Category: Department of Homeland Security

☠️👎🏼 ANOTHER SUPER-SHODDY PERFORMANCE BY BIA ON CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM OUTED BY 9TH CIR. — Reyes-Corado v. Garland

Four Horsemen
BIA Asylum Panel In Action. It’s hard to ignore the BIA’s violent, deadly, abuse of asylum seekers, particularly those of color. But, somehow, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and other DOJ officials manage to look the other way, as do Congressional Dems! Too busy fecklessly complaining about Justice Clarence Thomas to look at their own house?
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

SUMMARY** Immigration

The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of Francisco Reyes-Corado’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed circumstances, and remanded.

The Board denied reopening based, in part, on Reyes- Corado’s failure to include a new application for relief, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The government acknowledged that under Aliyev v. Barr, 971 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020), the Board erred to the extent it relied on Reyes- Corado’s failure to submit a new asylum application for relief. Here, however, unlike in Aliyev, Reyes-Corado did not include his original asylum application with his motion to reopen. Consistent with the plain text of § 1003.2(c)(1) and various persuasive authorities, the panel held that a motion to reopen that adds new circumstances to a previously considered application need not be accompanied by an application for relief.

The Board also denied reopening after concluding that Reyes-Corado did not establish materially changed country conditions to warrant an exception to the time limitation on his motion to reopen. Reyes-Corado initially sought asylum relief based on threats he received from his uncle’s family members to discourage him from avenging his father’s murder by his uncle’s family. The Board previously concluded that personal retribution, rather than a protected

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND 3

 ground, was the central motivation for the threats of harm. In his motion to reopen, Reyes-Corado presented evidence of persistent and intensifying threats.

As an initial matter, the panel explained that the changed circumstances Reyes-Corado presented were entirely outside of his control, and thus were properly understood as changed country conditions, not changed personal circumstances. The panel also held that these changed circumstances were material to Reyes-Corado’s claims for relief because they rebutted the agency’s previous determination that Reyes-Corado had failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm he feared and his membership in a familial particular social group. The panel explained that the Board’s previous nexus rationale was undermined by the fact that the threats, harassment, and violence persisted despite the lack of any retribution by Reyes-Corado’s family against his uncle’s family for at least fourteen years after Reyes-Corado’s father’s murder, and where multiple additional family members were targeted, including elderly and young family members who would be unlikely to carry out any retribution. Thus, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that Reyes-Corado’s evidence was not qualitatively different than the evidence at his original hearing.

The panel also declined to uphold the Board’s determination that Reyes-Corado failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief because Reyes-Corado’s new evidence likely undermined the Board’s prior nexus finding, and the Board applied the improperly high “one central reason” nexus standard to Reyes-Corado’s withholding of removal claim, rather than the less demanding “a reason” standard.

4 REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND

 The panel remanded for the Board to reconsider whether Reyes-Corado established prima facie eligibility for relief and to otherwise reevaluate the motion to reopen in light of the principles set forth in the opinion.

COUNSEL

David A. Schlesinger

(argued), Kai Medeiros, and Paulina

Reyes, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, California, for Petitioner.

 

Enitan O. Otunla (argued), Trial Attorney; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

OPINION

KOH, Circuit Judge:

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

Congrats to David A. Schlesinger & colleagues!

I’ve often discussed  EOIR’s all-too-frequent use of bogus nexus determinations – basically turning normal legal rules on causation on their head – to deny protection to bona fide refugees, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti.

There is a growing body of evidence that EOIR is systematically unfair to Central American asylum applicants. But, Garland, his lieutenants, and Congressional Dems have basically looked the other way as this stunning, widespread denial of due process and equal protection under our Constitution continues to unfold in plain view on their watch! Why? Where’s the dynamic, values-based, expert, ethical leadership we should expect from a Dem Administration?

This particular example of substandard “judging” literally reeks of pre-judgement and “endemic any reason to denialism!”

Dems wring their collective hands about Justice Clarence Thomas, who is essentially unaccountable and untouchable! But, they have done little or nothing to address serious competence, bias, and ethical issues festering in a major “life or death” Federal Court System they totally control!

Lots of “talk,” not much “walk” from Dems!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-15-23

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  3. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️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!🤮
  4. 🇺🇸🗽⚖️GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE REPORT: GENDER VIOLENCE ☠️⚰️DRIVES CONTINUING REFUGEE FLOW TO U.S. — Dishonesty Of Sessions’s Misogynistic Attack In Matter Of A-B- 🤮 Exposed Again! — Yet, Garland Fails To Take Action To End Misogyny, Anti-Asylum Culture @ EOIR, Even As He Also Fails To Insist On The Restoration Of The Rule Of Law @ Our Borders! —  WHY?🤯

⚖️ I DISSENT FROM BIA’S (NON) GUIDANCE ON “UNDER COLOR OF LAW” FOR THOSE WHO SUFFERED TORTURE BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN MATTER OF J-G-R-, 23 I &N DEC. 733 (BIA 2023)

Star Chamber Justice
Unless you work at Merrick “Garland’s BIA, it would be reasonable to assume that torture by government officials is “under color of law!”

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) Torturous conduct committed by a public official who is “acting in an official capacity,” meaning acting under color of law, is covered by the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, but such conduct by an official who is not acting in an official capacity is not covered. Matter of O-F-A-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 35 (A.G. 2020), followed.

(2) The key consideration in determining if an official’s torturous conduct was undertaken “in an official capacity” for purposes of CAT eligibility is whether the official was able to engage in the conduct because of his or her government position, or whether the official could have done so without connection to the government.

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ethan R. Horowitz, Esquire, Lawrence, Massachusetts

BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; CREPPY and HUNSUCKER; Appellate Immigration Judges.

MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge:

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

SCHMIDT, RETIRED JUDGE OF THE ROUND TABLE, DISSENTING:

I dissent.

A far fairer, more logical, efficient, and uniformity-promoting solution is staring us in the face: An applicant who credibly establishes torture by a public official or officials should be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the torture was inflicted “under color of law.” The DHS should then be required to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the official was acting in another capacity if it wishes to contest that presumption.

The information and evidence that might overcome a logical presumption that government officials act “under color of law” is much more likely to be available to the DHS than to the applicant. This is particularly true in the many cases where CAT applicants are detained, unrepresented, or both.

This rebuttable presumption would also, as a practical matter, close the gap between our interpretation and the rule in the Ninth Circuit which wisely recognizes no exceptions when torture is inflicted by government officials. See, e.g., Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 362 (9th Cir. 2017).

In adjudicating claims from individuals who have already suffered torture at the hands of government officials we must err on the side of protection, not rejection. The panel’s mushy guidance amounts to no practical guidance at all. It will certainly result in conflicting results, increased trial times and backlogs, arbitrary denials, and violations of due process. More backlog-promoting, avoidable Circuit Court remands are sure to follow.

Consequently, I dissent.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-14-23

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  2. 🏴‍☠️BIA’S MISOGYNISTIC, ANTI-ASYLUM, IGNORE THE EXPERTS & THE EVIDENCE APPROACH 🤮 REBUKED AGAIN — 9th Cir. Slams BIA Big Time In Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland! — “Concurring, Judge Paez wrote that in addition to ignoring evidence that Rodriguez was targeted on account of her feminist political opinion, the Board also ignored extensive record evidence from a leading authority on domestic violence that directly rejected the Board’s premise that domestic violence is presumed to be motivated by nothing more than the private dynamics of a ‘personal relationship.’”
  3. 🏴‍☠️👎🏼🤮 JUSTICE’S UNJUST “COURTS!” — Recent Reports Highlight Horribly Failed System —Asylum Free Zones, Unqualified Prosecutor-Judges, Deadly Denials, Blatant Information Imbalance, Dehumanizing Treatment, Poor Access To Counsel, Docket Mayhem, Unrealistic Timelines, Biased Outcomes, Indifference To Human Life, Unaccountability, Among The Myriad Problems Flagged By Those Forced To Deal With Garland’s Ongoing Mockery Of Due Process! — EXTRA! — How Poor Legal Performance @ DOJ Skews The Entire Immigration Debate!
  4. 🤮👎🏻EOIR’S CONTEMPT FOR CIRCUITS, UNPROFESSIONAL ABUSE OF EXPERTS, PRO-DHS BIAS EARNS STRONG REBUKE FROM 9TH! — End The Star Chambers!☠️ — No More “Governmental Malpractice” From The New Administration!

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🧑‍⚖️ GARLAND APPOINTS 38 NEW U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES — More Prosecutors Than Private/NGO Practitioners; Approximately 70% Have Immigration Experience, By My “Quick & Dirty” Analysis!

FROM EOIR:

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmp1c3RpY2UuZ292L2VvaXIvcGFnZS9maWxlLzE1OTI4NjYvZG93bmxvYWQiLCJidWxsZXRpbl9pZCI6IjIwMjMwODExLjgxMDE3NjIxIn0.ULrCqsgnirmemmGnS6ggXxbrT28kWH28Ezp2rQdHI4E/s/842922301/br/224124905134-l

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR

Aug. 11, 2023

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of 38 immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Attorney General Merrick Garland administered the oath of office and delivered remarks during the investiture, which was held today at the Department of Justice’s Great Hall in Washington, D.C.

EOIR continues to expand its immigration judge corps and welcomes qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join the agency. In addition to making a difference through service to our Nation, immigration judges join a diverse and inclusive workforce. Individuals interested in these critical positions are invited to sign up for job alerts that are sent when new opportunities become available.

Immigration judges are career employees, and each one is selected after a thorough and competitive application process. Today, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland officially appointed the following individuals as immigration judges: Sameer Ahmed, Adrian N. Armstrong, Jody L. Barilla, Elanie J. Cintron, Ghunise L. Coaxum, Benjamin Davey, Alberto A. De Puy, Jennifer A. Durkin, Carla I. Espinoza, Zahra Jivani Fenelon, David A. Gardey, Cynthia D. Goodman, Jonathan H. Hall, Tanya L. Hasbrouck, Jacquelyn Jo Joyce, Jennifer M. Kerby, Heather A. Libeu, Kyra S. Lilien, Brandi M. Lohr, Nicole C. Lomartire, Robert K. Lundberg, Margaret R. MacGregor, Kimberly Charon McBride, Justin R. McEwen, Christopher D. McNary, Jane Chace Miller, George R. Najjar, Douglas D. Nelson, Tania T. Nemer, Monica Barba Neumann, Colleen O’Donnell, George D. Pappas, Irma Pérez, Daniel I. Smulow, Elizabeth I.Treacy, Adrián F. Paredes Velasco, ShaSha Xu, and Juliana Zach.

