☠️🤯 BIA TRASHES NORMAL LEGAL RULES OF CAUSATION, JETTISONS 4TH CIR. PRECEDENT, TO DENY FAMILY-BASED PSG CASE, THE LATEST ANTI-ASYLUM ZNGER FROM FALLS CHURCH! — Family Targeted By Gangs Seeks Protection, Finds Only Rejection From BIA! — Matter of M-R-M-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2023)

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action. The BIA’s “take no prisoners” approach to asylum law has endangered asylum seekers lives without deterring them from applying! The BIA’s convoluted approach to asylum law is one factor making hearings for unrepresented applicants inherently unfair!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

BIA HEADNOTE:

If a persecutor is targeting members of a certain family as a means of achieving some

other ultimate goal unrelated to the protected ground, family membership is incidental or

subordinate to that other ultimate goal and therefore not one central reason for the harm.

Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), reaffirmed.

PANEL: MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge,

CREPPY and PETTY, Appellate Immigration Judges.

OPINION BY: JUDGE GARRY MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmp1c3RpY2UuZ292L2Q5LzIwMjMtMTIvNDA2OC5wZGYiLCJidWxsZXRpbl9pZCI6IjIwMjMxMjAxLjg2NDc1MjkxIn0.q_Zj4XKDQU56vCbvWbRgEZ-m1xhrXiZN-g-3R6TPtX0/s/500473331/br/232067904503-l

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

Let me explain the BIA’s rule:

1) In any “mixed motive” case, EOIR will find that the “non-covered motive” is primary and all others are “tangental” so that the claim will be denied.

2) EOIR will ignore “but for,” “proximate cause,” and any other established legal rules of causation to maximize asylum denials.

3) Facts are irrelevant unless they support denial.

In its rush to deny, the BIA basically invents a “presumption” that family based persecution is “tangential” to some other non-qualifying ground. The respondent then must “establish, by direct or circumstantial evidenc, that their family membership is more than incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to other motives.”

When Congress added the “at least one central reason” language in 2005, they clearly intended to preserve a robust “mixed motive” doctrine by indicating that there could be “more than one” central motive. The BIA, however appears to be strangling the “mixed motive” language by intentionally, and often artifically, “subordinating” qualifying motives to non-qualifying ones!

And, of course, faced with a choice of adopting Circuit law that protects or that which rejects, the BIA invariably chooses the interpretation least favorable to the asylum applicant, as they did here.

I’m not the only member of the Round Table to remark on the BIA’s questionable performance.

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

Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase says:

“This holding is contrary to asylum law generally and to multiple Fourth Circuit holdings to the contrary. I would also argue that it contradicts Second Circuit case law, and the Supreme Court’s holding regarding the meaning of “on account of” in Bostock v. Clayton County.”

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

Former BIA Appellate Judge Lory D. Rosenberg quipped:

“Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Hon. Susan G. Roy
Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC
Princeton Junction, NJ
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Retired Judge Roy said:

“This isn’t good—another Friday afternoon surprise!”

The poor performance of the BIA in establishing asylum precedents is a major contributing factor to disorder at the border and a dysfunctional, overly complicated, unduly restrictive, hopelessly backlogged, fundamentally unfair asylum adjudication system!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-04-23

👹AS CURTAIN FALLS ON KAKISTOCRACY, BIA CLOWN SHOW 🤡 ROLLS ON TOWARD OBLIVION! — Latest Travesty Ignores Clear Statutory Language, Elevates AAO Over Circuits, Shafts TPSers Who Qualify For Legal Permanent Immigration, Makes Hash Out Of Uniform Administration Of Laws!🏴‍☠️☠️🤮

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Kangaroos — All In A Day’s Work — BIA Members Unwind After Ignoring Statute, Dissing Three Circuits, Screwing TPS Holders, Beating Up Unrepresented Respondent, & Aiding Their “Partners” At ICE In Demeaning Justice
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMDExMjMuMzA5ODM1ODEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL2dvLnVzYS5nb3YveDdmMjgifQ.3HiEf4LU6Bwc5S-T8jqxR2hmHX9AQ585LsaksbtbRnk/s/842922301/br/90293063224-l&source=gmail-imap&ust=1606764672000000&usg=AOvVaw3Fk5zcttz_HLhd3nxbHyiO

Matter of PADILLA RODRIGUEZ, 28 I&N Dec. 164 (BIA 2020)

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) Where the temporary protected status (“TPS”) of an alien who was previously present in the United States without being admitted or paroled is terminated, the alien remains inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (2018), and removal proceedings should not be terminated.

(2) An alien whose TPS continues to be valid is considered to be “admitted” for purposes of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status only within the jurisdictions of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.

BIA PANEL: MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; HUNSUCKER, Appellate Immigration Judge; GEMOETS, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge

OPINION BY: HUNSUCKER, Appellate Immigration Judge

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

For today’s BIA, it apparently doesn’t get any better than beating up on an unrepresented respondent who actually won before the Immigration Judge! Where was the “BIA Pro Bono Program” on this one?

It’s not rocket science: INA section 244(f)(4) says: “for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248, the alien shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant.”

So, clearly, an individual in TPS status who is eligible for permanent immigration can adjust statutus under INA section 245, right? Of course, unless you’re the BIA and stretching to find a way to deny. And, elevating the meanderings of the AAO over the considered opinions of three Circuit Courts of Appeals shows the level of intellectual honesty and scholarship on today’s BIA!

Now, lets look at the policy results produced by the BIA’s intentional misconstruction of the plain meaning of the statute.

First, it means that except in the 6th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, individuals in TPS status, basically long term residents who are going to be remaining, working, paying taxes, and raising families in the U.S., and who also are qualified to permanently immigrate (e.g., spouses of U.S. citizens) will be mindlessly barred from doing so.

But, wait, it gets even better! That’s only the case if they have the misfortune to live in a Circuit other than the 6th, 8th, or 9th. Of course, if they are able, they could move to one of those circuits to adjust.

Make sense? Only if you’re part of the “Clown Show of Denial.” Then, you ignore the statute, diss the Circuit Courts, and go out of your way to promote a non-uniform interpretation of the law that will screw contributing members of our society residing here legally and arbitrarily block them from achieving the permanent status to which they are entitled.

Now you can see what a difference replacing the “Clown Show” with real judges from the NDPA could make — both for the human lives and futures at stake and for sane, lawful, and fiscally efficient administration of our immigration laws!

REPEAT AFTER ME: Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Tell The Biden Team That The EOIR Clown 🤡 Show Has Got To Go!

EOIR clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Due Process Forever! Clownocracy, never!

PWS

11-24-20

BILLY APPOINTS MALPHRUS AS ADDITIONAL DEPUTY CHIEF APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE (“VICE CHAIR”) @ BIA! — Hard Line, Restrictionist, Anti-Asylum, Anti-Due-Process Jurisprudence Rewarded!🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️

Billy Barr Consigliere — Bill Barr Consigliere
Artist: Pat Bagley
Salt Lake Tribune
Reproduced under license

From the EOIR website:

Garry Malphrus

Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Garry Malphrus as a deputy chief appellate immigration judge in September 2020. Judge Malphrus earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1989 from the University of South Carolina and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the University of South Carolina. From August 2008 to September 2020, he served on the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, including as acting board chairman from October 2019 to May 2020. From 2005 to 2008, he served as an immigration judge at the Arlington Immigration Court. From 2001 to 2005, he served as associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. From 1997 to 2001, he worked for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which included serving as chief counsel and staff director on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight and the Subcommittee on the Constitution. From 1995 to 1997, Garry served as a law clerk for the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd, U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina. From 1994 to 1995, he was a law clerk for the Honorable William W. Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. From 1993 to 1994, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Judge for South Carolina. Judge Malphrus is a member of the South Carolina Bar.

