"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Austin Kocher, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor TRAC-Syracuse PHOTO: Syracuse U.
From Professor Austin Kocher @ Linkedin:
New Report! “Two-Thirds of Court Asylum Applicants Found Legally Entitled to Remain.”
Out of 1M+ asylum cases decided by immigration judges over the past decade, 685,956 (66%) were legally entitled to remain in the United States due to asylum or other relief.
Remember, this is in a system that has, over decades, been intentionally rigged, manipulated, and skewed AGAINST legal asylum seekers, particularly those of color from certain arbitrarily “disfavored” countries! (Think Haiti, The Northern Triangle, and many African Nations). While this anti-asylum bias has “peaked” in GOP Administrations, Dems have also been guilty including the Biden Administration’s flailing, legally problematic efforts to abuse the asylum adjudication system as a “deterrent” to those legally seeking asylum!
The U.S. Asylum system over the past two decades has prided itself in making the experience of asylum seekers as restrictive, difficult, complex, arcane, arbitrary, and “user unfriendly” as possible for many of the most vulnerable. Even so, courageous asylum seekers who can actually get a decision persevere and succeed against the odds! What if Administrations of both parties worked to make the system fair and timely, rather than trying to use it as a false “deterrent?” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Austin’s post triggered this exchange between Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello and me on LinkedIn:
BECKIE: It’s really higher than that, once we factor in all the wrongfully denied cases for clients who can’t afford to appeal.
PWS: Thanks for speaking truth, Beckie! If true asylum experts were on the BIA, IJs were experts who applied or were held by the BIA to the Cardoza, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, 8 CFR 208.13 framework, the asylum adjudication system had dynamic leadership, and individuals were competently represented, many more cases would be granted much more efficiently and backlogs would eventually come under control and start to diminish. In fact, individuals should be considered eligible for asylum even where persecution on a protected ground is “significantly less than probable” — the 10% rule! Moreover, asylum seekers who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” These and the presumption of future persecution established by past persecution, thereby shifting the burden to DHS, are still too often ignored, misapplied, or manipulated against asylum seekers. There is nothing that will make a backlog at least a decade in the making disappear overnight. But, a legitimate, legally compliant, properly generous asylum adjudication system would benefit all involved. It’s sad that Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas are afraid to comply with the rule of law for asylum seekers and other migrants!
Rev. Craig Mousin Ministry & Higher Education Wellington United Church of Christ U. of Illinois College of Law Greater Chicago Area PHOTO: DePaul U. Website
Restrictions To An Already Compromised Asylum System
This week we talk about a proposed rule from the Biden Administration that may change asylum proceedures and allow adjudicators to turn away people without proper research on their background.
Read the proposed rule: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/13/2024-10390/application-of-certain-mandatory-bars-in-fear-screenings
Read the NIJC’s breakdown: https://immigrantjustice.org/press-releases/nijc-denounces-new-biden-rule-adding-restrictions-already-compromised-asylum-system
Next week we should have a call to action with templates for you to help submit your comment. Watch this space!
********************
Thanks, Craig, for speaking up! Why does the Administration keep proposing likely unlawful restrictionist regulations that won’t help the situation at the border?
As Craig notes, there are “many positive ways” to improve the treatment of legal asylum seekers and promote fair and efficient consideration of their claims! Why is the Biden Administration “tuning out” the voices of those with border expertise who are trying to help them make the legal asylum system work?
Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)
In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:
Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1
This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.
Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.
Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5
This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.
This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7
Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8
And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9
As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.
So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.
However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.
In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12
I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.
Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.
As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.
Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).
James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.
Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.
480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).
Id. at 439.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.
Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).
The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum! PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!
For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.
Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!
America’s misunderstood border crisis, in 8 charts
For all the attention on the border, the root causes of migration and the most promising solutions to the US’s broken immigration system are often overlooked.
There is a crisis on America’s border with Mexico.
The number of people arriving there has skyrocketed in the years since the pandemic, when crossings fell drastically. The scenes coming from the border, and from many US cities that have been touched by the migrant crisis, have helped elevate the issue in voters’ minds.
But for all the attention the topic gets, it is also widely misunderstood. The last few decades have seen a series of surges at the border and political wrangling over how to respond. The root causes of migration and why the US has long been ill-equipped to deal with it have been overlooked. Understanding all of that is key to fixing the problem.
Yes, border crossings are up. But the type of migrants coming, where they’re from, and why they’re making the often treacherous journey to the southern border has changed over the years. The US’s immigration system simply was not designed or resourced to deal with the types of people arriving today: people from a growing variety of countries, fleeing crises and seeking asylum, often with their families. And that’s a broader problem that neither Biden, nor any president, can fix on their own.
Here’s an explanation of the border crisis, broken down into eight charts.
. . . .
**********************************
I highly recommend reading Nicole’s entire excellent article, with informative charts, at the link.
When both sides in the political debate eschew truth in favor of dehumanization, scapegoating, and pandering to nativist interests, it’s easy to see why real solutions to immigration issues are elusive. But, it needn’t be this way if politicos, the public, and the mainstream media looked for humane, practical, solutions that dealt with the realities of forced migration in the 21st Century, including the inherent limitations of “deterrence,” overt cruelty, disregard of known consequences, and unilateral actions.
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Read Karen’s newly-released article “Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims” in the 2024 Edition of the International Journal of Refugee Law. Here’s the abstract:
A B ST R A CT
The protection of women and girls fleeing gender-based harms has been controversial in the United States (US), with advances followed by setbacks. The US interpretation of particular social group and its nexus analysis, both of which diverge from guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is the most significant barrier to protection. It has become almost impossible for women and girls to rely upon the particular social group ground because of current requirements that social groups not only be defined by immutable or fundamental characteristics, but also be socially distinct and have particularity. Establishing nexus is also a significant obstacle, with the US requirement of proof of the persecutor’s intent. In the first month of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on migration, which raised hopes that these obstacles to protection would be removed. The order committed to protecting survivors of domestic violence and to issuing regulations that would make the US interpretation of particular social group consistent with international standards. The target date for the regulations was November 2021, but they have yet to issue. This article examines how the evolution of the US interpretation of particular social group and nexus has diverged from UNHCR recommendations. It shows how protection has been denied in gender cases involving the most egregious of harms. The article concludes by providing recommendations for realignment with international standards, which set a benchmark for evaluating the promised Biden administration regulations on the issue.
Karen’s highly readable “spot on” article prompted this additional thoughtful comment from my friend and Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jefferey” Chase:
Hi Karen: Wonderful article! So clear, so logical, and just so correct! Thanks as always for this. (And I’m extremely honored to find myself in several of your footnotes – thank you!)
Create a “Charming Betsy” Reg Requiring Adherence to International Law:Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.As the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca observed that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, “one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” it would seem that interpreters of our asylum laws should look to international law interpretations of that treaty for guidance.Recent examples in which this has not been the case include the just-published “death to asylum” regulations that will completely gut the 1980 Refugee Act of any meaning; as well as regulations that bar asylum for conduct falling far, far short of the severity required to bar refugee protection under international law (which a federal district court blocked in Pangea v. Barr).
As the Board seems disinclined to listen to the Supreme Court on this point, it is hoped that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.
Do you think there is a way to use Karen’s article to make this into a talking point across the advocacy community? I think there’s merit to trying to normalize an idea over time. Just a thought.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
I agree, Jeffrey! Ironically, as Karen shows, “normalizing” refugee and asylum processing to bring it into alignment with the Convention was one of the driving forces behind enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. Indeed, it’s reflected in a key early interpretation of the Act by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (successfully argued by our friend and Round Table colleague Hon. Dana Marks, a “Founding Mother of U.S. Refugee Law”). In rejecting the USG’s restrictive interpretation, the Court consulted the U.N. Handbook while making the point that the refugee definition was to be applied generously so that even those with only a 10% chance of persecution could qualify.