Biographical information for the newly appointed immigration judges follows:

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 2

Sameer Ahmed, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Sameer Ahmed was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Ahmed earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Stanford University, a Master of Science in 2005 from the University of London, a Master of Studies in 2007 from the University of Oxford, and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Yale Law School. From 2020 to 2023, he was a clinical instructor at the Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program at Harvard Law School. From 2019 to 2020, he was an assistant teaching professor at Northeastern University School of Law. From 2017 to 2019, he was an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. From 2015 to 2017, and previously from 2013 to 2014, he was an attorney at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in Boston. From 2014 to 2015, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. From 2011 to 2013, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. From 2009 to 2011, he was a Skadden fellow at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York, New York. Judge Ahmed is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the New York State Bar.

Adrian N. Armstrong, Immigration Judge, Elizabeth Immigration Court

Adrian N. Armstrong was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Armstrong earned a Bachelor of Science in 1984 from Longwood University and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. From 2020 to 2023, he served as a judge at the New York State Court of Claims and was designated an acting Supreme Court judge in Bronx County. From 2015 to 2020, he served as a judge at the Mount Vernon City Court and was designated as an acting Family Court judge in Westchester County. From 1993 to 2015, he served as a law clerk at the New York State Office of Court Administration. From 1990 to 1993, he served as assistant district attorney at the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office. Judge Armstrong is a member of the New York State Bar.

Jody L. Barilla, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Jody L. Barilla was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Barilla earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1988 from the Ohio State University and a Juris Doctor in 1992 from Cleveland Marshall College of Law. From 2021 to 2023, she served as the court administrator for the Chicago Immigration Court. From 1997 to 2021, she served as a magistrate at the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court in Elyria, Ohio. During this time, from 2013 to 2021, she also served as the court administrator for the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court. From 1992 to 1997, she worked as an associate attorney with the law firm of Smith & Smith Attorneys. Judge Barilla is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Elanie J. Cintron, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Elanie J. Cintron was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Cintron earned a Bachelor of Science in 2005 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Juris Doctorate in 2013 from the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University. From 2017 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 3

Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Denver. From 2014 to 2017, she was an associate attorney with Lichter Immigration in Denver. During this time, she provided pro bono representation through the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Artesia Pro Bono Project and the AILA CARA Pro Bono Project. Judge Cintron is a member of the Minnesota State Bar.

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Immigration Judge, Atlanta – W. Peachtree Street Immigration Court

Ghunise L. Coaxum was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Coaxum earned a Bachelor of Science in 1991 from the University of Florida and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the University of Florida College of Law (now known as the Frederic G. Levin College of Law). From 2000 to 2023, she was bar counsel at the Florida Bar in Orlando, Florida. From 1998 to 2000, she was a senior attorney with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, in Orlando. From 1996 to 1998, she was an assistant public defender with the Office of the Public Defender, 9th Judicial Circuit in Orlando. Judge Coaxum is a member of the Florida Bar.

Benjamin J. Davey, Immigration Judge, Detroit Immigration Court

Benjamin J. Davey was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Davey earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts in 2002 from Otterbein University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from Cleveland State University College of Law. From 2013 to 2023, he served as a magistrate in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations and Juvenile Division, in Elyria, Ohio. During this time, from 2022 to 2023, he provided pro bono legal services through Catholic Charities, assisting individuals seeking affirmative asylum before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. From 2007 to 2013, he served as an assistant prosecuting attorney for Lorain County, Ohio. During this time, from 2011 to 2013, Judge Davey also served as counsel for the Lorain County General Health District. Judge Davey is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Alberto A. De Puy, Immigration Judge, New Orleans Immigration Court

Alberto A. De Puy was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge De Puy earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from Louisiana State University, and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Tulane University Law School. From 2021 to 2023, he served as an administrative law judge for the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law. From 2014 to 2021, he served as an assistant attorney general at the Louisiana Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office. From 2011 to 2014, he served as a policy advisor at the Louisiana Office of the Governor. From 2007 to 2011, he served as an assistant district attorney at the Calcasieu Parish District Attorney’s Office. From 2006 to 2007, he served as an assistant district attorney at the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. In 2005, he completed a legal internship at the U.S. Mission to the Organization of American States, Department of State. Judge De Puy is a member of the Louisiana State Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 4

Jennifer A. Durkin, Immigration Judge, New York – Varick Immigration Court

Jennifer A. Durkin was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Durkin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from the University of Buffalo and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. She has practiced immigration law her entire career. From 2022 to 2023, she was Deputy Attorney-in-Charge of the Immigration Law Unit at the Legal Aid Society in New York. From 2020 to 2022, she was a supervising attorney at the Legal Aid Society on the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, which represents detained immigrant New Yorkers facing removal. From 2010 to 2020, she was in private practice at Durkin & Puri in New York where she represented noncitizens before EOIR; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State. From 2005 to 2010, she was a partner at Yee, Durkin & Puri in New York (known as Yee & Durkin until 2008). From 2003 to 2005, she was an associate at Spar & Bernstein in New York. From 1999 to 2003, she was an associate at the Law Office of Roni P. Deutsch in Encino, California. Judge Durkin is a member of the State Bar of California and the District of Columbia Bar.

Carla I. Espinoza, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Carla I. Espinoza was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Espinoza earned a Bachelor of Science in 2009 from the University of Texas at El Paso, and a Juris Doctor and a Certificate in International and Comparative Law in 2012 from DePaul University College of Law. From 2020 to 2023, she was the managing partner, and from 2013 to 2020, she was supervising and managing attorney, for Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices. From 2012 to 2013, she served as a supervising attorney with Solis Law Firm PC in Chicago. Judge Espinoza is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Zahra Jivani Fenelon, Immigration Judge, Houston – Smith Street Immigration Court

Zahra Jivani Fenelon was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Jivani Fenelon earned a Bachelor of Science in 2003 from Houston Baptist University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from South Texas College of Law. From 2015 to 2023, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, where she prosecuted crimes of child exploitation, human trafficking, cybercrime, and white-collar fraud. From 2006 to 2015, she was an assistant district attorney at the Fort Bend County District Attorney’s Office, where she prosecuted felony crimes. Judge Jivani Fenelon is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

David A. Gardey, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

David A. Gardey was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Gardey earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from Yale University and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the Notre Dame Law School. From 2005 to 2023, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit, in various capacities, including: special counsel to the U.S. Attorney, chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Unit, and chief of the Drug Task Force Unit. From 2001 to 2005, he served as an AUSA with the U.S. Attorney’s

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 5

Office for the Southern District of Florida in Miami. From 1997 to 2001, he was a supervisory attorney for Butzel Long PC in Detroit, and from 1995 to 1997, he was an associate with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York. From 1993 to 1995, he served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Paul V. Gadola of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Gardey is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and the New York State Bar.

Cynthia D. Goodman, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center

Cynthia D. Goodman was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Goodman earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of North Texas and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Texas Tech University School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she served as a pro se staff attorney for the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas. From 2013 to 2016, she was a private practice immigration and criminal defense attorney with Stockard, Johnston, Brown LLC in Amarillo, Texas. From 2008 to 2013, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Dallas. During this time, from 2011 to 2013, Judge Goodman served a detail as a special assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas. From 2006 to 2008, she served as an assistant county attorney for Potter County, Texas. Judge Goodman is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Jonathan H. Hall, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Jonathan H. Hall was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Hall earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from The University of Rhode Island, a Juris Doctor in 2011 from Suffolk University Law School, and a Master of Laws in 2013 from American University Washington College of Law. From 2021 to 2023, he served as an administrative law judge at the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings. From 2016 to 2021, he served as assistant general counsel at the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. From 2013 to 2016, he served as assistant attorney general at the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Judge Hall is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

Tanya L. Hasbrouck, Immigration Judge, LaSalle Immigration Court.

Tanya L. Hasbrouck was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Hasbrouck earned a Bachelor of Science in 1985 from Montana State University and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from the University of Mississippi School of Law. In 2023, Judge Hasbrouck was an attorney with the Hasbrouck Law Firm in Pascagoula, Mississippi. From 2019 to 2022, she served as a chancery court judge for the 16th Judicial District of Mississippi. From 2012 to 2018, she was with the Hasbrouck Law Firm in Pascagoula, Mississippi. During this time, she also served from 2017 to 2018 as the municipal public defender for the city of Gautier; from 2016 to 2018 as the municipal public defender for the city of Pascagoula; and from 2013 to 2018 as the board attorney for West Jackson County Utility District. From 2004 to 2012, she served as an assistant district attorney for the 19th Judicial District of Mississippi. From 2000 to 2003, she was an associate attorney for Cumbest, Cumbest, Hunter & McCormick in

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 6

Pascagoula. From 1996 to 1999, she served as an assistant district attorney for the 19th Judicial District of Mississippi. From 1994 to 1996, she served as an assistant public defender for Jackson County, Mississippi. From 1991 to 1994, she served as an associate attorney with Bryant, Colingo, Williams & Clark in Pascagoula. From 1990 to 1991, she served as a judicial law clerk for the Mississippi Supreme Court. Judge Hasbrouck is a member of the Mississippi Bar.

Jacquelyn Jo Joyce, Immigration Judge, Houston – South Gessner Immigration Court

Jacquelyn Jo Joyce was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Joyce earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from the Florida State University and a Juris Doctor in 2010 from the University of Florida Levin College of Law. From 2018 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security in Pearsall, Texas. From 2015 to 2018, she served as assistant public defender in the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida in Lake City, Florida. From 2010 to 2015, she served as a trial court law clerk for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida in Live Oak, Florida. Judge Joyce is a member of the Florida Bar.

Jennifer M. Kerby, Immigration Judge, Falls Church Immigration Adjudication Center

Jennifer M. Kerby was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Kerby earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from the University of Virginia, a Master of Education in 1995 from the University of Virginia, and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Georgia State University College of Law. From 2005 to 2023, she served as an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2002 to 2004, she served a two- year appointment as a staff attorney/law clerk with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Kerby is a member of the State Bar of Georgia and the Virginia State Bar.

