Amicus Requests – Page 3 – immigrationcourtside.com

🛡⚔️⚖️ADVENTURES OF THE ROUND TABLE: Latest Amicus Brief To Supremes Weighs In On “Stop Time Rule” — Niz-Chávez v. Barr — Many Thanks to The Pro Bono Stars @ Gibson Dunn!

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

No. 19-863 IN THE

_______________

AGUSTO NIZ-CHAVEZ,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_______________

On Writ Of Certiorari

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!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-14-20

STAR CHAMBER: Barr Moves To Interfere With Judicial Independence Again – Appears Anxious & Ready To Change Result of Rare BIA “Victory” For Foreign National! — Amicus Solicitation in Matter of A-M-, 28 I&N Dec. 7 (A.G. 2020)

Bigoted Bully Billy Barr Brutalizes Justice as Federal Courts Fail

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 7 (A.G. 2020) Interim Decision #3986

Matter of A-M-R-C-, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General June 17, 2020

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:

7

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 7 (A.G. 2020) Interim Decision #3986

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?

PWS

06-17-20

ROUND TABLE FILES AMICUS IN SUPPORT OF STOPPING DANGEROUS IMMIGRATION COURT PRACTICES – With Lots Of Help From Our Friends @ Arnold & Porter! – “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.”☠️🆘

John A. Freedman
Senior Counsel
Arnold & Porter

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

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.

Due Process Forever! EOIR’s Insanity, Never!

PWS
04-1–20

ROUND TABLE NEWS: Getting The Due Process Message Across — 9th Cir. Orders Regime To Respond To Round Table’s Amicus Briefs in Matter of A-B- Challenges!

Lory Rosenberg — Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg
Senior Advisor
Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLC

Round Table stalwarts Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg report:

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 03/03/2020 at 3:25:28 PM PST and filed on 03/03/2020

Case Name: Sontos Diaz-Reynoso v. William Barr

Case Number: 18-72833

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AF): The panel previously ordered that argument for the above-captioned cases would proceed with Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, No. 18-72833 being argued first. The panel supplements its previous order for argument in this first case, as follows: Petitioner will argue, reserving time for rebuttal if desired, then Amicus Curiae The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies will argue, then Respondent will have an opportunity to respond to both Petitioner and the Amicus, and finally Petitioner may use any time reserved for rebuttal. Additionally, Respondent should be prepared to address the arguments raised by Amici Curiae Thirty-Nine Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals. [11616996] [18-72833, 18-72735, 18-73434, 19-70489] (AF)

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

Great to know that at least some Article IIIs are paying attention. We can only hope that they will act on our expert views and save some very deserving and highly vulnerable lives. Of course, we couldn’t have gotten this far without the amazing pro bono team over at Gibson Dunn!

Knjightess — Knightess of the Round Table

PWS

03-08-20

NDPA NEWS: THE ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES: An Impressive Body Of Work Advancing & Defending Due Process!

Our fearless leader, Judge Jeffrey S. Chase reports on the list of Amicus Briefs we have filed since the summer of 2017:

1. BIA Matter of Negusie (7/10/2017) 7 White & Case

2. AG Matter of Castro-Tum (2/16/2018) 14 Akin Gump

3. 9th Cir. CJLG v. Sessions (3/15/2018) 11 Simpson Thacher

4. 10th Cir. Matumona v. Sessions (3/21/2018) 11 Sidley Austin

5. AG Matter of A-B- (4/27/2018) 16 Gibson Dunn

6. 5th Cir. Canterero v. Sessions (5/23/2018) 13 Sidley Austin

7. 9th Cir. Rodriguez v. Sessions (7/27/2018) 20 Wilmer Hale

8. BIA Matter of M-J- (8/07/2018) 20 Gibson Dunn

9. 4th Cir. N.H. v. Whitaker (2/14/2019) 27 Gibson Dunn

10. 10th Cir. Matumona v. Whitaker (2/19/2019) 24 Sidley Austin

11. 1st Cir. OLDB v. Barr (3/11/2019) 27 Gibson Dunn

12. 2d Cir. Orellana v. Barr (4/09/2019) 26 NYU Law School

13. 2d Cir. Kadria v. Barr (4/05/2019) 25 NYU Law School

14. 2d Cir. Banegas-Gomez v. Barr 26 NYU Law School

15. 2d Cir. Pastor v. Barr (4/10/2019) 26 NYU Law School

16. 3d Cir. Giudice v. Att’y Gen.(2 briefs) 26 NYU Law School

17. 1st Cir. De Pena Paniagua v. Barr (4/22/2019)29 Gibson Dunn

18. 9th Cir. Karingithi v. Barr (4/25/19) Boston College Law School

19. 1st Cir. Pontes v. Barr (4/25/2019) Boston College Law School

20. 10th Cir. Zavala-Ramirez v. Barr (5/01/2019) Boston College Law School

21. 10th Cir. Lopez-Munoz v. Barr (5/01/2019) Boston College Law School

22. Sup. Ct. Barton v. Barr (7/03/2019) 27 Pillsbury Winthrop

23. N.D. Ca. East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr 24 Covington

24. 9th Cir. Padilla v. ICE (9/04/2019) 29 Wilmer Cutler

25. 5th Cir. Sorev v. Barr (9/25/2019) 30 White & Case

26. 1st Cir. Boutriq v. Barr (9/25/2019) 31 Harvard Law School

27. 3d Cir. Ramirez-Perez v. Att’y Gen. (10/03/19) 31 Harvard Law School

28. 3d Cir. Nkomo v. Att’y Gen. (10/07/2019) 30 Boston College Law School

29. 9th Cir. Martinez-Mejia v. Barr (10/25/2019) 23 Texas A&M Law School

30. 4th Cir. Quintero v. Barr (11/04/2019) 27 Akin Gump

31. 3d Cir. Campos-Tapia v. Barr (11/25/19) 30 Texas A&M Law School

32. 2d Cir. Guasco v. Barr (12/11/2019) 31 Harvard Law School

33. Sup. Ct. Nasrallah v. Barr (12/16/2019) 33 Gibson Dunn

34. 1st Cir. Doe v. Tompkins (12/23/2019) 34 Jerome Mayer-Cantu, Esq.