I also note that the abandonment of the “Acosta test,” which I relied on in Kasinga, in favor of a more convoluted, restrictive, and ultimately intellectually dishonest approach, went “into high gear” after the “Ashcroft purge” had removed the core of BIA Judges who spoke up for asylum rights and protection, even when in dissent!
Unfortunately, Administrations of both parties have feared honest and robust implementation of the Refugee Act that truly follows the “spirit of Cardoza and its BIA progeny, Matter of Mogharrabi.” They all have had their “favored” and “feared” groups of refugees and asylees, some more than others.
This, of course, breeds huge inconsistencies and arbitrary adjudications, a problem exposed well over a decade ago by Professors Schoenholtz, Schrag, and Ramji-Nogales in their critical seminal work Refugee Roulette describing the largely unprincipled and politicized operation of our system for adjudicating protection claims.
At some level, all Administrations have given in to the false idea that protection of refugees is politically perilous and that consequently the law should be interpreted and manipulated to “deter” the current “politically disfavored” groups of refugees. Not surprisingly, the latter are usually those of color, non-Christian religions, or from poorer countries where the mis-characterization of groups of legitimate refugees as “mere economic migrants” has become routine. Too often, the so-called “mainstream media” accepts such negative characterizations without critical analysis.
Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has regressed from a somewhat enlightened beginning with the never-promulgated “gender based regulation” mentioned by Karen to a position of fear, desperation, and ultimately “false deterrence.” Apparently, they perceive that GOP nativist lies and shamless fear-mongering combined with their own failure to boldly reform and materially improve the asylum processing system under their control are “scoring points” with the electorate.
The latest misguided proposal being considered in the White House would grotesquely miss the mark of addressing the real glaring problems with our asylum system at the border and beyond. That is the overly restrictive interpretations and applications of the refugee definition, too many poorly-qualified and poorly-trained adjudicators, over-denial leading to protracted litigation and inconsistent results, uninspiring leadership, and a stubborn unwillingness to set up the system in compliance with international rules so that significant numbers of qualified refugees applying at the border can be timely and properly admitted to the U.S. where, incidentally, their skills and determination can contribute greatly to our economy and our society.
The latest bad idea is truncating the already overly-summary and poorly run asylum process in apparent hopes of more quickly denying more potentially valid claims with less consideration. See, e.g.,https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/biden-migrants-asylum-changes-00156865. Far from being a panacea for the much-feared and highly distorted “border issue,” it eventually will aggravate all of the problems highlighted by Karen.
One thing it won’t do, however, is stop forced migrants from coming to the United States, even if they must abandon our broken legal system to do so. That’s what forced migrants do! Pretending otherwise and misusing our legal protection system for rejection won’t “deter” the reality of forced migration.
Under the Trump administration, most of the people we met there [in immigration detention in the Dodge County Jail] had benefits (some protection against deportation) that they were eligible for. They were asylum seekers, people with family ties, or people with DACA (people who were brought to the U.S. when they were children). It would be shocking every time I went to see the number of people that needed representation. They had strong claims to remain in the U.S. and often had family ties. Some were employed at certain jobs for a very long time and had no criminal record.
. . . .
Everybody deserves a fair chance, and legal representation is part of the fair chance.
Most people who have a conviction for an aggravated felony are not going to be allowed to remain in the U.S. But certain individuals are from countries that are unsafe for them to return to, and our laws say we will never deport anybody that will more likely than not be tortured or killed. And these individuals need representation because the stakes are so high.
No one is perfect, and our legal system certainly isn’t perfect. But without legal representation, we cannot ensure that people have their rights and have a fair due process in immigration proceedings.
. . . .
Every day, I witness the politicization of this topic. And political parties are taking on the rhetoric to fearmonger in a lot of ways. I find that horrifying and discouraging.
I can understand why these ads and messaging incite fear and why people can be scared by the messaging, even though the messaging is often untrue. It scares me that that’s what we’re doing to people that I work with everyday, who are mostly families and children who’ve become part of our communities.
. . . .
Q: Tell me more about the work you’re doing in collaboration with others in Colombia.
A: The program is called Safe Passage. It’s a collaboration with Sara McKinnon at the Department of Communications, us at the Law School, and Jorge Osorio at the Global Health Institute.
People often have to take an extremely dangerous journey just to arrive at the southern border to ask for asylum in the U.S. We are looking at whether some alternative, regular routes for migration can be beneficial in decreasing the pressure on the southern border.
. . . .
The last time I was in Colombia, there were people from all over the world. There were people from Afghanistan who probably had very strong claims for asylum. There were people from China, and they generally have very high approval rates for asylum. But in order to seek the benefits under the law, they have no option but to take a very dangerous journey.
So I think if we were able to expand the safe mobility offices in these other countries to process applications from other people who could potentially be eligible, we could ensure safety and take pressures off of the southern border. I think that’s something that everybody wants.
************************
Read the complete interview at the link.
Here’s a comment about Erin that I recently received from Professor Juliet Stumpf at Lewis & Clark Law:
I had the pleasure of meeting Erin when we both took students to Tijuana to work with asylum seekers at Al Otro Lado in 2020. She is a wise, kind, and collaborative colleague, and I was lucky enough to benefit from her deep experience and her generosity in sharing it.
Tom and I had the honor of appearing at a recent luncheon at U.W. Law hosted by Erin and her colleague Professor Sara McKinnon to discuss our proposal with students.
What a difference it makes to hear from experts like Erin and Sara who actually understand the laws, the realities of forced migration, and deal directly with the human trauma caused by short-sighted government“deterrence only” policies. The latter, promoted by politicos who have lost their moral bearings, intentionally misconstrue or ignore legal protections for migrants while failing to acknowledge or take responsibility for the proven, unnecessary human trauma caused by bad policies like “Remain in Mexico, “Title 42,” and “Mandatory Detention.”
That same report showed that “violence against migrants transit[ing] Mexico is escalating, the study found: 39.2% of interviewees were assaulted in the country, while 27.3% were threatened or extorted – with the actual figures likely higher than the official statistics as victims tend not to report crimes committed against them.”
Yet, despite these facts, politicos of both parties shamelessly press for the reinstitution of these demonstrably harmful, ineffective, immoral, and arguably illegal policies. Never do they acknowledge or discuss the infliction of human carnage they are irresponsibly promoting. Perhaps even worse, the so-called “mainstream media” seldom, if ever, has the integrity to confront these politicos of both parties with the deadly human consequences of the immoral, yet predictably ineffective, actions they advocate!
The Immigration Clinic Wins Two Asylum Cases in One Day
15APR 2024
Last week, the Immigration Clinic secured two asylum victories in one day for our Afghan allies. These cases spanned two academic years, but both cases were granted by the Arlington Asylum Office on the same day.
In August of 2021, thousands of people went to Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan to flee the Taliban. Among those thousands of people were Ms. S*, daughter of an Afghan government official, and Mr. K*, an Afghan attorney, and his wife Mrs. K*. Luckily, they all managed to get on a plane out of Kabul and were evacuated to the United States. When they were resettled to Hampton Roads, Ms. S, Mr. K, and Mrs. K all reached out to the Immigration Clinic for assistance in their cases.
During the 2022-23 Academic Year, Melissa Box J.D. ’23 worked with Mr. and Mrs. K on their asylum cases. Then during the 2023-24 Academic Year, Sarah Nagle, J.D. ’24 worked with Ms. S on her asylum case.