Heather A. Libeu, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Heather A. Libeu was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Libeu earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from Chapman University and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. From 2021 to 2023, she served an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Santa Ana, California. From 2010 to 2021, she served an assistant chief counsel, OPLA, in Los Angeles. From 2009 to 2010, she served as an associate legal advisor, and from 2007 to 2009, she served as Presidential management fellow, OPLA, in Washington, D.C. Judge Libeu is a member of the State Bar of California.

Kyra S. Lilien, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Kyra S. Lilien was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lilien earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from Smith College and a Juris

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 7

Doctor in 2006 from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. From 2021 to 2023, she was the director of immigration legal services at Jewish Family & Community Services – East Bay in Concord, California. From 2016 to 2021, she served as staff attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. From 2013 to 2016, she served as asylum officer and interim training officer at the San Francisco Asylum Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security. From 2010 to 2013, she was the immigration program director at Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland, California, where she represented noncitizens before EOIR and USCIS. From 2007 to 2010, she was an associate attorney at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in San Francisco, where she handled immigration cases on a pro bono basis. From 2006 to 2007, she was a research fellow on behalf of the University of California, Berkeley, War Crimes Studies Center at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Judge Lilien is a member of the State Bar of California.

Brandi M. Lohr, Immigration Judge, Buffalo Immigration Court

Brandi M. Lohr was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lohr earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from the State University of New York at Buffalo and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from Duquesne University. From 2010 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Batavia and Buffalo, New York. From 2007 to 2010, she served as a management and program analyst and presidential management fellow, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in Buffalo and Washington, D.C. Judge Lohr is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Nicole C. Lomartire, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

Nicole C. Lomartire was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lomartire earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from Hofstra University and a Juris Doctor in 2003 from the University of Maryland School of Law. From 2017 to 2023, she served as a deputy chief counsel, and from 2015 to 2017, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Baltimore. From 2004 to 2015, she served as an assistant state’s attorney for the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City. Judge Lomartire is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Robert K. Lundberg, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

Robert K. Lundberg was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lundberg earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2010 from Arizona State University and a Juris Doctor in 2012 from the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. From 2021 to 2023, he served as a trial attorney with the Appellate Court Section, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2018 to 2021, he served as an associate counsel with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Washington, D.C. From 2014 to 2018, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS, in Florence, Arizona. From 2013 to

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 8

2014, he practiced civil litigation with the Law Firm of Bert Moll in Chandler, Arizona. Judge Lundberg is a member of the State Bar of Arizona.

Margaret R. MacGregor, Immigration Judge, Port Isabel Immigration Court

Margaret R. MacGregor was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge MacGregor earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctorate in 1999 from the University of Arizona College of

Law. From 2009 to 2023, she was an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2007 to 2009, she was an associate with Berry, Appleman & Leiden, and from 2005 to 2007 with Reina & Associates, both in Dallas. From 2003 to 2005, she was a deputy attorney general representing the Division of Youth and Family Services for the State of New Jersey. From 2002 to 2003, she clerked for the Honorable Vincent J. Grasso, presiding judge of the Family Part, in Ocean County, New Jersey. From 2000 to 2002, she was the senior editor of the Products Liability Law Reporter for the American Association for Justice in Washington, D.C. From 1999 to 2000, she was a staff attorney at the Center for Auto Safety in Washington, D.C. Judge MacGregor is a member of the New Jersey Bar.

Kimberly Charon McBride, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

Kimberly Charon McBride was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge McBride earned a Bachelor of Science in 1990 from the University of Maryland at College Park and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the University of Baltimore School of Law. From 2010 to 2023, she served as a family magistrate for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. During this time, she presided over juvenile delinquency and child welfare cases involving complex issues of child abuse and neglect, substance use disorders, domestic and family violence, and mental health. From 2005 to 2010, and previously from 1996 to 2000, she was a solo practitioner, serving as a panel attorney for the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) in Baltimore City, where she represented parents in child welfare and juveniles in delinquency matters. During these years, she also provided representation to parents in divorce, child custody, guardianship, and child support matters. She also provided representation in civil and criminal matters in the Circuit and District Courts of Baltimore City and surrounding counties, including, but not limited to, family law, real estate, employment, personal injury, traffic, workers’ compensation, and bankruptcy. From 2000 to 2005, she served as a senior associate at The Miracle Makers Inc. in Brooklyn, New York. Judge McBride is a member of the Maryland Bar.

Justin R. McEwen, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Justin R. McEwen was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge McEwen earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Southern Utah University, a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, and a Master of Laws in Trial Advocacy in 2013 from California Western School of Law. From 2003 to 2023, Judge McEwen served as a Judge Advocate in the U.S. Navy, which culminated in his service as the Circuit Judge for Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia from 2019 to 2023. During his time as a Judge Advocate, he served as

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 9

an attorney and judge in the following locations: Washington Navy Yard, Washington D.C.; Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Yokosuka, Japan; Central Criminal Court of Iraq, Bagdad, Iraq; Naval Air Station, Sigonella, Sicily, Italy; Naval Station Newport, Newport, Rhode Island; Naval Station Mayport, Mayport, Florida; and Naval Support Activities, Naples, Naples, Italy. Prior to entering the U.S. Navy in 2002, Judge McEwen clerked for a year at the Texas Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana, Texas. Judge McEwen is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Christopher D. McNary, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Christopher D. McNary was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge McNary earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2008 from the University of San Francisco and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of San Francisco School of Law. From 2018 to 2023, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Los Angeles. From 2017 to 2018, he served as a senior asylum officer, and from 2013 to 2017, he served as an asylum officer, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in San Francisco. From 2011 to 2013, he served as a staff attorney with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant in Berkeley, California. Judge McNary is a member of the State Bar of California.

Jane Chace Miller, Immigration Judge, Laredo Immigration Court

Jane Chace Miller was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Miller earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1984 from Chestnut Hill College and a Juris Doctor in 1987 from Dickinson School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she served as a Maryland parole commissioner. From 2003 to 2016, she was in private practice, specializing in family law issues and criminal matters. From 2001 to 2016, Judge Miller served as the trust clerk for the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, Centreville, Maryland. From 1998 to 2003, she was in private practice on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, focusing on criminal cases, family law cases, and civil litigation. From 1988 to1997, Judge Miller served as an assistant State’s attorney in Wicomico County, Maryland. Judge Miller is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

George R. Najjar, Immigration Judge, San Diego Immigration Court

George R. Najjar was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Najjar earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from California Western School of Law. From 1993 to 2023, he was in private practice in San Diego, California. During this time, from 2000 to 2023, he served as a judge pro tempore in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, and from 1997 to 2023, he served as an arbitrator for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. Judge Najjar is a member of the State Bar of California.

Douglas D. Nelson, Immigration Judge, Salt Lake City Immigration Court

Douglas D. Nelson was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Nelson earned his Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from Brigham Young University and a Juris Doctor in 1994 from the University of San Diego School of Law.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 10

From 1995 to 2023, he worked as an immigration attorney in private practice for Alejandro O. Campillo APLC and the Law Office of Douglas D. Nelson. During this time, from 2002 to 2004, he served as chair of the Immigration Section for the San Diego County Bar, and from 1996 to 2021, he was liaison between the San Diego chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and numerous Federal immigration agencies. From 1994 to 1995, he was a judicial law clerk at the San Diego Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Nelson is a member of the State Bar of California.

Tania T. Nemer, Immigration Judge, Cleveland Immigration Court

Tania T. Nemer was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Nemer earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2001 from John Carroll University and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School. In 2023, she was appointed as a magistrate of the Summit County, Ohio Probate Court where she presided over cases involving guardianships, civil commitments, and estates. From 2020 to 2023, she served as the community outreach prosecutor and assistant prosecutor for the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office. In 2019, she was appointed as a magistrate of the Akron Municipal Court. She also served as the managing immigration attorney at the International Institute of Akron. From 2014 to 2019, she was the senior immigration attorney for Catholic Charities Diocese of Cleveland, Office of Migration and Refugee Services, and she was the lead attorney representing mentally incompetent individuals through the National Qualified Representative Program. From 2008 to 2014, she was of counsel for McGinty, Hilow & Spellacy Co LPA, practicing criminal and immigration law and representing clients before municipal and county courts as well as before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. Judge Nemer is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Monica Barba Neumann, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court

Monica Barba Neuman was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Neumann earned a Bachelor of Science in 2004 from the University of Florida and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Florida International University College of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Miami. From 2015 to 2016, she served as an asylum officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, in Miami. She was in private practice at Monica Barba PA in Miami from 2009 to 2010 and at Grisel Ybarra PA in Miami from 2010 to 2015, representing cases before EOIR, USCIS, state criminal courts, and state family courts. Judge Neumann is a member of the Florida Bar.

Colleen O’Donnell, Immigration Judge, Laredo Immigration Court

Colleen O’Donnell was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge O’Donnell earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Miami University (Ohio) and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. In 2023, she served as an attorney in the Public Utility Commission of Ohio’s Office of the Federal Energy Advocate. From 2013 to 2023, she served as a trial judge

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 11

in Ohio’s Franklin County Common Pleas Court, General Division. From 2007 to 2013, she practiced with the law firm of Carpenter Lipps LLP in Columbus, Ohio. Previously, in 2007, she served as a judicial law clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and from 2006 to 2007, as an assistant attorney general in the Consumer Protection section of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. Judge O’Donnell is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

George D. Pappas, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

George D. Pappas was appointed as an immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Pappas earned a Bachelor of Science in 1982 from the London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London, a Bachelor of Laws in 1998 from the University of London), a Master of Laws in 2000 from Widener University School of Law, Widener University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in 2014 from Birkbeck School of Law, University of London. From 2003 to 2023, he was principal attorney at George D. Pappas Esq. PC, practicing immigration, family law, criminal law, and civil litigation. He also provided pro bono legal services to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (Washington, D.C.), Pair Project (Boston), Latin American Coalition (Charlotte, North Carolina), El Centro (Hendersonville, North Carolina), and True Ridge (Hendersonville, North Carolina). Judge Pappas is a member of the North Carolina State Bar and the Massachusetts Bar.

Irma Pérez, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Irma Pérez was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Pérez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of California Law San Francisco (formerly University of California Hastings College of the Law). From 2015 to 2023, she was in private practice at the Law Office of Irma Pérez PC in Pasadena, California, practicing before EOIR, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of State (DOS). From 2012 to 2015, she was an associate with Daniel Shanfield Immigration Defense PC in San Jose, California, representing noncitizens before EOIR, DHS and DOS. Judge Pérez is a member of the State Bar of California.