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

Great work! Proud and honored to be a member of the Round Table!

And, of course, special appreciation and a big shout out to all of of those wonderful firms, lawyers, institutions, and organizations listed above who have “given us a voice” by providing beyond outstanding pro bono representation!

PWS

01-07-20

DOJ FINALIZES REG INTENDED TO CEMENT EVASION OF REGULATORY PROCESS & “RULE BY PRECEDENT” – Drops Some Of The More Controversial Proposals In Proposed Regulation!

Tal Kopan reports for the SF Chronicle:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/AG-Barr-moves-forward-with-immigration-court-14063716.php

AG Barr moves forward with immigration court changes

By Tal Kopan

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr has moved forward with a regulation changing the way immigration courts handle appeals, expanding the ability of that court to issue decisions that bind the way all immigration judges must decide cases.

The final version of the proposal, which will be published Tuesday, backs away from other changes after the public raised concerns the appellate body would have too much discretion over precedent.

Barr’s first major regulatory change to the immigration courts continues efforts started by his predecessor, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to tighten the ways immigrants can pursue a right to stay in the country. As first reported by The Chronicle, the regulation originally proposed during the George W. Bush administration was revived under President Trump and sent for review in April.

The version set for publication drops some of the more controversial provisions of the original proposal but expands the ability of the appellate body, the Board of Immigration Appeals, to issue binding decisions about immigration law.

A senior Department of Justice official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity called the regulation a “cleanup rule more than anything else.” But, the official said, the administration believes it’s important to make the courts “as efficient or as effective through the process as possible.”

The immigration courts are separate from the federal judiciary and exist entirely under the control of the Department of Justice and attorney general. The lower courts hear arguments as to why immigrants should be legally allowed to stay in the U.S. and decide whether they should be deported.

Appeals of those decisions are reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Under current law, those decisions remain unpublished, and thus not binding on the entire system unless a majority of all members of the board vote to publish it. According to the Department of Justice, the board averages less than 30 such decisions each year.

The new regulation creates another way for decisions to become binding — at the direction of the attorney general. Such a change could allow the attorney general to shape all immigration judges’ decisions by selecting which appellate decisions should become precedent.

The final regulation also expands the circumstances under which the Board of Immigration Appeals can hear cases for potential binding precedent, including “the need to resolve a complex, novel, unusual, or recurring issue of law or fact” in the immigration courts, which would allow the board to take up cases that pose what the department views as a repeat issue in the lower courts. It also would allow the board to weigh parts of the case that lawyers did not bring up at appeal.

One aspect of the proposal that the administration chose not to pursue was expanding judges’ ability to issue cursory opinions that had no written explanation. The Bush-era version would have allowed judges to consider their time and resources in doing so, which the Trump administration opted against. The final version also bowed to concerns and dropped a proposal that would have allowed two out of three judges behind a decision to make their own ruling precedent.

Under Trump, the administration has taken a keen interest in the immigration courts as it seeks to tackle the nearly million-case backlog that allows many migrants seeking asylum and other rights to stay in the country as they wait years for their case to work through the system.

Sessions began using the attorney general’s power to refer cases to himself for review. Under immigration law, the attorney general has the final say over the immigration courts system, similar to the Supreme Court in the federal judiciary. Sessions issued several binding decisions that limited the right to claim asylum for domestic violence and gang violence victims, and he sped up the court process by reducing judge’s discretion to close or postpone cases.

That authority would still exist under this new rule, but the attorney general now could also opt to have a decision with which he agrees issued as binding and skip reviewing the decision himself.

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

No wonder they don’t want to use the regulatory process, preferring to “rule by fiat” instead. As this example shows, promulgating a regulation in the face of widespread and well-reasoned public opposition can turn out to be problematic in later court challenges.

The proposed relgulation was a recycled “relic” from the Bush II Admnistration. But, it’s not like the Obama Administration did much for improving Due Process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court. Honestly, I think that they kind of liked the idea of a subservient, captive, “go along to get along” system that functioned as a bureaucracy yet looked like a court, originally pioneered under Bush II.

Obviously, part of the game here is to misuse the ostensible Immigration “Court” precedent process to shore up the DOJ’s ability to defend DHS’s most extreme positions in the Article III courts. In other words, the Immigration Courts now serve both the interests of DHS Enforcement and the litigating attorneys at OIL who defend DHS’s orders of removal in the Courts of Appeals.

The rights of the individuals, who are supposed to be the focus of this system, have become nominalized, at best. But, some Article III Courts either haven’t bothered to figure this out or else know and just don’t care because, hey, dead, tortured, raped, and otherwise brutalized deportees don’t usually make headlines in the local papers. Out of sight, out of mind.

