Attorney General Merrick B. Garland – Page 8

🤮 SCOFFLAW WATCH: IN “A-B-III” A.G. GARLAND ORDERED ALL EOIR JUDGES TO APPLY THE BIA’S PRECEDENT MATTER OF A-R-C-G- (PSG/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE) — HIS BIA DIDN’T GET THE WORD, SAYS 3RD CIR — Avila v. Att’y Gen.

Kangaroos — Mob chatter:
“Hey, anyone here know what an ARCG is?”
“No clue.”
“Some kind of boat?”
“Maybe we should ask Noah.”
“Don’t bother. The only rule we follow around here is ‘When in doubt, throw ‘em out!’”
“Isn’t that what the UN Handbook says, that ‘giving the benefit of the doubt’ means to ‘doubt that any benefit will ever be given?’”
“Yup, sounds right to me!”
“I don’t understand it. We’re overtly hostile to asylum seekers and their lawyers, we’ve tilted the playing field against them, yet they still come! Why?”
“Detain, discourage, deny, deport, deter, that’s our mission!”
“Where due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices go to die!”
“Precedents? We only follow the ones unfavorable to respondents!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

From: Ted Murphy
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:09 AM
To: AILA Philadelphia List
Cc: Kaley Miller-Schaeffer
Subject: 3rd Circuit Precedent – PSG Honduras A-R-C-G-
Importance: High

Friends,

Please see the attached precedent decision from the 3^rd Circuit today. While the first 16 pages of the 21 page decision focus on CIMT issues, the final 4 pages are worth reading on PSG similar to A-R-C-G- that the BIA ignored.

Here, on the other hand, the BIA did not adhere to

Matter of A-R-C-G-’s requirement to examine Avila’s PSG

within the context of the specific country conditions in

Honduras. The BIA rejected Avila’s PSG for lack of

particularity without considering evidence in the record about

“widespread and systemic violence” against Honduran women,

“inconsistent legislation implementation, gender

discrimination within the justice system, and lack of access to

services.”109 Evidence in the record, including that “[l]ess than

one in five cases of femicide are investigated,… and the

average rate of impunity for sexual violence and femicide is

approximately 95%,” may have been relevant in examining

whether Avila’s proposed PSG was cognizable.110 Just as the

cultural attitudes toward gender were relevant in Matter of A-

R-C-G-, evidence in the record as to the “machismo culture” in

Honduras may be relevant to assessing whether Avila has a

cognizable PSG.111

Moreover, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, DHS conceded that

the proposed group “married women in Guatemala who are

unable to leave their relationship” was sufficient for a PSG

asylum claim.112 Given the similarity between that social group

and “Honduran women in a domestic relationship where the

male believes that women are to live under male domination,”

we must remand for the BIA to provide clarification as to its

application of Matter of A-R-C-G-, and to determine whether

Avila’s proposed PSG is cognizable in light of the specific

country conditions

.

We must also remand for the BIA to consider whether

Avila demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on

account of her PSG. The BIA determined that Avila’s PSG did

not “exist independently” of the harm alleged, as required

under Matter of M-E-V-G-113 and Matter of W-G-R-.114 Matter

of M-E-V-G- cites to this Court’s prior precedent in Lukwago

v. Ashcroft,115 which states that a PSG “must exist

independently of the persecution suffered by the applicant for

asylum.”116 However, Lukwago makes clear that in

determining whether a PSG exists independently of the

persecution suffered, the BIA must consider the PSG in the

context both of “past persecution” and a “well-founded fear of

persecution.”117 Here, the BIA did not consider whether Avila

had demonstrated that she had a well-founded fear of

persecution based on her past experiences of abuse and sexual

violence. Accordingly, we will remand for the BIA to consider,

in addition to whether Avila has suffered past persecution on

account of her PSG, whether she has demonstrated a well-

founded fear of future persecution.

In conclusion, on remand, the BIA should (1) clarify,

given the Government’s concession in Matter of A-R-C-G- that

the proposed group was sufficient for a PSG asylum claim, its

application of Matter of A-R-C-G- to the present case, and

consider Avila’s PSG in the context of evidence presented

about the country conditions in Honduras and (2) provide

guidance in applying both Matter of A-R-C-G- and Matter of

M-E-V-G- with respect to past persecution and a well-founded

fear of future persecution on account of membership in a PSG

Case was argued by Attorney Kaley Miller-Schaeffer.

Best regards,

Ted

Theodore J. Murphy, Esquire

Murphy Law Firm, PC

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/221374p.pdf

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

Once again, the BIA fails to follow its own precedent favorable to the respondent! Yet, in a Dem Administration they get away with mocking the rule of law in life or death cases, in a “court system” that the Dems “own.” Why?

WHO applies precedents and rules can be as important as the precedents and rules themselves! Failure to properly and uniformly apply legal rules that favor asylum seekers has become a chronic problem at EOIR. It’s one that Garland has yet to effectively and comprehensively address!

Many congrats to Kaley Miller-Schaefer and Murphy Law!

Kaley MIller-Schaefer ESQ — Kaley Miller-Schaefer ESQ
Partner
Murphy Law
PHOTO: Linkedin

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-15-23

🍂FALL FOLLIES: BIA FUMBLES BASIC STANDARDS FOR FUTURE FEAR AND INTERNAL RELOCATION, SAYS 6TH CIRCUIT — Lin v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0205p-06.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-future-fear-internal-relocation-lin-v-garland

“The question before us is whether the BIA’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence. As will be explained below, the BIA’s rationale does not allow us to make that determination. So we grant Lin’s petition and remand for further proceedings. … It is difficult to imagine that a reasonable person in Lin’s position, under the circumstances demonstrated in the record, would feel safe returning home. The determination that Lin failed to show a reasonable likelihood of individualized persecution in China is contravened by the record and compels us to conclude otherwise. … [H]ere, where we are left with no indication that the BIA undertook the appropriate inquiry and significant indications that it likely did not, remand for full consideration is proper.”

[Hats off to Henry Zhang!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

PWS: “Another “Big Whiff” by the BIA! Sounds like assembly line denials to me!”

HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE: “Whether a reasonable person returning home would feel safe – the correct standard cited by the circuit, is rarely if ever applied by the current BIA. I would really love to see the IJ training material on this standard.”

This is life or death folks! Why isn’t getting it right at the “retail level” an urgent mission for the Government?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-13-23

⚖️😎☹️ AFTER RARE VICTORY FOR RESPONDENT IN MATTER OF C-G-T- (UNWILLING/UNABLE TO PROTECT, POLICE REPORT, HIDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION), BIA REVERTS TO FORM BY DENYING ADJUSTMENT TO CONDITIONALLY PAROLED CUBANS (MATTER OF CABRERA-FERNANDEZ)

Here’s the link to Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740 (BIA 2023):

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1594626/download

Here’s the link to Matter of Cabreara-Fernandez, 28 I&N Dec, 747 (BIOA 2023):

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1595041/download

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

This e-mail exchange among experts says it all about Cabrera-Fernandez:

Expert 1: Wow – they never miss a chance to hurt noncitizens, do they?

Expert 2: The cruelty is the point.

“The Cruelty Is The Point”
IMAGE: Amazon.com

With an available interpretation that would have allowed regularization of status, what purpose is served by devising a way to keep these otherwise qualified Cubans in limbo? Why would the DHS appeal a decision like this? Why would the BIA reward them for pursuing a result that is 1) inhumane, 2) undesirable, and 3) entirely avoidable with a little creativity and common sense (see, IJ in this case)?

No wonder we have backlogs everywhere an a dysfunctional system that nobody in charge seems interested in fixing — even when fixes are available and basically “cost free?” Better leaders and more enlightened decision-makers would be helpful.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-12-23

🗽⚖️🇺🇸⚔️🛡 ROUND TABLE (THANKS TO WILMER CUTLER PRO BONO) JOINS OTHER NGOS IN URGING SUPREMES TO PRESERVE MEANINGFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR CANCELLATION! (Wilkinson v. Garland) — Rae Ann Varona Reports for Law360:

Rae Ann Varona
Legal Reporter
Law360
PHOTO: Linkedin

Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community helpfully forwarded the pdf’s of Rae Ann’s article and the three briefs. You can access them here:

Ex-Immigration Judges Back Trinidadian Man Before Justices – Law360

1718000-1718295-former eoir judges

1718000-1718295-domestic violence orgs

1718000-1718295-aila

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

Our Round Table, with the help of some of the greatest litigators and law firms out there, continues to provide key support for the NDPA and timely expertise to the Federal Courts and father Executive on all levels!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-08-23

🏴‍☠️ 🤯 ABSURDIST SCOFFLAW TEX “GOV” ABBOTT BLOWN AWAY IN ROUND I OF “BUOY BATTLE!” — Texas Federal Judge Rejects Ludicrous “Invasion Defense!”

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/06/politics/texas-mexico-border-water-barriers-migrants/index.html

CNN —

A federal judge ordered Texas to remove floating barriers in the Rio Grande and barred the state from building new or placing additional buoys in the river, according to a Wednesday court filing, marking a victory for the Biden administration.

Judge David Alan Ezra ordered Texas to take down the barriers by September 15 at its own expense.

The border buoys have been a hot button immigration issue since they were deployed in the Rio Grande as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s border security initiative known as Operation Lone Star. The Justice Department had sued the state of Texas in July claiming that the buoys were installed unlawfully and asking the judge to force the state to remove them.

In the lawsuit, filed in US District Court in the Western District of Texas, the Justice Department alleged that Texas and Abbott violated the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act by building a structure in US water without permission from United States Army Corps of Engineers and sought an injunction to bar Texas from building additional barriers in the river. The Republican governor, meanwhile, has argued the buoys are intended to deter migrants from crossing into the state from Mexico.

Texas swiftly appealed the judge’s order.

. . . .

Ezra also found Texas’ self-defense argument – that the barriers have been placed in the face of invasion – “unconvincing.”

. . . .

Ezra also found Texas’ self-defense argument – that the barriers have been placed in the face of invasion – “unconvincing.”

. . . .

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

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

Who knows how this will play out in the 5th Circuit and the Supremes, given the composition of those courts. But, at least for a day, Judge Ezra has brought some common sense and the rule of law to bear on out of control grandstanding Texas “Governor” Greg Abbott.

In addition to being cruel and illegal, Abbott’s $140 million buoy boondoggle is predictably a failure from a deterrence standpoint. See, e.g., https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-5saEvpiBAxUXpIkEHU1VBwoQFnoECBoQAQ&url=https://www.livemint.com/news/texas-floating-border-wall-fails-to-deter-migrants-11693942981798.html&usg=AOvVaw0TX6bBkO0Fv0MezJLQPJkk&opi=89978449. (Although Abbott and his White Nationalist supporters falsely claim otherwise.) But, as my friends Dan Kowalski and Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase often say, effective deterrence isn’t the point — the cruelty and dehumanization is!

We should also remember that the vast majority of those whom Abbott and the nativists bogusly call “invaders” seek only to turn themselves in to U.S. authorities so they can exercise their clear legal rights to apply for asylum — rights that attach regardless of status or manner of entering the U.S. (Rights that also have improperly been diminished and impeded by the Biden Administration’s ill-advised asylum regulations, currently under legal challenge).

If successful (under a legal system intentionally rigged against them), these so-called “invaders” will use their skills and work ethic to expand our economy and help Americans prosper while saving their lives and those of their families. To anybody other than Abbott and other White Nationalists, that sounds like a potential “win-win” that could and should be “leveraged” for everyone’s benefit!

Judge Ezra’s opinion in the aptly-named U.S. v. Abbott can be found here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172749163/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172749163.50.0.pdf?ftag=YHF4eb9d17

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-07-23

⚖️🗽👩🏽‍⚖️👩🏽‍🏫 WITH HELP FROM OUR FRIENDS @ ROPES & GRAY, IMMIGRATION PROFESSORS & ROUND TABLE 🛡️ FILE AMICUS ON WITHHOLDING/NEXUS STANDARD OF PROOF IN 1ST CIR. — Paye v. Garland

Read the full brief here:

Paye [2023.8.25] Amici Brief (Law Profs & IJs & BIA members)

Here’s the “Statement of Interest:”

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE1

This brief represents the views of two groups of amici curiae. See Corporate

Disclosure Statement for names of amici curiae. The first group is comprised of thirty-two immigration law scholars and clinical professors. These amici teach immigration law and/or provide clinical instruction in law school clinics that provide representation to asylum seekers and noncitizens seeking relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8 U.S.C § 1158. As such, amici are knowledgeable of the particular legal requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8 U.S.C § 1158 and have a special interest in the proper administration and interpretation of the nation’s immigration laws, particularly asylum and withholding of removal.

The second group is comprised of forty-one former immigration judges (“IJs”) and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) members who have collectively presided over thousands of removal proceedings and have interest in this case based on their many years of dedicated service administering the immigration laws of the United States. Based on this experience, amici believe that withholding of removal

1 Pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici notes that all parties have consented to the filing of this brief.

Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici further certifies that no party’s counsel authored the brief in whole or in part, no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparation or submission of the brief, and no person, other than amici, their members, or counsel has contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.

-1-

Case: 23-1426 Document: 00118044713 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/25/2023 Entry ID: 6587480

is the means whereby Congress provided for the United States to meet its international treaty obligation of “nonrefoulement” under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. Withholding of removal is a vital legal tool upon which IJs rely to ensure that noncitizens appearing before them are not removed to countries for which they have proven it to be more likely than not that they have experienced (or will experience) persecution on account of a protected ground — an extremely high burden to meet. This relief is mandatory where the noncitizen’s burden of proof is met and does not lead to permanent status or derivative status for immediate family members, in contrast to asylum, which is a discretionary form of relief that grants a permanent status and derivative status for immediate family members.

Amici contend that the more lenient “a reason” standard, as applied to the nexus between the protected ground and the persecution for withholding (as opposed to the “at least one central reason” standard for asylum) requires IJs to order withholding in cases where evidence of nexus may be insufficient for a discretionary grant of asylum. Such an interpretation would provide greater protection from violating the international treaty obligation of nonrefoulement. The instant case, where Petitioner is ineligible for asylum but may be protected from severe future persecution by withholding of removal, presents exactly the context in which Congress intended for the lesser “a reason” nexus standard to apply. Addressing this question here provides an opportunity for this Court to affirm Congress’s clear

-2-

Case: 23-1426 Document: 00118044713 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/25/2023 Entry ID: 6587480

intent, expressed in the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C), to establish protection against nonrefoulement for this noncitizen and many others who, for any number of reasons, are ineligible for the discretionary relief of asylum.

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

Many thanks to all involved!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-28-23

🗽⚖️ BIA CONTINUES TO STRUGGLE WITH STANDARDS — Fortunately, WilmerHale (Tasha H. Bahal), Round Table 🛡️, 1st Cir. There To Straighten Things Out! — Murillo Morocho v. Garland — With Commentary From Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1881P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-cat-standard-of-review-murillo-morocho-v-garland

“Petitioner Darwin Murillo Morocho seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for deferral of removal to Ecuador under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Murillo Morocho claims that, if returned to Ecuador, it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Ecuadorian government itself or by private actors acting with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Before this court, he argues that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review to the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) legal conclusions. He further claims that both the BIA and the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether the Ecuadorian government would more likely than not consent or acquiesce in his torture. Finally, he argues that even if the BIA and IJ applied the proper legal standards, the BIA’s decision, which adopts the IJ’s decision, is not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ erred in not giving him the opportunity to further corroborate his testimony. We agree that the agency1 applied the incorrect legal standard to the “consent or acquiescence” prong of Murillo Morocho’s CAT claim. We therefore grant his petition for review in part, vacate the order of the BIA denying Murillo Morocho CAT relief as to Ecuador, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Tasha J. Bahal!]

Tasha J. Bahal
Counsel
WilmerHale

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Many congrats to Tasha and the rest of rest of the wonderful pro bono team over at WilmerHale!

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

Here’s what my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase had to say:

Wonderful decision. Wilmer Hale has been doing outstanding work on deportation defense litigation.

H.H., the First Circuit’s recent precedent in which our Round Table filed an amicus brief, featured prominently in this decision.

Once again, the agency took the easy out – i.e. giving lip service to the acquiescence standard, rather than indulging in the in depth analysis required in such claims. Of course, EOIR’s training does not teach otherwise, and the BIA chooses to rubber stamp rather than correct and remand.

The First Circuit actually did the required analysis here. By contrast, it appears that as a “dismissal of a denial” by an IJ, this decision “defaulted” to the BIA’s “any reason to deny” assembly line. I suspect that if this had been a DHS appeal of an IJ grant, it would have received a more detailed, critical analysis. However, as we often see, even that analysis might be devoted to finding a bogus reason to deny.

Despite some improvement in the quality of IJ and BIA appointments under Garland, the lack of dynamic expert “pro due process” leadership and “culture of denial and deterrence” remain debilitating (and potentially life-threatening) problems at EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-23

🏴‍☠️🤯☠️ INVITE ‘EM TO DEFECT, THEN ARBITRARILY REJECT — Russian Allies Find Broken U.S. Asylum System Akin To Russian Roulette! — “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all,” says Jennifer Scarborough, Refugees’ Lawyer!

Jennifer Scarborough, EsquireLaw Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC Harlingen, TX PHOTO: Firm — Jennifer Scarborough, Esquire
Law Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC
Harlingen, TX
PHOTO: Firm

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=df3af6fe-6f28-47f0-a65a-95a9e0272c10

Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Numerous Russians attempting to escape conscription onto the Ukrainian battlefield have made perilous journeys to the United States, trusting in the Biden administration’s declaration that the U.S. would “welcome” those fleeing the war and their forced participation in it.

Instead of winning asylum, however, some of these men have been detained and, in at least one case, deported back to Russia, where they could be thrown into the fight against U.S.-armed Ukraine — into “the meat grinder,” as the U.S. secretary of State recently put it.

The U.S. has deported nearly 190 Russians since the beginning of October 2022, almost three times as many as were removed during the entire prior year.

Some Russian conscripts have refused to board deportation flights, forcing U.S. immigration officers to return them to immigration detention and legal limbo.

Three Russians the U.S. detained and sought to deport told The Times that certain abuse awaited them at home, where draft dodgers are subject to imprisonment or swift dispatch to front lines. The three Russians said they felt bewildered — betrayed, even — bythe U.S. asylum system. The Times is withholding their identities because they fear retribution if they are returned to Russia.

“Death awaits me there if I go back,” said one Russian man in his 20s. He said he was slated to be deported but fainted when immigration officials loaded him onto the plane, which forced them to return him to detention.

Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged Russians who opposed the war to stay at home and fight to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Biden administration has explicitly encouraged Russians who do not want to fight in Ukraine to seek asylum in the United States.

“There are people out there in Russia who do not want to fight Putin’s war or die for it,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in September. “We believe that, regardless of nationality, they may apply for asylum in the United States and have their claim adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

“We welcome any folks who are seeking asylum, and they should do that,” she said.

But Russians who have taken the U.S. up on that offer have quickly discovered that seeking asylum is not the same as winning it. The U.S. government’s willingness to help people who flee Russia — even if doing so undermines Russia’s war effort — is limited.

In some cases, the government has argued that being called up to serve in the Russian military is not alone sufficient grounds for asylum. Jennifer Scarborough, the lawyer for the three Russians The Times interviewed, has countered that they qualify for asylum because they did not want to be involved with the war for political reasons and would face unreasonable repercussions for refusing to serve.

“They could be deported back to a regime that is committing gross human rights violations,” she said. “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all.”

The number of Russians crossing the southern U.S. border surged in November and December, shortly after Putin, facing massive casualties among his troops, ordered up a fresh army mobilization and drafted up to 300,000 reservists.

Russians crossed the southern border more than 5,000 times in November and nearly 8,000 times in December, a major increase from earlier months.

More than 8 million Ukrainians have fled their homeland since Putin launched his invasion of the former Soviet Republic on Feb. 24, 2022. Their escapes have involved trains and commercial flights and massive assistance, and they have largely been welcomed in other countries.

By contrast, many of those fleeing Russia for the U.S. have used the same difficult and at times treacherous route that disfavored refugees from all over the world use. A flight from Dubai or Istanbul gets them to South America, where they continue on flights, buses and by foot northward, sometimes trekking through jungle, to reach Mexico and the U.S. border.

One man who spoke to The Times was picked up by immigration agents in December near Tecate. The man made the weeks-long journey to the U.S. with his younger brother.

The man fled Russia when his call-up notice arrived.

“Even in childhood, I understood that, for me, America was a symbol of freedom,” he said in a telephone interview from a detention center in Pennsylvania. “And yes, there was a dream to move here one day. Because during your entire life in Russia, it is difficult; you’re discriminated against at every turn.”

“I went through war,” the man said. “I know what this entails. I saw the war. And now they are trying to force me to bring this to Ukraine.”

. . . .

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

Read the complete report at the link.

Jenn Scarborough asks the right question. In a functioning protection system, one would expect most cases like this to be granted in short order. However, the BIA generally has restrictive precedents on draft evaders and deserters stemming largely from a desire to deny protection to applicants fleeing civil wars in Central America decades ago. See, e.g., Matter of A-G-, 19 I & N Dec. 502 (BIA 1987).

As “Courtsiders” know, the endemic problem is lack of expert, progressive, dynamic, courageous intellectual leadership in a system now solely controlled and operated by a Dem Administration that often acts more like an “old school GOP” one on immigration and human rights! Administration of both parties live in perpetual fear that making good on promises of fair treatment and legal protection would actually motivate refugees to seek it!

That’s a particular problem at EOIR which should be the legal intellectual leader here! We need practical, scholarly, generous, common sense precedents focusing on what should be easily grantable protection claims!

Instead, we have a leaderless, bureaucratic, non-expert mess, still retaining too many elements of the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, any reason to deny, go along to get along, court as a “deterrent” system constructed and promoted by the Trump Administration. That has continued to churn out both egregious inconsistencies and backlog-building inefficiencies in critical “life or death” cases!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

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

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

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

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-17-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑‍⚖️ CONGRATULATIONS TO HON. KATHERINE E. (“KATE”) CLARK, NEWLY APPOINTED APPELLATE JUDGE AT THE BIA: Practical Scholar, Legacy Arlington Immigration Court Intern Alum, Former EOIR JLC, Georgetown Law Grad, AYUDA Supervisor, Hill Staffer, Civil Servant, Judge Clark’s Broad Background Appears “Just What The Doctor Ordered” For Failing & Flailing “Supreme Court of Immigration!”😎

Hon. Katherine E. Clark — Honorable Katherine E. Clark
Appellate Immigration Judge & Board Member
U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals
PHOTO: AYUDA website

Here’s the EOIR press release:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1593116/download

EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Katharine E. Clark as a Board Member of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, having nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions by adjudicators, including Immigration Judges.

Biographical information follows:

Katharine E. Clark, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Katharine E. Clark as an Appellate Immigration Judge in August 2023. Judge Clark earned a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, in 2003 from Brown University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from Georgetown University Law Center. From 2022 to 2023, and 2007 to 2018, she served as a senior litigation counsel and trial attorney at the Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice. From 2019 to 2021, she was a managing attorney at Ayuda in Silver Spring, Maryland, where she also handled cases on a pro bono basis. From 2018 to 2019, she was counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. From 2006 to 2007, she served as a Judicial Law Clerk at the Boston Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Clark is a member of the Maryland State Bar and the Pennsylvania State Bar.

— EOIR —

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

Proud to say Judge Clark is a graduate of not only Georgetown Law (where I am an Adjunct), but one of many distinguished alums of the Legacy Arlington Immigraton Court Internship Program, established by my good friend and colleague Retired U.S. Immigraton Judge Mario Christopher Grant. I later inherited the “Mentor Judge” position upon Judge Grant’s retirement. Judge Clark is the first, hopefully of many, of those we mentored to be appointed to the BIA.

I am also a member of the Advisory Board at AYUDA, where Judge Clark worked as a supervisory attorney from 2019-21.

Judge Clark’s experiences give her an exceptionally broad, varied perspective. She has seen the system from the inside, at EOIR, as an NGO advocate assisting those struggling to deal with EOIR’s dysfunction and institutional unfairness, as an OIL attorney defending EOIR’s work, and as a legislative aide attempting to address the system’s many shortcomings.

She is well positioned to help the BIA and EOIR move beyond the flawed decision-making, unrealistic guidance, and backlog-building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that has plagued the Immigration Court System over the past two decades. Hopefully she will be a force in returning EOIR to it’s proper (though long-abandoned) vision of: Through teamwork and innovation, becoming the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!

It’s far away from that now! But, there are some judges at EOIR like Judge Clark qualified and capable of leading a “due process renaissance” at the beleaguered tribunals. Whether and to what extent they will be able to do so remains to be seen.

Congratulations again and good luck to Judge Clark!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-16-23

☠️👎🏼 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

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/11/18-70225.pdf

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

⚖️ 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!”

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1592801/download

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

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🧑‍⚖️ 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

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 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
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

🤯 IMMIGRATION BUNGLES CONTINUE FOR GARLAND’S DOJ!

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

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the link to Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740 (BIA 2023):

Here’s the link to Matter of Cabreara-Fernandez, 28 I&N Dec, 747 (BIOA 2023):

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community helpfully forwarded the pdf’s of Rae Ann’s article and the three briefs. You can access them here:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Read the full brief here:

Here’s the “Statement of Interest:”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the EOIR press release:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

BIA HEADNOTE:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

FROM EOIR:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Andrea writes in a NYT Op-Ed:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

Related posts:

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

1) Burden of proof (9th Cir.)

2) CIMT (11th Cir.)

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

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

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