Daniel I. Smulow, Immigration Judge, Baltimore Immigration Court

Daniel I. Smulow was appointed as an immigration judge in August 2023. Judge Smulow earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from Tufts University and a Juris Doctor in 1998 from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. From 2008 to 2023, he served as trial attorney and senior counsel for national security, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2006 to 2008, he served as an associate legal advisor, National Security Law Division, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security. From 2004 to 2006, he served as an assistant attorney general in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. From 1998 to 2004, he served as an assistant district attorney in Essex County, Massachusetts. During this time, from 2001 to 2004, he was a lecturer with Boston University School of Law. Judge Smulow is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 12

Elizabeth I. Treacy, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Elizabeth I. Treacy was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Treacy earned her Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from the University of Georgia Law School. From 2019 to 2023, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. From 2010 to 2019, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From 2007 to 2010, she was practicing immigration law as an associate attorney at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP. Judge Treacy is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Adrián F. Paredes Velasco, Immigration Judge, El Paso, Texas, Immigration Court

Adrián F. Paredes Velasco was appointed an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Paredes Velasco earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from Lawrence University, a Master of Arts in 2005 from the University of Iowa, and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from Phoenix School of Law. From 2015 to 2023, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in El Paso. From 2011 to 2015, he was a legal clerk and attorney at the Lehm Law Group in Phoenix, Arizona. Judge Paredes is a member of the State Bar of Arizona.

ShaSha Xu, Immigration Judge, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

ShaSha Xu was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Xu earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from Duke University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the Temple University Beasley School of Law. From 2019 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in New York. From 2016 to 2019, she served initially as an asylum officer and then as a senior asylum officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in New Jersey. From 2011 to 2016, she was in private practice at various law firms in New York and Pennsylvania. Judge Xu is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Juliana Zach, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Juliana Zach was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Zach earned a Bachelor of Law in 1994 from the Universidade Católica de Pernambuco, a Master of Business Administration in 2004 from the Florida Metropolitan University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University. From 2013 to 2023, she worked in private practice at Zach Law Firm LLC specializing in family and criminal litigation in Connecticut, as well as immigration law at the Zach Law Firm LLC. From 2013 to 2020, she also served as an attorney for the Brazilian Consulate General in Hartford, Connecticut. From 2009 to 2011, she served as an assistant state attorney for the felony division at the 18th Judicial Circuit in Sanford, Florida. Judge Zach is a member of the Connecticut Bar and the Florida Bar.

— EOIR —

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 13

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

By my “quick analysis,” of the 38 new IJs:

9 primarily private immigration practice/NGO

15 primarily government prosecutors

4 mixed private immigration practice/prosecution backgrounds

10 “other government” backgrounds

26 with significant prior immigration experience

One name that stands out for me:

Judge Jennifer A. Durkin, Varick (NYC) Immigration Court, who has spent her entire career practicing immigration law in the private/NGO sector and most recently served as Deputy Attorney-in Charge of the Immigration Law Unit of the Legal Aid Society in New York.

EOIR-provided bios for Judge Durbin and the other new IJs are reproduced above.

Congratulations to all the new IJs, and remember the most important part of your job on the bench, providing:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-13-23

Related posts:

  1. 🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!
  2. 🏴‍☠️👎🏼🤮 JUSTICE’S UNJUST “COURTS!” — Recent Reports Highlight Horribly Failed System —Asylum Free Zones, Unqualified Prosecutor-Judges, Deadly Denials, Blatant Information Imbalance, Dehumanizing Treatment, Poor Access To Counsel, Docket Mayhem, Unrealistic Timelines, Biased Outcomes, Indifference To Human Life, Unaccountability, Among The Myriad Problems Flagged By Those Forced To Deal With Garland’s Ongoing Mockery Of Due Process! — EXTRA! — How Poor Legal Performance @ DOJ Skews The Entire Immigration Debate!
  3. 🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👍🏼BREAKING — THE NDPA STRIKES BACK WITH VIGOR: 70 Human Rights, Civil Rights, Due Process, Good Government, Immigration, Equal Justice, Racial Justice, Progressive, Gender Justice Organizations Rip Garland, Monaco In Letter Protesting Their Abject Failure To Address Due Process, Racial Justice, Rule Of Law Disaster At EOIR — New, Competent, Diverse, Progressive Leadership & Judges Needed To Counteract 4 Years Of White Nationalism, Biased Hiring, “Malicious Incompetence!” — No More “Miller Lite Unhappy Hour” @ DOJ!
  4. 🤯TRAC: GARLAND’S IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG HITS 2 MILLION: More Judges, More Completions, Less Representation, Defective BIA, Mindless Mal-Administration = More Backlog!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 ANDREA R. FLORES @ NYT: We Know That “Uber Deterrence” Fails At The Border — Title 42 Debacle Under Trump Proves It: Biden Must Abandon The Restrictionist Remnants & Restore Legality & Integrity To Our Current Refugee & Asylum Systems!

Andrea Flores
Andrea Flores
Vice President for Immigration Policy and Campaigns at FWD.us.
PHOTO: Linkedin

https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/H7Demr4HzkuwqSIi_5Cg4g~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRmt1VqP0TpaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMy8wOC8xMC9vcGluaW9uL2FzeWx1bS1zZWVrZXJzLWltbWlncmF0aW9uLXJlZm9ybS5odG1sP2NhbXBhaWduX2lkPTM5JmVtYz1lZGl0X3R5XzIwMjMwODEwJmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTk5NzE5Jm5sPW9waW5pb24tdG9kYXkmcmVnaV9pZD03OTIxMzg4NiZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE0MTYxOCZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9OGExZjQ3Mzc0MGIyNTNkOGZhNGMyM2IwNjY3MjI3MzdXA255dEIKZNNq0NRk4LcZOlISamVubmluZ3MxMkBhb2wuY29tWAQAAAAD

Andrea writes in a NYT Op-Ed:

U.S. asylum laws were designed to protect people fleeing harm. They were enacted in the decades following the Holocaust to ensure that the United States never again turned away people fleeing persecution. But now, many blame these laws for the chaos and inhumanity at the nation’s southern border.

The biggest blow to America’s commitment to asylum came during the pandemic, when former President Donald Trump invoked Title 42, an emergency measure that allowed border agents to turn away asylum seekers, under the justification of preventing the spread of the virus.

When Title 42 restrictions were lifted in May, President Biden enacted a carrot-and-stick approach aimed at deterring new asylum seekers from traveling by foot to the border. These new measures included a set of legal pathways, including a parole program that allows people from select countries, including Cuba and Haiti, to legally enter the country for at least two years, provided they have a financial sponsor in the United States. Doing so has discouraged would-be migrants from taking a dangerous trek with a smuggler, often through multiple continents.

This approach would have been a great step forward if it wasn’t paired with a counter measure that prohibits some asylum-seekers at the border from applying for protection in the United States. The vast majority of migrants must secure an appointment at an official port of entry, which are difficult to obtain, or else they will be subject to expedited removal if they cannot prove that they sought legal protection in another country along the way.

. . . .

If proponents of a secure border are serious about lowering border crossing numbers and decreasing unauthorized migration, they should support Mr. Biden’s attempts to create new legal pathways. Instead, a coalition of Republican attorneys general is challenging the president’s parole program. In Congress, Senate Republicans are trying to eliminate the same parole authority that allowed Afghans to temporarily resettle in the United States. There have been no challenges to the use of the parole authority to bring Ukrainians to the United States.

These actions reveal that our current fight over the border is not about the number of people trying to come here — it is about which should be allowed to come. American voters may not have strong opinions about the future of the asylum system or the legal pathways being created, but voters of both parties dislike the chaos and human suffering that have subsumed this issue for the past 10 years. Over a million American citizens have signed up to sponsor migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

At a moment of record global displacement, we can’t keep waiting for Congress to modernize our immigration laws. Safe legal pathways are good for the people who use our immigration system. Mr. Biden has taken some critical steps to give migrants better options, but with no hope of congressional action in the near future, more is needed.

Andrea R. Flores is the vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us.


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

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

Much of what Andrea says echoes what I have said over and over on Courtside and has been repeatedly recommended by experts, who are then largely ignored by the Biden Administration. 

As I have argued before, the “low hanging fruit” here would be EOIR reform: A new BIA of “practical scholars;” better IJs with proven asylum and human rights experience; ending “Aimless Docket Reshuffling On Steroids” (which drives many poor policy and legal decisions); and getting some dynamic, fearless, expert leadership on human rights and immigration at the DOJ — which is either the driver or the facilitator of many of the problems at the border, depending on how you look at it.  

We can also see how Garland’s lackluster performance on immigration affects other areas of justice such as civil rights, women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights, to name a few of the most obvious ones. Nobody at today’s DOJ appears to possess the “big picture” knowledge and experience to “connect the dots” on these critical issues.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

PWS

08-10-23

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. 👍🏼⚖️🗽MAJORITY OF ASYLUM SEEKERS WIN THEIR CASES, EVEN IN A BROKEN & BIASED  SYSTEM INTENTIONALLY STACKED AGAINST THEM — But, Only, If They Can Get To A “Merits Adjudication!” — Nativist Lies, Myths, Driving USG Policies Exposed! — Why USCIS & EOIR Self-Created Backlogs Primarily Shaft Those Deserving Legal Protection Of Some Type!
  3. ⚖️🗽🇺🇸 SPEAKING OUT: “MATTHEW AT THE BORDER: ACTING ON THE MESSAGE OF CHAPTER 25”
  4. WOW, HERE’S A SURPRISE: MANY KIDS FLEEING VIOLENCE IN THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT BIDEN BORDER POLICIES — They Are Just Trying To Save Their Lives!

🤯 IMMIGRATION BUNGLES CONTINUE FOR GARLAND’S DOJ! 

Alfred E. Neumann
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” Failure doesn’t seem to bother Garland. Maybe it should!  
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration community on the latest screwups from the Article IIIs:

1) Burden of proof  (9th Cir.)