While DOJ does still “go through the motions” of soliciting briefs on new precedents, such solicitations reach a much smaller audience than do proposed regulatory changes. Also, since the DOJ routinely ignores all the cogent arguments in the briefs and plows ahead with its obviously “predetermined” precedent resolution, some groups have undoubtedly given up on the EOIR “fake” amicus briefing process, preferring instead to marshal their resources for an Article III court challenges. There, real judges still appear to actually read and respond to many, if not all, legal arguments and sometimes are persuaded by them.

For example, our “Roundtable” amicus briefs have had considerable influence in the Article III courts after the same or similar arguments were largely ignored by EOIR and the AG.

But, as I keep suggesting, what if everyone could work together to actually improve Due Process and fix the broken Immigration Court system, rather than having to devote limited high-level pro bono time and resources to fending off further outrageous assaults on the system by the DOJ and DHS? It would also free up time for the Article III Courts which in the near future are likely to have their civil dockets dominated and likely overwhelmed by petitions for review showcasing the sloppy and defective work emanating from the broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and their “pedal faster, cut more corners, quality and fairness be damned” philosophy.

Nice work, Tal. Great to have you “back in the immigration headlines again.”

PWS

07-01-19

DUE PROCESS: “Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges” Gets AILA Award For Due Process Advocacy!

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2019/aila-presents-the-roundtable-of-former-immigration

AILA Presents the Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges with the 2019 Advocacy Award

AILA Doc. No. 19062032 | Dated June 19, 2019

CONTACTS:

George Tzamaras

202-507-7649

gtzamaras@aila.org
Belle Woods

202-507-7675

bwoods@aila.org

WASHINGTON, DC – The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) will recognize the Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges, with the 2019 Advocacy Award for outstanding efforts in support of AILA’s advocacy agenda. The roundtable will accept the award this week during AILA’s Annual Conference in Orlando, FL.

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges was formed in June 2017 when seven former Immigration Judges and BIA Members united for an amicus brief in Matter of Negusie. In the two years since, the group has grown to more than 30 members, dedicated to the principle of due process for all. Its members have served as amici in 14 cases before six different circuit courts, the Attorney General, and the BIA. The group has made its voice heard repeatedly in support of the rights of victims of domestic violence to asylum protection, and has also lent its arguments to the issue of children’s need for counsel in removal proceedings, the impact of remote detention in limiting access to counsel, and the case against indefinite detention of immigrants. The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges has submitted written testimony to Congress and has released numerous press statements. Its individual members regularly participate in teaching, training, and press events.

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19062032.

And here are Judge Chase’s “acceptance remarks” in behalf of our entire group:

Thank you; we are humbled and honored to receive this award. Due to the time constraints on our speeches, I don’t have time to either name all of the members of our group, or to thank all those to whom thanks is due. So I will do that in a blog post.

In terms of advocacy, we are all advocates – everyone in this room, all AILA members. The past experience of our group as former judges gives us more of a platform. But it is a special group, in that so many have chosen to spend their post-government careers or their retirement actively fighting to make a difference in these trying times.

In fighting to make that difference, we must all speak for those who have no voice, and must serve as the conscience in a time of amoral government actions. Those whom we advocate for had the courage and strength to not only escape tragedy and make their way to this country, but once here, to continue to fight for their legal rights against a government that makes no secret of its disdain for their existence. We owe it to them to use our knowledge and skills to aid them in this fight.

In conclusion, I will quote the response of one of our group members who isn’t here tonight upon learning of this award: “It’s nice to be recognized. Now let’s get back to work.”

Thank you all again.

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

Congrats to all of my 30+ wonderful colleagues in “The Roundtable.” It’s an honor to be part of this group. Also, many, many thanks to all of the firms and individual lawyers who have provided hundreds of hours of pro bono assistance to us so that we could have a “voice.” It’s been a real team effort!

PWS

06-21-19

THE FURTHER EXPLOITS OF “OUR GANG” – 5th Circuit Grants Oral Argument In Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- (requiring asylum applicants to clearly delineate the PSG before the IJ)!

“Hot off the wire” from “Our Gang” of Retired Immigration Judges’ Leader Judge Jeffrey Chase:

Good morning, all: The Fifth Circuit has granted oral argument for the week of February 4 in Canterero-Lagos v. Whitaker the appeal of the BIA’s decision Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- (requiring asylum applicants to clearly delineate the PSG before the IJ). Our group filed an amicus brief in that case (there was a second amicus brief on behalf of legal service providers). Lead counsel emphasized the importance of the amicus briefs in convincing the Circuit court to grant oral argument, which OIL opposed, arguing that the case was not of particular interest and that W-Y-C- did not constitute a change in existing law.

Best, Jeff

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

Thanks Jeff for passing this along! And special thanks to all of our retired colleagues who make this effort so special and effective and to the amazingly talented and dedicated pro bono advocates who help us be “heard in court.”

Even from our angle, we can see that “great representation makes a difference.” If it makes that much of a difference to retired Immigration Judges trying to be “heard,” just imagine what a difference it makes to those actually appearing in U.S. Immigration Court to literally “plead for their lives!”

That’s why this Administration’s “strategy” of using waiting lists, illegal orders, inhumane detention, family separation, expedited removal, skewed credible fear interviews, and so-called “review before an Immigration Judge” where counsel, even if present, isn’t even allow to speak, to prevent competent representation and fair presentation of claims is such an outrageous abuse of Due Process!