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

No surprise here, folks, as Courtside had predicted this back in May:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/05/22/%f0%9f%91%82%f0%9f%8f%bb%f0%9f%91%80%f0%9f%a4%abeoir-rumor-mill-doj-honcho-x-oiler-david-h-wetmore-reportedly-will-be-tapped-as-new-bia-chair/

This appears to be the “penultimate step” in the ongoing process of “benching” the long-time “holdover” Vice Chair Chuck Adkins-Blanch. First, he was “passed over” when Judge Malphrus became the BIA’s Acting Chair following the hasty departure of former Chair David Neal. Now, Malphrus basically has been “layered in” to be the “real Deputy,” who will faithfully continue to carry out Billy’s nativist political agenda, presumably until Adkins-Blanch reaches retirement and finally pulls the plug.

Needless to say, Judge Adkins-Blanch’s name has been conspicuously absent from the BIA’s most recent barrage of anti-immigrant, anti-asylum “precedents.” That is, of course, the “precedents” that Billy lets the BIA write as opposed to the ones that he and his fellow political hacks at “Main DOJ” issue as “AG precedents.”

More and more, the AG, whom nobody except, perhaps, a few intentionally tone-deaf Circuit Court of Appeals Judges, would mistake for an “expert” in immigration law, has taken over the BIA’s precedent setting function. That leaves the BIA basically to do the “mop-up work” of maximizing the impact of Billy’s anti-immigrant policies and insuring that just and fair results below favoring immigrants are reversed upon demand of “EOIR’s masters” at DHS Enforcement.

Talk about the need for an Article I Court with a new cast of characters selected on a merit basis for their demonstrated immigration expertise, and established commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, human rights, and practical applied scholarship! That so many Article III judges continue to “go along to get along” with this vile legal charade says some pretty sad things about the overall state of justice and the judiciary in America!

An Article I Court requires judicial leadership that replaces “built to fail ‘Vatican Style’ (or “Legacy INS Style”) hierarchical bureaucracy” with professional court administration and a much “leaner and flatter” judicial structure. A judicial structure where most resources are devoted to actually fairly and efficiently deciding cases, establishing “best practices,” and leading by example. That would eliminate the “Mickey Mouse” demeaning “control freak supervision (“suppression”)” of supposedly senior level “judges” who, if properly selected, would need effective support, but little to no “supervision” in the normal bureaucratic sense of the term.

In the meantime, expect the backlog to grow unabated and the Article IIIs to continue to reverse and return an essentially random selection of the BIA’s reliably “one-sided” jurisprudence for “redos!” That will further increase the backlog without effectively addressing the fundamental problem of an unconstitutional system with a clearly established anti-immigrant political bias!

Just more signs of an American justice system now in the throes of institutional failure!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-29-20

BILLY’S BIA 🏴‍☠️DUMPS ON EXPERT WITNESSES — As Regime’s False Narratives & Bogus Suppression Of Truth About What Happens To Refugees Returned To Unsafe Countries Becomes Obvious, “Upper Star Chamber” Launches Yet Another Assault On Due Process! — Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020)☠️⚰️

Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020)

From the EOIR PIO:

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in the Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020)

(1) In assessing whether to admit the testimony of a witness as an expert, an Immigration Judge should consider whether it is sufficiently relevant and reliable for the expert to offer an informed opinion, and if it is admitted, the Immigration Judge should then consider how much weight the testimony should receive.

(2) In considering how much weight to give an expert’s testimony, the Immigration Judge should assess how probative and persuasive the testimony is regarding key issues in dispute for which the testimony is being offered.

PANEL: MALPHRUS, MULLANE, and CREPPY , Appellate Immigration Judges.

OPINION BY: MALPHRUS, Appellate Immigration Judge

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

In this case, the BIA sent an asylum grant well-supported by expert opinion back to the IJ for no particular reason other than the DHS didn’t like the result.

The message: The IJ should always look for reasons to disallow, disbelieve, or diminish the weight of the asylum applicant’s persuasive evidence. The IJ should always be looking for “any reason to deny” asylum applications because that’s what Billy wants from his wholly-owned. “judges.”

To quote my friend and Round Table colleague retired IJ Jeffrey S. Chase:

[The BIA], McHenry, and Barr are engaging in tag-team destruction of asylum. So this gives the signal to ignore country experts when their opinions support grants of asylum. Which was stated more explicitly in the proposed 161-page asylum regs. And then if the IJ relies on the DOS report, the Board or AG will say the quoted passage was too vague and generalized to support a finding of social distinction or nexus.

The good news is that a number of brigades of the NDPA are hard at work on comprehensive alternative expert country reports that are much more accurate and well-documented than current DOS propaganda. A number of Courts of Appeals already have “called out” the BIA for routinely ignoring evidence and expert opinions favorable to asylum applicants.

I certainly hope they will see through and expose this rather transparent attempt to further “game the system” against asylum applicants. Actually, under the U.N. Handbook asylum seekers are supposed to receive the “benefit of the doubt.” But, not from this scofflaw regime and their toadies masquerading as “judges.”

It’s also worth noting that this case has already been pending for almost a decade. Obviously, time is no object for EOIR when it comes to looking for ways to deny asylum.

PWS

09-28-20

☠️👎DEATH PANEL: Billy The Bigot’s BIA Spends 34-Pages Stomping Every Aspect Of Claim By Victim Of Trump’s MPP — Matter of M-D-C-V-

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMDA3MTQuMjQzNjA1MjEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xMjkzOTcxL2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.GQ-40i9lJzne69mtiz5FLkL4ucpejz820EUlR2HEV7E/s/842922301/br/81011306761-l

Matter of M-D-C-V-, 28 I&N Dec. 18 (BIA 2020)

BIA HEADNOTE:

Under section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C) (2018), an alien who is arriving on land from a contiguous foreign territory may be returned by the Department of Homeland Security to that country pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols, regardless of whether the alien arrives at or between a designated port of entry.

PANEL: Board Panel: MALPHRUS and CREPPY, Appellate Immigration Judges; MORRIS, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.

OPINION BY: Judge Malphrus

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

The deny, deny, deny message is very clear!

To keep what the BIA and the Administration are doing to our fellow humans in perspective, however, remember that:

Human Rights Watch studied the cases of more than 200 individuals who were returned to El Salvador by the Administration;
Of these, 138 were killed upon return;
Another 70 were “subjected to sexual violence, torture, and other harm, usually at the hands of gangs, or . . . went missing following their return;”

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/11/its-1939-white-nationalist-america-is-failing-humanity-again-the-st-louis-replay-history-will-neither-forget-nor-forgive-us-for-wrongfully-sending-refugees-to-thei/

That’s a high kill/abuse rate. But, that’s exactly what human rights criminals like Stephen Miller “get off on.” “Death to the other!”

And, so far, the Supremes have obliged the White Nationalists’ program of “Dred Scottification” as long as it applies to “the others,” primarily persons of color, not deserving in the elitists’ view of being treated as “persons” under the law or as “human beings” under any laws. Eventually, however, posterity will have something to say about Trump, Miller, Roberts, McConnell, Barr, Wolf, Sessions, Pence, Alito and a host of others who have knowingly participated in these intentional degradations of humanity and furthering of White Supremacy!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-20

👂🏻👀🤫EOIR RUMOR MILL — DOJ Honcho & X-OILer David H. Wetmore Reportedly Will Be Tapped As New BIA Chair!

https://jnc.dc.gov/biography/david-h-wetmore

David H. Wetmore

David H. Wetmore, Esq. is a career appellate litigator in the United States Department of Justice, currently serving as Associate Deputy Attorney General. During his tenure at the Department of Justice, Mr. Wetmore has also served as Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and as a Trial Attorney in the Civil Division. He has been the principal author of hundreds of appellate briefs and argued over twenty-five cases in federal courts of appeals. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Mr. Wetmore was an associate attorney in Sidley Austin LLP’s District of Columbia office, and at Jenner & Block LLP’s Chicago office, where his practice focused on civil, criminal, and constitutional litigation. Mr. Wetmore has experience in all aspects of litigation, from initial investigation and discovery through trial and appeal, in both state and federal courts, including in the District of Columbia. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor at The George Washington University Law School.