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/08/20-71977.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-burden-of-proof-fonseca-fonseca-v-garland

“Mario Fonseca-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen. Fonseca-Fonseca sought to reopen his immigration proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. The BIA found that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not submit new evidence that would likely change the result in his case. The parties disagree on a threshold issue—whether the BIA applied the correct burden of proof. … Today, we clarify that prima facie eligibility for relief requires only a threshold showing of eligibility—a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on the merits if the motion to reopen were granted. As the BIA previously explained, a noncitizen “demonstrates prima facie eligibility for relief where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.” In re S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1308 (B.I.A. 2000) (en banc). Because the BIA applied the wrong standard in denying Fonseca-Fonseca’s motion to reopen, we remand to the agency to adjudicate his motions under the proper standard.”

[Hats off to Andrew J. S. Newcomb and Elias Mendoza!]

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

2) CIMT (11th Cir.)

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112709.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-gmc-cimt-categorical-approach-usa-v-lopez

“This appeal requires us to decide how to apply the categorical approach to a conspiracy crime—a question of first impression in our Circuit. The United States seeks to revoke Lisette Lopez’s naturalization on the ground that she committed a crime of moral turpitude within five years of applying for citizenship and willfully concealed or misrepresented during the application process the fact that she had committed a crime. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the government on the ground that Lopez had committed a crime of moral turpitude during the statutory period. Because the crime to which Lopez pleaded guilty—conspiring to launder money—did not categorically involve moral turpitude, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”

[Hats way off to the indefatigable Matthew Hoppock!  An audio recording of the oral argument is here.]

******************************
3) Sue sponte reopening (5th Cir)

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/22/22-60336.0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-bia-sua-sponte-reopening-authority-mancia-v-garland

“Mancia would like to have her removal proceedings reopened so that her request for suspension of deportation can be adjudicated according to the still-extant substantive NACARA standards. … She contends that nothing in NACARA limits the Board’s general discretionary power to reopen sua sponte a case in which it has rendered a decision. Indeed, that inherent discretion is codified. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). So, she reasons, even though the special and more petitioner-friendly reopening avenue of section 203(c) closed to her in 1998, there is no reason why she cannot ask the Board to grant reopening under its discretionary authority, subject to all the limits that otherwise apply to that authority. … We agree with Mancia. The Board’s reliance on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h) — requiring filing of section 203(c) reopening requests with the Immigration Court — is misplaced because that requirement only applies to “any motion to reopen filed pursuant to the special rules of section 309(g) of IIRIRA, as amended by section 203(c) of NACARA.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h)(1). Mancia’s motion to reopen is no such motion. And nothing in NACARA requires those seeking relief under its provisions to do so by filing a section 203(c) motion. The government points to no statute, rule, or precedent to the contrary. And we see no reason why NACARA should be read as implicitly divesting the Board of its discretion to sua sponte reopen a proceeding. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant Mancia’s petition by vacating the Board’s rejection of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to the Board’s sua sponte authority and remanding for further consideration of that motion consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Margaret “Meg” Moran!]

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

Unnecessary mistakes such as this, including ones like USA v. Lopez, above, which carry over into naturalization and other areas, could largely be avoided if Garland heeded expert advice and appointed a BIA of all expert judges. That would be those with universally respected comprehensive knowledge of immigration and human rights, an unswerving commitment to due process, and a demonstrated focus on fair results — NOT the current “any reason to deny, let’s just go with the DHS flow” attitude that infects all too much of the BIA’s decision-making these days.

There is also some irresponsible performance going on at OIL where they are defending flawed results that expert advocates would or should know are unjust and in many cases just flat out wrong or misguided! 

The above things are supposed to be “easy fixes” for Dem Administrations. Instead, the EOIR/DOJ continues to a large extent as it did under Trump — with serious adverse human, legal, and future consequences for American democracy.

If you can’t or won’t fix that which you control, what good are you? That’s the question that Dems should be asking about Garland’s indifferent performance on human rights, racial justice, and immigration — all inextricably related whether he and his lieutenants want to admit it or not!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-09-23

Related posts:

  1. 🤯🤬 IT’S NOT “JUST THE 9TH CIRCUIT!” — A PANEL OF AMERICA’S MOST CONSERVATIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES (ALL GOP APPOINTEES) BLASTS GARLAND BIA’S SLOPPY, DEFECTIVE LEGAL WORK!🤮
  2. ⚖️🗽🇺🇸🦸‍♂️ NDPA SUPERLITIGATOR RAED GONZALEZ DRUBS GARLAND AGAIN! — “Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs,” asks Dan Kowalski of LexisNexis Immigration Community? — When will the unconscionable failure of immigrant justice at Garland’s Department of “Justice” finally end? When our nation’s democracy goes down in flames?🔥 ♨️
  3. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  4. 😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️:  9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH  CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️

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

Michelle N. Mendez
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ
Director of Legal Resources and Training
National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild
PHOTO: NIPNLG

Michelle N. Mendez of NIP/NLG reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-06-23

Related posts:

  1. 🧑🏽‍⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸WHO’S JUDGE IS IT ANYWAY? — The Crisis Of Independence In Our Immigration Courts! — Coming April 7, 2021! — Sponsored By The HNBA! — Don’t Miss It!
  2. ⚖️🗽🇺🇸 SPEAKING OUT: “MATTHEW AT THE BORDER: ACTING ON THE MESSAGE OF CHAPTER 25”
  3. CLEAR AS MUD: Politicized Immigration “Courts” Continue To Bobble The Message In The Time Of Plague, Endangering Their Own Employees, Attorneys, & The Public!  — America’s Clown Courts 🤡☠️ Enter A Deadly New Phase As Feckless Article III Courts Watch The Show Go On! —“I don’t know who’s making the calls, but they’re wrong.” — DUH!
  4. 🗽”HUMANE BORDER POLICIES ARE POSSIBLE” — NIJC HAS 5 STRAIGHTFORWARD POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A HUMANE, ORDERLY BORDER! — The Biden Administration Appears Uninterested!🤯 

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

Dan Kowalski reports for LexusNexus Immigration Community: 

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

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

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

Michael Karlik, Colorado Politics, Aug. 2, 2023

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

[Hats off to Conor Gleason and Laura Lunn!]

Connor Gleason, EsquireSenior Staff Attorney, Detention Program Rocky Mountain Imm Migrant Advocacy Network ("RIMAN") PHOTO: RIMAN
Connor Gleason, Esquire
Senior Staff Attorney, Detention Program
Rocky Mountain Imm
Laura Lunn, Esquire
Laura Lunn, Esquire
Director of Advocacy & Litigation
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”)
PHOTO: RMIAN

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

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

Garland’s DOJ, “not so much.” 

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

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

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! 

PWS

08-05-23

Related posts:

  1. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ON GULAG: “Under the circumstances, Galan-Reyes’ detention at Pulaski – where he shares dormitory-style living quarters with up to 50 other detainees – which obviously places him at risk for contracting this serious and potentially deadly illness, is tantamount to punishment.” — Galen-Reyes v. Acoff, S.D. IL
  2. WE KNOW THAT SESSIONS, WHITAKER, & BARR HAVE TURNED THE DOJ INTO A LEGAL, MORAL, PROFESSIONAL, & ETHICAL CESSPOOL — Some Federal Judges Are Beginning To Take Notice: “To say the least, it is disappointing that [DOJ] counsel, after consulting with other counsel including ‘prosecutors and appellate attorneys’ in this District’s United States Attorney’s office, submitted a legal memorandum to the Court that failed to acknowledge contrary case law that did not support its position.”
  3. WOW, HERE’S A SURPRISE: MANY KIDS FLEEING VIOLENCE IN THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT BIDEN BORDER POLICIES — They Are Just Trying To Save Their Lives!
  4. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️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!🤮

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 GW IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS SAVE ANOTHER LIFE!😎 — “[He] clicked the trigger of the gun, which made a sound, but did not fire a bullet.”

GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Professor Paulina Vera

Professor Alberto Benítez reports:

This past Wednesday, August 2, Immigration Judge (IJ) Dinesh Verma of the Hyattsville Immigration Court granted asylum to Immigration Clinic clients R-R- and her 17-year-old son, D-R-. R-R- and D-R- have been Clinic clients since 2019 and their asylum applications were filed that year with the assistance of the Clinic. Their merits hearing was originally scheduled for 2020, but was postponed until this past Wednesday due to the pandemic. They were represented at their hearing by Immigration Clinic summer intern Brennan Eppinger, a rising 2L.

R-R- and D-R- fled Honduras after R-R- stood up to a gang member who was trying to recruit her son, D-R-, to transport drugs. D-R- was 11 years old at the time. The gang member later broke into their home, put a gun to R-R- ‘s head, asked R-R- if she had ever played Russian roulette, and the quote in the subject line is what happened next. R-R- and D-R- sought safety in the United States shortly after.

Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Navil Infante, Alex North, Rachel Kidd and Jasmine Elsmasry, who all worked on the case. IJ Verma is a GW Law alum and was a student in my Immigration Law I class in 1997. Brennan noted this fact on the record but the IJ (who did remember me) and the ICE trial attorney waived any conflict issue.

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

Alberto Manuel Benitez

Professor of Clinical Law

Director, Immigration Clinic

The George Washington University Law School

650 20th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

(202) 994-7463

(202) 994-4946 fax             

abenitez@law.gwu.edu

THE WORLD IS YOURS…

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

Many congrats to all involved! 

Interestingly, I used the “Russian Roulette analogy” yesterday in referring to AG Merrick Garland’s dismissive attitude toward the outrageous inconsistencies and abuses in his EOIR asylum adjudications. 

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

This is a wonderful, inspiring result, produced by great student lawyering, a thoughtful IJ, and an ICE ACC with a sense of justice and practicality. It should be the rule, not the exception, in EOIR asylum adjudication! But, sadly, it isn’t!

Alfred E. Neumann
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

I virtually guarantee that if this case had been adjudicated at the border, in detention, and/or on one of Garland’s “expedited/dedicated” dockets, the result would have been unfavorable. And, depending on the circumstances, it’s not even clear that an applicant with this type of very grantable claim would have access to the asylum adjudication system under Biden’s “enjoined but stayed transit rules!” See, e.g., https://twitter.com/Haleaziz (A “temporary win” for the Biden Administration, engineered by two 9th Cir. Dem judicial appointees, is a big loss for humanity and the rule of law, defended only by dissenting Trump appointee, Judge VanDyke, a result that should leave advocates scratching their heads about their place in today’s mushy Dem Party.)

Cases like this illustrate how the EOIR system could be run in a fair, efficient, professional, and properly humane manner! But, they don’t answer the question of why isn’t set up to run that way in every case under Garland!