We are still in the early stages of fully exposing the jaw-dropping extent of these abuses to Article III Judges, Congress, and the public! And, we (and our successors and allies in the NDPA) won’t rest until the U.S. Government is finally forced to live up to its cynically abandoned promise of making U.S. Immigration Courts “the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”

No wonder that Trump and his White Nationalist cronies are so scared of “gangs like ours!”

PWS

12-14-18

GOOD NEWS: En Banc 9th Cir. Will Rehear C.J.L.G. v. Sessions On Children’s Right To Counsel in Removal – Oral Argument Set For Dec. 10, 2018 — “Our Gang’s” Amicus Brief Appears To Have Helped!

Lee Brand, Partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in Palo Alto, CA and his amazing group of brief write gave us the good news this afternoon and sent along these orders granting the rehearing en banc and setting OA:

CJLGOrder 2 CJLGOrder

Many thanks to Lee and his dedicated group of superstar members of the “New Due Process Army” without whom this effort would not have been possible.

Here’s a copy of the Amicus Brief from “Our Gang of Retired Judges:”

2018.03.15 CJLG Amicus Brief of IJs

This is one of many important Federal Court and BIA cases in which “Our Gang” under the leadership of Judge Jeffrey Chase and Judge Lory Rosenberg have filed amicus briefs informing the courts of the realities of Immigration Court practice and the current sad state of Due Process in the courts. We’re working on some additional “assignments.” We’ll keep fighting for fairness, Due Process, and judicial independence as long as we’re “alive and kicking.”

Here’s a brief report form Jeffrey:

I am sending this to our now much larger full group. One of the early amicus briefs in which 11 members of our gang participated was filed in support of a motion for rehearing en banc before the 9th Cir. in CJLG v. Sessions. In that case, an IJ went forward with the asylum hearing of a 15 year old respondent who was unable to retain counsel, telling his mother that she would represent him. Not surprisingly, asylum was denied based on the respondent’s inability to state a cognizable social group and to establish the government was unable/unwilling to control. The ACLU filed a petition for review in the 9th Cir. arguing that minors should be assigned counsel in removal proceedings, which was dismissed by a 3 judge panel.

Today, the 9th Cir. granted the motion for rehearing en banc; oral arguments are set for Dec. 10.

So far, of the cases in which our gang submitted amicus briefs, there have been successful outcomes in Negusie (before the BIA), and in Matumona v. Sessions in the 10th Cir., in which OIL stipulated to remand for the BIA to consider the arguments raised on appeal (which concerned the impact of remote detention centers on the respondent’s ability to retain counsel).

It’s an honor to be a member of “Our Gang” and to have the opportunity to work with the many outstanding pro bono counsel and firms throughout the country who are part of the “New Due Process Army.” The efforts of these wonderful lawyers represent the real commitment to the “rule of law” in immigration and stand in sharp contrast with the jaundiced views and insults to the legal profession publicly proclaimed by Jeff Sessions.

If you are a retired Immigration Judge or BIA Appellate Immigration Judge and would like to join our collegial group effort, please contact Jeffrey, Lory, or me. It’s a rewarding experience and a great opportunity to use your expertise to “make a difference.” It’s also a great chance to keep in touch with your judicial colleagues. It’s not all work (that’s where our wonderful pro bono lawyers come in) — we also have some fun, good times, and fond recollections in the process. (Judge Gus “Hang 10” Villageliu has promised free (non-web) surfing lessons to all new members once hurricane season is past!)

Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-20-18

“GANG OF RETIRED U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES” FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN 9TH CIR. ON RIGHT TO PERIODIC BOND HEARINGS – RODRIGUEZ V. ROBBINS

Here’s the brief:

AS FILED Rodriguez Amicus Brief (For Filing)

HERE’S THE STATEMENT OF ISSUE:

Temporary deprivations of immigrants’ physical liberty “may sometimes be justified by concerns about public safety or flight risk” but must “always be constrained [by] the requirements of due process.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2017). Petitioners in this case naturally focus on the constitutional concerns raised by prolonged detention in the absence of a bond hearing. But lengthy pretrial detention of immigrants in removal proceedings also has a profoundly negative impact on the administration of the nation’s immigration laws. Such detention renders already complicated and challenging administrative proceedings even more so by limiting immigrants’ access to counsel and impairing even counseled immigrants’ presentation of their cases. At the same time, such detention requires a large expenditure of resources that could instead be devoted to other urgent needs of the immigration system. Amici respectfully submit that providing a bond hearing where pretrial detention of an immigrant in removal proceedings exceeds six months, as Petitioners urge, is not only consistent with the requirements of due process but also a straightforward and effective means of addressing these issues.