Mr. Wetmore earned his Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, from Miami University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, graduated from the University Honors Program, and received Departmental Honors in Political Science and Philosophy. He earned his Juris Doctor, with High Honors, from The George Washington University Law School, where he was an Articles Editor of The George Washington Law Review, elected to Order of the Coif, and a member of the Moot Court Board. Following law school, Mr. Wetmore served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gordon J. Quist, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, and later to the Honorable Daniel A. Manion, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

Normally reliable, totally unofficial anonymous sources say Wetmore’s “the one.”

There is further rank, unverified speculation that the current Acting Chair, Judge Garry Malphrus, eventually will get the just-advertised “Vice Chair/Deputy Chief Appellate Judge” position as a reward for reliably furthering the BIA’s anti-immigrant jurisprudence during his tenure. Malphrus replaced former Chair David Neal who resigned suddenly last Fall.

Wetmore currently is an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ. That’s roughly the DOJ equivalent of the “Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man*.” The Associate Deputy Attorney General, of course, should never be confused with the Deputy Associate Attorney General, an entirely different position. Actually, it’s about as far up the DOJ hierarchy that a “career” attorney can get. The higher level positions, in this case the Deputy Attorney General, are Presidentially-appointed politicos.

With this development, the connection between the BIA and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) should become “seamless.” The BIA staff can just “cut and paste” OIL briefs into their decisions and vice versa. This eliminates the need to sometimes request time-consuming Circuit Court remands to get the BIA to adopt OIL’s preferred litigating position. In turn, this should totally eliminate the possibility of an individual ever “winning” a BIA appeal and will eradicate any remaining traces of due process or fundamental fairness at the BIA.

These moves, combined with an outrageous proposed increase in the filing fee for a BIA appeal, will undoubtedly be a powerful tool for deterring, discouraging, and punishing individuals for exercising their legal rights. These are critical steps in insuring the smooth operation of the regime’s “Deportation Railroad.”

Any way you look at it, today’s BIA certainly presents an “interesting diversity profile,” particularly considering the community whose rights it once was supposed to protect, but now has unabashedly abandoned as it seeks to carry out the Trump/Miller/Barr White Nationalist mission of “Dred Scottifying the other.”

It also continues a two-decades long “DOJ tradition” of intentionally failing to attract better-qualified candidates from the private immigration sector, with actual experience representing and interacting with asylum seekers and other migrants, for BIA judgeships. The “outside, non-restrictionist world” has also been overwhelmingly excluded from appointments to Immigration Courts, with essentially de facto preference being given to government prosecutors.

Obviously, the reduction of Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges to something akin to “deportation clerks” straining to meet “production quotas” and pressured by regime politicos to aid DHS Enforcement by churning out deportation orders has been an important step in “dumbing down” EOIR. Today, EOIR is probably more subservient to DHS Enforcement, less impartial, and more of an administrative disaster than it was under the “Legacy INS.” Except, now there is more of everything — more overt political interference in the adjudication process, more bad law intentionally created, more and bigger backlogs, more intellectual dishonesty, more chaos, more disrespect for and demeaning of respondents and their attorneys, and more lives ruined.

Due Process Forever! Weaponized, Captive, “Courts” Never!

PWS

05-21-20

*Stones, The Rolling, “The Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man”

Well, I’m waiting at the bus stop in downtown L.A.
Well, I’m waiting at the bus stop in downtown L.A.
But I’d much rather be on a boardwalk on Broadway

Well, I’m sitting here thinkin’ just how sharp I am
Well, I’m sitting here thinkin’ just how sharp I am
I’m an under assistant west coast promo man

Well, I promo groups when they come into town
Well, I promo groups when they come into town
Well they laugh at my toupee, they’re sure to put me down

Well, I’m sitting here thinking just how sharp I am
Yeah, I’m sitting here thinking just how sharp I am
I’m a necessary talent behind every rock and roll band

Yeah, I’m sharp
I’m really, really sharp
I sure do earn my pay
Sitting on the beach every day, yeah
I’m real real sharp, yes I am
I got a Corvette and a seersucker suit
Yes, I have

Here comes the bus, uh oh
I though I had a dime
Where’s my dime
I know I have a dime somewhere
I’m pretty sure

Writer/s: Keith Richards, Michael Jagger

Publisher: Abkco Music, Inc.

Lyrics licensed and provided by LyricFind

Check it out from YouTube here (you can skip the commercials):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjLoP2OzMfpAhWFYTUKHaZUDvUQyCkwAHoECBMQBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6-3_TK2GASE&usg=AOvVaw1o9mdRm85Jy8KtVxomIK9N

Suzanne Monyak @ Law360: FEDERAL COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT BILLY BARR’S BIA IS A FRAUD! — So Why Do They Let The Unconstitutional Abuse Of Persons Seeking Justice Continue Under Their Noses?

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1271825/immigration-board-picks-under-trump-to-set-lasting-policy

Suzanne writes in Law360:

U.S. Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook didn’t mince words earlier this year when sharing his thoughts on a recent decision by the immigration courts’ appellate board: “We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again.”

The Seventh Circuit judge, a Reagan-appointee, said the board had ignored the court’s directions to grant protection to an immigrant fighting deportation, instead ruling against the immigrant again. The rebuke wasn’t the first time the Board of Immigration Appeals has been reprimanded by the federal judiciary for seemingly prejudiced decisions under the Trump administration.

Just a month earlier, a judge on the Third Circuit tackling an appeal from the BIA wrote in a concurring opinion that it didn’t appear the board “was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring [an immigrant’s] removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be.”

“That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly,” U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore McKee wrote.

While President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees and U.S. Supreme Court picks grab headlines for rtheir potential to shape the judiciary for years to come, the administration is staffing the lesser known BIA with former immigration judges who have high asylum-denial rates and individuals with backgrounds in law enforcement. Some of the picks have prompted advocates for immigrants and lawmakers to claim the hiring process is too politicized.

Documents newly obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Trump administration has aimed to fast-track the hiring process while giving the director of U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, James McHenry, and the U.S. attorney general more say in who gets the nod.

Unlike the federal and appellate courts, the BIA, an administrative appellate board that hears appeals from immigration trial courts, is not independent but rather is housed with the EOIR.

Yet the board can issue precedential decisions that shape immigration policy — and the lives of immigrants facing deportation — well into the future.

“That the reasonably ordinary citizen has not heard of the BIA does not take away from the fact that it is the most important agency establishing immigration jurisprudence in the country, and when you politicize that, you’re obviously politicizing immigration jurisprudence,” said Muzaffar Chishti, head of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute’s New York office.

A spokesperson for EOIR told Law360 that the office sped up the hiring process as part of “commonsense changes” and in response to criticism from Congress.

She also said that EOIR “does not choose board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics, and it does not discriminate against applicants based on any prohibited characteristics,” and that “all board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.”

During the most recent hiring cycle, every panelist evaluating candidates was a career employee, not a political appointee, according to the spokesperson.

“Individuals who assert that such changes make the hiring process less neutral are either ignorant or mendacious,” the spokesperson said.

High Rates of Asylum Denials

Since August, the Trump administration has installed nine of the 19 current permanent members of the BIA, and most of the newcomers have asylum-denial rates above 80% and backgrounds in law enforcement or the military.

All but one of the nine were previously immigration judges, and according to data collected by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, the average asylum-denial rate among those eight judges was just over 92%. The denial rate for each of those eight judges ranged from 83.5% to 96.8%.

The average asylum-denial rate for immigration courts nationally is 63.1%, according to TRAC.

