"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
The attached is the final “as filed” version of our latest brief in Chavez-Chilel v. Garland, in support of the motion for rehearing/rehearing en banc. This one is very “all in the family,” as Sue Roy is our counsel, Sue and I drafted the brief, and decisions from Miriam Hayward and Charles Honeyman are attached as exhibits.
There is also an amicus brief by law school professors, and joining NJ attorney Ted Murphy as petitioner’s counsel is Paul Hughes, who argued Kisor v. Willkie before the Supreme Court (as well a Nasrallah v. Barr, a Supreme Court victory in which we were amici).
“Due Process Forever!”Hmmm, where have I herd THAT before? Thanks, Dan, for all you do for the NDPA!
The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Alliance, and the Law Professors, all representing a number of other organizations, also filed in behalf of the “good guys, truth, justice, and the American way,” in this case. The respondents are expertly represented by my friend and legendary immigration advocate Ira J. Kurzban, Esquire, of Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt PA.
Ira Kurzban ESQUIRE Legendary American Immigration Lawyer
One could not imagine a group MORE in need of thorough, critical, independent Article III judicial review of its decisions than today’s dysfunctional EOIR!There, potentially fatal errors have been “institutionalized” and even “normalized” as just another “unavoidable” consequence of the anti-immigrant, “haste makes waste,” “culture” that constantly places churning out removal orders above due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!
Ironically, doubling the number of Immigration Judges, eliminating expertise as the main qualification in judicial selections, and forcing yet more “gimmicks” down their throats has actually nearly tripled the case backlog to an astounding 1.4 million cases, without producing any quantifiable benefit for anyone!
Obviously, it’s high time for Garland to “reinvent” EOIR with progressive experts, many with private sector Immigration Court experience, as judges and leaders at both the appellate and the trial level! Who knows what wonders might result from an emphasis on quality, humanity, and getting decisions correct in the first instance? Progressives are used to creatively solving difficult problems without stepping on anyone’s rights or diminishing anyone’s humanity! Those skills are in disturbingly short supply at today’s failed and failing EOIR! And, they aren’t exactly DOJ’s “long suit,” either.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
For the reasons provided above, in absentia orders involving proceedings commenced through a defective NTA are rendered invalid by Niz-Chavez. This is true whether the Board ultimately determines that the decision impacts the Immigration Courts’ jurisdiction, or is in the alternative a claim-processing rule.
**************************
Thanks so much, “Sir Jeffrey,” my friend and colleague!
Unfortunately, the recent practice of the BIA has been to construe Supreme Court decisions favoring respondents narrowly against them in Immigration Court. Thus, the BIA has needlessly protracted litigation, produced conflicting results, and lessened justice, all while dramatically increasing backlogs. We’ll see whether that practice, apparently designed to appease and please DHS Enforcement and litigators at the DOJ, holds true 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:We filed an amicus brief in the attached case (drafted for us by Sullivan Cromwell) challenging the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of K-S-E- before the 9th Circuit. K-S-E- held that firm resettlement can be found based on the availability of permanent residence in a third country, regardless of the asylum seeker’s unwillingness to pursue such status.
The 9th Cir. yesterday vacated the Board precedent and remanded for the Board to further consider the firm resettlement issue, inter alia.
Best, Jeff
********************
To quote one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues:
Excellent news! Should an ethnic Korean from China or Japan be forced to accept an offer of firm resettlement from North Korea? To quote our President, “C’mon, man!”
“C’mon, man,” indeed! For Garland’s BIA it’s just a question of “what can we do to screw asylum seekers today!”The level of absurdity, irrationality, and/or illegality is largely irrelevant.
It’s not like Sessions and Barr had any concern for the law. The BIA knew there would be no meaningful consequences as long as they carried out the White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda of the Trump regime!
But, you could say much the same about Garland! There was more than ample evidence and documentation of anti-asylum bias and deficient decision making to replace of the BIA with “real judges” from among progressive experts on the day Garland was sworn in as AG.
Yet, three months later, nothing much has changed and the assault on asylum seekers and justice at Garland’s EOIR continues largely unabated. Indeed, Garland’s totally inappropriate, due process damaging, appointment of yet more (17) “Barr-picked judges” has further aggravated the problem to a simply astounding degree! It’s like you’re behind by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter and your so-called “head coach” awards your opponents 17 more points for no particular reason! What on earth is going on in Garland’s head?