HERE ARE THE FORMER JUDGES WHO SIGNED ON:

Hon. Steven Abrams
Hon. Sarah M. Burr
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. George T. Chew
Hon. Joan V . Churchill
Hon. Bruce J. Einhorn
Hon. Cecelia M. Espenoza
Hon. Noel Ferris

Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr.
Hon. William P. Joyce
Hon. Edward Kandler
Hon. Carol King
Hon. Margaret McManus
Hon. Charles Pazar
Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg
Hon. Susan Roy
Hon. Paul W. Schmidt
Hon. William Van Wyke
Hon. Gustavo D. Villageliu
Hon. Polly A. Webber

AND HERE’S THE “ALL-STAR TEAM” THAT REPRESENTED US AND TO WHOM WE WILL ALWAYS BE INDEBTED:

DAVID LESSER

JAMIE STEPHEN DYCUS

ADRIEL I. CEPEDA DERIEUX

JESSICA TSANG

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street

New York, NY 10007

(212) 230-8800

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

Thanks to all involved in this important effort!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-27-18

WHILE SESSIONS “BLOWS OFF” VIEWS OF “OUR GANG” OF RETIRED US IJs & BIA JUDGES, ARTICLE III (“REAL’) COURTS (& EVEN “OIL”) ARE PAYING ATTENTION – J.C. Andre of Sidley Austin Reports That 10th Circuit Has Remanded Matumona v. Sessions On The Issue Of Access To Counsel!

Judge Schmidt –

Thank you so much for the flattering post about our work with you all in recent months.

On that front, we have two updates for you all.

First, please see attached the as-filed versions of all three briefs filed last week in Cantarero-Lagos v. Sessions, CA5 No. 18-60115 (the petitioner’s brief, our amicus brief, and the nonprofit immigration legal services’ amicus brief). As some of you will see, there were a couple of you whom we could not include as signatories to our brief because we received your joinders too late. Our apologies for not being able to work those of you in by name, but we had a hard filing deadline of 10 p.m. PST on May 23. Rest assured, however, that the helpful comments you gave us along the way are reflected in the brief.

Second, in case some of you were not yet aware, all of our work two months ago in Matumona v. Sessions, CA10 No. 18-09500, paid off. On the government’s concession, the Tenth Circuit last week remanded the case to the BIA. A copy of the remand order also is attached.

It’s been a pleasure and an honor to work with you guys so much over the last two months.

Hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend,

jc

JEAN-CLAUDE ANDRÉ

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
+1 213 896 6007
JCAndre@Sidley.com

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

Here’s a copy of the remand order:

2018-05-22_Order Remanding

And, here’s a link to Hon. Jeffrey Chase’s previous blog on the Matumona Amicus effort:

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2ko

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

The pleasure is all ours, J.C.! Thanks for everything that you and Katelyn Rowe have done for us and to Sidley Austin for agreeing to undertake this important pro bono project!

Always interesting how folks sometimes give your views more attention after you’re gone.

Sessions is setting a course for disaster in the Article III Courts. If he keeps on interfering with the judicial process and listening to only one side (as he has done all his life), DHS & DOJ are likely to get themselves so tied up in litigation that nobody will be deported as the Immigration Court system disintegrates and the Article IIIs move in to clean up the mess.

My current Immigration Law & Policy students at Georgetown Law seemed surprised to learn that there is a so-called “court system” in America where the Chief Prosecutor appoints the judges, sets the rules, and can change the result of any decision that he doesn’t like. Sure sounds like something out of a Kafka novel or the Country Report on a Third World dictatorship.

PWS

05-30-18

SENATE DEMOCRATS URGE SESSIONS TO UPHOLD REFUGEE PROTECTIONS FOR LGBTQ AND OTHERS IN MATTER OF A-B-

May 23, 2018

CORTEZ MASTO, COLLEAGUES CALL ON SESSIONS TO UPHOLD PROTECTIONS FOR LGBTQ ASYLUM SEEKERS FLEEING PERSECUTION

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Cortez (D-Nev) Masto joined Senators Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and other Senate Democrats in sending a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions urging that the Justice Department uphold a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that provides protections for LGBTQ asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution. In the letter, the senators highlight the increasing threat of violence LGBTQ individuals face in many parts of the world.

“LGBTQ individuals’ access to the U.S. asylum process has assumed increased urgency today as their persecution by both state and private actors is worsening in many parts of the world,” said the senators. “As of 2017, 72 countries worldwide effectively outlaw same-sex sexual relations between consenting adults. Eight apply the death penalty as a punishment for such relations. A majority of countries lack applicable hate crime laws and have law enforcement agencies that neither effectively investigate nor document hate-motivated private violence against LGBTQ individuals.”

The senators continued, “Altering the BIA’s decision in Matter of A-B- to place additional roadblocks and burdens upon asylum seekers could potentially deprive deserving LGBTQ applicants with an opportunity to secure protection in the U.S. that would save their lives. Any increase in the burden of proof for LGBTQ asylum seekers experiencing private harm – additional evidence not now needed by either the immigration courts or asylum officers to fairly adjudicate claims – would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.”

In addition to Cortez Masto, Harris and Feinstein, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ).

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and below:

Dear Attorney General Sessions:

We write to express our concerns about your pending review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. 2018) and the adverse impact such a decision could have on vulnerable populations fleeing persecution and violence. We urge you to uphold the BIA’s decision, which reflects a well-settled matter of law that provides critical protections for vulnerable populations, including LGBTQ individuals subject to private persecution that foreign governments are unwilling or unable to control.

LGBTQ individuals’ access to the U.S. asylum process has assumed increased urgency today as their persecution by both state and private actors is worsening in many parts of the world. As of 2017, 72 countries worldwide effectively outlaw same-sex sexual relations between consenting adults. Eight apply the death penalty as a punishment for such relations. A majority of countries lack applicable hate crime laws and have law enforcement agencies that neither effectively investigate nor document hate-motivated private violence against LGBTQ individuals. As just two alarming examples of state sponsored anti-LGBTQ actions this past year, Russian authorities in Chechnya undertook an anti-gay purge that involved the alleged torture of dozens of men, and Egyptian authorities engaged in a campaign to target and incarcerate individuals solely based on their sexual orientation.