Asylum-denial rates aren’t perfect metrics; controlling asylum law varies by circuit, and the viability of asylum claims can vary based on location. New York’s immigration courts for instance, tend to see more asylum claims from Chinese citizens fleeing political oppression, which are more frequently successful, while courts near detention centers may see harder-to-win claims from longtime U.S. residents with less access to counsel.

However, Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360 that no one deciding cases fairly could have a 90% asylum denial rate.

“You’re looking to deny cases at that point,” he said.

The one recent Trump administration BIA hire who wasn’t previously an immigration judge had been a trial attorney at the Justice Department, while many of the other former judges had prior experience at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or its predecessor agency.

One, V. Stuart Couch, was previously a senior prosecutor for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“There’s overall just a lack of diversity on the immigration judge bench, which is deeply concerning,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I think the mark of justice is the idea that decision makers come from a diverse background.”

A hire to the BIA announced earlier this month, Philip J. Montante Jr., has come under fire not only for a sky-high asylum-denial rate — 96.3% — but for a history of ethics complaints.

In 2014, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Judge Montante’s handling of an immigration case was “inappropriate” after an attorney accused him of showing bias when deciding a client’s case.

In March, not long before his promotion to the BIA was announced, the New York Civil Liberties Union accused Judge Montante in a proposed class action in federal court of denying detained immigrants’ bond requests nearly universally.

According to the advocacy organization, Judge Montante rejected 95% of bond requests between March 2019 and February 2020, bringing him within the top five lowest bond grant rates among the more than 200 immigration judges nationwide.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Suzanne’s excellent article, with more quotes from my fellow members of the NDPA, Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Laura Lynch, at the above link. I have been told that this article is “outside” the Law360 “paywall,” so you should be able to read it even if you don’t have a subscription.

I find the Article III Courts’ recognition of the Due Process travesty going on in individual cases, while they ignore the systemic unfairness that makes a mockery out of the Due Process Clause of our Constitution, the rule of law, our entire justice system, and humanity itself, perhaps the most disturbing institutional failure under the Trump regime. While Article III Judges are “shocked and offended” by contemptuous actions directed at them in particular cases, they remain willfully “tone deaf” to the reality of our dysfunctional and biased Immigration Courts and their impact on “real human lives.” ☠️

This is how individuals seeking justice and the courageous lawyers representing them, many serving at minimal or no compensation to inject a modicum of integrity into our system, are treated every day. Not every wronged individual has the ability to reach the Article IIIs.

And, given the Article IIIs failure to take the courageous, systemic steps necessary to stop abuses of migrants, the Trump regime has “taken it to a new level” by coming up with various illegal schemes and gimmicks to keep individuals seeking asylum from even getting a hearing in Immigration Court. Due Process? Fundamental Fairness? Rule of Law? No way!

Yet, this unfolds before us daily as the Article IIIs basically “twiddle their collective thumbs” 👎🏻 and “nibble around the edges” of a monumental Constitutional disaster and blot on the humanity and integrity of our nation and our own souls. The complicity starts with the Supremes who have “passed” on a number of critical opportunities to “just say no” to blatant violations of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Refugee Act of 1980, international human rights conventions, and misuse and clear abuse of “emergency authority” to achieve a White Nationalist, racist agenda.

In other words, the Supremes’ majority is knowingly and intentionally encouraging the regime’s program of “Dred Scottification” — dehumanization or “de-personification” before the law — of “the other.” This disgusting and fundamentally un-American “resurrection and enabling” of a “21st Century Jim Crow Regime” might be “in vogue” with the “J.R. Five” and their right-wing compatriots right now. But, they are squarely on the “wrong side of history.” Eventually, the “truth will out,” and they will be judged accordingly!👎🏻

That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-11-20

TIMING IS EVERYTHING: DURING CRISIS, BIA MAKES TIME FOR A LITTLE GRATUITOUS CRUELTY: What Could Be Better During Worldwide Pandemic & Humanitarian Disaster Than An Attempt To Narrow The Criteria For Cancellation & Deport To Guatemala A Long-Time Resident With Five U.S.C. Kids, Three With Health Issues, & An LPR Mother With Hypertension? — Matter of J-J-G, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1264601/download

Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020)

BIA HEADNOTE:

1) The exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal is based on a cumulative consideration of all hardship factors, but to the extent that a claim is based on the health of a qualifying relative, an applicant needs to establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and, if he or she is accompanying the applicant to the country of removal, that adequate medical care for the claimed condition is not reasonably available in that country.

(2) The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent did not establish eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate that his qualifying relatives will experience hardship, including medical, economic, and emotional hardship, that rises to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual.

PANEL: MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman; CREPPY and CASSIDY, Appellate Immigration Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Garry D. Malphrus, Acting Chairman

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

Getting beyond the BIA’s disingenuously rosey description of life in Guatemala, here’s what really happens to families sent back to Guatemala in the “time of plague.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/02/deported-coronavirus-ice-family-separations?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Here’s an excerpt:

María looked for work as a waitress as soon as she arrived. She knocked on the doors of 15 restaurants and was rejected each time. “Right now, no one is hiring workers, they’re firing people,” María said. Under the lockdown, she has had to put her search on hold.

María’s options in Guatemala are limited, particularly since it is not safe for her to go back to her home town. She and her little girl fled Guatemala for the US in late 2018 after the same gang that murdered María’s entire family over a land dispute, including the little girl’s mother, killed María’s partner and shot at María. Last summer, a US immigration judge found María’s account credible but decided her case did not meet the narrow legal standard for asylum. María filed an appeal but could no longer endure being locked up away from her niece. Because she was not the girl’s biological mother, Ice refused to release her from detention to reunite the family. After nearly a year apart, María requested deportation with the hope she and the girl could return together.

“It was notably easier for Ice to concede the bona fides of the relationship between María and her niece when removal to Guatemala was the goal,” said Suzannah Maclay, María’s attorney.

‘It is beyond cruel’: Ice refuses to reunite girl with the only family she has left

María was craving freedom after so long in detention but still finds herself spending her days inside. She wants her niece to go to school and get the education she never got. She feels restless, unable to start building a better life for them both. “I can’t do anything,” she said.

She believes the gang that murdered her family still wants to kill her, and she is always fearful they will discover she is back. She doesn’t want her niece to grow up alone. She tries to give the girl a sense of security, but the truth is hard to hide. “Why did they send us here?” the girl asked her upon arriving in Guatemala. “It’s too dangerous.”

As María and her child focus on day-to-day survival, they are also trying to heal from the trauma of their separation. Sometimes the girl tells María about foster care in New York. The stories are hard to hear. The girl describes getting her hands slapped when she touched things or being scolded in restaurants. “They humiliated her,” María said.

“Mami, I missed you so much,” the girl tells her. “I don’t ever want to be apart again.” María responds with a promise: “This won’t happen again.”

Now, a real appellate court, with qualified judges acting independently, might have used this as an opportunity to direct that Immigration Court hearings in all “non-criminal” cancellation of removal cases be deferred until such time as we can understand what is actually happening in Guatemala and other countries after the worldwide pandemic is brought under control.

After all, the situation is rapidly evolving. Or, I should say devolving! What’s the purpose of holding “trials” on conditions in foreign nations that are likely to change materially on a weekly or even daily basis?

Just look at the difference between the impact of the coronavirus in the United States one month ago and what is happening today. A month ago, folks were strolling the beaches of Florida and our President was basically minimizing the potential impact. Now there are over 10 million Americans out of work, three-fourths of the country under “stay at home” orders (except for Immigration Court), with nearly 200,000 reported cases, and “best case” predictions of several hundred thousand deaths!

So, why would any rational person think, like the BIA does, that things will be “hunky dory” for those deported to Guatemala, particularly if they choose to take their U.S.C. children? Why would a poor corrupt country with a limited economy and few resources fare better than the world’s richest nation in weathering this crisis? When hospitals are breaking down all over the U.S., why would health care be readily available to recent returnees in Guatemala? With 10 million out of work here, why would jobs to support a family of five be readily available in Guatemala? The BIA’s decision in this case is as “counterfactual” as it is needlessly cruel!

