"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”
“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!
Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4th Circuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.
Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!
Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.
Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.
Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases?Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”
In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.
So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.
What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!
Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7
Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong! Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.
Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:
“In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”
“Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”
“We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”
There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.
Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!
For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!
In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.
Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.
Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing. Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!
Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?
This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better! American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!
Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes!
Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!
“Abushagif contends that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address his CAT claim. On that point, he is correct. A CAT “claim is separate from . . . claims for asylum and withholding of removal and should receive separate analytical attention.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906–07 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the BIA must not leave asserted CAT claims unaddressed. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 196 (5th Cir. 2004). The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise. The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 196. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the Board’s addressing Abushagif’s CAT claim.”
The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise.
“Confounding,” but not surprising to any of us who follow the continuing meltdown of justice and callous indifference to the law, truth, and human lives @ Garland’s failed and failing Department of “Justice.”
The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised.
Basically, OIL, argues that even if they had actually addressed CAT, the BIA would still have stiffed the respondent’s claim because that’s what a “programmed to deny for any reason” BIA does. Why bother with a BIA decision when a denial is “predetermined?” Is this really the sad state of due process at Garland’s DOJ? Apparently!
Let’s put this in context. The respondent is from Libya, a country notorious for torture. Here’s an excerpt from the latest (2020) Department of State Country Report on Libya:
While the 2011 Constitutional Declaration and postrevolutionary legislation prohibit such practices, credible sources indicated personnel operating both government and extralegal prisons and detention centers tortured detainees (see section 1.g.). While judicial police controlled some facilities, the GNA continued to rely on armed groups to manage prisons and detention facilities. Furthermore, armed groups, not police, initiated arrests in many instances. An unknown number of individuals were held without judicial authorization in other facilities nominally controlled by the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Defense, or in extralegal
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020
United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
LIBYA 7
facilities controlled by GNA-affiliated armed groups, LNA-affiliated armed groups, and other nonstate actors. Treatment varied from facility to facility and typically was worst at the time of arrest. There were reports of cruel and degrading treatment in government and extralegal facilities, including beatings, administration of electric shocks, burns, and rape. In many instances this torture was reportedly initiated to extort payments from detainees’ families.
Also, the 5th Circuit is generally considered the most conservative and pro-Government Circuit. It is a jurisdiction where the Government has to work hard and really, really screw up to lose an immigration case.
Two of the panel judges in this case are GOP appointees: Judges Engelhardt (Trump), and Smith (Reagan). The third panel member, Judge Higginson is an Obama appointee. Judge Jerry E. Smith, who wrote this opinion, is known as one of the most conservative Federal Judges in America! If these jurists see problems, you can be sure they actually exist!
One thing that unites Federal Judges across the ideological spectrum is dislike of being lied to by DOJ attorneys! Evidently, that’s no longer of concern to Judge Garland now that he is the purveyor, rather than the recipient, of misrepresentations, untruths, and sloppy, unprofessional work from DOJ attorneys!
How travesties like this, that happen at Garland’s DOJ on a daily basis, in “life or death” cases, is acceptable professional judicial performance is beyond understanding!
Additionally, how clearly misrepresenting the facts of record is ethically acceptable performance for OIL attorneys is totally beyond me!
Maybe its time for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to call Judge Garland before them for oversight to examine his continuing mismanagement of EOIR, America’s worst, most backlogged, most blatantly unfair, court system, that has not materially improved during his tenure. They should also inquire as to why he continues to tolerate unethical performance from OIL Attorneys making material misrepresentations to Federal Courts in attempting to defend the indefensible performance of the BIA in immigration litigation. Also, why hasn’t Garland spoken out about the illegal suspension of asylum laws enacted by Congress at our borders? Human lives are at stake here!
The idea that Garland intends to “fix” this problem by throwing 200 new Immigration Judges into this broken, dysfunctional system, without first addressing any of the structural, management, competence, personnel, and institutional bias issues at EOIR is beyond absurd! “Management 101” says you fix the system by rooting out and replacing incompetent and unqualified judges, replacing incompetent managers with competent ones, and fixing the many broken operational pieces of the Immigration Court System before expanding it.
This means, at a minimum, slashing the backlog by getting hundreds of thousands of old, non-priority cases off the docket now, stopping endemic “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR, installing a functional e-filing system, getting competent representation into the Immigration Courts, replacing the current institutionalized “worst practices” with “best practices,” and instituting real judicial training by experts from outside EOIR.
Only then, after the system has been made functional, should it be expanded, if needed. Otherwise, it’s like trying to fix defective automobile production by hiring more workers and speeding up the assembly line, thereby producing more defective vehicles without fixing that which caused the defects in the first place.
This case also shows the critical, life-saving role of pro bono counsel in Immigration Court. Without the heroic efforts ofpro bono publico counsel Alison Caditz and Jeri Leigh Miller, Mr. Abushagif would probably be hanging from a ceiling fan in Libya right now!
Garland indifferent to wrong torture decisions from BIA? Photo by David R. Badger, Creative Commons
I was pleased to see that Judge Smith cited my precedent opinion in Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&B Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) in his opinion. See FN 1. In L-O-G-, we held that “we have been willing to reopen ‘where the new facts alleged, when coupled with the facts already of record, satisfy us that it would be worthwhile to develop the issues further at a plenary hearing on reopening.’” 21 I&N Dec. at 419 (citations omitted).
Yes, folks, there was a time long ago and far away when BIA Chairs actually functioned as appellate judges: participating in cases at both the panel and en banc level, writing decisions, and, where necessary, filing dissents, without regard to “career enhancement.” That was in addition to BIA management duties, being a senior member of EOIR’s executive team, andmany public speaking, writing, and other public information and educational functions.
While today’s BIA and many Immigration Judges routinely ignore Matter of L-O-G- and its important teaching, it remains “good law,” as found by Judge Smith. Practitioners should be citing it in every motion to reopen and insisting that EOIR start following its own precedents, even where they produce results inconsistent with the restrictionist positions urged by DHS or the “round ‘em up and move ‘em out attitudes” that still seem prevalent at Garland’s DOJ.
It’s rather ironic that Federalist Society hero Judge Jerry E. Smith understands me better than Garland’s BIA!
Garland seems uninterested in making the long overdue bold progressive reforms necessary to restore due process, consistency, humanity, and racial justice to our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That means the battle over the next four years is likely to shift to the Article III Courts and Congress to finally get this utterly disgraceful, yet fixable, system back on track! This is also what’s required to save at least some of the vulnerable human lives now being “chewed up and spit out” by Garland’s ☠️ “Deadly Clown Courts” 🤡 and their ethics-challenged OIL defenders!🤮
Hernandez-Perez v. Whitaker, 6th Cir., 12-18-18, Published
PANEL: GUY, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: JUDGE JANE B. STRANCH
KEY QUOTE:
On the other hand, importing Pereira’s holding on the stop-time rule into the jurisdictional context would have unusually broad implications. According to the Government, “almost 100 percent” of NTAs issued during the three years preceding Pereira did not include the time and date of the proceeding. Id. at 2111.
Pereira’s emphatically “narrow” framing, id. at 2110, 2113, counsels in favor of distinguishing between the two contexts. Pereira confronted a specific question: “If the Government serves a noncitizen with a document that is labeled ‘notice to appear,’ but the document fails to specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings, does it trigger the stop-time rule?” Id. at 2110. Hernandez-Perez’s case does not present the same narrow question; no one disputes that he satisfies the ten-year requirement regardless of when the stop- time rule was triggered. We find persuasive the Board’s reasoning that, “[h]ad the Court intended to issue a holding as expansive as the one advanced . . ., presumably it would not have specifically referred to the question before it as being ‘narrow.’” Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 443.
No. 18-3137 Hernandez-Perez v. Whitaker Page 10
Other components of Pereira counsel against applying its NTA rule in the context of jurisdiction. Like the BIA, we find it significant that, in Pereira, “the Court did not purport to invalidate the alien’s underlying removal proceedings or suggest that proceedings should be terminated.” Id.; see also Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012) (requiring courts to examine their own jurisdiction even if the parties “have disclaimed or have not presented” theissue). If Pereira’s holding applied to jurisdiction, there also would not have been jurisdiction in in Pereira itself. But the Court took up, decided, and remanded Pereira without even hinting at the possibility of a jurisdictional flaw.
We agree with the Board that Pereira is an imperfect fit in the jurisdictional context and it does not mandate a different conclusion than the one already reached by this court and all our sister circuits. See Herrera-Orozco, 603 F. App’x at 473–74 (collecting cases). We therefore conclude that jurisdiction vests with the immigration court where, as here, the mandatory information about the time of the hearing, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), is provided in a Notice of Hearing issued after the NTA.
********************************************
Points of interest;
The 6th Circuit is the first circuit to rule on Bermudez-Cota;
The court noted that approximately 100% of the cases commenced by ICE over the past three years did not contain the specific notice of date. time and place of hearing set forth in the statute;
Even assuming that Bermudez is upheld, the way in which cases have been processed by DHS and EOIR has made tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of individuals eligible for “Cancellation of Removal;”
What does this say about the management competency of both agencies?
Contrary to the drift of the BIA and the 6th Circuit, initial proper notice of time, place, and date of hearing is critically important;
Whereas “Notices to Appear” are sometimes served in person, the subsequent “Notice of Hearing” by EOIR never is — this significantly increases the chances for improper “in absentia” hearings based on faulty notice from EOIR;
Most notices in Immigration Court are served manually by regular U.S. Mail, an incredibly error-fraught process given the state of disorder in the Immigration Courts (which has been mindlessly ramped up under Sessions’s gross mismanagement);
Thus, failing to provide accurate initial notice actually greatly increases the chances of improper in absentia orders and actual removals if an individual is picked up and can’t figure out how to file a “Motion to Reopen and Rescind” the in absentia order;
Would you be able to do that?” Would most Article III judges (particularly if operating in a different language, from ICE Detention, with no lawyer)?
Although “winning” on the “big issue,” the DHS actually lost this case; it was remanded because the BIA screwed up in denying the respondent’s Motion to Reopen;
As one of my former colleagues pointed out to me recently, if the BIA is wrong in Bermudez-Cota, it could potentially invalidate not only almost every removal order and pending removal proceeding, but most affirmative grants of relief by Immigration Judges;
So, maybe this is a case where the practical consequences will shape the legal interpretation;
But, then, there’s always the issue of retroactivity — could an invalidation of Bermudez be applied “prospectively only” to new and pending proceedings or in some other manner that did not disrupt “settled expectations;”
Historical Trivia: I wrote Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 413, 413 (B.I.A. 1996) (en banc) which was extensively discussed by the 6th Circuit.