Real judges on a “Reform BIA”from the ranks of progressive experts would have Matter of K-S-E-, Matter of A-B-, Matter of L-E-A-, Matter of Castro-Tum and a host of other Trumpist garbage “sorted” in no time and the now-dysfunctional EOIR system back on track to due process and functionality. What’s glaringly missing is any semblance of awareness, urgency, and competent progressive leadership from Garland and those surrounding him!
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–863. Argued November 9, 2020—Decided April 29, 2021
Nonpermanent resident aliens ordered removed from the United States under federal immigration law may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. 8 U. S. C. §1229b(b)(1). But the so- called stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the pe- riod of continuous presence “shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear” in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). The term “notice to appear” is defined as “written notice . . . specifying” certain information, such as the charges against the al- ien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held. §1229(a)(1). A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Ses- sions, 585 U. S. ___. Here, the government ordered the removal of pe- titioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing Mr. Niz-Chavez with the time and place of his hearing. The government contends that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” Mr. Niz-Chavez’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document.
Held: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individ- ual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Pp. 4–12.
(a) Section 1229b(d)(1) states that the stop-time rule is triggered by serving “a notice,” and §1229(a)(1) explains that “written notice” is “re- ferred to as a ‘notice to appear.’ ” Congress’s decision to use the indef- inite article “a” suggests it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a
2
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND Syllabus
discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. While the indefinite article “a” can some- times be read to permit multiple installments (such as “a manuscript” delivered over months), that is not true for words like “notice” that can refer to either a countable object (“a notice”) or a noncountable abstrac- tion (“sufficient notice”). The inclusion of an indefinite article suggests Congress used “notice” in its countable sense. More broadly, Congress has used indefinite articles to describe other case-initiating plead- ings—such as an indictment, an information, or a civil complaint, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7(a), (c)(1), (e); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3—and none suggest those documents might be delivered by installment. Nor does the Dictionary Act aid the government, as that provision merely tells readers of the U. S. Code to assume “words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1 U. S. C. §1. That provision means only that terms describing a single thing (“a no- tice”) can apply to more than one of that thing (“ten notices”). While it certainly allows the government to send multiple notices to appear to multiple people, it does not mean a notice to appear can consist of mul- tiple documents. Pp. 4–9.
(b) The IIRIRA’s structure and history support requiring the govern- ment to issue a single notice containing all the required information. Two related provisions, §§1229(e)(1) and 1229a(b)(7), both use a defi- nite article with a singular noun (“the notice”) when referring to the government’s charging document—a combination that again suggests a discrete document. Another provision, §1229(a)(2)(A), requires “a written notice” when the government wishes to change an alien’s hear- ing date. The government does not argue that this provision contem- plates providing “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the “consequences . . . of failing . . . to attend such proceedings” in separate documents. Yet the government fails to explain why “a notice to ap- pear” should operate differently. Finally, the predecessor to today’s “notice to appear” required the government to specify the place and time for the alien’s hearing “in the order to show cause or otherwise.” §1252(a)(2)(A). The phrase “or otherwise” has since disappeared, fur- ther suggesting that the required details must be included upfront to invoke the stop-time rule. Indeed, that is how the government itself initially read the statute. The year after Congress adopted IIRIRA, in the preamble to a proposed rule implementing these provisions, the government acknowledged that “the language of the amended Act in- dicat[es] that the time and place of the hearing must be on the Notice to Appear.” 62 Fed. Reg. 449 (1997). Pp. 9–13.
(c) The government claims that not knowing hearing officers’ avail- ability when it initiates removal proceedings makes it difficult to pro-duce compliant notices. It also claims that it makes little sense to re- quire time and place information in a notice to appear when that in- formation may be later changed. Besides, the government stresses, its own administrative regulations have always authorized its current practice. But on the government’s account, it would be free to send a person who is not from this country—someone who may be unfamiliar with English and the habits of American bureaucracies—a series of letters over the course of weeks, months, maybe years, each containing a new morsel of vital information. Congress could reasonably have wished to foreclose that possibility. And ultimately, pleas of adminis- trative inconvenience never “justify departing from the statute’s clear text.” Pereira, 585 U. S., at ___. The modest threshold Congress pro- vided to invoke the stop-time rule is clear from the text and must be complied with here. Pp. 13–16.