Looking at it from a factual, legal, public health, or humanitarian viewpoint, the BIA’s timing and decision in this case were totally irresponsible.

We need an independent U.S. Immigration Court with better, more responsible, and more humane judges.

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

PWS

04-02-20

LATEST OUTRAGE FROM FALLS CHURCH: BIA IGNORES FACTS, ABUSES DISCRETION TO DENY BOND TO ASYLUM SEEKER: Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020)

Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020)

https://go.usa.gov/xdzDv

BIA HEADNOTE:

The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent was a flight risk and denied his request for a custody redetermination where, although he had a pending application for asylum, he had no family, employment, or community ties and no probable path to obtain lawful status so as to warrant his release on bond.

PANEL: BIA Appellate Immigraton Judges MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman; LIEBOWITZ, Board Member; MORRIS, Temporary Board Member.

OPINION BY: Acting Chairman Judge Garry D. Malphrus

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

In a real court, with fair and impartial judges who follow the law and respect facts, this should have been a “no-brainer.”

The Government’s own statistics show that represented asylum applicants released on bond show up for hearings nearly 100% of the time, regardless of “likely outcome.” https://immigrationcourtside.com/?s=Asylum+Seekers+Appear. The respondent is a represented asylum seeker from Honduras without any criminal record or record of failures to appear. He passed the “credible fear” process. He has friend with whom he can live in the U.S. while pursuing his case. He comes from a country, Honduras, with known horrible conditions that even in this time of intentionally biased administrative anti-asylum “law” produces more than 1,000 asylum grants in Immigration Court annually, according to FY 2019 statistics from EOIR.

His case apparently is based on his status as a gay man in Honduras. According to the U.S. State Department’s 2019 Country Report, this claim has a very good chance of succeeding:

Nevertheless, social discrimination against LGBTI persons persisted, as did physical violence. Local media and LGBTI human rights NGOs reported an increase in the number of killings of LGBTI persons during the year. Impunity for such crimes was a problem, as was the impunity rate for all types of crime. According to the Violence Observatory, of the 317 cases since 2009 of hate crimes and violence against members of the LGBTI population, 92 percent had gone unpunished.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/honduras/

Clearly, he should have been released on a minimal bond, particularly given the potentially health-threatening conditions in DHS detention during the pandemic.

Thus, the BIA’s “no bond” decision in this case was an outrageous misconstruction of the commonly known facts as well as a misapplication of basic bond law. In other words, an “abuse of discretion.” At some point after the justice system resumes functioning, I hope that a “real” Federal court will “stick it to” this disgracefully disingenuous performance by this BIA panel.

We need “regime change” and an Article I U.S. Immigration Court staffed with fair and impartial judges at all levels, with “real life” expertise, who actually understand and will fairly apply asylum laws.

Due Process Forever! Patently Unfair And Biased Immigration “Courts” Never!

PWS

03-18-20

REWRITING HISTORY: BIA DISEMBOWELS ACOSTA, READS SEMINAL “PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP” — “LANDOWNERS” — OUT OF REFUGEE PROTECTION — Matter of E-R-A-L- — What Would Millions of Kulaks Exterminated By Stalin Think Of The “Towered Ones” Tone Deaf, Ahistorical Approach To Human Lives?

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1247176/download

Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020)

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) An alien’s status as a landowner does not automatically render that alien a member of a particular social group for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal.

(2) To establish a particular social group based on landownership, an alien must demonstrate by evidence in the record that members of the proposed group share an immutable characteristic and that the group is defined with particularity and is perceived to be socially distinct in the society in question.

(3) The respondent’s proposed particular social groups—comprised of landowners and landowners who resist drug cartels in Guatemala—are not valid based on the evidence In the record.

PANEL: MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman; CREPPY and HUNSUCKER, Appellate Immigration Judges

OPINION BY: Acting Chairman Judge Garry D. Malphrus

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

I’ll leave a full analysis of this anti-asylum monstrosity to others more scholarly and patient. Here are a few “off the cuff” observations:

The BIA basically “blows off” contrary Circuit Court precedents. See, e.g., Córdoba v. Holder, 476 F. 3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (wealthy educated landowners and businesspeople); N.L.A. v. Holder, 743 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2014) (landowners in. Colombia);
The BIA’s assertion that “landowners” must have “similar circumstances” conflates the requirements of a “particular social group” with “nexus.” Obviously, in some circumstances it won’t make any difference whether one is a big or small landowner, urban or rural. In other situations it might. If only certain landowners are persecuted, that is an issue of causation or “nexus,” not an element of the particular social group;
While “landownership” might not be “immutable,” it certainly is “fundamental to identity” in most situations. The BIA’s assertion to the contrary is absurd. Indeed, “landownership” was one of the keys to suffrage when our country was founded and has been one of the most clearly recognized and dearly held distinctions in human history. Even today, most individuals in the world who are fortunate enough to own land identify with it and are not likely to surrender it lightly;
The idea that a landowner should reasonably be expected to surrender his or her land is equally absurd, particularly in the context of surrendering it to drug cartels for their use. What truly perverted policy extremes the BIA engages in to avoid their responsibility to grant life-saving legal protection to the persecuted;
As pointed out in my “screaming headline,” throughout history, only religion or ethnicity might equal landownership as a basis for class identification, political standing, and persecution. The BIA’s obviously result-oriented decision in this case is both inane and ahistorical;
Don’t kid yourself! Notwithstanding some disingenuous suggestions to the contrary, no landowner will ever be recognized as within a “particular social group” and granted asylum under this decision. The BIA is encouraging Immigration Judges to “find any reason to deny” all such cases. And if the judge doesn’t deny it, the BIA will.
Will the Article IIIs continue to allow and facilitate these life-threatening perversions of the law, logic, facts, and history by the BIA and the Trump regime? Maybe. Maybe not. Only time will tell. But, history will record and “out” the twisted logic and intellectual dishonesty employed by the regime and the BIA to unlawfully deny protection to those in need.

Due Process Forever; Ahistorical Nonsense Never!

PWS

02-12-20

BIA: ANY OL’ NOTICE IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ENDANGERED ASYLUM SEEKERS ORBITED TO MEXICO & BEYOND – MATTER OF J.J. RODRIGUEZ — How Judges At All Levels Are Abandoning The Rule Of Law & Enabling Abuse Of the Most Vulnerable!

http://go.usa.gov/xdDRq

Matter of J.J. RODRIGUEZ, 27 I&N Dec. 762 (BIA 2020)

PANEL: MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman; CREPPY and CASSIDY, Board Members.

OPINION BY: Acting Chairman Malphrus

BIA HEADNOTE:

Where the Department of Homeland Security returns an alien to Mexico to await an immigration hearing pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols and provides the alien with sufficient notice of that hearing, an Immigration Judge should enter an in absentia order of removal if the alien fails to appear for the hearing.

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

Let’s put this in context!

This is an unrepresented asylum seeker “orbited” back to dangerous and chaotic conditions in Mexico. We don’t even know if he’s still alive.

He’s a native of Honduras. Obviously, he fled Honduras and sought admission to the United States for a reason. His only chance of not being returned to Honduras would be to show up for his hearing. Therefore, he would have no obvious reason for failing to appear at his hearing if he were able to do so.

In the past, in cases such as this, the DHS would have either: 1) released the respondent on bond to a known address in the United States that they would have recorded and furnished to EOIR; or 2) detained the respondent.

In the former case, the DHS would have been obliged to provide EOIR with a facially valid address to serve notices at the time of filing the Notice to Appear with the court. In the latter case, the DHS would be responsible for producing the respondent for all scheduled hearings.