Also, and quite perversely, the failure of the Biden system to produce fair and equitable results at the border puts a premium on individuals who can avoid border processing and get to the interior (the exact opposite of the result Biden claims to be trying to achieve)! 

This is a totally screwed up system being “administered” by a Dem Administration that sorely lacks both courage and a clear vision of how to insure that asylum seekers and other immigrants, particularly those of color, receive due process and justice in America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-23 

Related posts:

  1. ☠️YET ANOTHER DEADLY,  ⚰️ RIDICULOUS 🤡 EOIR MELTDOWN 🤮 OUTED! — Conservative 5th Circuit Excoriates BIA & Immigration Judge For Litany Of Errors In 38-Page Smackdown — Another Wrongful Denial Of Asylum To Honduran Exhausts Patience Of Even Normally Pro-Gov. Circuit Court!
  2. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🗽COURT REFORM: GW IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS WEIGH IN ON ARTICLE I — Emphasize Critical Due Process Need To Entirely Remove AG From Decision-Making Process!
  3. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️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!🤮
  4. WOW, HERE’S A SURPRISE: MANY KIDS FLEEING VIOLENCE IN THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT BIDEN BORDER POLICIES — They Are Just Trying To Save Their Lives!

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

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

Colorado AILA reports:

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

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

Incredible work to Laura and all others involved!

image001.png

image002.png

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

 

image003.jpg

 

Aaron C. Hall

Senior Partner

Pronouns: he/him/his

12203 East Second Avenue

Aurora, CO 80011

Direct: 303.962.6630

www.immigrationissues.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-23

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. 🆘🤮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! 🏴‍☠️
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏻‍⚖️👩‍💼 MODELING EOIR’S POTENTIAL IN DENVER! — Judge Brea C. Burgie & Attorney Alexandra Katsiaficas Show How Good Judging & Effective Advocacy Can Combine For A Gender-Based Asylum Grant To Female Refugee From El Salvador!
  3. ☠️🤯🤮🚫 AFTER WINNING YEARS-LONG BATTLE TO STOP ILLEGAL REFUGEE REMOVALS BY TRUMP & BIDEN, WEARY HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES FACE DAUNTING NEW CHALLENGE: Garland’s Dysfunctional Due-Process-Denying “Courts” — Key Empirical Info Lacking, But We Do Know One Important Thing: Garland’s Latest Docket “Gimmick” — Time Limits — Sharply Reduces Chances Of Success, From Probable Grant (52%) To Likely Denial! — Quality Control & Grotesque Inconsistencies Remain Unaddressed In Dem AG’s “Race To Deny” Legal Protection!🤮
  4. 🗽 BORDER: WashPost’s Maria Sacchetti’s Nuanced Report Is Well Worth A Read: “The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.” — Right to apply for asylum is a “simple rule” that politicos of both parties lack the will & skill to follow!🤮

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

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

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

Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08

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

AUGUST 1, 2023

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

ISSUE(S) PRESENTED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:

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

Amicus Clerk

Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-02-23

Related posts:

  1. 🆘🤮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! 🏴‍☠️
  2. ⚖️🤯🤮GARLAND’S OHIO JUDICIAL MELTDOWN — “High-Asylum-Denying” Immigration Judges Appointed By Barr & Sessions Remain On Garland’s Bench In Cleveland Despite Referring To Migrants As “Illegals” & “Pretty Virgins!” — EOIR Disciplinary System Remains As Opaque As Ever Under Garland!🏴‍☠️ Yulin Cheng Reports @ Columbus Dispatch!
  3. 🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!
  4. 🗽⚖️ “COURTSIDE” IN THE NEWS: BOTH NOLAN @ THE HILL & KEVIN @ IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG HIGHLIGHT MY BLISTERING ANALYSIS OF BIDEN’S FIRST-YEAR IMMIGRATION POLICIES! — Garland’s Monumental EOIR Fail Writ Large Among “Underreported News” Of 2021 — Mishandling Of Immigration Courts Creates Key “Enthusiasm Gap” Among Progressives Heading Into 2022 Midterms!

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

 

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

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

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

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

[Hats off to Gary Yerman!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-01-23

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️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!🤮
  2. 🤯2D CIR. SAVAGES BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM PRECEDENT Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724 (B.I.A. 2019)! — Phantom Discrepancies, “Lunch Over Lives,” No Time To Listen, Staggering Due Process Violations, Legal Incompetence “Outed” By Appeals Court! — “[T]he adverse credibility finding relies, in large measure, on legal error by the agency, including misstatement and mischaracterization of the facts in the record and flawed reasoning . . . [and] the IJ’s unjustified refusal to allow Malets to present readily available witness testimony deprived him of a full and fair hearing.”
  3. ☠️ PERSECUTED IN CUBA, NIT-PICKED BY IJ 🤮, RUBBER-STAMPED BY BIA 👎🏼, REFUGEE FINALLY GETS SOME JUSTICE ⚖️ FROM 11TH CIR!😎
  4. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”

🇺🇸🗽⚖️👍🏼😎 CONGRATS TO GW LAW IMMIGRATION CLINIC ON “WIRE TO WIRE” SUCCESS!📣

GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Professor Paulina Vera — They have dedicated their professional careers to teaching skills and values that change lives and advance a vision of a better future America!

Professor Alberto Benítez reports to Courtside:

Victory is the only option!

A shout-out to our student-attorneys Julia Yang, Spoorthi Datla, Cornelia Waugh, and Kelly Zhang. Yesterday our client S-L, from China, Kelly, and Paulina Vera attended an interview at USCIS. The client is a survivor of domestic violence and we had filed several applications on her behalf, including one for naturalization. Today all the applications were granted. S-L’s oath ceremony will be scheduled.

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

Alberto Manuel Benitez

Professor of Clinical Law

Director, Immigration Clinic

The George Washington University Law School

650 20th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

(202) 994-7463

(202) 994-4946 fax             

abenitez@law.gwu.edu

THE WORLD IS YOURS…

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

Many, many congrats to all involved! 

Given the endemic delays at every level of the dysfunctional USG immigration bureaucracy, seeing a case through from the initial application to eventual naturalization is no mean feat!😎 THIS, NOT the total disgraceful BS emanating from Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, and the rest of the GOP xenophobes, is what the REAL “American Dream” is all about and what REALLY “Makes America Great” — NOT totally disingenuous slogans and “throwaway lines” from those afraid to embrace and celebrate the REAL America!🇺🇸 

The future of American immigration advocacy looks promising, notwithstanding the incredibly dark visions being falsely promoted by GOP restrictionists and the disturbingly feeble response from the Biden Administration and Dems in Congress. The talent in the “New Generation” of the NDPA continues to grow thanks to the inspiration and tutelage of Professors Benitez and Vera and many others like them who have dedicated their lives to making things better for everyone! 

As a result, there is a rapidly expanding talent gap between the NDPA and the sluggish, unresponsive, “go along to get along” USG immigration bureaucracy — right up to the White House where so-called “policy makers” fear standing up for the rule of law and American values! Getting the talent from the “outside” to the “inside” where they can solve problems and advance progressive, practical American values is the challenge that will determine the future of our democracy!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-31-23

Related posts:

  1. 🗽⚖️👍🏼GW CLINIC SAVES ANOTHER REFUGEE LIFE — But, It’s A Sobering Example Of The Type of Person Who Will Be Left To Die At Our Borders If Feckless, “Miller Lite” (Or, “Miller Genuine?”) Dems Are Able To Persuade Biden To Kill Asylum For Good  & Join GOP’s Racist Abrogation Of Rule Of Law! — Progressives Need To “Push Back Hard” On Latest Dem Cowardice & Nonsense — Insist On Restoration Of Rule Of Law For ALL Asylum Seekers @ Border!
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  3. ⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️ MORE NDPA CLE: Ellsberg, Harris, Schmidt, Among Headliners @ Inaugural Fourth Circuit Asylum Law Conference @ William & Mary Law on March 11!
  4. ⚖️HISTORY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, FORENSIC SCIENCE COME TOGETHER TO BRING WAR CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE!  — “They [Guatemalan soldiers and local Civil Patrol] covered her mouth, kicked her, and slapped her. Then they ordered her to take her clothes off and took her to the bedroom. They took turns raping her.”

⚖️ LAW YOU CAN USE! — 1st Cir. & Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Combine To Provide Expert Guidance On How To Handle BIA’s Inexpert Treatment Of Experts! 👍🏼

 

Star Chamber Justice
Experts find the BIA’s treatment of expert witnesses to be unduly harsh!
Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

 

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2023/7/28/expert-guidance-from-the-first-circuit-2

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Expert Guidance from the First Circuit

For Immigration Judges, country experts serve as the lens through which a confusing jumble of evidence becomes a clearer picture. No judge can be an expert on all countries; it is therefore by way of the country expert’s testimony that a determination can be made as to whether the asylum seeker’s predicament is a unique or a common one; a dispute is merely personal or possesses a political dimension; the home country’s government is truly likely to provide adequate protection; and why relocating within the country may or may not be reasonable.

However, Immigration Judges are provided remarkably little guidance on how to assess expert testimony. A 2020 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Castillo v. Barr,1 illustrates the problem. In that case, both the Immigration Judge and the BIA chose to discount the testimony of a qualified country expert because his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence of record. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “If an expert’s opinion could only be relied upon if it were redundant with other evidence in the record, there would be no need for experts.”2 Obviously, this simple, logical rule should have been incorporated in a BIA precedent decision by now.

When attorneys SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire brought an appeal involving this issue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges was most happy to file an amicus brief in the matter. We used the opportunity to inform the court “how IJs and the BIA need, and lack, a clear standard for whether to admit—and how to weigh— expert evidence.”

Although the court issued an unpublished decision (and explained why it was precluded by Supreme Court precedent from establishing the uniform standard that we had requested), I believe the opinion offers wisdom on the topic that Immigration Judges might find useful in spite of its nonbinding nature. The case name is G.P. v. Garland, No. 21-2002 (1st Cir., July 13, 2023).

Rather than review the entire decision, in the hope of increased convenience, I have instead listed the issues raised in the case that are likely to arise in removal proceedings, and then summarized how the First Circuit addressed each issue.

The recency of the expert’s knowledge:

May an Immigration Judge discount an expert’s country knowledge as “stale” due to the passage of time since the expert’s last visit to the country in question or contact with its government’s officials?