789 Fed. Appx. 523, reversed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.
*************************
This is the type of case where I had hoped that Justice Gorsuch would “stick to his interpretative guns” by stopping the Government from basically redesigning clear statutory requirements “willy nilly” to suit their own purposes and disadvantage respondents. And, he came through! Big time! I’ve been critical of Justice Gorsuch in the past and am likely to be so again in the future. But, in this case, he did the right thing, and I, for one, am grateful!
Most encouraging, Justice Gorsuch “got” the way that the DHS and EOIR, with the deck already unfairly stacked in their favor, manipulate clear legal requirements for their own nefarious purposes and to the disadvantage of those struggling for justice in an inherently unfair system. There is absolutely no doubt that receiving “piecemeal notice” — incomplete and often sent to incorrect addresses or “personally served” without the proper reading and explanations — works to further disadvantage respondents.
Indeed, illegal, ineffective notices — some setting hearings on “phantom dates” and “imaginary times” — lead directly to an over abundance of “in absentia” orders and consequent illegal removals. Some unrepresented individuals understand how to reopen their hearings for lack of notice — but many are clueless; the Government system strives to keep them that way to “jack up the numbers,” meet “quotas,” and improve stats. Worse yet, Congress sometimes uses the “bogus stats” generated by DOJ and DHS to write legislation, conduct oversight, and establish policy. This is an astoundingly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair system — a disgrace to our entire justice system and our national conscience each day it is allowed to continue to operate in its abusive ways!
The majority in this case was both very interesting, and at least mildly encouraging, for those of us who believe in due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, including migrants, under law. In addition to Trump appointees Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, another GOP conservative appointee, Justice Thomas, joined Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority!
And, although this case has (incorrectly) seemed “hyper technical” to some Supremes’ watchers unfamiliar with immigration, it will have huge impact — forcing reopening and “redos” in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases in the already backlogged (1.3 million cases) Immigration Court. That will be the direct result of poor jurisprudence by the BIA, lousy court administration by EOIR, and horrible policy decisions by DHS.
Just another prime example of how “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks continue to cause unnecessary chaos in the system. Why not just appoint progressive experts as Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges. Qualified jurists who will understand immigration law, due process, and “get in right” in the first instance? Certainly seems like a reasonable approach. What is Judge Garland waiting for?
This, in turn should add to the already loud cries (from virtually everywhere outside Judge Garland’s universe and the restrictionist right) for sensible, readily available backlog reductions and accelerated movement toward better judges and independence in the Immigration Courts, not to mention better management in the DHS enforcement programs.
Here’s my favorite quote from Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion:
In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then pro- ceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calcula- tion plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to ap-pear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 docu- ments—does just that.
*
At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms en- sure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit is
Reversed.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
And, here’s some “immediate commentary” by Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Victory!This was the case in which our Round Table amicus brief was specifically referenced in oral argument.
Knightess of the Round Table
Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!
Hi all:The Round Table was on the winning team in a (lengthy) decision issued yesterday by the NJ Supreme Court concerning the detention of criminal defendants who are noncitizens based on the possibility of their removal by ICE.
Thanks to Sue Roy, who solicited the Round Table’s involvement, and then drafted our brief!
Except from the decision:
A group of fifty immigration law scholars and clinical professors (Professors), and a second group of twenty-five former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Former Judges), submitted comprehensive overviews of the immigration process. They highlight the complex, dynamic, and discretionary nature of the removal process and argue that state trial courts are ill-equipped to evaluate a defendant’s likelihood of removal, which is too speculative even for experts to predict. They submit that a civil immigration detainer, like an individual’s immigration status, is not a reliable indicator that a person will be removed from the country.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Harvard Law School Crimmigration Clinic echo concerns about how difficult it is to forecast the risk of removal for a non- citizen. AILA adds that permitting pretrial detention based on a person’s risk of removal will have the disproportionate effect of incarcerating low-level offenders, the vast majority of whom are recommended for release under the CJRA.
Finally, Legal Services of New Jersey (LSNJ) and Make the Road New Jersey, joined by twelve other organizations (Make the Road), highlight the consequences of pretrial detention for non-citizens, their families, and their communities. LSNJ also challenges the need for pretrial detention given the avenues non-citizens have to resolve their criminal cases while in ICE custody. Make the Road adds that allowing pretrial detention based on immigration status undermines trust in law enforcement in immigrant communities and makes it harder for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes.