Below, we share the stories behind these lifechanging victories.
Mr. K and Melissa Box, J.D. ‘23
In Fall 2022, Melissa Box, J.D. ’23, was assigned to work on Mr. and Mrs. K’s asylum case.
Melissa was first assigned to write Mr. K’s affidavit for his asylum case. Asylum affidavits require several interviews and meticulous detail about a client’s case. While an asylum applicant’s testimony can, in theory, be enough to prove their case, the written and oral testimony must be consistent and credible. In order to capture the level of detail necessary for his case, as well as accurately prepare an affidavit in his voice, Melissa worked with Clinic Director Professor Stacy Kern-Scheerer to interview Mr. K. Across many interviews over the course of many months, Melissa learned about Mr. K’s career as an attorney, his passion for his work, and the danger he faced because of it.
Through their interviews, Mr. K and Melissa built a deep and lasting rapport. “I was lucky to have the time to make sure I fully understood Mr. K’s life’s story and gain his trust,” Melissa shared before her graduation last year. “I know Mr. K better than some law students I’ve spent years in class with. I know his mannerisms and was able to advocate for him. It really meant a lot when my client told Professor Kern-Scheerer and me that he thought I knew him better than he knew himself.”
After writing Mr. K’s affidavit, Melissa researched conditions in Afghanistan relevant to Mr. K’s case, including the treatment of attorneys and former government employees in Afghanistan. Melissa worked with Clinic Professor Nicole Medved on finding and preparing the country conditions evidence that would best support Mr. K’s asylum claim. This research was critical to contextualizing Mr. K’s fear of returning to Afghanistan.
After the Clinic submitted Mr. K’s asylum case in March 2023, USCIS quickly scheduled Mr. K and his wife for an asylum interview in April 2023, during the last week of classes of the semester. Clinic Director Professor Kern-Scheerer and Melissa prepared Mr. and Mrs. K for what to expect at the interview, and Melissa prepared her closing argument to present to the Asylum Officer for why Mr. and Mrs. K merit a grant of asylum.
Melissa Box, J.D. ’23 (left) and Professor Kern-Scheerer (right) at the Arlington Asylum Office for Mr. and Mrs. K’s Asylum interview (Spring 2023).
During the last week of class, Professor Kern-Scheerer and Melissa accompanied Mr. and Mrs. K to their asylum interview. After a roughly 3-hour hour interview, Melissa delivered her closing argument to the officer. After the interview had finished, there was nothing left to do but wait for a decision on the case.
Ms. S and Sarah Nagle, J.D. ‘24
Ms. S and her family also reached out to the Immigration Clinic for assistance in their asylum case. Ordinarily, children can be included on their parents’ asylum applications so that if the parent wins asylum, the child wins as well. However, Ms. S was too old to be included in her father’s case. Instead, she would have to meet the high burden of asylum all on her own.
This fall, Sarah Nagle, J.D. Class of 2024, was assigned to work on Ms. S’s asylum case. Sarah’s first task was to write Ms. S’s affidavit. Asylum affidavits are a critical piece of evidence because an asylum applicant’s testimony alone can be sufficient to prove their case. Since interviews with Ms. S about her story had already been completed, Sarah worked with Professor Kern-Scheerer to best capture Ms. S’s voice in her affidavit. “Sarah faced a unique challenge in writing Ms. S’s affidavit,” said Professor Kern-Scheerer. “Her assignment was to capture Ms. S’s personality and convey her fears without having heard her tell the story herself. This also underscored the importance of prior students having kept meticulous notes from previous interviews and discussions. Sarah met this challenge with thoughtful persistence, and wrote an excellent affidavit for Ms. S. ”
“Working on an affidavit was unlike any legal writing I had ever done before,” said Sarah. “Focusing on what was important to Ms. S—family, peace, and a willingness to stand by her convictions—helped anchor me in her perspective. Even though every word of the affidavit was based on her own words, I had doubts about my success until I reviewed the affidavit with her and received a smile, firm nod, and assertive ‘yes’ that I had captured what she wanted to convey. Being entrusted with helping tell someone else’s story was a great honor and fantastic learning experience.”
After completing Ms. S’s affidavit, Sarah next turned to researching conditions in Afghanistan relevant to Ms. S’s case. While it is easier to find evidence about the Taliban’s brutality against former government officials or former members of the military, finding evidence of the Taliban’s violence against their family members is not as simple. Sarah worked with Clinic Professor Nicole Medved next on finding and preparing the country conditions evidence that would best support Ms. S’s claims. This evidence played a critical role in contextualizing Ms. S’s fears of returning to Afghanistan.
In November 2023, after finishing all of the forms, affidavit, and evidence gathering, the Clinic submitted Ms. S’s asylum application to USCIS.
To everyone’s surprise, Ms. S was scheduled for an asylum interview just three weeks later. Sarah and Professor Medved worked closely with Ms. S to prepare her for what to expect at the asylum interview. Sarah also prepared her closing argument for Ms. S, demonstrating how Ms. S’s affidavit and country conditions evidence all prove that Ms. S merits a grant of asylum.
Sarah Nagle, J.D. ’24, reviewing Ms. S’s case prior to her Asylum Interview (Fall 2023).
In December, Professor Medved and Sarah Nagle accompanied Ms. S to her asylum interview in Arlington, Virginia. After Ms. S’s two-hour interview, Sarah delivered her closing argument to the officer.
“Actually getting to speak during a legal proceeding, instead of just observing, was incredible,” said Sarah. “It was really empowering to be trusted with such an important moment in someone’s life, and also reassuring to have Professor Medved right there in the interview with me after having helped me prepare and rehearse the statement!”
After Sarah’s closing argument, all that was left to do was wait. Despite requirements from Congress that her case should be decided quickly, the Clinic’s experience showed that Ms. S would likely wait many more months—or even years—before hearing a decision on her case.
Last week, the Clinic received notice that Ms. S’s asylum case was approved. Ms. S’s case marks the fastest decision ever received on any asylum case the Clinic has submitted.
Then, just hours later, the Clinic received notice that Mr. K’s asylum case was also approved, nearly one year after his asylum interview. With Mr. K’s case approved, his wife Mrs. K was also automatically granted asylum.
Now that their asylum cases have been granted, Ms. S, Mr. K, and Mrs. K can all live in the United States without fear of being forced to return to Afghanistan. They will be eligible to receive lawful permanent residency (their “green cards”) in one year, and eligible to apply for citizenship five years after that.
“My experience at the William and Mary Immigration Clinic was so meaningful,” said Melissa. “I know that I actually had a positive impact on my clients’ lives. It makes me smile when I think of Mr. K calling me his ‘Big Little Sister’ (because I’m taller than him but younger than him). I know my time and work was valued by Mr. and Ms. K.”
“Hearing that my client’s asylum case had been approved was the most incredible, and surreal, experience,” said Sarah. “Because students work in the Clinic for at most two semesters and USCIS usually operates on a timeline far longer than that, I’d gotten very used to the idea that I wouldn’t see the results of my work during my time in the Clinic. But because of the unusually quick turnaround for this asylum case, I got to share the news with Ms. S in an email that contained a lot more enthusiasm than is usually warranted in a legal context. It was a wonderful way to close out my time with this client.”
“We could not be happier for Mr. K, Mrs. K, and Ms. S or prouder of the Clinic students who worked tirelessly to prepare their asylum cases,” said Professor Kern-Scheerer. “Sarah’s and Melissa’s work, and the strong relationships that they built with the clients through their time in the Clinic, is emblematic of the incredible work that our Clinic students do here every day. In this busy season as we wrap up the end of this academic year, we’re grateful for the opportunity to pause and celebrate these lifechanging outcomes.”