In G.P., the court found no support for such approach where: (1) the record contained no evidence of changed conditions over the period of time in question; (2) the expert testified to the lack of significant changes in country conditions over that same time period; (3) such testimony regarding the lack of significant change went unchallenged by ICE, which did not call its own expert or offer other country evidence to the contrary; and (4) the conclusion was not contradicted by the petitioner.

The basis of the expert’s knowledge

Can an expert’s testimony be discounted for lack of firsthand “knowledge, research, or connections” to the country in question?

In G.P., the court pointed to the BIA’s own precedent decision in Matter of J-G-T- in which the Board adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence standard that an expert’s testimony is reliable when it is “`based on sufficient facts or data’ that the expert `has been made aware of or personally observed’ or from sources that `experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on.'”3

In addition to finding that the IJ had overlooked sources of firsthand knowledge, the court in G.P. found further error in the IJ’s failure to either mention or explain why sources that experts in the field would rely on that were mentioned by the expert in his voir dire, which included crime rates, DEA reports, and U.S. Department of State Country Reports, were not sufficient to credit the expert’s testimony.

The expert’s lack of personal knowledge of a specific criminal organization

Can an expert’s testimony be discredited where the expert lacked personal knowledge of the specific criminal organization that the applicant fears?

In G.P., the court found that the IJ erred in discounting the expert’s testimony for this reason. The court again referenced the Board’s statement in J-G-T- quoted above, and cited another BIA precedent, Matter of Vides Casanova, in which the Board held that an expert “need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying” their opinion.4

Applying the above BIA guidance, the court observed that the expert witness learned specifics about the organization in question from reading the respondent’s affidavit, and importantly, that the facts contained in the respondent’s testimony and later testified to in court “were never challenged by the government or questioned by the IJ, who found G.P. credible.” The court added that “An expert cannot be ‘undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed’” (quoting from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Castillo, supra at 1284).

The feared persecutors are based outside of the country of expertise

Can an expert’s testimony about a crime group based in the U.S. be discredited where the witness was qualified as an expert on organized crime in the Dominican Republic?

In G.P., although the group in question was based in New England, connected to a cartel based in Sinaloa, Mexico, and “served as a conduit between the Mexican drug cartels and customers in Northern New England,” the group did not fall outside of the witness’s area of expertise (i.e. organized crime in the Dominican Republic) where the expert testified to the Sinaloa Cartel’s strong presence in the Dominican Republic, influence over government officials there, and treatment of government cooperators.” The court therefore found that the IJ’s statement that the expert lacked direct knowledge of the criminal organization “mischaracterizes the evidence as a whole” and was not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Prior statements of the expert

How should a prior statement of the expert that is offered by ICE be treated by the IJ?

In G.P., ICE introduced a quote from the expert’s 2011 book in which he wrote that he “couldn’t honestly say that torture is something deportees [to the Dominican Republic] should expect.”

However, the First Circuit found error in the IJ’s reliance on the quote, because (1) the quote was in the context of an entirely different set of facts and employed a highly narrow definition of torture; (2) the expert was only asked whether he recalled the quote and to provide its context, and not whether he agreed with it; (3) the quote addressed the general risk of torture faced by deported noncitizens, and not the specific risk faced by G.P.; and (4) the IJ failed to explain why the 2011 book deserved significant weight when it was older than other evidence the IJ found to be stale.

Conclusion

Petitioner’s counsel has moved the First Circuit to publish the decision. But regardless of the outcome, counsel may wish to bring the court’s analysis to the attention of Immigration Judges, who in turn may find it highly useful in navigating the treatment of experts in cases before them.

– –

Hats off to SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette on their outstanding litigation in the First Circuit, which led to this satisfying decision. Our Round Table is most thankful to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Alex Robledo, Angela Dunning, Marc Suskin, Robby L.R. Saldaña, and Greg Merchant of the law firm of Cooley LLP, for their expert drafting of our amicus brief in this case.

Copyright 2023 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All Rights Reserved.

Notes

  1. 980 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2020).
  2. Id. at 1284.
  3. Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97, 102 (BIA 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702(b), 703).
  4. Matter of Vides Casanova, 26 I&N Dec. 494, 499 (BIA 2015). Interestingly, in VIdes Casanova, the country expert had been called by DHS to establish that the respondent was a persecutor of others. Under those circumstances, the BIA in its decision noted that an expert “is permitted to base her opinion on hearsay evidence and need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying those opinions.”

JULY 28, 2023

Republished with permission

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

The BIA spends far too much time cooking up bogus ways to deny asylum and other forms of protection. This leaves a “vacuum” on providing sound advice and needed guidance for effectively presenting and fairly analyzing the large untapped potential for more grants of protection currently “bouncing around the EOIR backlog” or alternatively being mindlessly rushed through “dedicated deterrence dockets” with neither time for advocates to properly prepare nor opportunity for thoughtful analysis by IJs! It’s a real (totally preventable) “lose-lose” for our justice system and asylum applicants!

Fortunately those from outside EOIR, including Article III Judges, subject matter experts like Judge Sir Jeffrey, and his loyal colleagues in the Round Table 🛡 have stepped in to fill the void.  Wouldn’t it be better (and easier) to just aggressively recruit and hire the right expert, experienced, due-process-focused candidates for EOIR judgeships in the first place?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-30-23

Related posts:

  1. 🌊 TSUNAMI OF BAD ☠️ BIA DECISIONS HITS GARLAND’S DOJ! — WRONG On Nexus (4th, 2-1); WRONG On NTA (4th, 2-1); WRONG On Agfel (8th); WRONG On Past Political Persecution In Cameroon (5th); WRONG On Experts (1st)!
  2. 😎👍🏼⚖️🗽MORE TIMELY NDPA ASYLUM TRAINING — Feb. 25-26 — Register Now!
  3. 🛡⚔️ THE ONGOING QUEST FOR THE “HOLY GRAIL OF JUSTICE” — Round Table Files Brief In Support Of Due Process, Rule of Law In East Bay Sanctuary v. Biden!
  4. 🛡⚔️👍🏼“SIR JEFFREY” CHASE — Garland’s Immigration “Judges” Pull The Ol’ “Bait & Switch” — They Only Are “Judges” When “OIL” Is Trying To Convince Ethically & Legally Challenged Article III Courts To “Defer” To EOIR Decisions — Otherwise, They Are Expected To Act Like DOJ ”Grundoons” Mindlessly Carrying Out The Executive’s Agenda Cloaked In Quasi-Judicial Disguise!

⚖️🗽 TRIPLE HEADER!  — Cornell Immigration Clinic Wins 3 @ BIA!

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Cornell Law

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr reports:

Paul: Thanks to the excellent work of our law students, our Cornell asylum clinic received three BIA remands this spring.  A short summary of each case follows.  A longer summary of each case is attached, as well as redacted versions of the BIA’s decisions. If anyone wants redacted copies of our briefs, have them contact me directly.

 

Please mention on Immigration Courtside.  Thanks, Steve

 

1: IES is a citizen of Mexico and a former gang member.  The immigration judge (IJ) denied withholding and CAT relief, holding that his conviction in California was a particularly serious crime and that our client did not meet the requirements for CAT relief. For the particularly serious crime argument, our brief argued that the IJ improperly analyzed IES’ offense, ignored credible evidence that the drugs were for personal use, and relied on boilerplate sentencing documents instead. As a result, the IJ failed to analyze IES’s motivation and intent at the time of the offense. We used case law where crimes like sexual contact with a minor (Afridi v. Gonzalez) and strangulation (Flores-Vega v. Barr) were remanded because the facts and circumstances of the offense had not been considered.

 

For our CAT argument, we focused on 6 IJ errors: 1) the IJ did not consider that his prolonged mental pain would cause future torture (we had psychological evaluation reports and decided to use them for this argument). This is an underutilized argument in CAT claims, so there isn’t much case law. We used the interpretation from an OLC opinion on prolonged mental harm to bolster this argument. 2) The IJ did not consider future torture from gangs and cartels despite an expert saying this risk was at 80%. 3) The IJ did not consider country conditions and did not admit 400 pages into evidence. 4) The IJ mischaracterized his attempts to flee cartels 8 times as “relocation.” 5) The IJ did not think there was police acquiescence even though the police, the local Attorney General, and the judicial police ignored IES’ complaints. 6) The IJ did not aggregate IES’ risk of torture. The BIA remanded.

 

2: LRG is a citizen of El Salvador who fled to the US in 1989.  While in the US he joined the MS-13 gang. He is in U.S. prison for a criminal conviction. The IJ denied withholding and CAT relief. Our client’s info was part of the November 2022 ICE data leak, but the IJ did not address that concern.

 

Our brief argued that our client is more likely than not to face torture if removed to El Salvador. We posited several theories under which our client is likely to be tortured: 1) by the Salvadoran government, especially if our client is incarcerated there; 2) by Salvadoran gangs, in or out of prison, with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government; and/or 3) by Salvadoran anti-gang death squads, with the participation or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. We argued that our client’s identifying characteristics, including his gang tattoos and criminal history, would subject him to targeting and torture by any of these groups. We also argued that the IJ insufficiently aggregated our client’s risk of torture in El Salvador and that the IJ erred by failing to consider the impact of the ICE data leak on our client.  Finally, we argued that the IJ afforded insufficient weight to the evidence offered by our client. The IJ admitted Dr. Patrick McNamara’s universal expert declaration only as background evidence, rather than for his expert opinions. The BIA remanded.

 

3: REC is a citizen of El Salvador who fled to the US in 2022.  REC was not a gang member, but his brother was, and was killed by the police.  REC’s family filed a lawsuit against the police for murdering REC’s brother, and the police retaliated against REC.  The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.

 

On asylum and withholding, we argued that the IJ erred by ignoring the Salvadoran government as a persecutor of REC and by failing to assess the proper particular social group that REC had proposed, based on his membership in his family. On CAT, we argued that the IJ effectively ignored part of REC’s claim by failing to analyze whether the MS gang would be more likely than not to torture him. We further argued that the IJ’s analysis about the Salvadoran government as a torturer of REC was flawed because the IJ herself found that Salvadoran officials “misused their power” when they beat him. We argued that the IJ also erred because she did not aggregate all potential sources of torture, including the government and the MS gang. The BIA remanded.