Below is the summary from petitioner’s counsel, NJ Immigration Attorney Jerry Gonzalez:
Our firm represented Mr. Lopez-Carrera, who was ordered removed and physically removed from the US while his criminal case was pending (he had lost at the BIA and state was trying to get him back).
Props to our Amicus friends!Patrick McGuinness(Immigration counsel), Sue Roy, Eric Mark, Michael Noriega, Raquiba Huq and Professor Joanne Gottesman.Great team work!!!
Issue: In these consolidated appeals, the Court considers whether the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA or Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 to -26, empowers judges to detain defendants who are non-citizens to prevent immigration officials from removing them from the country before trial.
Holding: The CJRA favors pretrial release over detention; it authorizes judges to detain defendants when the State has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the eligible defendant’s appearance in court when required, would protect the public, or would prevent the defendant from obstructing the criminal justice process…. The Court agrees with the Appellate Division that the CJRA does not authorize judges to detain defendants to thwart their possible removal by ICE.
Enjoy the light reading!
Jerry
****************************
Many thanks to all involved, with particular thanks to Judge Sue Roy for her energy, scholarship, advocacy and continuing dedication to due process under law. It’s an honor to work with and be inspired by you, my friend.
Here’s an excerpt from a report by Nichols Iovino @ Courthouse News:
. . . .
The judge added that she found an amicus brief submitted by 37 former immigration law judges particularly illuminating because it helped illustrate some of “real-life consequences” of the rule.
The former immigration judges wrote that the rule “makes it more difficult for applicants and defense counsel to brief relevant issues and present evidence, creates new challenges for immigration judges to consider extraordinary changes in circumstances and to control the timing of their own docket, and severely limits the [Board of Immigration Appeals’] authority to make legally sound decisions and remain an apolitical rung in the immigration system.”
A motion for a preliminary injunction is also pending in separate lawsuit challenging the same Trump-era rule in the District of Columbia.
Judge Illston referenced our brief four times throughout the opinion (p.5, n.2, and pp. 39, 52, and 55).
Jeffrey also added:
The brief (drafted by Steven Schulman and his team at Akin Gump) was based on our Round Table’s comments to the proposed regs. [Judge] Ilyce [Shugall] organized and filed the comments, and the drafting committee was made up of [Judges] Ilyce [Shugall], Rebecca [Jamil], Joan [Churchill], Cecelia [Espenoza] and myself.
So proud to be part of this team that is “making a difference for the NDPA,” and more importantly, for the vulnerable human lives at stake in the EOIR Star Chambers. 🏴☠️ And thanks so much to Steven Schulman and his pro bono team at Akin Gump for making this happen.
So, here’s my question:Why is the Biden Administration defending this totally illegal, disingenuous, not to mention stupid, attempt byEOIR to deny due process and fundamental fairness while implementing the “worst practices imaginable?”
Judge Garland must get a handle on the awful, festering mess 🤮🤡☠️ at EOIR sooner rather than later!
Subject: [immprof] Amicus Brief on Behalf of Immigration Law Scholars on “Monster” Asylum Rule
Dear Colleagues:
Happy New Year! I hope you are staying well. We are pleased to share an amicus brief filed in the Northern District of California last week challenging the “monster” asylum rule, published as a final rule in December 2020. We are grateful to the immigration law scholars who signed onto this brief. The brief is focused on three aspects of the rule: 1) expansion of discretionary bars in general; 2) discretionary bars on unlawful entry and use of fraudulent documents in particular; and 3) expansion of the firm resettlement bar. The brief argues that these bars conflict with the immigration statute and further that the Departments have failed to provide a reasonable explanation for departing from past statutory interpretation with regard to these bars.
Co-counsel included Loeb & Loeb, Peter Margulies, and myself. We are grateful to the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and other organizations who served as counsel to plaintiffs in this case.
Best wishes, Peter and Shoba
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia (she, her)
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar | Clinical Professor of Law
Many thanks to Peter, Shoba, Loeb & Loeb, and all the many great minds with courageous hearts ♥️ involved in this effort!
I’ve said it often: It’s time to cut through the BS and bureaucratic bungling that have plagued past Dem Administrations and put progressive practical scholars like Shoba, Peter, and their NDPA expert colleagues in charge of EOIR, the BIA, and the rest of the immigration bureaucracy. It’s also time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” 🎭🤹♀️and put “pros” like this in charge of developing and implementing Constitutionally compliant, legal, practical, humane immigration and human rights policies that achieve equal justice for all (one of the Biden-Harris Administration’s stated priorities), further the common interest, and finally rationalize and optimize (now “gonzo out of control”) immigration enforcement.
Knightess of the Round TableHon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
************************
Thanks to our friends Steve Schulman 😇 and Michael Stortz 😇 at Akin Gump for their truly outstanding pro bono assistance on this brief.Couldn’t do it without you!😎
Such an honor to be “fighting the good fight” for due process and fundamental fairness with my colleagues on the Round Table🛡⚔️👩⚖️🧑🏽⚖️👨🏻⚖️. We have made a difference in the lives of some of the most vulnerable and deserving among us. 🗽We have also helped educate the Federal Courts and the public on the ugly realities of our failed, unjust, and totally dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” ☠️🤡🦹🏿♂️, modern day “Star Chambers” ☠️⚰️😪that have become weaponized appendages of “White Nationalist 🤮🏴☠️⚰️👎🏻 nation.”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!
Happy New Year! 🍾🥂🎉Looking forward to Jan. 20 and the end of the kakistocracy!👍🏼⚖️🗽😎🇺🇸
Manning argues immigration judges must ask questions to develop the record for pro se applicants like Arevalo-Quintero about their PSG affiliations. She isn’t alone in her push for a different standard for pro se immigrants applying for asylum.
In an amicus brief, a group of retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals point to a Fifth Circuit opinion that says immigration judges have a duty to “seek clarification” and “ensure that the [PSG] being analyzed is included in his or her decision.”
Immigration judges “must remain neutral, but that does not mean that they are passive bystanders during immigration court hearings,” the brief states. “The regulations require IJs, for example, to explain the factual allegations and charges in ‘non-technical’ language.”
. . . .
*******************
Read Brad’s full article at the link.
Many thanks to my“eagle eyed” friend Deb Sanders for sending this my way.
The Round Table 🛡⚔️ continues to play a positive role. Compare that with the unfailingly negative role of the current “EOIR Clown Show.”🤡🤮
In what hopefully will be a much better world after January 20, 2021, the Round Table could work with a “new EOIR,” led and staffed by real judges from the NDPA, on the practical legal and administrative reforms necessary for EOIR to become a “model court,” usingteamwork and best practices to guarantee fairness and due process for all. That’s actually what the “EOIR vision” was prior to the advent of the Bush II Administration in 2001.
That noble vision could still become a reality, but only if the Biden-Harris Administration evicts the “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡and replaces it with competent experts from the NDPA committed to due process for all. ⚖️🧑🏽⚖️🇺🇸🗽
As this Court has recognized, “when [an] alien appears pro se, it is the IJ’s duty to ‘fully develop the record.’” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2000)). Despite this long-recognized obligation, the record in this case demonstrates that this duty is not always fulfilled; and that the consequence may be unfairness and injustice to the pro se petitioner who is unable to develop the record without guidance and assistance. We respectfully submit that this Court should use this case to provide much-needed guidance to IJs on the scope of their duty to work with pro se respondents to elicit the information necessary to develop the factual record. Based upon our own extensive experience, we are of the view that this can be done efficiently and effectively by conscientious IJs, so long as the rule that they are required to do so is clear.
******************
Thanks so much to out “Team of Pro Bono Heroes” at Sullivan & Cromwell, NY:
Philip L. Graham, Jr.
Amanda Flug Davidoff
Rebecca S. Kadosh
Joseph M. Calder, Jr.
This regime has appointed mostly judges lacking experience representing individuals in Immigration Court and then compounded the problem with:
Mindless “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks (often supported by knowingly false or misleading narratives) imposed by political hacks at DOJ and Falls Church;
A BIA lacking expertise and objectivity that instead of focusing on due process for those in Immigration Court, spews forth “blueprints for denial and deportation” without regard for statutory, Constitutional, and human rights;
A system that has elevated “malicious incompetence” and “worst judicial practices” to a “dark art form.”☠️
TIME FOR COURAGEOUS NEW IMMIGRATION LEADERSHIP!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
It’s time for the “EOIR Clown Show” in Falls Church to go! Bring in competent jurists and administrators from the NDPA: practical scholars and problem solvers with real life skills developed by saving lives from this broken and biased system. Real jurists with expertise in human rights and courage, who will make due process, fundamental fairness, humane values, and “best judicial practices” the only objectives of the Immigration Courts. Jurists who will courageously resist political interference and improper and unethical weaponization of the Immigration Courts by any Administration.