Your referral order for the Matter of A-B- – in which you aim to address, “Whether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal” –has great import for the majority of LGBTQ asylum seekers who arrive in the United States fleeing persecution by private individuals. In the decades since this country first recognized LGBTQ status as a protected particular social group, it has been well established that LGBTQ individuals face grave risks in reporting private persecution or seeking governmental protection from such persecution abroad. Any change to this body of law would be a mistake.

In countries where government authorities engage in serious physical and sexual assaults of LGBTQ individuals, it is effectively impossible for them to seek protection from those same authorities when faced with private persecution. In some countries, simply asking for protection from state authorities can result in government-sponsored persecution. Even where state authorities are not active perpetrators of violence against LGBTQ individuals, they frequently turn a blind eye, emboldening private actors to engage in hate-motivated violence. U.S. State Department research highlights that foreign government retribution towards and lack of assistance for LGBTQ individuals who face private threats of persecution is commonplace, even when the population is not expressly criminalized. This chills the ability of LGBTQ individuals to report such persecution in their home countries.

Societal and familial considerations also often prevent LGBTQ victims of private persecution from coming forward to foreign authorities. They may be threatened with reprisals from their persecutors or coming forward would reveal their LGBTQ status and increase other persecution. In many countries, the act of reporting violence can have deadly consequences.

Altering the BIA’s decision in Matter of A-B- to place additional roadblocks and burdens upon asylum seekers could potentially deprive deserving LGBTQ applicants with an opportunity to secure protection in the U.S. that would save their lives. Any increase in the burden of proof for LGBTQ asylum seekers experiencing private harm – additional evidence not now needed by either the immigration courts or asylum officers to fairly adjudicate claims – would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. As such, we strongly urge you to leave undisturbed the BIA’s decision in Matter of A-B-.

###

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

The effort is likely to be futile. It’s hard to believe that Sessions, given his xenophobic record and anti-asylum rhetoric, certified the case to himself (actually over the objection of both the DHS and the Respondent) just to uphold and strengthen refugee protections for abused women and LGBTQ individuals. Indeed, Sessions has a clear record of anti-LGBTQ views and actions to go along with his anti-asylum bias.

But, the law favoring asylum protections for victims of DV and LGBTQ individuals who suffer harm at the hands of non-state-actors that governments are unwilling or unable to control is now well established. Therefore, Sessions’s likely “scofflaw” attempt to undo it and deny protections to such vulnerable refugees is likely to “muck up the system” and artificially increase the backlogs in the short run, while failing in the long run to achieve the perversion of justice and denial of Due Process for asylum seekers that he seeks to impose.

Surprisingly, the Article III (“real”) courts don’t allow the disgruntled prosecutor to “certify” results that he doesn’t like to himself and rewrite the law in his own favor! That’s why the facade of “courts” operating within the USDOJ must come to an end, sooner or later!

PWS

05-26-18

GUATEMALAN MOM WAS NEARLY KILLED BY HER HUSBAND BECAUSE OF HER GENDER —THE U.S. GRANTED HER REFUGE UNDER THE REFUGEE ACT OF 1980 — NOW A.G. JEFF SESSIONS APPEARS TO BE READY TO REWRITE WELL-ESTABLISHED LAW TO SENTENCE WOMEN LIKE HER TO DEATH OR A LIFETIME OF ABUSE!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/opinion/jeff-sessions-asylum-domestic-violence.html

Jane Fonda and Professor Karen Musalo of UC Hastings write in the NY Times:

By Jane Fonda and Karen Musalo

Ms. Fonda is an actor and activist. Ms. Musalo directs the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings College of the Law and represents A-B- in her asylum case.

May 17, 2018

Image
CreditMarta Monteiro

In recent years, the United States has been something of a beacon of hope for women fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries. In 2014, in a giant step forward, immigration courts explicitly determined that a person fleeing severe domestic violence may be granted asylum here if the violence rises to the level of persecution, if the government in the victim’s home country cannot or will not punish her abuser and if various other criteria are met. It’s a high bar but one that, sadly, women from many countries can clear. Now their last chance at protection may be under threat.

The case that established that certain victims of domestic violence are eligible for asylum was decided in a landmark ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest court in our immigration judicial system.

The survivor in the case, a Guatemalan named Aminta Cifuentes, was a victim of severe physical and sexual abuse. Ms. Cifuentes had endured 10 years of unrelenting violence at the hands of her spouse, who burned her with acid, beat and kicked her, broke her nose and punched her in the stomach with such force when she was eight months pregnant that the baby was born prematurely and with bruises. Her husband told her it would be pointless to call the police, because “even the police and judges beat their wives.”

The ruling that granted her protection was a transformative one, not just for Ms. Cifuentes but for our country, too. At last, the United States stood firmly in opposition to violence against women and recognized that we can and should offer hope to survivors.

In March, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in an unusual move, suddenly and inexplicably stepped into this seemingly settled matter to assign a similar petition for asylum, known as the Matter of A-B–, to himself for reconsideration.

The facts in the Matter of A-B- are similar to those in the 2014 case. Ms. A-B-, a Salvadoran, was brutalized by her husband for 15 years. He beat and kicked her, including while she was pregnant; bashed her head against a wall; threatened her with death while holding a knife to her throat and while brandishing a gun; and threatened to hang her. Ms. A-B- attempted to secure state protection to no avail.