Victories like these are made possible by the Clinic’s generous supporters. You can make wins like this a reality for more immigrants in Hampton Roads by donating to the Immigration Clinic.
The Clinic cannot guarantee any particular results for any particular individual or particular case. While the Clinic celebrates our victories, we recognize that each case is unique. Every noncitizen should consult with a licensed attorney about their case if they are concerned about their situation or are interested in applying for any form of immigration relief. The Clinic cannot promise any particular outcome or any timeframe to any client or potential client.
*All client names and initials have been changed for confidentiality and security
*********************
Many congrats to all involved in more great, life-saving work from the Clinic. Once again, representation, scholarship, and exceptional preparation win the day and help the system improve efficiency and deliver justice!
My only question is why hasn’t the Government issued “positive precedent” cases dealing with repetitive situations like this?
Due Process is a true team effort! PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center
Maria Daniella Prieshoff writes on LinkedIn:
Maria Daniella Prieshoff Managing Attorney Tahirih Justice Center Baltimore, MD PHOTO: Tahirih
Want to level up your #advocacy skills for your #genderbased #asylum cases in #immigrationcourt?Want to learn from a real immigration judge the basics of presenting your case before the immigration court?Then join me for Tahirih Justice Center’s”Advancing Justice: Gender-Based Violence Asylum Litigation in Immigration Court” webinar series!
Part 1 of the series is on April 23, 12-1:30pm. It will focus on the case law and strategy you’ll need to present your best gender-based asylum case, including how to handle credibility, competency, and stipulations.Monica Mananzan from CAIR Coalition will join me in this webinar. To register for Part 1: http://bit.ly/3xvwPyt
Honorable Lisa Dornell U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired) Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Part 2 of the series is on April 25, 12-1:30pm. Retired Immigration Judge Lisa Dornell will explain the best practices of litigating gender-based asylum cases before an immigration judge, as well as recommendations for direct examination, cross-examination, and how to handle issues with a client’s memory, trauma, or court interpretation.To register for Part 2: https://bit.ly/3PXJqRn
Please share with your networks!Our goal for this webinar series is to help pro bono attorneys and advocates enhance their the advocacy for #genderbasedviolence to have #immigrationjustice – we’d love for you to join us!
Wonderful learning opportunity! Many thanks to everyone involved in putting it together!
Litigating gender-based asylum cases can still be an “ordeal” at EOIR, despite some decent precedents. Learn how to avoid this fate for your clients! 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Wonder whatever happened to the “gender-based regulations” that Biden ordered to be drafted by Executive Order issued shortly after taking office? At this point, given his “lobotomized/running scared/retrograde/Trumpy Lite” position on asylum seekers and immigrants’ rights, probably just as well that they died an unheralded bureaucratic death (just as similar assignments have in the last three Dem Administrations over a quarter century).
Outside of a few Immigration Judges, who, because they understand the issue and have worked with asylum-seeking women, would never be asked anyway, I can’t really think of anyone at DOJ who would actually be qualified to draft legally-compliant gender-based regulations!
GOP are misogynists. Dem politicos are spineless and can’t “connect the dots” between their deadly, tone-deaf policies and poor adjudicative practices aimed at women of color in the asylum system and other racist and misogynistic polities being pushed aggressively by the far right! While, thankfully, it might not “be 1864” in the Dem Party, sadly, inexplicably, and quote contrary to what Biden and Harris claim these days, it’s not 2024 either, particularly for those caught up in their deadly, broken, and indolently run immigration, asylum, and border enforcement systems!
While most of the debate over immigration focuses on the U.S.-Mexico border, one of President Joe Biden’s most effective policies so far has occurred elsewhere ― at airports.
For a little over a year, Biden has used what’s called “parole” authority to collectively allow up to 30,000 vetted Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans per month into the country, mostly via air travel, for a temporary two-year window.
The program is based on the authority held by the federal government under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act to grant temporary admission to foreigners on a “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” And, the Biden administration touts, it has been accompanied by drops in the number of nationals from each of these countries who’ve crossed the U.S.-Mexico border on foot.
But to hear some right-wingers talk about it, the “CHNV parole” program — the name an acronym for the nationalities it encompasses — is a secret, treasonous endeavor that utilizes government-funded charter flights to transport “illegal” migrants into the United States. None of that is true, but that doesn’t seem to be the point.
“I don’t know of anyone in Congress who knew this!” exclaimed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on a podcast episode, just 14 months after Biden himself announced the CHNV parole program during a public press briefing and despite regular publications of data on the program by the Department of Homeland Security.
The false accusations of secret taxpayer-funded charter flights ferrying unvetted migrants to new lives in the United States plays into Republican attempts to cast immigration issues as a major crisis — and one on which Democrats are failing — ahead of the 2024 election.
. . . .
The precedent to the CHNV parole program was introduced in October 2022, when the Department of Homeland Security created a parole program for Venezuelans that was modeled on the Ukrainian program, requiring applicants to have a U.S.-based sponsor who’s financially able to support them and to pass vetting and background checks. In January 2023, the White House announced the program would expand to include Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua.
Individuals from those four counties who meet the requirements and haven’t attempted to cross the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry are allowed to fly from their home countries into the United States rather than appearing in person at land border crossings.
Since January 2023, more than “386,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans arrived lawfully and were granted parole under the parole processes,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection wrote in a February 2024 update.
“There’s no doubt that the CHNV program is by far the largest-scale parole program that any administration has done in decades,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, a research and legal advocacy organization.
And data supports the administration’s claim that the parole program, as part of a larger package, has helped discourage “irregular” migration.
As the Cato Institute reported in September, illegal entries by Venezuelans fell 66% from September 2022 to July 2023 and from December 2022 to July 2023, illegal entries fell 77% for Haitians, 98% for Cubans and 99% for Nicaraguans. Compared with peaks in CHNV numbers in 2021 and 2022, the report added, July 2023 arrests for those four nationalities were down 90%.
“There has not been a single month where unlawful entries of the four countries combined has been above the level it was in December 2022,” Reichlin-Melnick said.
The White House announced the policy as part of a package explicitly meant to “increase security at the border and reduce the number of individuals crossing unlawfully between ports of entry.” The Biden administration grouped the program with others meant to encourage “legal pathways” into the United States ― such as increased refugee admissions and asylum opportunities in other countries ― and alongside harsher border enforcement for migrants who broke the rules.
Naree Ketudat, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, told HuffPost in a statement that the CHNV parole process was part of a strategy to “combine expanded lawful pathways with stronger consequences to reduce irregular migration, and [has] kept hundreds of thousands of people from migrating irregularly.”
And yet many on the right have misrepresented ― or simply lied about ― what the parole program is, playing on anxieties about race and national identity to paint it as part of a supposed scheme by Democrats to overwhelm the country with new residents or somehow displace American citizens.
. . . .
***************************
Read the complete article at the link.
Beyond the barrage of racially-driven GOP lies, Dems have failed to capitalize on the success of Biden’s efforts and its benefits to the U.S. economy. Significantly, rather than just “moaning and groaning” about the so-called “immigration problem,” the Biden Administration actually took innovative action to address the situation.
The GOP claim that the program is “secret” is a blatant lie! Yet, you would be hard pressed to find any recent examples of Biden, Harris, their campaign officials, or Dem politicos touting the success of the parole program or the critical role of immigration of all types in the continuing strong performance of the U.S. economy.
You would would be much more likely to come across disingenuous statements blaming the GOP for not giving Biden “authority” to close the border, violate human rights, inflict more needless cruelty, and otherwise dehumanize asylum seekers at the Southern Border. In this way, Dems unwisely are playing along with the GOP nativists and giving them “cover” for their lies.
I’ll admit to initially being somewhat skeptical about the parole program, mainly because it could be seen as deflecting attention from much needed reforms and revitalization of existing legal programs for the admission of refugees and asylees that had been intentionally “kneecapped” by the Trump Administration.
Of course, no “pilot program” like this — particularly one with nationality restrictions and somewhat arbitrary numerical limits — can solve overnight problems allowed to fester for years. Yet, the parole program has demonstrated important principles that should form the basis for more durable legislative reforms of our legal immigration system:
Given realistic options, most individuals would choose to be pre-screened and apply from abroad (i/o/w “If you build it, they will use it!”);
Private sponsorships can play a key role in the selection, welcoming, resettlement, and integration process for legal immigration;
Allowing immigrants to work immediately upon arrival — rather than forcing them into an overburdened and over-bureaucratized work authorization process — benefits everyone;
More robust legal immigration opportunities will reduce pressure on the border and keep cases out of the backlogged Immigration Courts.
Rather than being a “false bone of contention” in the “immigration debate,” innovations like the parole program should form an empirical basis for bipartisan legal immigration reform and expansion that will benefit our nation and those who seek to become part of it in the 21st Century.
Becky Wolozin Senior Attorney, National Center For Youth Law PHOTO:Linkedin
Becky Wolozin, Senior Attorney, National Center For Youth Law, posted on LinkedIn:
I feel so privileged to have been part of this, to do something a good thing for people in this cruel world. Immensely proud of the advocates, migrants, and colleagues who worked together to hold the government to account and protect immigrant children caught in the fray of politics and an uncaring immigration system. It is a professional dream come true to be a member of Flores Counsel with National Center for Youth Law!
“Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late!” ~ Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett
Thanks, Becky, for your talent, dedication, and humanity, all of which stand in sharp contrast to border bureaucrats, DOJ Attorneys, and scofflaw nativists who have “weaponized” myths, dehumanization, dereliction of legal duties, and abdication of moral responsibility! This is a great example of the type of expertise and teamwork to get the job done that is all too seldom seen from the Administration, Congress, and the Judiciary in today’s toxic and too often fact- and morality-free immigration (non) debate! I’m glad that Judge Gee saw through the Garland DOJ’s pathetic attempt to evade legal responsibilities by making arguments that easily could’ be characterized as frivolous!
You can check it out yourself as quoted from the above NYT:
In response, lawyers for the Department of Justice argued that because the children had not yet been formally taken into custody by American customs officials, they were not obligated to provide such service. They did not dispute that the conditions in the encampments were poor.
Come on, man!👎🤯
Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot,” and “Theater of the Absurd,” perhaps surprisingly, have continuing relevance to today’s “off the rails” immigration “debate.” Naseer’s Motley Group in The Rose Bowl Merlaysamuel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg Copy [[File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg|Waiting_for_Godot_in_Doon_School]] Copy December 8, 2011I also loved the quote from “Waiting for Godot!” As Courtside readers may know, the “Theater of the Absurd,”Samuel Beckett, and “Waiting for Godot” have previously found their way into my postings about Garland’s incredibly lackadaisical approach to “justice @ Justice!” See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/22/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-followng-scathing-report-on-abuse-of-kids-in-immigration-court-eoir-announces-some-reforms-rekha-sharma-crawford-reports/.
Paulina Vera and Alberto Benítez joined Alexander Love, a former client of the Immigration Clinic at GW Law, for his naturalization ceremony—“the happy part of immigration cases,” in Vera’s words. (Contributed photo)
Comedies often end with a wedding, and there’s a marriage in this story, but it’s not a comedy. This is an immigration story, and it ends in a naturalization ceremony, with some painful, dramatic scenes along the way. It begins in the Soviet Union with a gay boy called Sasha, and ends in the United States with a gay man named Alexander. They’re the same person, with a lot of credit for that transformation due to students and faculty of the Immigration Clinic at GW Law.
Alexander Love, as he is now known, was born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union. His family moved to suburban Moscow, where he grew up and was expected to become highly educated. As a young teen, he realized he is gay, but he came out only to a few trusted friends and, aged 18, began serving in the Soviet Army. After being discharged in 1991, just as the Soviet Union was breaking apart, he went back to school.
“I was artistic and the majority of my subjects were things like physics, chemistry and mathematics,” Love said. “The only classes I passed were English classes.” Following his passion for working with textiles, he quit school and began sewing clothes for himself and for friends who ordered garments from him. He also taught English.
In these years just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union dissolved and Mikhail Gorbachev, then the Russian president, instituted major reforms. Gay bars and clubs opened (and have since closed) and Western values were embraced. Love befriended Americans living in Moscow and realized how different his life was from theirs. Though Russian society was more relaxed in this period, it could still be very difficult and even dangerous for LGTBQ individuals. In 1998, Love visited the United States for the first time, returning in 1999 and again in 2000, when he first came to Washington, D.C.
“I had been to Spain a few times, so I knew how different it was for gay people outside of Russia,” he said. Gay life at home, even in the more open climate at that time, was risky. “Verbal and physical harassment was always there. You could be stopped on the street or followed by a police car, mostly for the bribes. Sometimes they put some kind of powder in your car.” In taxis, on public transportation, even in gay clubs, he said, people were harassed just because they looked different.
Today, Love prefers not to dwell on the worst abuses he suffered. In 2001, he came to GW Law’s Immigration Clinic for help with his asylum application. Applicants fleeing persecution of LGBTQ people in their home countries need to prove past persecution or that they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Though ill treatment of LGBTQ individuals in Russia is well documented, Love’s application was denied.
Faculty and students in the Immigration Clinic didn’t give up. They assisted him in getting a work permit that allowed him to stay in the United States while they worked on his case. Because he was a clothing designer who had worked with singer Mariah Carey and other persons of note, he was approved for a work permit based on his special skills. But fate quickly intervened.
“Unfortunately,” Love said, “I was diagnosed with HIV, and at that time, you could not apply for a work visa if you had HIV.” (A year later, the law was changed.)
Years passed, and GW Law students came and went with the natural rhythm of matriculation and graduation, but professor Alberto M. Benítez, director of the Immigration Clinic, was a steady presence. So was the man Love said brought stability to his life, his boyfriend (now husband) Michael Love. When same-sex marriage was legalized in 2013, they had been together for eight years. Benítez told Alexander (whose last name then was Sozonov) that if he and Love were married, the clinic could work on obtaining a marriage-based adjustment to his request for permission to remain in America. The partners eagerly wed, but to get their marriage recognized as legitimate in the eyes of the immigration system, both men had to make many court appearances.
A high-stakes version of ‘The Newlywed Game’
Marriage to an American citizen did not automatically mean Love could be granted status as a permanent resident and issued a green card. Sydney Josephson, J.D. ’14, was one of the students who worked on his case. One of her significant contributions to Love’s case was filing a motion to get an approved marriage-based immigrant petition establishing that his union was made in good faith.
Sydney Josephson, J.D. ’14, is flanked by Alexander Love and Michael Love in April 2014 on the day of their interview in support of their marriage-based immigrant petition, which was approved soon after. (Contributed photo)
The process of gaining such recognition can be tricky, according to Josephson, who now practices immigration law with the Fragomen firm in Atlanta. “Sometimes they’ll put people in separate rooms,” she said, “and ask questions like, ‘What color is your fridge?’ One person will say white and the other person will say black. And immigration officials say, ‘This isn’t a good faith marriage. You don’t live together.’”
But Love’s application went smoothly. He and his husband did not go through interviews in separate rooms. They had been together for so long by then that there was little doubt about the nature of their marriage.
Some applicants see less happy results, Josephson said. “A colleague told me about a woman who was asked, ‘What does your husband wear to sleep in?’ She said, ‘Pajamas,’ and the man said, ‘I sleep in gym shorts and a T-shirt.’ And that was one of the reasons they were denied because the officer didn’t think they actually lived together. But I think someone who grew up in another country may think of sweatpants and T-shirt as pajamas.”
Working in immigration law can be extremely rewarding, according to Josephson, because it feels good to help people like Love.
“He’s an amazing person,” she said. “He has a beautiful relationship with Michael, and they’re wonderful people.”
Love was granted status as a permanent resident of the United States in 2016. He enjoys working as a textile librarian for the Washington Design Center.
“It’s a library, but instead of books you have tons of fabrics, trims, leathers and wallpapers,” Love said. “You have to know where everything is at and how to handle them. I’m very happy in this position.”
Clients from around the world
Alumna Paulina Vera, B.A. ’12, J.D. ’15, is a professorial lecturer in law and a supervising attorney of the Immigration Clinic. Since returning to GW seven years ago, she has supervised the students working on Love’s case and others.
“I actually was a student in the Immigration Clinic in my third year at GW Law,” Vera said. “I went to law school because I wanted to be an immigration attorney. I’m the daughter of two immigrants. My mom is from England; my dad, rest in peace, was from Peru. I grew up in Tucson, an hour away from the U.S.-Mexico border. So, immigration has always been a pretty big part of my personal life.”
The Immigration Clinic at GW Law started in 1979 and has helped countless people seek asylum or resist deportation. Clinic members have assisted victims of trafficking as well as DREAMers and youth covered by the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. They have worked with clients from El Salvador, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, Indonesia, China and elsewhere. Recently, they helped a returning client—a woman they successfully represented in her application for asylum in 2018—bring her four children to the United States from Honduras.
Benítez and Vera currently have a cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to review the decision of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Moisés Cruz Cruz, an undocumented Mexican man living in Virginia. During a routine traffic stop, a police officer asked Cruz his name. In a nervous moment, Cruz combined his own name with his brother’s name. Though he immediately corrected his mistake and wrote his correct name and date of birth on a piece of paper, the officer charged him with false identification, a misdemeanor. On the advice of a lawyer, Cruz entered a guilty plea, and as a result he is now facing deportation. Three of his children are U.S. citizens.
“To me,” Vera said, “this case is very indicative of the overarching immigration consequences that fairly minor criminal convictions can have. Are we going to separate a man from his family of five who has a partner who’s not from Mexico, so could not go back to Mexico with him, over something that stemmed from a traffic stop?”
Benítez said the Immigration Clinic staff unsuccessfully tried, through a different lawyer, to get Cruz’s guilty plea withdrawn. The case hinges on the question of whether Cruz committed a “crime involving moral turpitude,” which justifies deportation in immigration cases. Such crimes are typically defined as depraved acts involving child pornography, rape and other violent crimes such as murder.
“He did plead guilty, and he is in violation of the Virginia state code,” Benítez said. “We’re not disputing that. But is it an immigration violation? We hope that the Supreme Court agrees with us that it is not. State criminal law and federal immigration law are two different things. If the Supreme Court agrees with us, Moisés would be eligible to apply for—not necessarily get—a remedy that we call an immigration law cancellation of removal. That is for long-term residents of the United States who have no status, who establish ties to the United States and establish that they are good citizens.”
‘These folks are not criminals’
Growing up in Buffalo, New York, as the child of Mexican parents, Benítez never discussed immigration with them. His interest in immigration law was piqued when he was in college and learned that applications for asylum were processed with political rather than humanitarian concerns uppermost at play. He went to law school during the Reagan years and has taught at GW since 1996. After practicing immigration law for decades, Benítez said he knows at least one thing for sure.
“There is no border crisis,” he said. “These folks are not criminals. They do not bring disease. They are people trying to save themselves and save their kids. And the way that certain elements in our society demonize them is just plain wrong.”
There is never a shortage of clients at the Immigration Clinic, he said. On the contrary, they sometimes have to make wrenching decisions about which cases to take and which to decline. On average, he estimates that the clinic helps about 50 people per year, including the family members of clients. The clinic’s efforts on behalf of clients, Love among them, can stretch over several years.
“As long as the clients are prepared to continue fighting,” Benítez said, “we are prepared to continue fighting. The student attorneys that I’ve supervised, including Paulina, are the best. Whatever they lack in experience, they make up for in zeal, intelligence, professionalism and empathy.”
Love’s gratitude for the students who helped him remains undimmed.
“The students were the stars of my case,” he said. “I should frame their pictures. I’m thankful to all of them.”
The closing scene in Love’s immigration story takes place at his naturalization ceremony in 2020. Benítez and Vera were present to congratulate him on becoming a U.S. citizen.
*******************
I was privileged to have the GW Law Clinic appear before me in the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court during my 13 year tenure there. Professor Alberto Benítez is a long-time friend, neighbor, and fellow dog walker! I’m also proud that Professor Paulina Vera is an alum of the Arlington Internship Program and a “charter member” of the New Due Process Army. Additionally, Attorney Sydney Josephson, JD-‘14, instrumental in this case, now practices with Fragomen, a firm where I was a partner from 1992 until my appointment as BIA Chair in 1995.
Congrats to the GW Clinic on 45 years of spectacular success, leadership in the legal profession, and many lives saved!
“Singh experienced multiple physical attacks and death threats over an eight-month period, from November of 2014 to June of 2015. No reasonable factfinder would conclude that Singh did not experience serious harm rising to the level of persecution. … For all these reasons we find that the record compels a finding that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. … [T]he BIA did not independently analyze relocation and determine that the government met its burden. Rather, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasons for finding that internal relocation was safe and reasonable. In doing so, the BIA adopted the IJ’s flawed relocation analysis, which did not afford Singh the presumption of past persecution or shift the burden to the government to prove that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate within India. … In sum, because the BIA erred in its relocation analysis, we grant Singh’s petition to review his claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for consideration in light of Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654. … For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT Singh’s petition in part and REMAND to the BIA to consider (1) whether Singh is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of statutorily protected grounds by the government or individuals whom the government was unable or unwilling to control; (2) if so, whether the DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (3) whether Singh is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications for his ability to support his qualifying relatives through work in El Salvador. … The BIA’s decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
—Daniel M. KowalskiEditor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
******************
What if a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon were routinely engaging in “surgical malpractice?” Wouldn’t it be a cause for grave concern?🤯
Almost every week, sometimes multiple times, the BIA mishandles the basics in potential “life or death” cases. Yet, Garland somehow shrugs it off! This not only adds to the “dehumanization” of migrants (their lives don’t count), but also badly skews the statistical profile that undergirds much of the misguided immigration (non) dialogue.
If the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, huge “over-denial” problem at EOIR were addressed with better qualified judges and adjudicators, it would become apparent that many more, probably a majority, of those caught up in the dysfunction at EOIR and the Asylum Office are qualified to remain in the U.S. in some status. And, proper positive precedents would guide practitioners, ICE Counsel, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to correct results without protracted litigation that eventually burdens the Courts of Appeals, causes avoidable remands, fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and contributes mightily to the mushrooming EOIR backlog!