Stephen Yale-Loehr

Professor of Immigration Law Practice, Cornell Law School

Faculty Director, Immigration Law and Policy Program

Faculty Fellow, Migrations Initiative

Co-director, Asylum Appeals Clinic

Co-Author, Immigration Law & Procedure Treatise

Of Counsel, Miller Mayer

Phone: 607-379-9707

e-mail: SWY1@cornell.edu

Twitter: @syaleloehr

Check out my Green Card Stories book:

http://www.greencardstories.com.

 

See more of my books at amazon.com/author/stephenyaleloehr

You can access my papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=109503

Cornell 1 Cornell 2 Cornell 3 Cornell 4 Cornell 5 Cornell 6

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

Get all the details in the six attachments above!

Thanks, Steve! And, congrats and “hats way off” (as my friend Dan Kowalski would say) to the clinic students involved! 

Interesting to contrast the careful work of the clinic with the sloppy, result-oriented work of the IJs in these cases. 

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-29-23

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. 🏴‍☠️BIA CONTINUES TO SPEW FORTH ERRORS IN LIFE OR DEATH ☠️ ASYLUM CASES, SAYS 4TH CIR. — “Three-In-One” — Improperly Disregarding Corroborating Evidence; Incorrect Legal Standard On Past Persecution; Wrong Nexus Finding! — Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson
  3. ⚖️🗽🛡RECOGNIZING WOMEN REFUGEES: Professor Karen Musalo @ ImmigrationProf Blog — Don’t Add A “6th Protected Ground” To The Statute; Get Some Better-Qualified Judges 🧑🏽‍⚖️ Who Will Respect & Follow Existing Law To Protect Those Already Covered, But Wrongfully Denied Refuge By Bad Judging & Restrictionist Policies!
  4. 😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️:  9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH  CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️

⚖️ ATTENTION NDPA LITIGATORS & PROSPECTIVE LITIGATORS! — Join Our Round Table Colleague Judge Carol King & The National Institute For Trial Advocacy (“NITA”) For Training, Sept. 27-29 in NYC!

Honorable Carol King
Honorable Carol King
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://www.nita.org/immigration2023

Carol writes:

I know you are in touch with a lot of young lawyers in the NDPA and wanted to let you know about a wonderful trial skills training I’m involved in.  I’ve been teaching for NITA in trainings focused on trial practice in Immigration Court for a few years now, along with Denise, Eliza, Jeff and others.  This upcoming program in New York is for private counsel and is expensive, but totally worth it for new lawyers (and even experienced lawyers) to hone their trial skills.  Judges appreciate it too!  NITA also does public interest trial skills courses in cooperation with the NLGNIP which are more affordable for lawyers working for non-profits.  If you know any young NDPA lawyers working for firms that can afford this program, I highly recommend it!  Please pass this along to anyone you think would benefit.  Here is the info:

Advocacy in Immigration Matters

.

September 27, 2023 – September 29, 2023

White & Williams LLP

New York, NY

https://www.nita.org/immigration2023

Thanks!

Carol

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

  • Home
  • Courses
  • Course Type
  • Trial Skills

Advocacy in Immigration Matters

SKU#

AIST923

White & Williams LLP Times Square Tower, #2900, New York, NY 10036

September 27, 2023 – September 29, 2023

Your Price: $1,945.00

QTY

Decrease number of items

Increase number of items

**Pre-Program Lecture Online scheduled for Friday, September 22, from 12:00 – 1:30 PM EST.**

WHY YOU SHOULD ATTEND

As an immigration defense lawyer, you know that practicing in immigration court is increasingly rife with changes and complexity. NITA recognizes this reality and, in response, has developed Advocacy in Immigration Matters, a specialized and timely program designed to help you rapidly upgrade your skills in representing those facing removal from the United States.

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

This is the only trial skills advocacy course available that covers everything you will experience during an immigration trial. From pre-trial to trial, you will receive on-your-feet training and guidance that goes beyond a lecture-focused learning experience. During this three-day program, you will:

  • make and meet objections,
  • conduct direct, cross, and re-direct examinations,
  • accredit a proposed expert witness,
  • obtain the required opinion from an expert witness, and
  • offer a concise yet compelling closing argument.

All of this will be done in small groups of your peers, with feedback and at a pace that will help boost your performance.

The instructors—some of the most experienced immigration trial lawyers and judges in the country—will share constructive feedback and specific ideas on how to refine your skills. As you watch your peers perform, you will also absorb the “teachable moments” from their performance and instructor critique, which means each layer of learning is continually reinforced by what you hear, see, and most importantly, do.

After three days, you will be able to step into the courtroom with the confidence and practical skills you need to be a good advocate for your client.

In addition, to supplement this “learning-by-doing,” you will have access to NITA’s trial skills video lectures and watch the faculty demonstrate skills. Furthermore, NITA will offer a pre-program, one-and-a-half-hour session on case analysis that will be foundational to the rest of the program and will ensure that participants seek and present the information most relevant to the assigned particular social group.

In just three days, this Advocacy in Immigration Matters program—as with the other time-tested, premier programming that NITA is known for—will swiftly refine your trial practice, leaving you with greater skill and confidence that shows up where it matters the most: when you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with your client in the courtroom.

NITA’s LEARNING-BY-DOING METHOD

NITA’s learning-by-doing method allows you to take calculated risks without ever jeopardizing your client’s case or your own reputation. It is a safe space to learn and practice. This course will employ the tried-and-true learning-by-doing method by providing ALL participants the opportunity to apply their learned skills as if they are presenting in court. You get to participate and observe, learning not only from your mistakes and triumphs but those of your fellow participants as well.

Expert faculty will provide you with constructive feedback, and you will have the option of recording yourself on your phone, which allows you to see and hear yourself the way judges and juries do. But unlike in a trial where there are real stakes at risk, at NITA you will have the opportunity to correct your mistakes, eliminate any bad habits you may have developed, and refine your trial skills.

When you return to your office, you will feel empowered by having learned skills that will serve you the rest of your career.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

You should!

Although some removal defense cases may not go to trial because of prosecutorial discretion, learning and refining your trial skills will translate into better outcomes for your clients.

Honing your trial skills will improve virtually every aspect of the many things you do as a litigator from negotiating with the OPLA assistant chief counsel to convincing the immigration judge to grant your client relief.

YOUR REGISTRATION INCLUDES

  • One-on-one personalized feedback and coaching from NITA faculty
  • Case materials
  • One credit toward the NITA Advocate Designation.

NITA FACULTY

Learn more about each faculty member’s professional background and their NITA webcasts, podcast episodes, publications, and programs by clicking their bio link below.

WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING ABOUT THIS COURSE?

“I would highly recommend this course to immigration practitioners. It was especially helpful for me as someone who began practicing during COVID, but I could see that the skills would also be useful to practice for more experienced practitioners. The course was 100% worth it and I came out of it feeling more confident in my ability to do defensive work.” — NITA – NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” course attendee (August 2022)

“This was literally the most useful training I’ve had in the legal field, including law school, internships and many other PD opportunities I’ve tried to take advantage of. I think in the legal profession, there’s such an emphasis on being right and being prepared that we have a hard time taking risks and messing up. Even in trainings and simulations, I participated very little because I felt like there was this very high amount of minimum knowledge that I needed, didn’t have, and didn’t know how to get. I guess I figured everyone had learned this in debate or Model UN, which I never did. But somehow, the instructors created this baseline understanding that we’re there to learn, we can start from zero, and messing up is welcomed because it shows we’re taking risks. I feel much more ready to work on my cases. What’s more, in a field where burnout is so high, I feel excited to prep for trial now.” — Advocacy in Immigration Matters online course attendee (April 2022)

“In the over twenty years I had the honor to serve as an immigration judge, I frequently saw attorneys who, although bright, dedicated and familiar with their clients’ cases, had very limited understanding of evidentiary rules, proper forms of direct and cross-examination, effective storytelling, and the art of closing argument. These basic trial skills are not usually part of a law school curriculum, and once engaged in the practice of law most attorneys do not take the time to develop or hone their skills, other than by “trial and error,” which is, sadly, sometimes at the expense of their clients. The NITA program provides a unique opportunity to develop these extremely important skills. I encourage those who are seeking to represent asylum seekers in Immigration Court to consider taking advantage of this unique and valuable opportunity.” — Hon. Eliza C. Klein, United States Immigration Judge (Ret.)

pastedGraphic.png

Every dollar you give to The NITA Foundation helps a public service lawyer receive advocacy training that would otherwise be out of reach.

DONATE TODAY

FACULTY

pastedGraphic_1.png

Carol King

Solo

Carol M King Law Office

BIO

Michelle Mendez

Director of Legal Resources and Training

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Inc

BIO

pastedGraphic_3.png

Tom Swett

Attorney at Law

SWETT LIMITED

BIO

pastedGraphic_4.png

Victoria Neilson

Supervising Attorney

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Inc

BIO

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

This is truly an All-Star Faculty of folks who have “walked the walk,” saved many lives, and changed countless futures for the better over their distinguished and varied careers!

I have worked with NITA on developing and presenting advocacy training for VIISTA Villanova. This is a collection of “total pros” dedicated to making America’s courts function at the highest possible level.

Also, as you know from reading publications like LexisNexus, ImmigrationProf Blog, The Jeffrey Chase Blog, and Courtside, LITIGATION MATTERS! Every week, we alert our readers to successful efforts that are having a real life impact and literally changing the face of American law!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-27-23

Related posts:

  1. 🇺🇸😎⚖️🗽👍🏼LAW YOU CAN USE:  Michelle Mendez and CLINIC Publish A New Practice Advisory on Opening & Closing Statements in Immigration Court
  2. 🤡WELCOME TO CLOWN COURT: Where The Lives Of Millions Of Humans & The Future Of America Are Treated Like A Cruel Joke, As Complicit Article III Courts Watch This Grotesque Unconstitutional Spectacle & Parody Of Justice Unfold On Their Watch!
  3. THE TRUTH IS OUT, THANKS TO MICHELLE MENDEZ @ CLINIC: Practice Pointers on Matter of Castillo-Perez & “Takeaways” From FOIA Trove On In Absentias!
  4. WHY EOIR 🤡 MUST GO ** CH. CI — Latest CLINIC Court Victory Over Regime Exposes Unholy (Not To Mention Unconstitutional & Unethical) Alliance Between EOIR & ICE Enforcement To Screw Kids! — The Bottom Is Unfathomably Deep @ The Deadly EOIR Clown Show🤡! —  “ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.”