Instead, in this case, the DHS chose under the mis-named “Migrant Protection Protocols” (“MPP”) (which are actually designed to reject rather than protect migrants) to abdicate its normal duties and send the respondent to an unknown location in Mexico without any reasonable safeguards to insure access to the hearing process or to counsel.

The DHS has no practical idea where they sent the respondent in Mexico and no reasonable method for contacting him or retrieving him.

Incredibly, and apparently with a straight face, the BIA lists the address of the respondent as “Domicilio Conocido, Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.” That’s roughly the equivalent of “Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA.” Good luck with that!

How would a U.S. lawyer get in touch with the respondent? How would the Immigration Court notify the respondent of the ever-changing times and dates of hearings? How would the DHS serve the respondent with notices of evidence? Obviously, they wouldn’t.

And, if the respondent failed to appear for a non-existent hearing, he undoubtedly would be “in absentia’d” under the BIA’s warped view of what is fair and reasonable. This whole MPP has obviously been constructed by DHS, with EOIR complicity, as an exercise in naked bad faith and intentional and unreasonable inconvenience to the respondents caught up in it.

In formalizing the MPP, the DHS could have worked cooperatively with the Mexican Government and the private bar to guarantee the respondent’s statutory rights to: 1) return to the United States for his removal hearing; and 2) reasonable access to pro bono counsel in the United States. The DHS chose not to do either, thereby leaving these statutory obligations potentially unachievable for this respondent. Through the BIA’s mental gymnastics, the DHS’s intentional indolence becomes the respondent’s problem!

It’s common knowledge that individuals returned to Mexico under the MPP are often forced to live on the streets and are in constant danger of kidnaping, extortion, robbery, rape, assault, starvation, and exploitation while in Mexico awaiting hearings.

There also are credible reports that some individuals returned under the MPP are sent to the interior of Mexico, to the Southern Border of Mexico, or returned to their home countries, thus making it impossible for them to appear for their scheduled hearings. See,e.g., https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-15/buses-to-nowhere-mexico-transports-migrants-with-u-s-court-dates-to-its-far-south, “Mexico sends asylum seekers south — with no easy way to return for U.S. court dates.”

The DHS makes no effort to ascertain what happens to those sent back to Mexico under the MPP and takes no steps to insure that they are able to return to the U.S. border for their hearings.

The DHS has provided no reason to believe that individuals “relocated” after returning to Mexico either understand what is happening to their hearing rights or have any realistic mechanism for retuning.

Under these circumstances, there is a rebuttable presumption that individuals returned under the MPP who do not appear for immigration hearings have been denied both their statutory right to the hearing process and their statutory right to representation by counsel of their own choosing at no expense to the Government. These statutory rights are integral to insuring due process in the removal hearing process.

The DHS may rebut this presumption by showing either: 1) they made reasonable efforts to locate this respondent in Mexico; or 2) there are reasonable procedures in place with the Mexican Government and with pro bono providers to provide reasonable access to hearings and pro bono counsel that were available to the respondent in this case.

Since the DHS has made no such showing in this case, the Immigration Judge’s decision to terminate the proceedings without an in absentia order is reasonable and proper under the law. Indeed, it is the only lawful outcome.

This is especially true because there doesn’t appear to be any effective way an individual who was inhibited from return to the United States from Mexico for his hearing can seek to reopen an in absentia hearing from Mexico or some other country to which he might have been “orbited” by the Mexican Government.

Indeed, the process followed by the DHS in this case appears to be an intentional derogation of the normal statutory right to a stay of removal from the United States to which an individual challenging an in absentia removal order ordinarily would be legally entitled.

This is, of course, without prejudice to the DHS reinstituting removal proceedings in the future if the respondent is encountered at the border or in the United States.

Sadly, the BIA isn’t the only tribunal to “blow off” their statutory and constitutional responsibilities.

The feckless judges of the Ninth Court of Appeals “took a dive” on their oaths of office by “greenlighting” the illegal (not to mention totally dishonest and immoral) MPP by vacating the District Court’s properly issued preliminary injunction in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan.

As a result of the Ninth Circuit’s dereliction of duty, thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers have been irreparably injured.

Eventually, the MPP will go down as not only fraudulent and invidiously racially motivated, but as one of the most horrible, and preventable, failures of justice in modern American jurisprudence. It will rank right up there with Dred Scott., the Fugitive Slave Laws, “separate but equal,” Chinese Exclusion Laws, and Japanese internment of supposedly bygone ages. Dehumanization, exploitation, and abuse of Government authority is a common theme. It will indelibly stain the reputations of every bureaucrat and judge who touched it without “just saying no.”

While it might already be too late for many of the innocent victims of MPP, no amount of legal gobbledygook or “alternative facts” will save those responsible for initiating, carrying out, and enabling the MPP and similar violations of legal, constitutional, and human rights, and well as human morality, from the judgments of history!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

01-31-20

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST: BIA Appellate Immigration Judge Linda Wendtland To Retire

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust…

—“Another One Bites The Dust” by Queen

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST: BIA Appellate Immigration Judge Linda Wendtland To Retire

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive for Courtside

Alexandria, VA, Jan. 16, 2019. Appellate Immigration Judge Linda Wendtland will soon retire from the BIA. Acting Chair Garry D. Malphrus made the announcement to judges and staff.

Judge Wendtland is the fourth veteran appellate jurist to leave the BIA recently, following the retirements of Judges Patricia Cole, John Guendelsberger, and Molly Kendall Clark at the end of 2019. Additionally, former BIA Chair Judge David Neal retired suddenly in October.

Thus, the Trump regime’s aggressive effort to “dumb down” and weaponize the U.S. Immigration Courts as a means of depriving migrants of any semblance of due process of law appears to be taking its toll on our nation’s highest administrative immigration tribunal. The BIA now has six vacancies among its 21 authorized judges, including the Chair. Based on recent hiring, we can expect only candidates with established pro-enforcement records and inordinately high rates of asylum denial to be appointed to BIA judgeships by Attorney General Barr.

Judge Wendtland was appointed in 2008 by Attorney General Mukasey, following a long career as a senior litigator in the Office of Immigration Litigation in the DOJ’s Civil Division. She is generally regarded as scholarly, analytical, and occasionally willing to take positions favoring migrants rather than DHS in appellate decisions, notwithstanding her government litigation background. The qualities of scholarship, impartial analysis, and decisional independence appear to have fallen “out of vogue” in the selection of Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate levels in the Trump regime’s DOJ.

Indeed, and shockingly to those of us in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions publicly emphasized that Immigration Judges should be “partners” with DHS enforcement while he spread false, unsupported narratives about widespread asylum fraud and “dirty” immigration lawyers. Many found these biased statements of expected “judicial subservience” to a highly politicized and controversial immigration enforcement agenda to be astounding, particularly since most of the “fraud” that has come to light recently relates to the regime’s inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and denial of their due process and legal rights to apply for protection in the United States. All of the actions to date by Attorney General Barr show that he shares the same biased, enforcement skewed view of the Immigration Courts as mere appendages of DHS enforcement as did his predecessor.

Judge Wendtland’s departure will be yet another blow to the few remnants of EOIR’s once proud, but now forgotten and despised, “vision” of “through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Sadly, that’s now become a cruel joke for many endangered asylum seekers being rejected at our Southern Border without any semblance of fairness or due process whatsoever.

Thanks for your service, Judge Wendtland, and best wishes in the future.

PWS

01-16-20

GREAT MOMENTS IN U.S. HISTORY WITH HEATHER COX RICHARDSON & AL KAMEN: Reliving The “Brooks Brothers Riots” of ‘00! — “Al Gore thought the recount was a high-minded policy debate. He didn’t understand that it was an extension of a war, of a political campaign,” Said Recently Convicted Trumpster Roger Stone!

American Historian Heather Cox Richardson writes in her daily e-mail for today:

A friend read the proofs for me, and asked why I had not mentioned the Brooks Brothers Riot. I had no good answer, so today I went back to the sources.