Let the incoming Biden-Administration know that you won’t accept failed “retreads” from the past and “go along to get along” bureaucrats running and comprising what is probably the most important and significant court system in America from an equal justice, social justice, constitutional development, and saving human lives standpoint.
This is the “retail level” of our justice system: Thefoundation upon which the rest of our legal system all the way up to a tone-deaf, flailing, failing, and generally spineless Supremes stands! This is a court system that the Biden Administration can fix without Mitch McConnell!
The members of the NDPA are the ones who have been fighting in the trenches (and at the borders) to save lives, advance social justice, insure equal justice for all, end institutional racism, and preserve our democracy in the face of a tyrannical, unscrupulous, corrupt, racially biased, anti-democracy regime and its enablers! Many have sacrificed careers, health, not to mention financial security in this fight!
Don’t let those who watched from the sidelines, above the day-to-day fray, or were part of the problem swoop in and take control after the battle has been won!
Get mad! Get vocal! Get active! Call everyone you know in the incoming Administration! Demand that the NDPA and its members be given the leadership roles they have earned and deserve in remaking EOIR and reforming a thoroughly corrupt, politicized, and dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy across our Government!
Don’t let the Dems turn their back on achievable reforms and “shut out” the reformers and problem solvers in the advocacy sector (who have “carried the water” for Dems for decades) as has been the case in the past! Don’t let the mistakes and short-sightedness of the past destroy YOUR chances for a better future!
Don’t let timidity, ignorance, indifference, and fear of “rocking the boat” in the name of justice, due process, and human dignity replace “malicious incompetence” in Government!
Due Process Forever! Same old, same old, never! It’s time for real change and reform! It’s YOUR time to shine! Let YOUR voices be heard!
In the absence of any justifying change in fact or law, the Attorney General (“AG”) has reopened Mr. Chowdhury’s case fourteen (14) years after he received a final decision on the merits of his claim for asylum following a full evidentiary hearing before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and a complete and fair review by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”).
The AG’s invocation of his self-referral authority is wholly improper here. As an initial matter, the AG lacks the authority to reopen and terminate asylum cases once asylum has been granted by an IJ or the Board. But even if the AG had such authority, doing so in this case constitutes ultra vires conduct in violation of Mr. Chowdhury’s due process rights given the excessive and unreasonable delay in referral. The referral is additionally improper because, under the principles of res judicata, there should be a finality and certainty to judgments, particularly where there is no change in fact or law and so much time has passed. In addition, it appears that the AG is succumbing to political pressure from the Executive branch and is reopening the case to align with its foreign policy to aid Bangladesh. Such bias and political motivation is contrary to our immigration system, and indeed our entire legal system. Lastly, the unjustified and excessive delay in reviewing Mr. Chowdhury’s case violates his due process rights and runs contrary to the humanitarian intent of the law.
The AG’s decision to intervene unfairly and unlawfully in a long-settled asylum case infringes the sense of safety, security, and wellbeing of not only Mr. Chowdhury and his family, but also tens of thousands of other asylees who have made their homes in the U.S. in reliance on asylum and protection from persecution and in many cases, violence, in their countries of origin. The Amici Curie respectfully urge the AG to leave Mr. Chowdhury’s asylum case undisturbed, thereby respecting his rights as well, as the rights of the tens of thousands of asylees who have been granted refuge here, and maintaining the fair and impartial adjudication process in place.
***********************
Read the entire brief at the above link.
Many thanks again to Nancy and her pro bono team at Arent Fox!
To The United States Court of Appeals For the Sixth Circuit _______________
BRIEF OF THIRTY-THREE FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
AS AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER _______________
RICHARD W. MARK
Counsel of Record
AMER S. AHMED
TIMOTHY SUN
DORAN J. SATANOVE
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166 (212) 351-4000 rmark@gibsondunn.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
1
1
Amici curiae are thirty-three former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Ap- peals (“BIA” or “Board”).2
Amici curiae have dedicated their careers to the immigration court system and to upholding the immi gration laws of the United States. Each is intimately familiar with the functioning of immigration courts and is invested in improving the fairness and effi- ciency of the United States immigration scheme. Amici curiae’s extensive experience adjudicating im- migration cases provides a unique perspective on the procedures and practicalities of immigration proceed- ings.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The straightforward question this case presents is one of enormous practical significance: Must the ini- tial written notice served on noncitizens to commence their removal proceedings provide—in one docu- ment—the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held” (along with charges and other specified information) in order to satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), or does the statute allow the govern- ment to cobble together the required elements of a “notice to appear” from multiple documents, issued at different times, some containing misinformation, and
1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by coun- sel for any party, and that no person or entity other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
2 The appendix provides a complete list of signatories.
2
none of which alone contains all of the statutorily re- quired information?