As a result, these cases could be prepared, prioritized, granted, and individuals could get on with their lives and maximize their human potential to help our nation — just as generations before them have done including the ancestors of almost all Americans! How soon some of us forget!
The real, largely self-created, “immigration crisis,” is NOT insufficient “deterrence, detention, and cruelty” at the border! It’s the grotesque failure of all three branches of Government to insist on a fair, timely, well-staffed, professionally-managed, due-process-compliant adjudication, review, and resettlement system for asylum seekers and other immigrants. It’s also the ongoing attempt to “cover up” and minimize our Government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, particularly those asserting their legal right to apply at our borders and in the interior regardless of status!
The racially-driven “targeting” of asylum seekers at the border is a ruse designed to deflect attention from the realities of human migration, what drives it, and the failure of governments across the board to come to grips with them and to fulfill their legal responsibilities to treat all persons fairly, humanely, and in accordance with correct interpretations and applications of the law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s additional commentary on Singh from my Round Table ⚖️⚔️ colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
The IJ was really determined to deny on this one. And I guess Vandyke had filled his quota of once in a lifetime for finding fault with the government, and thus had no choice but to dissent.
How would YOU like to face a system “determined to deny” with your life on the line? How would Garland like it?
Actually, under the generous “well-founded fear” standard applicable to asylum (Cardoza-Fonseca/Mogharrabi) and the authoritative guidance in the U.N. Handbook on adjudication, applicants like Singh who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Garland has, quite improperly, like his immediate predecessors, allowed this key humanitarian legal principle to be mocked at EOIR! Instead, as cogently pointed out by “Sir Jeffrey,” here the IJ and the BIA actually went the “extra mile” to think of “any reason to deny” — even totally specious ones!
Also, half-baked, legally deficient “reasonably available internal relocation analysis”is a long-standing, chronic problem at EOIR, despite a regulation setting forth analytical factors that should be evaluated. Few, if any, such legitimate opportunities are “reasonably available” in most countries sending asylum applicants!
Moreover, once past persecution is established, the DHS has the burden of showing that there is a reasonably available internal relocation alternative, something that they almost never can prove by a preponderance of the evidence! Indeed, in my experience, the DHS almost never put in such evidence beyond rote citations to generalized language in DOS Country Reports!
The “judicial competency/bias” problems plaguing EOIR are large and well documented. Yet, Garland pretends like they don’t exist!
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
“A caste system is an artificial construction, a fixed and embedded ranking of human value that sets the presumed supremacy of one group against the presumed inferiority of other groups.”
― Isabel Wilkerson, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents
Last year, a dangerous and despotic Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law SB 4, heralding the legislation as a form of defense in his war against President Biden’s immigration policies that have apparently left Texas unsafe and vulnerable. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth; in fact, Texas is privileged to be the second state in the union with the largest immigrant population that has contributed over $40 billion in federal and state taxes, with a spending power of more than $110 billion. According to a report by the Immigration Research Initiative and Every Texan:
Once provided a work permit, new immigrants earn an average of $20,000 in their first year, which increases to $29,000 by their fifth year living in Texas. […] For every 1,000 workers, immigrants and asylum seekers contribute $2.6 million to state and local taxes within their first year of eligibility. Far from a burden on Texas communities, newly arrived immigrants and asylum seekers are as essential to our state’s economy as they are to our families and communities.”
Abbott and the state have reaped from the contributions of immigrant families, regardless of immigration status, only to waste millions in taxpayer dollars to cruelly militarize the border against their own border communities and the children and families seeking refuge and safety. With SB 4, Abbott and Texas would make it a felony for any undocumented immigrant to enter the state and empower local law enforcement and state judges to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
. . . .
*************************
Read Beatriz’s complete article at the link.
The proposition, uncritically reported by many in media and mindlessly repeated by politicos of both parties, that effectively eliminating asylum at the border, thereby turning the ability to seek protection in the U.S. over to smugglers, cartels, and thugs, will “enhance security” is beyond preposterous! Obviously, it will do the exact opposite by improperly treating desperate individuals seeking legal protection from the U.S. the same as the small number of actual security threats who might seek to cross the border (at least some of whom are actually caught).
Just ask yourself the question that the media never presses on Abbott, DeSantis, Trump, GOP nativists, or their spineless Dem enablers: Why would a “real terrorist” spend weeks or months trying to get a “CBP One” appointment to be screened by CBP? Alternatively, why would such an individual risk the irregular border crossing and then turn themselves in to CBP for processing or wait weeks in filthy conditions to be processed by CBP? Answer: Obviously, they wouldn’t.
There are many easier ways for those smuggling or seeking to engage in criminal behavior to enter (think thousands of miles of lightly guarded Northern Border, false visas, entering legally at an airport under false pretenses, or concealing contraband in legitimate commerce — the way most fentanyl enters the U.S.). And, they are all “facilitated” by the USG’s insanely bad policy decision to concentrate “law enforcement” resources overwhelmingly on those who present no realistic threat and want only fair consideration of their legal claims! Sure it generates (largely misleading) “numbers,” but does little to actually enhance security.
Indeed, one might well suspect that the inordinate hoopla and intentionally exaggerated fears focused on asylum seekers is largely a “cover-up” and diversion from the Government’s poor record on dealing with the fentanyl crisis.
As I have repeatedly said, what if the Feds and states stopped disingenuously wasting unconscionable amounts resources on bogus enforcement and deterrence and instead invested in building a fair and timely asylum reception, screening, adjudication, and resettlement system that encouraged and rewarded those presenting themselves at ports of entry? That would make it easier for law enforcement to concentrate on those actually seeking to avoid our legal system (rather than inanely concentrating on those who merely want our legal system to fairly consider their claims)!
What would happen if the “mainstream media” actually fulfilled their professional, ethical, journalistic responsibilities to research, understand, and report honestly about the right to asylum, those seeking it, and those assisting them in presenting their claims to an intentionally hostile and dysfunctional system! What if the media stopped uncritically and irresponsibly reporting nativist propaganda, such as Abbott’s babbling, as “news,” and began concentrating on informing the public of the truth about asylum seekers, the legitimacy of many of their claims, and their great potential benefits to America!
Bonnie Washuk reports for the Portland press Herald:
In the lobby of Portland’s Baxter Academy for Technology and Science, a chess board is on prominent display – for good reason.
Earlier this month, the school’s chess team – which didn’t even exist a few months ago – won the Maine State Scholastic Chess Championship against 15 of the state’s best teams, including Kennebunk High School.
Going into the championship, facing established high school chess teams, Baxter was not expected to win.
The player who clinched the big win for school’s six-member team is freshman João Vuvu-Nkanu Maviditi, a teen from Angola who last year was living at the Portland Expo when it served as temporary shelter for asylum seekers.
João Vuvu-Nkanu Maviditi, left, and Abdallah Ali ponder their next moves while playing a game of chess in class at Baxter Academy on March 12. The school’s chess team won the state championship last weekend for the first time. Gregory Rec/Staff Photographer Reprinted under license
. . . .
For Baxter to grab the championship win “is hugely impressive,” Cimato said in an email. “Baxter’s team held up extremely well under pressure and in sharp tactical positions. Their patience and calculation in those two end games were the difference.”
Baxter’s other chess team players are Jacob Kaiser, Abdallah Ali, Gibson Holloway and Sean Glass.
The team’s coach is Majur Juac, an internationally known chess master who once was one of the “Lost Boys” of Sudan who fled the civil war in their country and undertook long and dangerous treks to safety, spending years in refugee camps and eventually resettling in the United States.
Juac now lives in Falmouth and is on the faculty at Baxter, where he teaches chess.
. . . .
Baxter offered chess play after school, not just for its students but for other young people, including those who attend the downtown Boys and Girls Club.
When the games first started, “a few of those kids didn’t know how the pieces moved,” she said. “But Juac soon changed that.”
The school held tournaments in the summer, fall and winter. It’s hosting another next month and inviting in other schools.
In the fall, Baxter also launched a chess class taught by Juac, and 16 academy students signed up right away, Klein-Christie said.
She said the chess students are “really into it” and put their phones down and talk to one another as they play.
With a limited budget, it’s a stretch for a charter school to expand programs, Klein-Christie said.
“But it’s has been a worthwhile investment. Chess is a way of teaching them strategic planning, math skills. And it’s lovely for them to be building community.”
*********************
Read Bonnie’s complete article at the link!
Immigrants get it done for their communities in ways big and small! The reality of migration is quite different from the cowardly bombast of Abbott, DeSantis, and other White Nationalists!
Folks like Abbott and the Feds are wasting incredible (and immoral) sums of money on misguided, cruel, counterproductive, dehumanizing, and ultimately futile enforcement, militarization, and imprisonment. They should be investing in a timely, fair, well-run asylum system, planned reception and resettlement, and community integration that would maximize the benefits for both the migrants and the U.S. communities they seek to enrich and help with their presence.
If only politicos of both parties would get beyond the racist myths, pandering to fear, encouraging “worst instincts,” and instead lead the way to a better future for America! 🇺🇸
“Justice” — While totally unjustifiable, it’s perhaps understandable why A.G. Merrick Garland wants to suppress criticism from IJs of his courts’ failure to provide due process and uphold the rights of asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere! It’s a major driver of disorder at the border!
Two items from the indomitable Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:
“LEXISNEXIS EXCLUSIVE: How Low Will They Go? – An Outraged Retired IJ Speaks (Because She Can)”
This broad edict applies even when a judge seeks to speak at an event in their personal capacity and agrees to provide a clear disclaimer that the views expressed do not
reflect an official position of EOIR or DOJ. It means a judge cannot explain the basics of immigration law to a church group interested in sponsoring refugees or even a middle
school civics class. The application of this process to NAIJ officers ignores the well known fact that many reporters operate on deadlines of mere hours and do not provide their questions in advance. It is also hard to understand how EOIR dismisses the clear disclaimer, scrupulously provided, that NAIJ comments do not represent the Department’s views.
Perhaps most puzzling about this turn of events is how this step can be taken during the Biden administration, one which says it seeks to empower federal workers and their
unions. It is simply breathtaking in the worst of ways that the DOJ through EOIR is taking this step in clear violation of the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that federal employees don’t check their First Amendment rights at the door when they accept employment. To the contrary, the Court has
recognized the unique “special value” to the public of speech by public employees on matters related to their employment. In stark contrast to EOIR’s position, the Code of
Conduct for U.S. Judges affirmatively encourages federal judges to speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system and
the administration of justice. And whatever happened to whistleblower protections? Are they suspended when they reveal information which can be viewed as critical of an agency?
In defense of its action, EOIR cites the tepid, generic excuse that it is merely promoting the efficiency of the service it is charged with performing. It asserts that using personal
capacity speech (as opposed to official speech by its designated spokespersons), even with a disclaimer, can have real adverse effects on the agency’s mission. It claims that
the SET process was established to promote public confidence in IJ impartiality, despite clear Supreme Court guidance that judicial partiality is narrowly defined as a lack of bias
for or against a party in the proceeding. If that is not clear enough, that standard was set forth in a decision which protected the rights of judicial candidates to announce their
views on disputed legal or political issues, a bridge NAIJ officers never cross because NAIJ is a nonpolitical professional organization whose members’ personal viewpoints
span the spectrum.
EOIR’s gag order against NAIJ officers is an outrageous and dangerous policy that should not go unnoticed and unremedied. Those of us who can speak must speak out
and take action to prevent this policy change from being continued.”
The Honorable Dana Leigh Marks (retired) served as an Immigration Judge in San Francisco from January 1987 until December 2021. During her tenure she was an active member of NAIJ from the start, serving seven two-year terms as President and two two-year terms as Vice President. Since ending her term as president in 2017 she has served as President Emerita of NAIJ. The opinions expressed here are her personal ones and are not intended to set forth the formal position of NAIJ on the matters discussed. To hear their views, you will have to contact its officers. Uh oh. I guess you can’t…….
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges, Member of The Round Table of Former IJs.
2. ACROSS THE BOARD OUTRAGE: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Sends Garland Scathing Letter: “Completely Unacceptable!”
I write to you regarding concerning allegations that the Biden Justice Department is unlawfully attempting to prohibit its employees from making legally protected disclosures to Congress. It’s been reported that the Justice Department Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Chief Immigration Judge Sheila McNulty issued an order on February 15, 2024, prohibiting immigration judges from speaking publicly without prior agency approval.1 The news report claims that the issuance of this order comes as some immigration judges have spoken out publicly on significant case backlogs at the immigration court, testified before Congress, participated in panel discussions, and made themselves available to the media.2 It’s been reported that the order prohibits immigration judges from speaking with Congress without prior agency approval, and it’s speculated that Chief Immigration Judge McNulty issued this directive in response to the testimony Immigration Judge Mimi Tsankov gave before Congress last fall.3 In that October 18, 2023, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Tsankov said that the Justice Department lacked leadership and was ineffective in its management of the immigration courts.4 It’s critically important that immigration judges communicate with Congress particularly when the Biden administration’s leadership and policy failures have created an unprecedented immigration crisis at our Southern Border. If the allegations that the Justice Department has sought to silence immigration judges from communicating with and testifying before Congress are true and accurate, the Biden Justice Department’s conduct is absolutely unacceptable.
. . . .
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Official Photo
***************************
Read the full statements of Judge Marks and Sen.Grassley at the links above.
Thanks for speaking out, Dana, my friend and Round Table colleague! As Dana points out, the Speaking Engagement Team (“SET”) process acts to deter IJs from public speaking at educational and other events. It’s an example of how within DOJ, EOIR “management” gets sidetracked with creating unnecessary bureaucratic “gatekeepers” and “handlers” rather than focusing on due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and quality control! Those are the things that are broken at EOIR.
Also, well-known immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport provided the following helpful resource on Federal employee rights to communicate with Congress:
Instead, Garland, once again, has unnecessarily and incompetently, stepped into a “hornet’s nest!” And, the Biden Administration, inexplicably and indolently, has allowed him to do so. Sen.Grassley is “spot on” in this letter. And, that’s something I don’t often say.
Now, if the Senator will just call up his colleague Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) and get behind the Article I legislation effort, the problem can be solved in a bipartisan manner that will give a huge boost to the quality of justice in America! The evidence that EOIR is not “viable” within DOJ or any other Executive Agency is overwhelming. This is just a graphic illustration of why we need the Article I change that Judge Mimi Tsankov, (Ret) Judge Dana Marks, and many other experts and legislators have been supporting before Congress and in other public forums! See, e.g., https://youtu.be/MEJ093pDGI4%C2%A0.
In the interim, the Administration should immediately appoint an “Immigration Czar” and expert task force along the lines recommended by Heidi Altman of NIJC to supersede Garland’s and Mayorkas’s incompetent and damaging “management” of existing migration programs and policies and lay the groundwork for a smooth transition to Art 1. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-9PM.
DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ.
Sarah Nagle, J.D. ’24, reviewing Ms. S’s case prior to her Asylum Interview (Fall 2023).