When she went to the police after her husband attacked her with a knife, their response was that if she had any “dignity,” she would leave him. When Ms. A-B- did attempt to leave her husband, he tracked her down, raped her and threatened to kill her. When she finally got a divorce, her ex-husband told her that if she thought the divorce freed her from him, she was wrong. She fled the country after he told her that he and his friends were going to kill her and dump her body in a river.

When Ms. A-B- came to the United States seeking asylum, her case was heard by an immigration judge in Charlotte, N.C., named V. Stuart Couch, who is notorious for his high denial rate. Judge Couch denied her asylum; Ms. A-B- appealed, and the decision was overruled by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the same board that had ruled favorably in the 2014 case.

The board sent the case back to Judge Couch for security checks to be completed and asylum to be granted. Without any explanation, Judge Couch held on to the case and refused to grant asylum as directed. And then, deviating from normal procedures, Mr. Sessions took jurisdiction.

The attorney general does have the power to reconsider any decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, the procedural irregularities, paired with the possibility that Mr. Sessions may be using his authority to upend the precedent set in the Cifuentes case, are troubling. Mr. Sessions has given himself the power not only to decide Ms. A-B-’s fate but also ultimately to try to rule on how our country handles claims for all survivors of domestic violence looking for asylum.

To be clear, we do not yet know what Mr. Sessions will decide. But in the context of the Trump administration’s antipathy toward asylum seekers, and Mr. Sessions’s statements and actions with regard to immigrant women, his decision to assign himself jurisdiction does not bode well. Asylum seekers who have arrived at the American border seeking protection have been vilified by this administration.

The government has targeted women in ways that would have been unthinkable under prior administrations, including separating mothers who arrive at the border from their children and detaining pregnant women. Mr. Sessions himself has expressed his deep skepticism about asylum claims based on gender-related persecution.

At a time when violence against women and girls is a global crisis, a decision to deny protection to women who flee gender violence, including domestic violence, would be a grave mistake. This is a moment of truth of our country. Will we remain a beacon of hope for women worldwide whose lives are on the line because of domestic violence, and whose governments cannot or will not protect them? The answer, it seems, is in the attorney general’s hands.

Jane Fonda, an actor and activist, is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center and on the board of Sisterhood Is Global. Karen Musalo directs the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings School of Law and represents A-B- in her asylum case.

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

Matter of A-B-, was a straight-forward application by the BIA of its existing precedents on asylum for victims of domestic violence.
The Immigration Judge who wrongfully denied the original asylum application appeared to disregard the BIA’s mandate to check fingerprints and grant on remand, and instead delayed the case without any apparent valid reason for doing so.
Sessions “certified” this case to himself either though neither party had requested his intervention and, remarkably, the DHS requested that the certification be dissolved to allow the BIA to resolve any issues under its existing framework of asylum precedents.
Sessions has made a number of inflammatory, anti-asylum statements including several made in a speech to EOIR adjudicators.
Is this “Justice In America?” Or, is it a “Parody of Justice In America” taking place in a “captive court system” dedicated to one-sided enforcement rather than fairness and Due Process.
Join the “New Due Process Army” and fight against Sessions’s perversion of the U.S. Immigration Court system to fit his “enforcement only” viewpoint.

PWS

05-19-18

RETIRED U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES SPEAK OUT AGAINST SESSIONS’S TRASHING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING IN MATTER OF CASTRO-TUM!

The following statement has been posted on the AILA website:

Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Express Disappointment in Attorney General’s Decision in Matter of Castro-Tum

May 18, 20181

1 This statement was updated on May 21, 2018 with additional signatures.

As retired Immigration Judges and Board Members, we are very disappointed in the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Castro-Tum, which failed to address the excellent arguments made in the numerous briefs (including ours) that were submitted. Based on our combined decades of experience on the bench and the Board exercising administrative closure, we can jointly refute with authority the AG’s mischaracterization of this necessary tool as a permanent status. Sessions failed to distinguish between the different circumstances under which the status has been exercised. We look forward to reiterating our belief that administrative closure is part of the inherent authority granted to immigration judges by Congress on appeal of this issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Sincerely,

Honorable Steven R. Abrams

Honorable Sarah M. Burr

Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase

Honorable George T. Chew

Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn

Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza

Honorable Noel Ferris

Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.

Honorable William P. Joyce

Honorable Edward Kandler

Honorable Carol King

Honorable Susan Roy

Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg

Honorable Paul W. Schmidt

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18) 2

Honorable Polly A. Webber

Honorable Robert D. Weisel

List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.

The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.

The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Honorable George T. Chew

The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003-2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014 and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.

The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18) 3

Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.

Honorable Edward Kandler

The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues.

The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18) 4

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.

The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.

Honorable Robert D. Weisel

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18

castro-tum-update-aila18051806-2

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

We have by no means heard the last about Sessions’s absurdist decision. As the Immigration Court System crumbles under largely preventable, self-created backlogs resulting from the actions of politicos in this and the past two Administrations, it is critical that Sessions be held fully accountable and not allowed to shift the blame to the respondents, their attorneys, or the Immigration Judges as he is wont to do.

