, border security, and public safety are paramount in deciding whether to continue litigating removal proceedings.

5. Long-TermLawfulPermanentResidents

A favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion should also be considered for LPRs who have resided in the United States for many years, paiticularly when they acquired their LPR status at a young age and have demonstrated close family and community ties. Dismissal ofsuch cases that do not present serious aggravating factors will allow the noncitizen to maintain a lawful immigration status and conserve finite government resources.

When OPLA agrees to dismissal of removal proceedings as an exercise ofprosecutorial discretion in the categories above, the reasoning for this position should be recorded in PLAnet.

VI. Pursuing Appeal

In our immigration system, DHS initiates removal proceedings while IJs and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) exercise the Attorney General’s delegated authority to adjudicate issues ofremovability and reliefand protection from removal. OPLA attorneys continue to possess the discretion to take legally viable appeals ofIJ decisions and make appropriate legal arguments in response to noncitizen appeals and motions..2 1 Appellate advocacy should generally

20 See generally ICE Directive No. 10076.1, Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs (June 17,2011).

21 OPLAheadquartersdivisionsshouldcontinuetocoordinatewithimpactedDHSOfficeoftheGeneralCounsel (OGC) headquarters and component counsel offices when preparing briefs and motions in significant litigation.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 11 of13

focus on priority cases- national security, border security, and public safety. Of course, other considerations, such as significant aggravating and mitigating factors and the need to seek clarity on an important legal issue, are appropriate for OPLA attorneys to take into account, consistent with direction from their respective Chief Counsel.

Consistent with any local guidance issued by their respective Chief Counsel,.22 OPLA attorneys may waive appeal in a case that is not a priority. OPLA attorneys may also decline to appeal where there is little likelihood ofsuccess before the BIA. While OPLA attorneys may reserve appeal to ensure the articulation ofa fully reasoned decision by an IJ to help inform whether the appeal should ultimately be perfected, OPLA attorneys may also waive appeal, where appropriate, in the interest ofjudicial efficiency and in recognition of limited resources.

OPLA Field Locations generally coordinate appellate advocacy before the BIA with the Immigration Law and Practice Division (ILPD)..23 OPLA Field Locations and ILPD should continue to work together, along with any other relevant OPLA HQ divisions, to craft strong and nationally consistent appellate work product. Again, in committing OPLA resources to perfecting appeal and drafting appellate pleadings, Field Locations and ILPD should focus their efforts on presumed priority cases. Furthermore, to ensure efficiency in litigation, OPLA attorneys should generally limit briefing schedule extension requests before the BIA and should not request briefing extensions in detained matters without prior approval from a supervisor. However, it is permissible to agree to briefing extension requests filed by non-detained noncitizens whose cases are not presumed priorities.

VII. Joining in Motions for Relief and Motions to Reopen and Entering Stipulations

In order to conserve resources and expedite resolution of a case- as well as where doing so would fulfill the duty to do justice and achieve the best outcome- OPLA attorneys have the discretion to join motions for relief (oral or written), consistent with any local guidance issued by their respective Chief Counsel. An OPLA attorney should be satisfied that the noncitizen qualifies for the reliefsought under law and merits reliefas a matter ofdiscretion or qualifies

22 ChiefCounsel should review existing local practice guidance to ensure that it confonns to current interim enforcement priorities and amend such guidance where necessary. Similarly, any new local practice guidance should conform to this memorandum and the presumed priorities.

23 See Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Promoting Excellence in OPLA ‘s Advocacy Before the Board o fimmigration Appeals (Feb. 22, 2016); Email Message from Kenneth Padilla and Adam Loiacono, Final Rule – Appella..t.,e,,.,..,,,,._ _,

Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immif!ration Proceedinf!s; Administrative Closure (Jan. 22, 2021).l(b)(S) b)(S)

(b)(S) IFurther, special procedures apply in the context ofnational security and human rights violator cases. See Email Message from Rjah Ramlogan, OPLA Supplemental Guidance on the Proper Handling ofNational Security and Human Rights Violator Cases (May 28, 2015), as supplemented and modified by OPLA Memorandum, Proper Handling o f OPLA National Security (NS) Cases (May 21, 2015) and OPLA Memorandum, Proper Handling ofOPLA Human Rights Violator (HRV) Cases (May 2I, 20I5).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 12of13

24

under law for protection from removal when agreeing to such motions.. Such decisions to join

in motions should be made in a manner that facilitates the efficient operation ofOPLA Field Locations in immigration court. The same applies with respect to narrowing disputed issues through stipulation in order to promote fair and efficient proceedings.

OPLA intends to address in future.guidance when to join in motions to reopen cases with final removal orders. In the meantime, OPLA should continue addressing requests for joint motions to reopen on a case-by-case basis, giving favorable consideration to cases that are not priorities and where dismissal would be considered under Section V, supra.

VIII. Bond Proceedings

OPLA attorneys appearing before EOIR in bond proceedings must follow binding federal and administrative case law regarding the standards for custody redeterminations. 25 OPLA attorneys should also make appropriate legal and factual arguments to ensure that DHS’s interests, enforcement priorities, and custody authority are defended. In particular, in bond proceedings OPLA attorneys should give due regard to custody determinations made by an authorized immigration officer pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236. l(c)(8), while not relinquishing the OPLA attorney’s own responsibility to consider and appropriately apply the factors and considerations set forth in the Interim Memorandum, the Johnson Memorandum, the Maher Memorandum, and this guidance. Where a noncitizen produces new information that credibly mitigates flight risk or danger concerns, OPLA attorneys have discretion to agree or stipulate to a bond amount or other conditions of release with a noncitizen or their representative, and to waive appeal of an IJ’s order redetermining the conditions ofrelease in such cases..26

24 See, e.g., INA §§ 208 (asylum), 240A(a) (cancellation of removal for certain pennanent residents), 240A(b) (cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents), 240B (voluntary departure), 245 (adjustment ofstatus), 249 (registry). Additionally, OPLA attorneys represent DHS in cases where noncitizens apply for withholding of removal under INA section 241(b)(3) and protection under the regulations implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). See, e.g. , 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-.18. Withholding and CAT protection both impose significant burdens ofproof(i.e., qualifying mistreatment must be “more likely than not” to occur). When a noncitizen moves to reopen their proceedings to pursue such non-discretionary protection, and the motion is supported by evidence that strongly suggests the noncitizen will be able to meet their burden, OPLA attorneys should ordinarily not oppose reopening and can also consider joining in such motions, as resources permit

25 See, e.g., Matter ofR-A-V-P-, 27 l&N Dec. 803, 804-05 (BIA 2020) (assessing whether respondent had met burden to demonstrate that he did not pose a risk of flight in INA section 236(a) discretionary detention case); Matter ofSiniausl«is, 27 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2018) (addressing interplay between flight risk and dangerousness considerations in INA section 236(a) discretionary detention case involving recidivist drunk driver); Matter of Kotliar, 24 l&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2007) (discussing general parameters of INA section 236(c) mandatory detention).

26 DHS and EOIR regulations recognize that, as a prerequisite for even being considered for discretionary release by an ICE officer under INA section 236(a), a noncitizen “must demonstrate to the satisfaction ofthe officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the [noncitizen] is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(c)(8), 1236.l(c)(S) (emphasis added). Additionally, prior to agreeing to non monetary conditions of release, OPLA attorneys should consult with their local ERO Field Offices to ensure that such conditions are practicable (e.g., GPS monitoring, travel restrictions).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 13 of13

IJ custody redetermination decisions that are factually or legally erroneous are subject to appeal to the BIA. Decisions on whether to appeal or to continue to prosecute an appeal should be guided by the presumed priorities and the sound use of finite resources. See Section VI, supra. It may also be appropriate for an OPLA Field Location to seek a discretionary or automatic stay under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l 9(i) in conjunction with a DHS bond appeal, particularly where issues of public safety are implicated. OPLA Field Locations should work closely with ILPD and other relevant OPLA HQ divisions to identify instances where use ofthis authority may be warranted..27

IX. Responding to Inquiries

Each OPLA Field Location should maintain email inboxes dedicated to receiving inquiries related to this memorandum, including requests for OPLA to favorably exercise its discretion, and socialize the existence and use ofthese mailboxes with their respective local immigration bars including non-governmental organizations assisting or representing noncitizens before EOIR. OPLA Field Locations and sub-offices should strive to be as responsive to such inquiries as resources permit.