Reversing the Sixth Circuit and holding that § 1229(a)’s requirements must be included in a single document will greatly reduce the procedural and bu- reaucratic errors attendant in a two-step process that detrimentally impact thousands of noncitizens law- fully seeking to remain in this country.
I. For noncitizens applying for cancellation of re- moval, service of a valid “notice to appear” under § 1229(a) triggers the so-called “stop-time” rule, which terminates the period of continuous presence required for cancellation eligibility. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(d)(1), 1229b(a)(2), 1229b(b)(1)(A). Separately but relatedly, for noncitizens ordered removed in ab- sentia, whether that “severe” penalty, Pereira v. Ses- sions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2111 (2018), is proper depends on whether the notice served on the noncitizen satis- fied the requirements of §1229(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). This Court’s decision will thus touch not only those like Petitioner who are seeking cancel- lation of removal, but also those who may not even have been provided sufficient notice to appear for their removal hearings—and potentially severely punished as a result.
II. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling approves a two-step notice process that involves: (i) the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) serving on a noncitizen a putative notice to appear lacking time-and-place in- formation (or, perhaps worse, that includes fake time- and-place information), and (ii) only after that notice to appear is filed and docketed with the immigration court, the immigration court separately sending a “no- tice of hearing” supplying the time-and-place infor- mation to the noncitizen.
3
Under this two-step process an initial notice lack- ing § 1229(a)’s time-and-place information languishes in a proverbial “No Man’s Land” until the notice is filed with an immigration court and entered into the court’s computer systems—a process that can take years. This delay increases the risk of procedural er- rors and lost filings, such as crucial Change of Address forms, which can result in noncitizens never receiving time-and-place information at all—potentially result- ing in wholly unjustified in absentia removal orders.
Sorting through those issues adds to immigration judges’ fact-finding burdens by requiring them to di- vert attention from the merits of a case to investigate collateral issues like whether time-and-place infor- mation was provided in a second document; whether that document was properly served; and whether a fil- ing like a Change of Address form was submitted but ultimately lost in “No Man’s Land.” When coupled with the pressure to complete cases—even if it means churning out in absentia removal orders without fully considering whether the noncitizen received adequate time-and-place notice—the result may be an increase in unwarranted removal orders.
These problems would be ameliorated if the gov- ernment simply provided the actual time-and-place information in a single document as required by § 1229(a).
III. Requiring DHS to work with the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to obtain time- and-place information before serving a notice to ap- pear—and including such information in that docu- ment, as § 1229(a) and Pereira require—is practical and within the government’s capabilities.
4
A single-step notice process, consistent with this Court’s ruling in Pereira, furthers the due process ax- iom that a party charged to defend against a legal pro- ceeding must receive notice of the time and place of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard.
*****************
Read the complete brief, with better formatting, at the link!
Of course we couldn’t have done this without the amazing talent and assistance of Amer S. Ahmed and the rest of the “Pro Bono All-Star Team” 🎖🏆 @ Gibson Dunn! Just another example of the essential contribution of pro bono lawyers to literally saving our legal system that has been featured on “Courtside” this week!
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General
BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. To assist me in my review, I invite the parties to this proceeding and interested amici to submit briefs on points relevant to the disposition of this case, including:
Would the delay in my referral of this case cause the respondent to suffer any “prejudice from any inability to prove his defenses,” Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 283 (1961), or otherwise prevent me from reviewing the Board’s decision in this matter?
Did the Board err in determining as a matter of its discretion that there was not probable cause that the respondent had committed a “serious nonpolitical crime”? 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii). In making such a determination, did the Board correctly conclude that the crime of which the respondent had been convicted in absentia was not “disproportionate to the objective” or “of an atrocious or barbarous character”? Deportation Proceedings for Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty, 13 Op. O.L.C. 1, 23 (1989) (internal citation omitted).