PWS

05-19-18

WITH HELP FROM GIBSON DUNN, “GANG OF 16” RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES FILES AMICUS BRIEF OPPOSING AG’S INTERFERENCE IN MATTER OF A-B-

HERE’S THE BRIEF:

AB-Brief Amici Curiae of Sixteen Former Immigration Judges and Members of t…

HERE’S THE “STATEMENT OF INTEREST:”

Amici Curiae are sixteen former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). Out of respect for the law to which they have dedicated their careers, Amici feel compelled to file this brief in support of Respondent. Amici are deeply concerned about the procedural violations in this case—in particular the Attorney General’s certification of a question that was not properly considered by the Immigration Judge and was not considered at all by the Board. This complete disregard for established procedure is alarming. It plainly violates binding federal regulations governing the narrow circumstances under which Attorney General certification is permitted and it raises serious due process concerns.

Ultimately, it is within Congress’s authority—not the Attorney General’s—to define the boundaries of asylum. And Congress has already determined that a person can qualify for asylum based on persecution that independently might constitute private criminal activity.

Amici urge the Office of the Attorney General not to take any further action on a question that is not properly before it, and therefore urge that the referral order be vacated.

HERE’S THE TOC:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE………………………………………………………….. 1 BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

This case is not properly before the Attorney General ……………………………………. 8

Federal regulations require that the Immigration Judge issue a
decision on asylum before certifying a case to the Board. ……………………. 9

The Attorney General may only review a Board decision, but there
was none………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

Bypassing the Board nullifies critical procedural safeguards…………………………. 13

The Board, a neutral and independent body, with deep knowledge
of its own precedent, should consider the effect of new case law on
that precedent in the first instance. ………………………………………………….. 13

Bypassing the Board raises serious due process concerns…………………… 14

The Attorney General cannot override Congress’s judgment under the
guise of a procedural mechanism……………………………………………………………….. 16

“Persecution” can be carried out or threatened by private actors that the government cannot or will not control………………………………………………………… 19

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21

HERE’S THE “GANG OF 16”

 The Honorable Steven Abrams served as an Immigration Judge at the New York, VarickStreet, and Queens Wackenhut Immigration Courts in New York City. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he worked as a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, and before that as District Counsel, Special Counsel for criminal litigation, and general attorney for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”).

 The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as an Immigration Judge in New York starting in 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills, and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full time until her retirement in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit.

 The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He now works in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. He received the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (“AILA”) annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

 The Honorable George T. Chew served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1995 to 2017. Previously, he served as a trial attorney at the former INS.

2

 The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as an Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law, and is a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford.

 The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Board from 2000 to 2003 and in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Office of the General Counsel from 2003 to 2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer, and Senior FOIA Counsel. She now works in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997–2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990–97), where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on immigration law. She received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of AILA in 1997.

 The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and as an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 until her retirement in 2016. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.

 The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as an Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013. He is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former INS, including as a general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant

3

commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration-court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, also teaching immigration law. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association.

 The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary member of the Board for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously worked in private practice for ten years, focusing on immigration law. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King currently works as an advisor on removal proceedings.

 The Honorable Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench this January after twenty-seven years. Before her time on the bench, she worked in several roles, including as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters (including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services) and as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York.

 The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to

4

2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC, a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

 The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. She has been in private practice for nearly five years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. She is the New Jersey AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR and is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association.

 The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, VA. He previously served as Chairman of the Board from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995), extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1979 to 1981 and 1986 to 1987. He was the managing partner of the Washington, DC office of Fragomen, DelRey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, DC office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also consults, speaks, writes, and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics.

5

 The Honorable William Van Wyke served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 until 2015 in New York City and York, PA.

 The Honorable Gustavo D. Villageliu served as a Member of the Board from July 1995 to April 2003. He then served as Senior Associate General Counsel for the EOIR until he retired in 2011. Before becoming a Board Member, Villageliu was an Immigration Judge in Miami, with both detained and non-detained dockets, as well as the Florida Northern Region Institutional Criminal Alien Hearing Docket from 1990 to 1995. Mr. Villageliu joined the Board as a staff attorney in January 1978, specializing in war criminal, investor, and criminal alien cases.

 The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details to the Tacoma, Port Isabel (TX), Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando immigration courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own firm in San Jose, California. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national AILA officer from 1985 to 1991. She also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in the immigration law field.

HERE ARE THE ATTORNEYS AT GIBSON DUNN WHO MADE THIS HAPPEN:

Amer S. Ahmed

Ronald Kirk

Megan B. Kiernan

Lalitha D. Madduri

Chelsea G. Glover

Counsel for Amici Curiae

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

Thanks to all for making this happen. Great teamwork in the name of Due Process!

Special thanks to our colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg who served as our “Group Leader” in working with Gibson Dunn and to Judge Jeffrey Chase for assembling the group and putting the “finishing touches” on the filing.

PWS

04-27-18

Case Name:	Sontos Diaz-Reynoso v. William Barr
Case Number:	18-72833
Document(s):	Document(s)

Related posts:

Related posts:

Key Excerpt:

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

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

Due Process Forever! EOIR’s Insanity, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

NDPA NEWS: THE ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES: An Impressive Body Of Work Advancing & Defending Due Process!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

“Hot off the wire” from “Our Gang” of Retired Immigration Judges’ Leader Judge Jeffrey Chase:

No wonder that Trump and his White Nationalist cronies are so scared of “gangs like ours!”

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

CORTEZ MASTO, COLLEAGUES CALL ON SESSIONS TO UPHOLD PROTECTIONS FOR LGBTQ ASYLUM SEEKERS FLEEING PERSECUTION

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: