"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
From Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase:
Hi all: The Supreme Court issued its decision today in Monsalvo-Velazquez v. Bondi, in which our Round Table filed an amicus brief at the request of Petitioner’s counsel.
I’m happy to report that in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Gorsuch (attached), the Court agreed with the position that when the deadline for voluntary departure falls on a weekend or holiday, the period for VD extends to the next business day.
We had explained in our brief that this reading is consistent with long-settled practices in the immigration courts.
Congrats to all, and much thanks to attorneys Collin White and Scott Angstreich of the law firm of Kellogg Hansen for representing us on the brief..
For our new members, this is the fifth time that the Round Table has filed a brief in a winning Supreme Court case. The others are:
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, holding that the INA’s “stop time” rule for cancellation of removal may only be triggered by the filing of an NTA that is a single document, containing all the necessary information (this decision made many thousands eligible for cancellation of removal);
Nasrallah v. Barr, allowing CAT applicants to seek judicial review of factual challenges to a CAT order notwithstanding the limitations created by sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act;
Wilkinson v. Garland, holding that hardship determinations in cancellation B cases are mixed questions of fact and law, and are therefore reviewable by circuit courts; and
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, which held that where the BIA commits error in its decision, a respondent need not first seek reopening by the Board in order to exhaust its remedies before seeking judicial review.
A Helping Hand.jpg Image depicts a child coming to the aid of another in need. Once we have climbed it is essential for the sake of humanity that we help others do the same. It is knowing that we all could use, and have used, a helping hand. Safiyyah Scoggins – PVisions1111 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 White Nationalist Xenophobes have abandoned Traditional Judeo-Christian values in favor of neo-fascism.But, the rest of us should hold true to our “better angels.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase writes:
Hi all: Attached is our just-filed amicus brief in support of the Unaccompanied Children Program.
Once again, this was a real team effort. Major thanks to Ashley Tabaddor, for lending her expertise and powerful anecdotes on very short notice. Also thanks to Sue Roy, the eagle-eyed editing of Helen Sichel, and Denise Slavin for your contributions.
We never stand so tall as when we file an amicus brief to help unaccompanied children.
With lots of help from our friends, the Round Table has become a “Powerful Force of Nature,” carving out a spot for due process even along the most wild and rugged coasts! PHOTO: PWS Maine Collection“Our Fearless Leader,” Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase forwarded this note of appreciation from one of the all-star advocates who represented The Round Table in drafting an amicus brief:
You, Paul and the Roundtable played a central role in this decision. Beyond the persuasive amicus brief, your group—along with . . . . —gave me the confidence to pursue the due process claim . . . . Your advocacy is admirable and much needed; it also has an impact beyond just the individual cases you support as an amicus. . . . . [T]his case has been one of the most impressive collaborative efforts I’ve had the opportunity to be involved with [in my decade of professional experience.] Thank you again for your interest and support of this important case, as well as your work in this space more broadly.
This is also a great space to once again thank all of the top flight legal talent, law firms, NGOs, and legal clinics that have donated their time and talents pro bono to the cause of due process, equal justice for all, and advancing best practices. Indeed, you have “given us a voice” — one that has proved to have an outsized impact on our American justice system.
Working with our wonderful“partners in due process and professional excellence” has been a total joy and fulfilling career opportunity for each of us! We never, ever forget what we owe to your skill and generous donation of time, resources, and effort. Just as we are committed to insuring that all individuals appearing in Immigration Court — the essential “retail level” of our justice system — have a right to be heard, YOU have insured that WE will be heard — loudly and clearly for a long time to come! Thank you again from the bottom. of our “collective hearts!”💕
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Cert granted in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
Hi all: Thanks to Lory [Rosenberg] for flagging that cert was granted today [April 29] by the Supreme Court in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, in which our group filed an amicus brief in January.
As a reminder, the issue involves whether a revocation of a visa petition by USCIS for non discretionary criteria can be reviewed by the courts. A straight-out non-discretionary denial by DHS of a visa petition can be reviewed by the circuit courts; however, if DHS approves the petition and revokes it a day later for a non-discretionary reason, under the Eleventh Circuit’s reading, the petition can no longer be appealed to the circuit. (The Sixth and Ninth Circuits disagree).
Best, Jeff
Find all the relevant links, including to our amicus brief, here:
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi all: The Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Wilkinson v. Garland, in which our group filed an amicus brief. The Court held that the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination in cancellation B cases (involving non-LPRs) is a mixed question of fact and law, and is thus reviewable by circuit courts on appeal. The Court thus reversed the Third Circuit’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction.