Did the Board err in determining that the persecutor bar at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(c)(2)(i)(E) did not apply to the respondent’s asylum claim?
Did the Board apply the correct legal standard in concluding that the respondent’s in absentia trial suffered from due process problems even though the Department of State had found that the trial had satisfied due process?
The parties’ briefs shall not exceed 15,000 words and shall be filed on or before July 17, 2020. Interested amici may submit briefs not exceeding 9,000 words on or before July 31, 2020. The parties may submit reply briefs not exceeding 6,000 words on or before July 31, 2020. All filings shall be accompanied by proof of service and shall be submitted electronically to AGCertification@usdoj.gov, and in triplicate to:
United States Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Room 5114 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
All briefs must be both submitted electronically and postmarked on or before the pertinent deadlines. Requests for extensions are disfavored.
***********************************
Billy Barr, Chief Prosecutor, gets to select the judges, make the rules, evaluate the judges’ “performance,” and set the anti-immigrant “tone” in this farcical imitation of a “court system.”
But, sometimes even those advantages aren’t enough to prevent justice from prevailing. Then, as here, Barr merely reaches into the system, even long “after the fact,” rewrites the analysis, and changes the law so the immigrant loses, which (surprise) is going to be the predetermined result here. Yet, this clear denial of constitutional due process and fundamental fairness is allowed to continue.
What if those who run this thoroughly illegal and corrupt system were judged by the same methods and standards that they use to “judge” others?
John A. Freedman Senior Counsel Arnold & PorterHon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Key Excerpt:
We are in the midst of a nationwide pandemic. From the approach of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) headquarters, one would never know that. Through a series of chaotic and inconsistent announcements, EOIR —the office that manages the procedural components of the immigration court system on behalf of the United States Department of Justice2—has continued to schedule non-essential proceedings, requiring judges, court staff and security personnel, litigants and case participants, attorneys, witnesses, interpreters, and interested members of the public to come immigration court, exposing them, their families, and their communities to unnecessary risk of COVID-19.
1 In accordance with Local Rule 7(o), no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor did any party or party’s counsel, or any other person other than amici curiae, contribute money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
2 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b) (setting forth the authority of the Director of EOIR).
1
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 22
The madness of EOIR s approach is evident in one example, representative of its
approach. Yesterday – April 8 — the immigration court in Elizabeth, New Jersey was open for business as usual. This court is across the Hudson River from New York City, and is near the epicenter of the largest COVID-19 hotspot on the planet, and is in a jurisdiction that has had a mandatory shelter-in-place” order since March 21. Yet EOIR insisted that proceedings continue
yesterday. Until it was learned that two detainees in the courthouse were positive for COVID- 19. Only then did EOIR accede to the obvious, scrambling to order the court to shut the Elizabeth court down. But immigration courts were open in many other jurisdictions yesterday, and are scheduled to be open today and for the foreseeable future.
EOIR’s intransigence defies the practice of numerous federal and state courts, the
recommendations of public health officials, and the orders of dozens of Governors who have ordered all non-essential business be deferred. As Judge Samuel Cole, a spokesperson for the National Association of Immigration Judges warned, everyone is being put at risk.” Close immigration courts? Lawyers and judges push to stop in-person hearings amid coronavirus spread, Fortune (Mar. 26, 2020) (describing how attorneys are wearing swim googles and masks to comply with EOIR orders).
The current EOIR approach manifests this disarray because there was not, and has never been, any meaningful continuity planning by EOIR. EOIR, and therefore the immigration court system itself, has sacrificed due process in favor of rapid removals, leaving the court without any incentive at all to plan to protect the public health or the individuals and participants in the system.
Amici urge the issuance of a temporary restraining order to allow for development of a more comprehensive, systemic, and scientifically sound policy that respects due process and the
2
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 22
public health. We offer a framework for what a legally and scientifically sound policy could look like and why a court-ordered pause on all non-essential activities for a short 28-day period could allow for such a policy to emerge in deliberations with stakeholder communities.
Read the entire brief, which contains our proposed solution for how the Immigration Courts could conduct essential operations consistent with health, safety, and due process during this pandemic: Amicus brief_NIPNLG
*********************************
Again, many, many thanks to John Freedman and his group at Arnold & Porter as well as Ilyce & Jeffrey for their leadership.