X. Oversight and Monitoring

This memorandum serves as interim guidance, and OPLA’s experience operating under this guidance will inform the development of subsequent guidance aligning with the outcome of the comprehensive review directed by the Interim Memorandum. It is therefore critical that prosecutorial discretion decision-making information be promptly and accurately documented in PLAnet and that SOPs be implemented to ensure consistent PLAnet recordkeeping. Field Legal Operations (FLO) should issue such SOPs within two weeks ofthis memorandum. FLO’s regular review ofPLAnet and the SOPs will form the basis ofrecommendations on process improvements, if and as necessary.

Official Use Disclaimer

This memorandum, which may contain legally privileged information, is intended For Official Use Only. It is intended solely to provide internal direction to OPLA attorneys and staff regarding the implementation of Executive Orders and DHS guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create or confer any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any individual or other party, including in removal proceedings or other litigation involving DHS, ICE, or the United States, or in any other form or manner whatsoever. Likewise, this guidance does not and is not intended to place any limitations on DHS’s otherwise lawful enforcement of the immigration laws or DHS’s litigation

prerogatives.

27 Existing OPLA guidance on automatic and discretionary stays remains in effect. See, e.g., Barry O’Melinn, Revised Proceduresfor Automatic Stay ofCustody Decisions by Immigration Judges (Oct. 26, 2006).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/

21a0127p-06.pdf

Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 6th Cir., 06-11-21, published

PANEL: MOORE, CLAY, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

KEY QUOTE:

Here, we squarely confront this question and conclude that 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iii), in conjunction with 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), provides IJs and the BIA the authority for administrative closure to permit noncitizens to apply for and receive provisional unlawful presence waivers. Administrative closure is “appropriate and necessary” in this circumstance for the disposition of Garcia’s immigration case. Absent administrative closure, Garcia and other noncitizens in removal proceedings who are seeking permanent residency would be unable to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver despite the authorizing regulation.

Permitting administrative closure for the limited purpose of allowing noncitizens to apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iii) will not lead to non-adjudication of immigration cases. Thus, the concern raised in Hernandez-Serrano that a general authority to grant administrative closure results in non-adjudication of immigration cases is not present. Administrative closure for the purpose of applying for a provisional unlawful presence waiver “bring[s] an end to the removal process” and permits “the non-citizen [to] voluntarily depart the U.S. for an immigrant visa appointment abroad.” Pet. Br. at 14. Generally, a noncitizen will, upon USCIS’s approval of their provisional unlawful presence waiver, seek to recalendar and terminate their removal proceedings. See, e.g., Romero, 937 F.3d at 287 (“Romero advised that if his case were administratively closed, then once the waiver had been approved, he intended to move to re-calendar and terminate removal proceedings so that he could then go through the consular process in Honduras.”); see also Ariel Brown, Immigr. Legal Res. Ctr., I-601A Provisional Waiver: Process, Updates, and Pitfalls to Avoid, at 7 (June 2019), https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/i- 601a_process._updates._and_pitfalls_to_avoid_june_2019.pdf (advising noncitizens to move to recalendar and then terminate their removal proceedings upon approval of their provisional unlawful presence waiver or upon receiving their immigrant visa).

**********

After five months, John Trasvina is the first Biden Administration senior official in to take any responsible, practical steps to deal with the out of control Immigration Court backlog of 1.3 million that continues to grow under Garland’s flailing non-leadership at DOJ. But, he can’t do it by himself.

Without some progressive reforms at EOIR (and I’m NOT talking about an ill-thought-out uncoordinated “Dedicated Docket” or putting more Barr picks on the already compromised Immigration Bench, both of which are likely to build backlog and further reduce quality from its already “sub-basement levels”), the backlog and systemic denials of due process in Garland’s failed Immigration Courts will continue to grow.

That means some new progressive leadership at EOIR and some progressive judges at both the trial and appellate levels. Judges who know how to “leverage” PD with recalcitrant attorneys on both sides.

It also requires an immediate recession by Garland of Sessions’s abominable precedent Matter of Castro-Tum that has been panned by experts and rejected, at least in some form, by every Circuit that has considered it. Additionally, as a practitioner just reminded me, it will depend on whether Trasvina has the will, status, and power to force compliance on what are likely to be some resistant ICE Chief Counsels and Field Office Directors. In the past, local DHS officials have sometimes simply ignored or undermined PD policies with which they disagreed. So, stay tuned!