The decision was 6-3. Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion; Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, and Roberts and Alito wrote dissenting opinions.
Our amicus brief argued:
In amici’s experience, whether the facts of a particular case satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” eligibility criteria for cancellation is a mixed question of law and fact.
This decision will have a major impact on cancellation B cases, as the Board’s hardship determinations will now be subject to wide circuit court review.
This case makes a huge difference! Circuit review will ratchet up the pressure on the BIA to cut the “any reason to deny” BS 💩 and start doing a quality review in every case! If not, given the number of cancellation cases in the system, there are going to be lots more Circuit remands that will jack the backlog even higher!
As put by one “Round Tabler,” this will “impact the scholarship and often times lack of analytical rigor by the Board, knowing that it is no longer completely insulated from review of its hardship determinations.” You betcha!
And don’t ever underestimate the adverse impact on due process and justice that occurs when, knowing that its decisions are “immune” from judicial review, the BIA is “pushed by the political powers that be” to cut corners, “crank the numbers,” and “keep the removal assembly line moving!” That’s why political control over the BIA’s decision-making has such an outsized adverse impact on justice for immigrants and undermines the key constitutional due process principle of “fair and impartial justice for all.”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
A Victory before the BIA!
Hi All: I hope you are not getting tired of all the winning. Today, the BIA issued a precedent decision on the whole Pereira and Niz-Chavez jurisdictional issue involving service of a defective NTA (link attached) in which our Round Table submitted an amicus brief drafted for us by our own Sue Roy.And the BIA actually agreed with us!!!
The holding:
The Department of Homeland Security cannot remedy a notice to appear that lacks the date and time of the initial hearing before the Immigration Judge by filing a Form I-261 because this remedy is contrary to the plain text of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.30 and inconsistentwith the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021).
Of course, our brief was not acknowledged in the Board’s decision.
A thousand thanks to Sue and to all in this group who have repeatedly signed on in support of due process.
As a reminder, we still await a decision from the Supreme Court on whether Pereira and Niz-Chavez extend to in absentia orders of removal. Oral arguments in that case were heard earlier this month, and our brief was mentioned in response to a question by Chief Justice Roberts.
Best, Jeff
********************
“Our Hero” 🦸♂️ Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Want to meet Judge Sue Roy in person and learn from her in a small group setting? You’re in luck! (HINT: She’s not only a very talented lawyer and teacher, but she’s also very entertaining and down to earth in her “Jersey Girl Persona!”)
“Don’t mess with Jersey Girls! They’ll roll right over you — in or out of court.” Creative Commons License
The Round Table 🛡️ will be well-represented by Judge Roy, Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg, and me at the upcoming Sharma-Crawford Clinic 7th Annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College in Kansas City, MO, April 24-26, 2024! We’ll be part of afaculty of all-star 🌟 NDPA litigators who are there to help every attendee sharpen skills and reach their full potential as a fearless litigator in Immigration Court — and beyond!
Professor Mary Holper Associate Clinical Professor Director of the Immigration Clinic Associate Dean for Experiential Learning Boston College Law PHOTO: BC Law
Here’s the brief expertly prepared for us by NDPA All-Star Mary Holper and her team of student attorneys at Boston College Legal Services LAB Immigration Clinic:
As we argue, the BIA’s action here violated their own precedent in Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. 714 (BIA 2023). As stated in our brief:
In Morales-Morales, the case in which the BIA first held that it could equitably toll a notice of appeal deadline, the BIA stated that the quintessential example of an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling is when “a party uses a guaranteed delivery service, and the service fails to fulfill its guarantee.” See Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 717. When presented with exactly those facts, however—FedEx’s Priority Overnight service failed to deliver Ms. Diaz-Valdez’s notice of appeal on time, violating its guarantee—the BIA arbitrarily and capriciously refused to equitably toll the deadline.
One could well ask why Garland is spending Government time and resources defending the BIA’s erroneous and unjust actions. No wonder EOIR can’t help building more and more backlog — much of it through poor quality, anti-immigrant decision-making that causes unnecessary delays, confusion, gross inconsistencies, and contributes to the dreaded “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — an endemic problem at EOIR!
Thanks again to Mary and her team for their outstanding help. Also, as pointed out in the intro to the brief, I joined in my individual capacity, NOT as a representative of the Round Table, Georgetown Law, or any other group or entity with which I am associated.