For those of you who don’t remember everything that happened in those crazy days when we were all trying to figure out what the heck had happened in the 2000 election, the Brooks Brothers Riot was made up of a bunch of Republican operatives, many of whom had flown in from other states, who gathered on November 22, 2000 at the Miami-Dade polling station where Florida officials were attempting to recount the confusing ballots, to insist that the Democrats were trying to steal the election. Their noise and outrage helped to get the recount called off. As I was reading through the articles about the riot, the name Roger Stone jumped out at me. That name meant nothing to me in 2000, but it sure does today.

This is the same Roger Stone who advised the Trump campaign and who has just been convicted for lying to Congress about his connections to Wikileaks before the 2016 election. Wikileaks worked to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and promote Donald Trump by dumping emails that Russia had hacked from the Democratic National Committee. Stone is a no-holds-barred political operative who got his start on the 1972 reelection campaign of Richard Nixon, whose face is tattooed on Stone’s back (no, I’m not kidding) and who, after Nixon’s fall, went on to start a political consulting firm with Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman from June to August 2016 (who is also now a convicted felon), and Lee Atwater, the man behind the viciously racist Willie Horton ad that sank Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988 (Atwater apologized for his actions as he was dying).

At the time of the Brooks Brother’s Riot, Stone claimed he was there “as a volunteer,” and “knew nothing about the protesters other than the fact I approve of Republicans expressing their First Amendment rights.”

This was a lie. In reality, Stone was a key operative, eavesdropping on the Democratic recount team with a walkie-talkie and determined to undermine the recount to get Bush in office, regardless of the popular vote or the real outcome in Florida. “What I admire about Nixon was his resilience,” he later told a reporter, “It’s attack, attack, attack. Al Gore thought the recount was a high-minded policy debate. He didn’t understand that it was an extension of a war, of a political campaign.”

That comment jumped out to me, just as Stone’s name had. That’s it, isn’t it? While the rest of us believe in the rules of democracy, people like Stone and Manafort see political engagement as a war in which winning is everything. It is worth lying, cheating, and stealing, because the goal is not better government, the goal is to win, and then to use that victory to reward your friends and hurt your enemies. After working for Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, Stone and Manafort advised dictators. Then they turned their hands to the Trump campaign. Their approach to politics appears by now to be embedded in today’s Republican Party. Jennifer Rubin, a conservative writer at the Washington Post, had a story today entitled “The Party of Lying Liars,” in which she laid out a litany of Republican whoppers, designed solely to appeal their base and thus stay in office.”

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

Heather’s write-up inspired me to dig a little deeper “into the archives.” Here’s what I found:

A picture of “The Rioters” (note the diversity):

And a 2005 article by Al Kamen, then with the Washington Post, with a “numbered key” to “to Rioters of note:”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html

Miami ‘Riot’ Squad: Where Are They Now?

By Al Kamen

Monday, January 24, 2005; Page A13

As we begin the second Bush administration, let’s take a moment to reflect upon one of the most historic episodes of the 2000 battle for the White House — the now-legendary “Brooks Brothers Riot” at the Miami-Dade County polling headquarters.

This was when dozens of “local protesters,” actually mostly Republican House aides from Washington, chanted “Stop the fraud!” and “Let us in!” when the local election board tried to move the re-counting from an open conference room to a smaller space.

With help from their GOP colleagues and others, we identified some of these Republican heroes of yore in a photo of the event.

Some of those pictured have gone on to other things, including stints at the White House. For example, Matt Schlapp, No. 6, a former House aide and then a Bush campaign aide, has risen to be White House political director. Garry Malphrus, No. 2 in the photo, a former staff director of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice, is now deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. And Rory Cooper, No. 3, who was at the National Republican Congressional Committee, later worked at the White House Homeland Security Council and was seen last week working for the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

Here’s what some of the others went on to do:

No. 1. Tom Pyle, who had worked for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), went private sector a few months later, getting a job as director of federal affairs for Koch Industries.

No. 7. Roger Morse, another House aide, moved on to the law and lobbying firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. “I was also privileged to lead a team of Republicans to Florida to help in the recount fight,” he told a legal trade magazine in a 2003 interview.

No. 8. Duane Gibson, an aide on the House Resources Committee, was a solo lobbyist and formerly with the Greenberg Traurig lobby operation. He is now with the Livingston Group as a consultant.

No. 9. Chuck Royal was and still is a legislative assistant to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a former House member.

No. 10. Layna McConkey Peltier, who had been a Senate and House aide and was at Steelman Health Strategies during the effort, is now at Capital Health Group.

(We couldn’t find No. 4, Kevin Smith, a former GOP House aide who later worked with Voter.com, or No. 5, Steven Brophy, a former GOP Senate aide and then at consulting firm KPMG. If you know what they are doing these days, please e-mail shackelford@washpost.comso we can update our records.)

Sources say the “rioters” proudly note their participation on résumés and in interviews. But while the original hardy band of demonstrators numbered barely a couple of dozen, the numbers apparently have grown with the legend.

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

How to build a great GOP resume!

Interestingly, “Rioter # 2,” Garry D. Malphrus (face partially obscured in the photo) went on to become a U.S. Immigration Judge and later an Appellate Immigration Judge on the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), supposedly the highest administrative tribunal in immigration (although it now functions within the Department of Justice more or less as an extension of DHS Enforcement and Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist, anti-immigrant agenda).

Judge Malphrus was recently named the Acting Chair of the BIA by Billy Barr. Although Barr is a notorious “law enforcement hard liner,” I guess his strong commitment to “law and order” only goes so far.

Got to focus on the “real threats” to our democracy: the Dreamers and other hard working, law abiding, tax paying long-time American residents who are propping up our society and our economy so that Barr, Stone, Trump, and the former rioters can “live the good life.” And certainly, insuring the death or abuse of as many asylum applicants and kids as possible should be high on the list of worthy expenditures of our taxpayer dollars and moral capital.

The moral: Liberals get in trouble for rioting; conservatives get promoted!

Meanwhile, who knows? Could the Supremes be the next stop for Judge Malphrus?

PWS

11-18-19

BIA NEWS: Judge Garry D. Malphrus Leapfrogs Into Acting Chair Job, As Two Of The Remaining “Voices Of Reason” Bite The Dust At Barr’s “Newly Packed” Falls Church Station Stop On The “Trump Deportation Express!”

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive for immigrationcourtside.com

Nov . 7, 2019. In a little noticed move, “Trump Chump” Attorney General Billy Barr in October advanced conservative GOP appointed Appellate Immigration Judge Garry D. Malphrus to the position of Acting Chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Falls Church Virginia. The move followed the sudden reputedly essentially forced “retirement” of former Chair David Neal in September.

Notably, Barr bypassed long-time BIA Vice Chair and three-decade veteran of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) (which “houses” the BIA) Judge Charles “Chuck” Adkins-Blanch to elevate Judge Malphrus. Increasingly, particularly in the immigration area, the Trump Administration has circumvented bureaucratic chains of command and normal succession protocols for “acting” positions in favor of installing those committed to their restrictionist political program.

Like former Chair Neal, Vice Chair Adkins-Blanch has long been rumored not to be on the “Restrictionist A Team” at EOIR. Apparently, that’s because he occasionally votes in favor of recognizing migrants’ due process rights and for their fair and impartial treatment under the immigration laws.

For example, although generally known as a low-key “middle of the road jurist,” Vice Chair Adkins-Blanch authored the key BIA precedent Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014). There, the BIA recognized the right of abused women, particularly from the Northern Triangle area of Central America, to receive protection under our asylum, and immigration laws. That decision was widely hailed as both appropriate and long overdue by immigration scholars and advocates and saved numerous lives and futures during the period it was in effect. It also promoted judicial efficiency by encouraging ICE to not oppose well-documented domestic violence cases.

Nevertheless, in a highly controversial 2018 decision, White Nationalist restrictionist Attorney General Jeff Sessions dismantled A-R-C-G-. This was an an overt attempt to keep brown-skinned refugees, particularly women, from qualifying for asylum. Matter of A-B –, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018). Session’s decision was widely panned by immigration scholars and ripped apart by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, the only Article III Judge to address it in detail to date, in Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018). Nevertheless, Matter of A-B- remains a precedent in Immigration Court.

In addition to the Malphrus announcement, sources have told “Courtside” that veteran BIA Appellate Immigration Judges John Guendelsberger and Molly Kendall Clark will be retiring at the end of December. While the current BIA intentionally has been configured over the past three Administrations to have nothing approaching a true “liberal wing,” Judges Guendelsberger and Kendall Clark were generally perceived as fair, scholarly, and willing to support and respect individual respondents’ rights, at least in unpublished, non-precedential decisions.

This was during an era when the BIA as a whole was moving in an ever more restrictive direction, seldom publishing precedent decisions favoring or vindicating the rights of individuals over DHS enforcement. Additionally, under Sessions and now Barr, the BIA has increasingly been pushed aside and given the role of “restrictionist enforcer” rather than “expert tribunal.” The most significant policies are rewritten in favor of hard-line enforcement and issued as “precedents” by the Attorney General, sometimes without any input or consultation from the BIA at all.

The BIA’s new role evidently is to insure that Immigration Judges aggressively use these restrictionist precedents to quickly remove individuals without regard to due process. Apparently, this new role also includes promptly reversing any grants of relief to individuals, thus insuring that ICE Enforcement wins no matter what, and actively discouraging individuals from daring to use our justice system to assert their rights. To this end, Barr’s six most recent judicial appointments to the BIA, part of an obvious “court-packing scheme,” are all Immigration Judges with asylum denial rates far in excess of the national average and reputations for being unsympathetic, sometimes also rude and demeaning, to respondents and their attorneys.

Indeed, adding insult to injury, Barr’s latest regulatory proposal would give a non-judicial official, the EOIR Director, decisional and precedent setting authority over the BIA in certain cases. This directly undoes some of the intentional separation of administrative and judicial functions that had been one of the objectives of EOIR.

Judge Guendelsberger was originally appointed to the BIA by the late Attorney General Janet Reno in 1995. However, as a member (along with me) of the notorious due process oriented “Gang of Five,” he often wrote or joined dissents from some of the BIA majority’s unduly restrictive asylum jurisprudence. Consequently, Judge Guendelsberger and the rest of the “Gang” were “purged” from the BIA by Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2003.

Reassigned to “re-education camp” in the bowels of the BIA, Judge Guendelsberger worked his way back and was “rehabilitated” and reappointed to the BIA by Attorney General Eric Holder in August 2009. This followed several years as a “Temporary Board Member,” (“TBM”). The TBM is a clever device used to conceal the dysfunction caused by the Ashcroft purge by quietly designating senior BIA staff as judges to overcome the shortage caused by the purge and irrational BIA “downsizing” used to cover up the political motive for the purge. TBMs are also disenfranchised from voting at en banc, thus insuring a more compliant and less influential temporary judicial workforce.

Judge Guendelsberger was the only member of the “Gang of Five” to achieve rehabilitation. However, his former “due process fire” was gone. In his “judicial reincarnation” he seldom dissented from BIA precedents. He even joined and authored decisions restricting the ability of refugees to qualify for asylum based on persecution from gangs that the governments of the Northern Triangle were unwilling or unable to control or were actually using to achieve political ends.

Indeed, his later public judicial pronouncements bore little resemblance to the courageous and often forward-looking jurisprudence with which he was associated during his “prior judicial life” with the “Gang of Five.” Nevertheless, he continued to save lives whenever possible “under the radar screen” in his unpublished decisions, which actually constitute the vast bulk of a BIA judge’s work.

Judge Kendall Clark was finally appointed to a permanent BIA Appellate Judgeship by Attorney General Loretta Lynch in February 2016, following a lengthy series of appointments as a TBM. Perhaps because of her disposition to recognize respondents’ rights in an era of sharp rightward movement at the BIA, she authored few published precedents.

However, she did write or participate in a number of notable unpublished cases that saved lives at the time and advanced the overall cause of due process. She also had the distinction of serving as a Senior Legal Advisor to four different BIA Chairs (including me) from 1995 to 2016.

Thus, the BIA continues its downward spiral from a tribunal devoted to excellence, best practices, due process, and fundamental fairness to one whose primary function is to serve as a “rubber stamp” for White Nationalist restrictionist enforcement initiatives by DHS. The voices of reasonable, thoughtful, scholarly jurists like Judges Guendelsberger and Kendall Clark will be missed.

They are some of the last disappearing remnants of what EOIR could have been under different circumstances. Their departure also shows why an independent Article I Judiciary, with unbiased judges appointed because of their reputations for fairness, scholarship, timeliness, teamwork, and demonstrated respect for the statutory and constitutional rights of individuals, is the only solution for the current dysfunctional mess at EOIR.

PWS

11-07-19

BAD LAW: BIA Evades Supremes Again To Aid DHS Enforcement — Matter of NAVARRO GUADARRAMA, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019)

https://go.usa.gov/xmutz

Matter of NAVARRO GUADARRAMA, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019)

BIA HEADNOTE:

Where an alien has been convicted of violating a State drug statute that includes a controlled substance that is not on the Federal controlled substances schedules, he or she must establish a realistic probability that the State would actually apply the language of the statute to prosecute conduct involving that substance in order to avoid the immigration consequences of such a conviction. Matter of Ferreira, 26 I&N Dec. 415 (BIA 2014), reaffirmed.

PANEL: Appellate Immigration Judges MALPHRUS, MANN, and KELLY

OPINION BY: Judge Ana L. Mann

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

Seems to me the BIA got this one all wrong. The Florida statute was amended specifically to broaden the definition of “marihuana” to include things that aren’t marihuana. How can the BIA say that there is no chance of prosecution? Since stalks, etc. are now “marihuana” it wouldn’t even be a defense to point out that you just possessed stalks.

The BIA has twisted item the concept of “far fetched” to include things that the legislature clearly contemplated when amending the statute.

The Supreme’s decision in Moncrieffe was clearly intended to be ameliorative. But the BIA has turned it into a “sword” for DHS. Moreover, since “stalks only” would no longer be a defense, why would any state case discuss it?

Generally the “Ferreira test” is impossible for any unrepresented respondent to meet. Indeed, I doubt that most detention center judges would have access to the necessary materials to research something so technical.

As my good friend and colleague in the Roundtable of Retired Judges, Judge Jeff Chase, added:

The Supreme Court and some of the circuits created case law that was designed to be clearer – i.e. it doesn’t matter what the respondent actually did, or what the actual sentence was, just look at the least culpable behavior covered by the statute.And the Supremes and some circuits obviously intended it to be ameliorative, given the harsh consequences of the immigration laws.

The BIA sees its mission as trying to render those higher court decisions meaningless.

How far we have come from an organization supposdly dedicated to using teamwork and best practices to “guarantee fairness and Due Process for all.”

PWS

06-16-19

BIA HEADNOTE:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

REPEAT AFTER ME: Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Tell The Biden Team That The EOIR Clown 🤡 Show Has Got To Go!

Due Process Forever! Clownocracy, never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Patently Unfair And Biased Immigration “Courts” Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST: BIA Appellate Immigration Judge Linda Wendtland To Retire

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive for Courtside

Related posts:

Related posts:

BIA NEWS: Judge Garry D. Malphrus Leapfrogs Into Acting Chair Job, As Two Of The Remaining “Voices Of Reason” Bite The Dust At Barr’s “Newly Packed” Falls Church Station Stop On The “Trump Deportation Express!”

Related posts:

Related posts: