"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
BIA Asylum Panel cutting down the backlog by trampling asylum seekers and their legal rights! Guatemalans are a favorite target for Garland’s “Band of Bullies” at EOIR. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA3 on Guatemala, Law, Facts and Standard of Review: Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
“Based on past experiences, if returned to Guatemala, Selvin Heraldo Saban-Cach fears being persecuted by a local gang because of his identity as an indigenous person. Accordingly, he seeks withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied his applications and ordered his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. This petition for review followed. For the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Although the BIA need not write an overly detailed explanation of its review of an IJ’s decision, it must provide an adequate explanation of its ruling and afford us an opportunity to review it. Here, the BIA did neither. At times, the IJ’s decision completely conflicts with the record. Yet, for reasons that are not at all apparent, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in its entirety. … The BIA must review the first, factual question for clear error and the second, legal question de novo. In affirming the IJ’s decision of the second question regarding acquiescence, the BIA concluded that it found “no clear error in the [IJ]’s predictive fact-finding.” Accordingly, in addition to not bifurcating the Myrie step-two inquiry, the BIA also erred by applying this heightened standard of review to a legal question. Because of these errors, “we have little insight into the basis for [the BIA’s] determination that the IJ’s opinion ‘clearly reflects that [s]he used the proper “willful blindness” standard in relation to the issue of acquiescence.’” Accordingly, on remand the BIA needs to reassess each question.”
[Hats way off to Stephanie Norton, CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall!]
Stephanie Norton CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall Law PHOTO: Seton Hall Law website
********************
Congratulations to NDPA star Stephanie Norton! This is yet another example of the great talent “out here” who could replace mal-functioning EOIR judges. Human lives are at stake, this system is dysfunctional, crying out for bold reforms! Wonder how the Dems will try to “spin” their miserable performance at EOIR in 2024?
The IJ’s and BIA’s findings of “no past persecution” in this case rise to the level of absurd! Here’s what happened:
The BIA recognized that gang members had attacked Saban-Cach on multiple occasions and that the worst attack left him unconscious after he was stabbed with a broken glass bottle. However, the BIA agreed with the IJ that, in the aggregate, this abuse did not rise to the level of persecution. The BIA explained that, “because most of the incidents did not involve physical injuries, and because the worst attack did not require him to seek professional medical care for his physical injuries, the applicant did not establish harm rising to the level of past persecution.”
Come on man! No competent, fair minded judge would reach such a totally ridiculous conclusion based on such shallow, specious, and basically “made up reasoning!” Not incidentally, it also directly conflicted with Circuit precedent as well as with the realities of life in Guatemala!
The BIA also ran roughshod over its OWN binding precedent, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 23 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1998) (cumulative harm is persecution), which should have made a finding of past persecution a “no brainer” for a panel of competent asylum adjudicators! The sloppy, biased, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR is a major cause of their out of control backlog. Efforts to deny easily grantable cases, and failure to direct wayward asylum-denying IJs to get it right in the first place, is a drag on our entire justice system — all the way up to the Courts of Appeals!
That’s because EOIR’s “any reason to deny” approach to asylum encourages, and often rewards, frivolous litigating positions by ICE, discourages stipulations and settlements in cases that should easily be granted, and results in OIL taking ethically and legally flawed positions in the Courts of Appeals. For example, in this case the 3rd Circuit characterized parts of OIL’s position as “disingenuous,” “puzzling and disappointing,” and pointedly stated that “[r]egrettably, the government’s response brief doubles down on this inaccuracy.”
So, these are the legal quality and ethical standards set at DOJ by AG Merrick Garland, a former Circuit Judge himself who certainly should be expected to “know better.” Apparently, in his view, due process, fundamental fairness, impartial adjudication, adherence to the law, judicial and legal ethics don’t apply when it’s “only migrants” whose lives are at stake! While this is a common approach from White Nationalist GOP politicos, don’t we deserve better from a Dem Administration that claims to care about racial justice, but whose actions with respect to migrants say otherwise?
The court also blasted EOIR for “ethnocentric” judging and failure to fairly evaluate cases.
We have previously cautioned IJs and the BIA against ethnocentric evaluations of petitioners’ resources. Petitioners primarily come from countries in the poorest and most dangerous regions of the world. Any presumption that they enjoy the same kinds of resources as their adjudicators is shortsighted and unfair. Unless the record supports it, IJs and the BIA should not assume that their own views of appropriate medical care and its ready accessibility make up a universal reality.
Petitioners for relief under the asylum system must be afforded the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands. The immigration system can only provide a fair and neutral determination of the claims of people from different cultural and economic circumstances if adjudicators diligently avoid unrealistic assumptions about petitioners’ circumstances.
Any competent asylum practitioner would understand what the court is getting at. But, EOIR IJs at both the trial and appellate level make these basic mistakes time after time.
The 3rd Circuit and other courts might claim to find the BIA’s “entire” affirmance of a decision often in “complete conflict” with the record to be inexplicable. But, WE know that it’s because the “deportation assembly line” works on the “principle” of “any reason to deny” and “keep cranking out those final orders of removal.” To Hell with justice, quality, fairness, and the human lives involved!
This disasterous, backlogged, “star chamber system” is neither appropriately staffed nor competently operated to afford individuals “the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands.” How is this due process and fundamental fairness required by our Constitution?
“Justice” Star Chamber Style. — AG Merrick Garland appears to be blissfully unconcerned about the methods applied by too many of his EOIR “judges,” and his DOJ attorneys who “run interference” for them, to achieve “removal for any reason, at any cost!”
Until a court has the guts to “pull the plug” on EOIR’s ongoing, deadly clown show 🤡, declare it unconstitutional, and require at least minimal due process reforms, these outrages will continue! “Puzzling” about recurring miscarriages of justice at EOIR, as the 3rd Circuit did here, is one thing; acting decisively to enforce the Constitution by stopping the abuse, once and for all, is quite different. Requiring EOIR judges with demonstrated expertise in asylum law, willing to professionally review records, and decide cases of asylum seekers correctly, without “ethnocentrism” or bias, would be a logical starting point! It should be a “no brainer!”
“When you walk into your EOIR ‘courtroom’ and this guy takes the bench, you’re probably in for a BAD day! Isn’t it time to finally END the ‘Clown Show’ in our dystopian Immigration ‘Courts?'” PHOTO: Clown Civertan.jpg, Creative Commons License
Divide and conquer is a good military strategy but a bad judicial one. Judges must consider how related facts weave to- gether into a narrative.
Chinese officials caught Cha Liang practicing his faith, so they beat, jailed, and then threatened him. When he sought asy- lum, the Board of Immigration Appeals minimized the threats and physical abuse as discrete incidents. But Liang’s twenty- minute beating and fifteen days in jail made the later threats more menacing. Because the Board should not have ignored this context, we will grant the petition and remand.
******************
Perhaps unwittingly, Judge Bibas’s use of a military analogy for EOIR “judging” is very, very apt! After four years of corrupt, White Nationalist, Stephen Miller inspired “leadership” and “judicial selections,” far, far too many judges and others at today’s EOIR view immigrants and their attorneys as “the enemy.” By contrast, they think of their “partners” at DHS as their “comrades in arms” against Stephen Miller’s fabricated “alien invasion” — a euphemism for “replacement theory” and other racist tropes that were seldom far below the surface of Trump-era immigration policies and actions.
It’s tempting to blame this entire mess on theTrump regime. But, sadly, manifestations of this problem were present well before 2017.
I remember an Immigration Judge Conference where, strangely, a recently appointed IJ, a former government prosecutor, was given an “instructor slot” at small group training. This Judge proceeded to repeatedly refer to the the DHS as “we” and the respondents and their lawyers as “them” as he enthusiastically described Government litigation “victories” while ignoring or downplaying Circuit Court decisions that had found serious flaws in EOIR judging and DHS legal positions.
That individual went on to a “judicial career” at EOIR that consistently demonstrated a disturbing and inappropriate inability to view those humans coming before the Immigration Court and their lawyers as anything other than “the enemy!” So, the ethical, cultural, and quality control problems at EOIR are very deep-seated.
Remember, this is a broken agency that once, but no more, was supposed to stand for “through teamwork and innovation, become the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
As the recent “John Gruden Episode” in the NFL shows, “corrosive culture” remains a huge problem in professional football. Similarly, EOIR’s “culture of denial with a heavily dose of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia” remains every bit as much of a problem as those plaguing the NFL. Disingenuously “minimizing threats” to asylum seekers, as in this case, is “business as usual” at Garland’s anti-immigrant, anti-asylum EOIR.
While the response of the NFL’s leadership has obviously been not fully effective, it’s still much better than Garland’s “what me worry, hear nothing, see nothing” approach to the crippling problems at his dysfunctional EOIR.
Garland’s inept approach to the ongoing due process disaster at his EOIR has been perplexing, to say the least! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Gruden actually was promptly forced out when the full extent of his misconduct finally surfaced. By contrast, with overwhelming public evidence of systemic failure, Garland has catastrophically failed to replace the problematic judges and inept senior leaders at EOIR with better-qualified, progressive, practical scholar-expert judges unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice!
Although not cited by the 3rd Circuit, the BIA and the IJ also ignored the leading BIA precedent of Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I&N Dec. 23 (BIA 1998) (Panel: Hurwitz, Rosenberg, Schmidt) on the importance of considering harm cumulatively.
The concurring opinion by Judges Jordan and Ambro on past persecution as a “mixed question of fact and law” subject to a “two-step review process” is also well worth a read, particularly for those practicing in the 3rd Cir.
Follow the Bouncing Ball: Persecution and the Shifting Burden of Proof
On July 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the BIA as to what constitutes past persecution. In Blanco v. Att’y Gen., the asylum-seeker had been abducted by police in his native Honduras because he had participated in marches in support of the LIBRE party. Police officers there detained him for 12 hrs in an abandoned house, where he was subjected to multiple beatings lasting 40 to 60 minutes each. The police also threatened to kill him and his family if he continued to participate in LIBRE party marches, and further insulted him with racial slurs. Learning that other LIBRE supporters had been killed by the police, the petitioner moved from city to city within Honduras over the next 14 months. However, he received three letters and one phone call during that time threatening that he and his family would be killed if he did not leave the country.
The immigration judge believed the petitioner, but nevertheless denied asylum, finding the harm to have not been severe enough to constitute past persecution. The B.I.A. agreed, saying that the treatment was “more akin to harassment” than persecution. The B.I.A. also found that the petitioner had not even established a well-founded fear of future persecution, concluding that there wasn’t a ten percent chance that a mere supporter who had last participated in a demonstration almost 2 years earlier would be persecuted.
The 3d Circuit reversed. It first quoted the oft-cited phrase that “persecution does not encompass all forms of unfair, unjust, or even unlawful treatment.” But the court continued that it has found persecution to include “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a real threat to life or freedom.” Of course, the facts described above include multiple threats to life, as well as confinement and torture. So then how did the Board find what was obviously persecution several times over to be “more akin to harassment?”
As the Third Circuit explained, the BIA and the immigration judge committed three errors. The first was in finding that the past harm was not severe enough. But the court noted that persecution does not require severe injury; in fact, it requires no physical injury at all, as evidenced by the fact that a death threat alone may constitute past persecution. Thus, the court corrected the Board in holding that “physical harm is not dispositive in establishing past persecution.”
The court next corrected the Board’s discrediting of the threats on the ground that it was not “imminent,” citing the fact that the threat was not carried out in the 14 months until the petitioner’s departure. The court observed that in order to constitute persecution, a threat must be concrete and menacing, but explained that neither term relates to its immediacy. Rather, concrete and menacing go to the likelihood of the threatened harm, and excludes threats that are merely “abstract or ideal.” The court rejected the idea that an asylum-seeker must wait “to see if his would-be executioners would go through with their threats” before qualifying for protection, which “would upend the fundamental humanitarian concerns of asylum law.”
The last error pointed to by the court was the Board’s failure to weigh the various harms cumulatively. The court distinguished between the Board’s claim to have considered the harm cumulatively, and its actual analysis, which considered the individual instances of harm in isolation.
The court observed that, having shown past persecution, there was a presumption that the petitioner possessed a well-founded fear of persecution, which is what one must prove to merit asylum. But as both the IJ and the Board erred in their conclusion regarding past persecution, no determination regarding whether ICE had rebutted the regulatory presumption was ever reached.
* * *
Although Blanco did not reach the question of what happens following a showing of past persecution, I would like to continue the conversation in order to discuss this point. I don’t believe that the shifting burden of proof that arises upon a showing of past persecution is properly taught by EOIR in its training. For that reason, years ago, when I was still with EOIR, I conducted a training in which I tried to clarify the concept by using a tennis analogy. I will attempt to recreate the lesson here.
Imagine the asylum applicant as serving in a tennis match. In tennis, only the serve must go into one specific box on the court, as opposed to anywhere on the opponent’s side of the net. Here, I have marked that service box “past persecution,” as it is only by “serving” into that specific box that the asylum-seeker can create a presumption of well-founded fear, and thus shift the burden of proof to the government.
In the above illustration, the respondent has served into the “past persecution” box by establishing facts that constitute past persecution. This doesn’t require a showing of severe or extreme persecution; any harm rising to the level of what has been found to constitute persecution will suffice. Examples includes multiple instances of lesser harm that cumulatively rise to the level of persecution (see, e.g. Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I&N Dec. 23 (BIA 1998); a concrete and menacing threat (not accompanied by actual physical harm); or persecution in the guise of criminal prosecution or conscription.
Once the respondent establishes past persecution, the ball is then in the DHS’s “court.” The only way DHS can “return the serve” to the respondent’s side of the net (i.e. shift the burden of proof back to the asylum applicant) is to demonstrate either (1) changed circumstances such that the respondent no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground; or (2) that the respondent could reasonably safely relocate to another part of the home country. If DHS can’t prove either of the above, the respondent has “won the point” of establishing persecution.
Only if DHS succeeds in establishing one of those two points is the ball returned to the respondent. But just as in tennis, after the serve is returned, the respondent is no longer limited to hitting into the service box only. The respondent now has a wider court in which to win the point:
Just as there are three boxes on each side of a tennis court (i.e. the two service boxes and the backcourt), the respondent now has three options for meeting the burden of proof.
The two service boxes (closest to the net) represent the two ways in which one who has suffered past persecution can still merit a grant of “humanitarian asylum” even where there is no longer a basis to fear future persecution.
The first of these is where a humanitarian grant is merited based on the severity of the past persecution. This is the only time that the severity of the past persecution matters. (I believe that errors such as those committed in Blanco arise because the immigration judge remembers learning something about the severity of the past persecution, but isn’t quite clear on the context in which it arises.)
This rule is a codification of the BIA’s holding in a 1989 precedent decision,Matter of Chen. In a concurring opinion in that decision, former Board Member Michael Heilman pointed out that our asylum laws are designed to conform to our international law obligations. He continued that the source of those obligations, the 1951 Convention, came into effect years after the majority of those refugees it was meant to protect, i.e. those who had suffered past persecution during WW II, were clearly no longer at risk from the same persecutors following the defeat of the Axis powers
From this history, Heilman concluded that “the historical underpinnings of the Convention, from which the Refugee Act of 1980 receives its genesis, would have to be totally ignored if one were inclined to adopt the position that present likelihood of persecution is also required where past persecution has been established.”
The majority of the Board adopted this position only where it deemed the past persecution sufficiently severe, and it was that view that the regulations codified in 1990.
Years later, a second basis for humanitarian asylum was added to the regulations for those who suffered past persecution but had their presumption of well-founded fear rebutted by the government. This second category (represented by the second service box in the third illustration) applies to those who might reasonably suffer “other serious harm” in their country of origin. This rule (which became effective in January 2001) looks to whether the asylum applicant might suffer harm as severe as persecution, but unrelated to any specific ground or motive. Thus, an asylum-seeker who suffered past persecution but whose original basis for asylum has dissipated due to changed conditions may merit a humanitarian grant where their return might give rise to mental anguish, put their health at risk due to the unavailability of necessary medical treatment or medication, or subject them to abject poverty or severe criminal extortion, to provide a few examples.
Lastly, an asylum applicant who no longer has a well-founded fear due to changed conditions in their country of origin may still “win the point” by establishing a different well-founded fear of persecution under the new conditions.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted With Permission.
**************************
You’ll have to go to the original at the above link to see all of Jeffrey’s great “tennis court illustrations!”
Reminded me of my own, less than illustrious, career on the tennis court. Here’s the anecdote I shared with Jeffrey:
I loved it, Jeffrey, even though in my life many of my shots and serves “went over the fence.” Indeed, I once ended an inter-fraternity tennis match with a forfeit after hitting all of my opponent’s tennis balls into the Fox River which at that time bordered the LU Tennis Courts in Appleton. It was kind of like a “mercy killing” since I was being totally creamed anyway, and it was a hot day. I found Immigration Court a much more comfortable fit for my skill set.
I also appreciate Jeff’s citation of Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 23 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1998). I was on that panel, along with my colleagues Judge Lory Rosenberg and Judge Jerry Hurwitz, who wrote the opinion. The record will show that it was one of the few published BIA precedents where the three of us, members of the “Notorious Panel IV,” agreed. Perhaps that’s why it got published. Our colleagues probably figured that any time the three of us were in harmony, it must be an auspicious occasion worth preserving for the future!
In any event, of all of the more than 100 published decisions in which I participated during my tenure on the BIA, O-Z- & I-Z- on the issue of “cumulative harm” proved to be one of the most useful during my tenure at the Arlington Immigration Court. Attorneys on both sides, knowing my tendencies, liked to frame their arguments in many cases in terms of “it is” or “it isn’t” O-Z- & I-Z-.
I think that “cumulative harm” is one of the most important, and these days most overlooked or wrongly ignored, concepts in modern asylum law. It was really one of the keys to favorable resolution of many asylum cases based on “past persecution.” But, that goes back to a time when the law was applied to protect worthy asylum seekers, rather than to reject them, often on specious grounds as happens on today’s “deportation railroad.”