The quote from the Trasvina memo in the headline above comes from Matter of S-M-J-, 21 l&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997) (en banc), a leading “Schmidt BIA” case! Compare this with the White Nationalist absurdist nonsense put out by Sessions about prosecuting every case, no matter how absurd, marginal, or counterproductive, to a conclusion. Sessions spewed forth total, unadulterated BS! 💩

No, and I mean NO, other law enforcement agency in America (save the Trump DHS) operates in such an irresponsible, dishonest, and unrealistic manner! Particularly one whose bad policies and lack of self-restraint helped build a largely unnecessary backlog of 1.3 million cases. Indeed, according to the latest TRAC report, a simply astounding 96% of pending Immigration Court cases involve individuals without criminal charges! https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/?category=eoir. This suggests that with competent leadership at DOJ and EOIR the backlog could be, and already should have been, dramatically slashed without adversely affecting ICE’s legitimate enforcement priorities!

“The government wins when justice is done.” Wow! What a novel idea! Sounds like something right out of one of my old speeches to newly-hired INS prosecutors when I was the Deputy General Counsel at INS.

Probably, no coincidence that BIA Appellate Judge Michael J. Heilman, who wrote S-M-J-, once worked with me at INS General Counsel (although, as the record will show, by the time we both became “independent appellate judges” at a BIA that for a brief time functioned more like a “real court of independent experts” — as opposed to the current “deportation railroad” — our views often diverged).

The 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th Circuits have rejected Sessions’s, malicious, racist, incorrect and idiotic, backlog-building decision in Castro-Tum. At the time of the Trasvina memo it appeared that the 6th Circuit was “trending in favor of” Castro-Tum, but the more recent 6th Circuit case featured above emphatically rejects Castro-Tum as applied to those seeking “provisional waivers.”

So, the 6th is a little confusing. As I read it, there is no Administrative Closing for those approved for SIJS status and waiting for numbers. But, Administrative Closing is available for a “provisional waiver.” This doesn’t make any sense to me. But, what really doesn’t make sense is the unnecessary confusion caused by Garland’s failure to act and his continuation of improper White Nationalist, anti-due process, “worst practices” instituted by his Trumpist predecessors.

To my knowledge, no Circuit has endorsed Castro-Tum in its entirety. Yet, Garland inexplicably and mindlessly has neither vacated Castro-Tum nor has he directed OIL to stop defending this legally incorrect, backlog-building, due-process-killing “Sessions-Miller” bogus “precedent.” “Part IV” of the Trasvina memo describes the unnecessary confusion and potential for more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” caused by Garland’s failure to rescind Castro-Tum and reinstate “Administrative Closing” as an essential docket management (and due process) tool in Immigration Court.

Trasvina “gets it” (at least so far). Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, not so much! Maybe Trasvina should have been the AG!

As a practitioner recently put it: “Repubs are bold, Dems are wimps when it comes to EOIR!” To date, Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke seem determined to follow in the footsteps of their ineffective predecessors! If they don’t get smarter, braver, bolder, and much more aggressively progressive, they will continue to fail American democracy in our hour of great need!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-05-21

WASTEFUL, DANGEROUS ICE DETENTION (THE “NEW AMERICAN GULAG”) CONTINUES TO UNDERMINE HUMANITY & OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS — Cornell Students From the NDPA Intervene To Save A Cuban Doctor From Mindless and Life-Threatening Detention, But Her Problems Linger Under Garland’s Dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” (That Aren’t “Courts” At All, By Any Sane Definition)!

Trial by Ordeal — Is this really the ‘preferred method’ for handling an asylum claim by a female Cuban refugee doctor? Judge Garland seems to think so!” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/06/asylum-clinic-wins-release-cuban-doctor-detained-ice

Asylum clinic wins release for Cuban doctor detained by ICE

By Owen Lubozynski | June 1, 2021

In April 2020, COVID-19 reached the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. Dr. Merlys Rodriguez Hernandez, who had been detained there for six months, said she knew it would spread quickly.

Rodriguez Hernandez is originally from Cuba, where she and her husband, Lazaro, practiced medicine before they were forced to flee government persecution, she said. When they reached the U.S. border, they applied for asylum. Both were detained, in separate facilities, Merlys said. After eight months, Lazaro was granted protection from having to return to Cuba. Merlys’ petition, based on identical circumstances, was tried in a different immigration court – and denied, she said.

Cornell Law School’s Asylum Clinic took her case, under the direction of Stephen Yale-Loehr, professor of immigration law practice, and Ian M. Kysel, visiting assistant clinical professor of law. Law students Conor Bednarski, J.D. ’21, and Michelle Zhu, J.D. ’21, litigated an appeal to the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals.

Conor Bednarski

Michelle Zhu

Meanwhile, Rodriguez Hernandez was trapped in a detention system raging with COVID-19, she said. She fell ill with the virus in May 2020 and spent 40 days in isolation, suffering from joint pain, body aches and severe diarrhea and confined to a cell she was expected to sanitize herself, she said. Tara Pilato, co-executive director emerita of the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights at Weill Cornell Medicine, who consulted on the case, observed that “the conditions Merlys reported were not only inhumane, but against all best practices for caring for patients with COVID-19.”

Kayleigh Yerdon

“Watching this preventable tragedy unfold week after week, as we were told to shelter in place, was the hardest part of working on this case,” Bednarski said.

As the pandemic spread, Bednarski and Zhu tried to secure Rodriguez Hernandez’s release, and then supported a collaboration with pro bono counsel who filed a habeas corpus writ in federal court.

Kayleigh Yerdon, J.D. ’21, took the lead on the case during the fall 2020 term. With Spanish interpretation assistance from Cornell doctor of juridical science student Ana Ruival, LLM ’19, Yerdon won her client’s release on bond. Rodriguez Hernandez was released in October 2020, after 13 months in detention, Yerdon said.

“As a law student, being able to step into court for the first time via teleconference and win, knowing my client would walk free as a result, was just an incredible experience,” Yerdon said. She also took on Lazaro’s case, successfully litigating a motion to reopen his case, and eventually securing him asylum, she said. Yerdon was recently honored with the Law School’s Freeman Award for Civil-Human Rights, in part in recognition for her clinical work.

Meryls’ case shows that some of the most harmful flaws in the immigration system can be addressed by applying basic rights principles, Kysel said.

Rodriguez Hernandez and her husband are now living in Kentucky as they work to appeal the denial of her request for asylum. She said she hopes to become an advocate for immigrants who remain detained during the pandemic. Meanwhile, the legal team has continued its efforts to engage in other advocacy and to amplify the impact of their legal work on the doctor’s case, Kysel and Yale-Loehr said.

Recently, Rodriguez Hernandez told her story in a first-person essay in the New England Journal of Medicine, with the support of her Cornell Law clinic team and a team from the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights, led by Pilato and Dr. Gunisha Kaur, assistant professor of anesthesiology.

“As one of our colleagues in the medical field, Merlys’ harrowing experience deserved attention from a medical-legal perspective,” said Pilato and Kaur. “The inhumane conditions in ICE detention centers have triggered some of the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in the country.”

In the piece, Rodriguez Hernandez wrote, “It is a bitter irony that while the first waves of the pandemic ravaged the U.S., I remained in a detention system when I could have made a difference to patients in a health care system in dire need of providers.”

Owen Lubozynski is a freelance writer for Cornell Law School.

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

Thanks to my good friend and renowned Immigration “Practical Scholar/Expert” Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr @ Cornell Law for alerting me to this item. And, many many congrats to these amazing students and members of the NDPA!😎👍

Note that in the dangerous and defective “court system” being run by Garland, the Respondent continues to struggle with appeals of her asylum denial even though her husband’s identical case was GRANTED! Worse yet, both cases should have been “no brainer” asylum grants that could have been rapidly granted by the Asylum Office without detention or Immigration Court in a properly functioning system with expert judges setting correct asylum precedents at the BIA.

No wonder this system is continuing to deny justice, threaten lives, waste resources, and create backlogs under Garland! As noted in the above posting, even the New England Journal of Medicine is up in arms about this outrageous situation and mockery of our legal process!

But, Garland and his merry band at DOJ and EOIR seem impervious to criticism, rationality, or the rule of law! And to date, they have shown little or no willingness to engage constructively with progressive human rights and Immigration experts. I guess that’s what “Miller Lite Justice” is all about!

Garland continues to get his immigration advice from this source rather than inviting progressive experts in immigration, due process, and human rights, as well as rational administration, to his “Happy Hour @ EOIR.” “Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color

There is simply no excuse for Garland’s continued mishandling of EOIR and asylum law generally! And, bureaucratic “Dedicated Dockets” run from the Falls Church Tower won’t solve the problem. Not by a long shot!