Many thanks to all involved in this effort, particularly Richard Mark and the Pro Bono Team at Gibson Dunn. Will the DOJ go down for the third time on interrelated notice issues before the Supremes? What if the BIA followed the statute and held DHS fully accountable? What if due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices were the mission of EOIR? (Hint, they once were the “noble vision” of EOIR — trashed by Administrations of both parties.)
Proud to be a member of this great group fighting for due process. Also grateful for all the great lawyers and firms who have provided pro bono drafting assistance to “give us a voice that needs to be heard!”
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:
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!
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.
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
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.
Former AG Jeff Sessions openly despised immigrants and their attorneys and encouraged “his judges” at EOIR to help out their “partners at DHS Enforcement.” That attitude lives on even under AG Merrick Garland! This caricature of Jeff Sessions was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Gage Skidmore’s Flickr’s photostream. DonkeyHotey Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0
AMICUS INVITATION (NOTICE TO APPEAR) DUE August 31, 2023
AUGUST 1, 2023
The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue(s):
ISSUE(S) PRESENTED:
Pursuant to Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022):
1. Should an Immigration Judge allow DHS to remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear?
2. To remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear, is either (1) issuing an I-261, or (2) amending the Notice to Appear, permitted by the regulations, and would either comport with the single document requirement emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)? If not, how can a non-compliant Notice to Appear be remedied?
Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a written request labeled “REQUEST TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE” pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix A (Directory), and Appendix E (Cover Pages) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.
Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider an amicus brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.
Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case, including the parties’ contact information, may be available. Please contact the Clerk’s Office at the below address for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.
Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 25 double-spaced pages.
Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by August 31, 2023. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief may not be entertained. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.
Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.
Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae) and Chapter 4.6(i) (Amicus Curiae Briefs) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.
Notice: A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae may only be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(d). A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.
Attribution: Where more than three attorneys or representatives sign an amicus brief or filing, the Board will name only the first three individuals in the published case. If you wish a different set of three names or have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.
Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:
To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:
Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041
Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.
*****************************
Seems like the obvious “remedy” would be to require that DHS issue a new compliant NTA!
Respondents don’t get to “remedy” all mistakes, even inadvertent ones! Why should the USG be allowed to weasel its way out of a situation they intentionally created in a misguided effort (aided and abetted by EOIR “management”) to cut corners and generate statistics to please their political masters?
Ever since the “Ashcroft purge,” the BIA has functioned less and less as an independent quasi adjudicative body and more and more as an apologist for, enabler, or justifier of each Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda! In other words, the BIA’s role has become largely to slap a “quasi-judicial veneer” on DHS enforcement policies and priorities so that OIL can argue Chevron deference or even “Brand X” in the Article IIIs!
Of course, using EOIR as a “deterrent” and “enforcer” over the past two decades has been a spectacular failure! It has led to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on Steroids,” absurdly insurmountable backlogs, and frequent rebukes from the Article IIIs.
Indeed, having helped create and magnify exponentially the mess at EOIR, many of the Trump and Biden Administration’s “gimmicks” appear aimed at avoiding or sidestepping the EOIR process altogether.
It’s the height of disingenuousness! At the urging of the White House, DOJ and DHS “break” the fair hearing system at EOIR. They then use their own misconduct and mismanagement as an excuse to deny asylum seekers and others access to the fair and impartial adjudication system to which they are legally entitled!
And, while the Article IIIs, even the Supremes, have “called out” EOIR on frequent, particularized errors, they have been happy to sweep the obvious “big problem” under the rug in a monumental exercise of “judicial task avoidance!”
That problem is that as currently operated, the EOIR system is a clear violation of the Constitutional principle that individuals facing removal, an often irreparable, even deadly, loss, are entitled to a reasonable decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). While justice is served in some EOIR decisions, the systemic failures push in the exact opposite direction.
Without the necessary systemic safeguards in place, life and death decisions are largely an arbitrary and capricious “crap shoot” where wildly inconsistent results on the same or similar facts too often depend on the attitude of the judge, the whimsical decisions by “management” on whether to interfere in decision-making, and the location and circumstances of the hearing.
This is NOT the way to run a legitimate court system in compliance with due process and fundamental fairness!
For now, advocates should continue to vocalize their strong opposition to “how can we help our partners at DHS Enforcement” adjudication passing for justice at EOIR!