Progressive advocates and members of the NDPA need to stay energized, stay angry, and keep letting the Biden Administration feel the outrage at Garland’s inexcusable continued mishandling of EOIR! These problems will NEVER be solved with the group currently calling the shots at EOIR!

So, the question remains, with all this expertise available and some obvious solutions to some really dumb and life-threatening procedures and policies, why are Garland and Mayorkas “groping in the dark” rather than bringing in and empowering the progressive experts who will solve these problems?

Due Process Forever! Let your continuing outrage at EOIR’s failure to deliver due process and fundamental fairness with efficiency and humanity be heard and felt by the Biden Administration! Don’t take “Good Enough for Government Work” as Equal Justice in America from Democrats or Republicans! “Just say no” to more “Miller Lite Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants! Wonder why our nation is struggling with racial justice? Look no further than Garland’s mishandling of EOIR!

President Biden has put Vice President Harris in charge of border issues and racial justice reforms. Progressive advocates should let her know directly that Garland is NOT getting the job done at Justice, and that they are sick and tired of not being consulted and having their expert candidates for EOIR snubbed in favor of Trump holdovers and non-progressives! If her “legacy” includes EOIR’s racially and gender insensitive, due-process denying, intentionally non-diverse “Kangaroo Courts” carrying out the Miller/Sessions/Barr White Nationalist nativist agenda, it won’t be a “good look” for her or her future! And, it most certainly will be bad, perhaps fatal, for our nation’s future as a liberal democracy!

Kangaroos — “Diversity @ EOIR” “What’s wrong with this picture? Let Vice President Harris know that you want a new, diverse, progressive, expert, humanitarian, due-process-oriented judiciary in our now broken, biased, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

PWS

06-02-21

👎🏽“ADR” IN ACTION: EOIR ISSUES “DEDICATED DOCKET” GUIDANCE FROM THE TOWER! — Experts & Those Affected Continue To Be Snubbed, Left Out Of Process!

ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — a DOJ/EOIR specialty now being used by Garland’s DOJ

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/book/file/1399361/download

To: All of EOIR

From: JeanC.King,ActingDirector Date: May 27, 2021

DEDICATED DOCKET

Effective:

OOD PM 21-23

May 28, 2021

PURPOSE:

OWNER: AUTHORITY:

CANCELLATION:

Establishes a dedicated docket for certain individuals in removal proceedings.

Office of the Director

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Memorandum, Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures (Jan. 2018); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)

Policy Memorandum 19-04

EOIR is initiating a Dedicated Docket to focus on the adjudication of family cases as designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This docket will run alongside typical court operations in immigration courts in ten cities: Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. DHS has indicated that it will be placing on the Dedicated Docket families who crossed the Southern border and whom DHS has placed on alternatives to detention. Cases will be identified for this docket as of the effective date of this memorandum.

EOIR’s immigration judges will endeavor to issue a decision in each case on the Dedicated Docket within 300 days after the initial master calendar hearing. To facilitate such timeliness while providing due process, EOIR will only schedule these cases before immigration judges who generally have docket time available to manage a case on that timeline, but EOIR recognizes that unique circumstances of each case may impact the ability to issue a decision within that period. As needed, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge will provide additional case management guidance to assist immigration judges in meeting this goal.

EOIR remains committed to the timely resolution of immigration court cases in a fair and impartial manner. Importantly, the adjudication timeframe established by this policy memorandum (PM) and any subsequent case management guidance is an internal goal. Respondents whose cases are on these dockets have the opportunity to request continuances, as do all respondents in removal proceedings, and immigration judges retain discretion to determine whether a continuance should be granted for good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. EOIR expects

1

that its immigration judges will make these determinations with full consideration for a respondent’s statutory right to counsel and consistent with due process and fundamental fairness.

Respondents whose cases are placed on these dockets will be provided with a number of services, including access to information services and possible referral services to facilitate legal representation. Each city in which EOIR has established the Dedicated Docket has an established pro bono network.

EOIR previously tracked certain cases designated by DHS in select immigration court locations. See PM 19-04, Tracking and Expedition of “Family Unit” Cases (Nov. 16, 2018). This effort was discontinued during the COVID-19 pandemic and has not been resumed. Thus, PM 19-04 is rescinded.

EOIR is managing the hearings with full consideration for the safety of its employees and all parties who appear in court. EOIR will continue to implement practices and procedures consistent with information from public health officials and guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and the DOJ Justice Management Division. See PM 20-13, EOIR Practices Related to the COVID-19 Outbreak (June 11, 2020).

This PM is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or equities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Please contact your supervisor if you have any questions regarding this PM.

2

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

In theory, prioritizing timely adjudication of recently arrived asylum seekers in Immigration Court could be a good idea – along the lines that a number of us recommended to the Biden Transition Team. But, not this way!

This “tone-deaf missive from on high,” as usual, is “designed to fail” rather than “dressed for success:”

It relies heavily on the ready availability of pro bono legal services in certain locations, yet, incredibly, there was NO ADVANCE CONSULTATION & COORDINATION with those key groups;
It is not accompanied by grants or other support to legal assistance groups to help them provide universal representation to asylum seekers;
There is no reason to believe that Immigration Judges in these locations are well-qualified to decide asylum cases merely because they have “docket space available;” indeed there are gross disparities in asylum grant rates among the selected courts;
Anti-asylum precedents issued by the Trump Administration remain in effect which undoubtedly will lead to unfair denials of asylum;
Among these anti-asylum precedents are some incorrectly limiting and discouraging continuances and administrative closing — making the promise of flexibility and fairness totally disingenuous;
Before instituting new programs in consultation with the private bar, the DHS, and the NAIJ (representing the IJs who will actually have to control these dockets), EOIR must slash the backlog by removing from the docket the vast majority of “non-priority” cases forming the astounding, largely self created 1.3 million case backlog;
With better precedents by a new BIA with progressive asylum experts as judges, and some procedural changes, many more asylum cases could be granted “in the first instance” by the Asylum Office, thereby reducing the pressure on the Immigration Courts while reducing the incentives for frivolous opposition to asylum cases by ICE, a big “time waster” in Immigration Court; but no such “progressive thinking or practical problem solving” is reflected in this directive.

Half-baked bureaucratic directives like this won’t solve the problem! It’s just more proof of how completely unqualified Garland’s DOJ and EOIR leadership are to administer a “real court system.” Where are the Article I advocates in Congress? Removing the Immigration Courts from DOJ needs to be one of our highest National priorities.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! DOJ/EOIR incompetence, never!

PWS

06-02-21

ICE Continues To Use Inaccurate Police Data To Dictate Arrests and Deportations

By: Sophia Barba

On February 18, 2021, DHS published a memorandum for all ICE employees to prioritize immigrants who have been recorded as having gang affiliation for deportation and removal. ICE’s practice of using police data to identify immigrants who have been listed as being gang affiliates is not new. In 2017, ICE came under fire for their FALCON system, which gathered information as far-ranging as local police reports, social media, criminal and civil asset forfeiture records, cell phone information and even data collected by the CIA and NSA. What’s more, the information used to identify immigrants as gang-affiliated is largely inaccurate, and often mistakenly identifies individuals without much oversight. Many critics have emphasized that these systems record people using racial markers, or loosely substantiated relationships or networks, which make overgeneralized speculations about potential gang members, rather than relying on more substantial evidence. Since this data cannot be easily accessed, people who are placed on these lists often have no recourse to contest the categorization until it is too late. As Max Rivlin-Nadler from The Appeal stated,

“This ‘information imbalance’ that immigrants experience when facing deportation is immense — often they’re not told exactly what has qualified them as a “gang member,” nor given the opportunity to correct records that local or federal law enforcement might be keeping on them.”

Human Rights Watch, and several other organizations, have publicly denounced the February 18 memo, stating that the practice does nothing more than to perpetuate a heavily racialized policy that significantly eats away at immigrants’ due process rights.

Here is some more background:

LA Times reports gang databases are filled with errors.

Oregonian reports gang databases include largely just minorities

Lawsuits claimed that gang databases were being used to provide weak support for deportations

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮

Dan Kowalski forwards these two 2d Circuit reversals on basic “bread and butter” issues: 1) mental competency (BIA unable or unwilling to follow own precedent); 2) credibility; 3) corroboration; 4) consideration of testimony and evidence:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85d225f1-0b15-44a9-8890-80f9027d12b5/3/doc/18-1083_so.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85d225f1-0b15-44a9-8890-80f9027d12b5/3/hilite/

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57161a21-b70c-4b36-9a38-ff6a88d12453/14/doc/19-1370_so.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57161a21-b70c-4b36-9a38-ff6a88d12453/14/hilite/

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

These aren’t “cases of first impression,” “Circuit splits,” complex questions involving state law, unusual Constitutional issues, or difficult applications of treaties or international law. No, these are the “basics” of fair, competent adjudication in Immigration Court. Things most law students would get correct that IJs and BIA Appellate Judges are getting wrong on a daily basis in their “race to deny.”

Don’t kid yourself! For every one of these “caught and outed” by Circuit Courts, dozens are wrongly railroaded out of America because they are unrepresented, can’t afford to pursue judicial review in the Article IIIs, or are duressed and demoralized by unconstitutional detention and other coercive methods applied by the “unethical partnership” between EOIR and ICE enforcement.

Others have the misfortune to be in the 5th Circuit, the 11th Circuit, or draw Circuit panels who are happy to “keep,the line moving” by indolently “rubber stamping” EOIR’s “Dred Scottification” of “the other.” After all, dead or deported (or both) migrants can’t complain and don’t exercise any societal power! “Dead/deported men or women don’t talk.”☠️⚰️ But, members of the NDPA will preserve and tell their stories of unnecessary human suffering and degradation for them! We will insure that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and others in the Biden Administration who ignored their desperate moans and tortured screams in their time of direst need are held accountable!🤮

Unfortunately, these decisions are unpublished. They should be published! It’s critically important that the daily gross miscarriages of justice @ EOIR be publicly documented, citable as precedent, and serve as a permanent record of perhaps the most unconstitutional and corrupt episode in modern American legal history.

It’s also essential to keep the pressure on Garland and his so far feckless lieutenants to fix the problem:

Remove the Trump/Miller holdovers @ EOIR;
Prune out the “go along to get along” deadwood;
Rescind the improper hiring of 17 “Billy the Bigot” judicial selections (including the one absurdist selection by “AG for a Day Monty Python” — talk about a “poke in the eyes with a sharp stick” to progressives);
Bring in top notch progressive practical scholars as leaders and REAL judges at both the appellate and trial levels of EOIR – NOW;
Make the “no brainer” changes to eradicate Trump-era unethical, xenophobic “precedents” and inane “rules” and establish due process and fundamental fairness, including, of course, racial and gender equity in decision making.

So far, Garland has pretended that the “Culture of Denial” flourishing under his nose at HIS EOIR doesn’t exist! It does exist — big time — and it continues to get worse, threaten more lives, and squander more resources every day!

Due process (not to mention simple human decency) requires bold, immediate ACTION. Garland’s continued dawdling and inaction raises the issue of what is the purpose of an Attorney General who allows his “delegees” (basically Stephen Miller’s “judges”) to violate due process every day! There is no more important issue facing the DOJ today. Garland’s silence and inaction raise serious questions about his suitability to serve as the American public’s top lawyer!

Woman Tortured — Abused, battered refugee women don’t appear to be enjoying “Miller Lite Time” @ DOJ quite the way Garland, Monaco, and Gupta are! Hard to hold that 16 oz. can when your hands are shackled and you are being “racked” by A-B-, L-E-A-, Castro-Tum and other “Miller brewed” precedents. “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-24-21

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dean Kevin Johnson reports for ImmigrationProf Blog:

Meanwhile, Tyche Hendricks reports @ KQED News on the ongoing mess @ EOIR:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!

Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders

Here’s the “full text” of the decision:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien’s lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the due process clause.”

By Rowaida Abdelaziz in HuffPost:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Thamotar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 11th Cir., 06-17-21, Published

Get this, folks! The IJ and the BIA both found that meeting the higher standard for withholding of deportation based on probability of persecution somehow was an “adverse factor” that outweighed family separation! That’s right, an “adverse factor!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Asylum Free Zones,” Never!

Related posts:

AP reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s a copy of Judge Freeman’s decision, basically a “primer” on Matthews v. Eldridge due process and its blatant violation under immigration bureaucracies of Administrations of both parties.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Happy Flag Day!🇺🇸

Related posts:

Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 6th Cir., 06-11-21, published

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — a DOJ/EOIR specialty now being used by Garland’s DOJ

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! DOJ/EOIR incompetence, never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: