“DUE PROCESS DIES IN DARKNESS” — BIA “STONEWALLS” REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON CRITERIA FOR LIFE OR DEATH “EMERGENCY STAY” DECISIONS — Lawsuit Follows!

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-government-has-not-revealed-how-deportation-decisions-are-made

Arvind Dilawar reports for Pacific Standard:

Imagine: You are living in the United States without documentation. Years ago, you were in danger of deportation but were allowed to stay by the federal government through prosecutorial discretion. Suddenly, you are caught in a surprise mass raid of your community by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Your family and lawyer bring your case to the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals, petitioning board members to recognize that you should be allowed to stay in the U.S. But in as little as 24 hours, ICE has already deported you back to a country where you have not been in years, where you may have no family or friends, where you may even be in danger from the local government or paramilitary forces. The BIA has yet to make a decision about your case—or, perhaps worse, the board has decided that you should not have been deported in the first place. How do you return to your family and your home in the U.S. now?

It is scenarios like this—which affect a portion of the 256,085 peopledeported each year—that a new lawsuit filed against the BIA hopes to avert by bringing transparency to the procedures, timelines, and other aspects of the board’s inner workings. The American Immigration Council, a non-profit that protects immigrants’ rights, and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, which represents indigent immigrants facing deportation, brought the suit after the BIA failed to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests about their process for granting stays of removal. Such stays allow non-citizens to avoid deportation before their cases are heard by immigration courts.

The advocates behind the suit hope that a court will order the release of information about the BIA’s criteria for granting stays and the full numbers of motions for appeals made, opened, and won. Both groups believe such information can be used to better arm immigrants, their families, and lawyers in their fights against deportation.

Pacific Standard recently interviewed representatives from both the American Immigration Council and Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic—Claudia Valenzuela and Rikke Bukh, respectively—about the motivation behind their suit against the BIA, its aims, and its importance.

Was there a specific incident or general trend that inspired you to file suit against the BIA?

Valenzuela: Both the Council and the Clinic have heard via reports, and experienced via clients, that individuals facing speedy deportation were not getting their motions for a stay of removal decided in time to avoid their physical removal. As we outlined in our complaint to the federal district court, this scenario is quite problematic as it is extremely difficult for individuals to fight their immigration cases once deported.

Bukh: Since [President Donald] Trump took office in early 2017, ICE has become much more aggressive in its enforcement and has begun increasingly apprehending, detaining, and attempting to deport large numbers of people. There have been a number of examples of ICE conducting mass raids on longtime immigrant communities. Many of the targeted individuals have been ordered deported years ago but were given permission by the federal government to remain in the U.S. through prosecutorial discretion. These non-citizens have lived here for years, even decades, and have since built their families and communities here. Now, these people are at risk of deportation to countries where they fear persecution, torture, or even death.

The stay of removal mechanism was intended to serve as a critical, potentially life-saving safeguard, and it should protect many of these people. However, the BIA’s deficient practices surrounding stays have made it ineffective, and the devastating consequences have emerged particularly sharply in the wake of these enforcement actions.

What specific information are you hoping to get out of the BIA?

Valenzuela: We are looking for all policies and procedures regarding stays of deportation filed in conjunction with motions to reopen or reconsider—and in particular how these requests are processed and tracked, timelines for deciding these requests, and how decisions on stays of deportation are communicated to individuals who request them and/or their attorneys. We also requested statistical data on the numbers of stays requested in conjunction with motions to reopen or reconsider, and rates of grants or denials in deciding those motions.

Bukh: We are seeking information that would give us insight into how the BIA makes these decisions, including guidance on adjudicating stay motions and other internal materials, as well as data to show how they make these types of decisions and the impact of current procedures and standards. It is necessary to make this information public so that courts, attorneys, and, most importantly, individuals who do not have representation can meaningfully access and utilize these mechanisms to prevent unlawful deportations.

On what grounds is the BIA refusing to share the information you’re requesting?

Valenzuela: The board claims that its information is protected on law-enforcement and national-security grounds. However, it is our position that the BIA has incorrectly invoked these exemptions.

Bukh: The agency has failed to respond in any substance regarding a significant category of information that we requested. It has also said that it does not track “non-emergency” requests for stays in its system and refused to locate such information in its files because, in its view, it would be “burdensome.”

How do you anticipate the case will proceed? If the BIA prevails, what then?

Bukh: We hope and expect that the court will see the important need for this information and require the agency to produce it expeditiously. However, the agency may recognize that its responses have been deficient and begin producing these records even before a court order. The important thing is that the public has access to this information. If the BIA were to prevail, we would review the basis for a decision and consider next steps from there.

Valenzuela: We are hopeful that the court will agree that the records we have requested are subject to public disclosure and order the BIA to release all records and statistics. Our requests address precisely the type of information that the BIA should make available to the public because it governs procedural due process for individuals in the most dire of circumstances: imminent deportation.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

EOIR DIRECTOR McHENRY TRIES TO EXPLAIN TRASHING OF DUE PROCESS TO SKEPTICAL HOUSE DEMS — DOJ Leadership Has Turned “Courts” Into “A DMV For Deportation,” Says Chairman Jose Serrano (D-NY)!— Many Cases From Trump Shutdown Still “MIA” While Lives Hang In The Balance!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-court-government-shutdown-immigrants-waiting-for-cancelled-hearings-rescheduled-2019-03-11/

Kate Smith reports for CBS News:

Immigration courts are still wading through the disruptions caused by the government shutdown, which closed the courts and effectively cancelled between 50,000 and 95,000 hearings in December and January.

Many immigrants are still waiting to have those hearings rescheduled, James McHenry, the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review which oversees the nation’s immigration courts, told lawmakers during a hearing last week. “The courts are in the process of rescheduling those, they’ve been working overtime since the shutdown ended to get that done,” McHenry said.

Congressman Jose Serrano, who chaired the hearing, called the delay “deeply problematic,” in an email to CBS News. The nation’s immigration courts reopened on January 28 after being closed for over a month during the partial government shutdown.

“It is ironic that this Administration’s obsession with building a wall only increased the number of immigrants in limbo, aggravating an already serious crisis,” said Serrano, who represents New York’s 15th district. “There needs to be a serious effort to reschedule these hearings quickly”

Although McHenry estimated that 50,000 immigration cases were cancelled during the shutdown, others say the number could be nearly double that. According to Syracuse University’s TRAC, 80,051 hearings during the shutdown were either outright cancelled or had their status left unchanged — the hearing date simply came and went without acknowledgement, leaving affected migrants to wonder what comes next.

TRAC said the number of cancelled cases rises to more than 94,000 when it includes other factors, like “Docket Management” or “Immigration Judge Leave.”

Many hearings scheduled for the week after the government reopened were also postponed as court clerks waded through over a month’s worth of filings that hadn’t been touched during the shutdown. Rather than processing those documents, court administrators in Charlotte, North Carolina, for example, threw them into brown cardboard boxes for clerks to deal with once the court opened, said Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney who serves clients in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The immigration court system, which is overseen by the Department of Justice, handles a range of cases involving non-citizens, including issuing green cards and ruling on asylum claims. The courts also serve as a necessary step toward temporary Social Security cards — needed for work permits and driver’s licenses — making hearings intensely important for immigrants.

The Executive Office of Immigration Review declined to comment on the status of the courts after the shutdown.

CBS News spoke with six immigration attorneys, all of which have at least one client whose cancelled case hasn’t yet been rescheduled. Many of the hearings that were have yet to be rescheduled are for migrants seeking asylum, a legal form of immigration for people fleeing persecution and threats in their home country. One immigrant was waiting on a final hearing on their asylum case, a decision that would determine whether she gets to stay in the United States or be deported.

“The impact on the client is just not knowing,” said McKinney.

The cancellations have also added to the system’s record-high case backlog, which McHenry estimated to be 850,000 during Thursday’s hearing. Once the courts have fully realized the impact from the shutdown, immigration advocates predict it will get even bigger.

For the immigrants with cancelled hearings, getting back in front of a judge could take years. At the Newark, New Jersey immigration court, some cancelled hearings have been penciled in as far back as August 2021, said Alan Pollack, an immigration attorney in New Jersey, in an interview with CBS News. In Houston, the immigration court begun issuing dates in 2022, said Ruby Powers, an immigration attorney.

“We’re getting a bit used to things taking a while and a dose of chaos,” Powers said.

First published on March 11, 2019 / 12:29 PM

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

Here’s Subcommittee Chairman Jose Serrano’s (D-NY) “spot on” statement about the DOJ’s “dissing” of Due Process at EOIR.

https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-serrano-statement-at-hearing-on-executive-office-for-immigration-0

Chairman Serrano Statement at Hearing on Executive Office for Immigration Review

March 7, 2019

Press Release

Congressman José E. Serrano (D-NY), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related AgenciesAppropriations Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks at the Subcommittee’s hearing on the Executive Office for Immigration Review:

The subcommittee will come to order.

For our second hearing of the year, today we welcome James McHenry, the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR. EOIR primarily functions as our nation’s immigration court system, where it administers and adjudicates our nation’s immigration laws. Thank you for being with us, Director McHenry.

I wanted to hold this hearing because I have deep concerns about how our nation’s immigration courts are operating. Some of those concerns are longstanding, while others have been exacerbated by the decisions of the Trump Administration.

Our nation’s immigration courts handle a wide variety of immigration-related claims, from removal proceedings to asylum claims. These are complex, nuanced proceedings that require time, understanding, and care. In many cases, the consequence—removal from this country—is so severe that we must have significant due process to ensure that no one’s rights are violated in an immigration court proceeding.

Unfortunately, these concerns are increasingly being shoved aside. This, in part, is due to the enormous, and growing, backlog of pending cases before the courts, which is now more than 1 million cases, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. That growth is largely due to the significant increase in immigration enforcement efforts over the past 15 years, which has not been followed by a similar growth in the immigration court system. Although this subcommittee has included significant increases in immigration judge teams for the past two fiscal years, the backlog has actually increased under the Trump Administration. This situation was worsened by the recent government shutdown.

The reasons for that are sadly clear. The leadership at the Justice Department has attempted to turn our immigration courts into a sort of deportation DMV– where immigrants get minimal due process on their way out the door. This Administration has chosen to: impose quotas on immigration judges to limit case consideration regardless of complexity; limit the ways in which immigrants can make valid claims for asylum; increase the use of videoconferencing to reduce in-person appearances; and undermine the discretion of immigration judges to administratively close cases, among many other things. Ironically, these choices, supposedly aimed at efficiency, have actually increased the backlog.

I believe our immigration courts should strive to be a model of due process. A couple of bright spots in that effort are the Legal Orientation Program and the Immigration Court Help Desk, both of which help to better inform immigrants about their court proceedings. We should seek to expand such programs.

Despite these efforts, in our current system, an estimated 63 percent of immigrants do not have legal counsel. We’ve all read stories about children, some as young as 3 years old, being made to represent themselves. That is appalling. Our immigration laws are complicated enough for native English speakers, let alone those who come here speaking other languages or who are not adults. We can, and should, do better than this.

Today’s hearing will explore the choices we are making in our immigration court system, to better understand how the money we appropriate is being used, and whether it is being used in line with our expectations and values. Thank you, again, Director McHenry, for being here.

Now let me turn to my friend, Mr. Aderholt, for any comments he may have.

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

It’s painfully obvious that Director McHenry doesn’t have the faintest idea how many cases are actually “off docket” because of the Trump Administration’s malicious incompetence, a/k/a ”Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”

As Chairman Serrano observed, the vision of the Immigration Courts once was “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” That noble vision has been replaced by a “partnership” with DHS Enforcement to misconstrue the law, deny rights, punish those we should be protecting, and reduce “Immigration Judges” to menial “rubber stamps” on cruel, illegal, and unduly harsh enforcement actions in the hopes that the Article III Courts will “take a dive” and “defer” rather than intervening to put an end to this travesty.

Chairman Serrano and others have identified the problem. But they haven’t solved it!

That will require the removal of the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and establishing an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court where Due Process can flourish, fundamental fairness will be the watchword, “best practices” (not merely expediency) will be institutionalized, and all parties will be treated equally and respectfully, thus putting an end to years of preferential treatment of DHS.

PWS

03-12-19

“CBS HOUR” IS A BIG HIT AT FBA/NY LAW SCHOOL ASYLUM CONFERENCE — Chase, Bookey, Schmidt Entertain, Educate Sell-Out Crowd!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase

Blaine Bookey, Co-Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

“Eric the Cameraman”

NEW YORK, NY, Friday, March 8, 2019. The “CBS Team,”* Jeffrey S. Chase, Blaine Bookey, and Paul Wickham Schmidt wowed the sellout crowd at the FBA Asylum Conference at NY Law School Friday. Speaking in the coveted “final slot” of the afternoon, the “CBS Gang” gave an enthusiastic audience lots of reasons and ways to go out and oppose former Attorney General Sessions’s perversion of American asylum law in Matter of A-B-.

In that case, Sessions reversed nearly two decades of progress and consensus in asylum law to “stick it” to Ms. A-B-, a survivor of extreme domestic violence persecution in El Salvador who fled to the U.S., escaping torture and death threats.

Schmidt, a former Immigration Judge in Arlington, Virginia and past Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, led off with a rousing speech blasting Sessions for bias, intellectual dishonesty, and bad lawyering. He agreed with U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the recent case Grace v. Whitaker that much of what Sessions said was non-binding dicta.

Schmidt also formulated seven ways for advocates to challenge the decision. He brought the crowd to its feet with his closing exhortation to what he called the New Due Process Army: “Due Process forever, xenophobia never!”

Bookey, Co-Director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law and a long time refugee advocate, appeared “larger than life” from California through the “miracle of televideo.” She showed a moving video of Ms. A-B- relating the horrible rape, beatings, death threats and abandonment by her government that forced her to leave El Salvador and her fear that she would be killed upon return.

Bookey also pointed out that this isn’t a mere “difference of opinion” among lawyers. Rather, Matter of A-B- is a concerted and evil attempt to undo an existing national and international legal consensus that women facing domestic violence can and must be protected under refugee law. The reversion sought by Sessions and his restrictionist supporters would basically return women to the “dark ages” and result in torture, death, maiming and rape of countless females by persecutors throughout the world. Bookey also offered the Center for Refugee and Gender Studies at Hastings as a “clearinghouse” for litigation and litigation strategies attacking A-B-.

Batting “clean up,” retired Immigration Judge and noted asylum historian Chase led the audience in a tribute for Bookey’s “in the trenches” heroism in staunchly defending the rights of refugee women throughout our nation and the world. He then proceeded to eviscerate Sessions’s decision by going through Ms. A-B-‘s actual evidence in detail.

He pointed out how Sessions ignored facts of record supporting a grant of asylum to Ms. A-B- on the merits regardless of the favorable BIA precedent that Sessions went to great lengths to overrule. He also mentioned the ongoing efforts of “Our Gang” of retired U.S. Immigration Judges, assisted pro bono by some of America’s best lawyers, to educate the Article III Courts as to the realities of asylum adjudication and the systemic destruction wrought by Sessions’s unprovoked attack on women’s asylum rights.

The Conference concluded with a request by FBA immigration Section Chair Elizabeth “Betty” Stevens for everyone to contract their Senators and Representatives about the need for an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court as proposed by the FBA, ABA, National Association of Immigration Judges, AILA, and others.

Netflix filmed the proceedings for a future documentary about American immigration. Additionally, star immigration reporter Nicole Neara of Law 360 was in the audience. Immediately following the closing, Conference organizer and NY Law School Professor Claire “Human Dynamo” Thomas left for the Southern Border with a group of students committed to putting into effect what they had learned about strategies for ensuring due process and re-establishing justice in the U.S. asylum system.

*The “CBS Hour,” “CBS Team,” and “CBS Gang” have no relationship to the CBS Network, CBS Broadcasting, CBS Sports, CBS News, or any other legitimate organization.

Here’s the video featuring Ms. A-B-:

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/news/cgrs-and-hrw-release-video-call-government-restore-protections-domestic-violence-survivors

And, here’s the text of my speech:

FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION ASYLUM CONFERENCE

NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL

March 8, 2019

Good afternoon, and thanks so much for inviting me. In the “old days,” I would have started with my comprehensive disclaimer. But, now that I’m retired, I’m just going to hold the FBA, New York Law School, my fellow panelists, and anyone else of any importance whatsoever “harmless” for my remarks today. They are solely my views, for which I take full responsibility. No sugar-coating, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no “party line,” no BS – just the unvarnished truth, as I see it!

“We’ve had situations in which a person comes to the United States and says they are a victim of domestic violence; therefore they are entitled to enter the United States. Well, that’s obviously false but some judges have gone along with that.”

“Good lawyers, using all of their talents and skill, work every day—like water seeping through an earthen dam—to get around the plain words of the INA to advance their clients’ interests. Theirs is not the duty to uphold the integrity of the act. That is our most serious duty.”

“When we depart from the law and create nebulous legal standards out of a sense of sympathy for the personal circumstances of a respondent in our immigration courts, we do violence to the rule of law and constitutional fabric that bind this great nation. Your job is to apply the law — even in tough cases,”

Those, my friends, are obviously not my words. Whose words are they? They are the words of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions who ran the U.S. Immigration Courts for nearly two years.

Incredibly, this totally biased, xenophobic, misinformed, and glaringly unqualified individual, who had actually been rejected for a Federal Judgeship by his own party because of alleged racial bias, was in charge of our U.S. Immigration Court system. That helps explains why it is such a total disgraceful mess today from both a Due Process and administrative standpoint.

The Immigration Courts have a “known backlog” of over 1.1 million cases, with tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of additional cases likely squirreled away and still unaccounted for following the unnecessary “shutdown,” no signs of abating, and absolutely no, I repeat no, credible planfor reducing or controlling the backlog consistent with Due Process and our asylum laws. The DOJ’s process for increasing the backlog, known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” – and their outrageous attempts to “shift the blame” to respondents and their attorneys – are, as my esteemed former colleague retired Judge M. Christopher Grant used to say, “on steroids.” And, as my friend and fellow panelist, Judge Jeffrey Chase pointed out this week to BuzzFeed News, the current “strategy shift” to slowing down judicial and court staff hiring and abandoning once again the “e-filing program” that EOIR has failed to roll out after two decades of failed efforts is a guarantee that: “More people will wait longer!”

Acting Attorney General Whitaker’s questionable certification of two important cases during his brief tenure promises a continuation of political interference with the Immigration Courts in derogation of Due Process.

Don’t expect any improvement under current Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s known as an “enforcement solves all problems” immigration hard liner who co-authored an article praising Sessions for his attacks on Civil Rights, immigrants, and other vulnerable communities.

One of Sessions’s most cowardly and reprehensible actions was his atrocious distortion of asylum law, the reality of life in the Northern Triangle, and Due Process for migrants in Matter of A-B-. There, he overruled the BIA’s important precedent in Matter of A-R-C-G-, a decision actually endorsed by the DHSat the time, and which gave much need protection to women fleeing persecution in the form of domestic violence.

Take it from me, Matter of A-R-C-G-was one of the few parts of our dysfunctional Immigration Court system that actually workedand provided a way of moving cases efficiently through the court system in accordance with Due Process while consistently granting much needed protection to some of the most vulnerable and most deserving refugees in the world!

Sessions is gone. But, his ugly legacy of bias and unfairness remains. Fortunately, because he was a lousy lawyer on top of everything else, he failed to actually accomplish what he thought he was doing: wiping out protection for refugee women, largely from Central America. That’s why it’s critically important for you, as members of the “New Due Process Army” to fight every inch of the way, for as long as it takes, to restore justice and to force our U.S Immigration Courts to live up to their unfulfilled, and now mocked, promise of “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all!”

The only real,Article IIIFederal Judge who has ruled on Matter of A-B-to date largely supports my criticisms of Sessions’s effort to distort asylum law against refugee women. It’s a decision written by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington, D.C. called Grace v. Whitaker. You will want to read that decision. There is also an outstanding analysis by my fellow panelist Judge Jeffrey S. Chase on his blog.

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, EOIR has purported to limit Grace’s rejection of Matter of A-B-to so called “Credible Fear Reviews.” In other words, they have improperly, and perhaps unethically, instructed Immigration Judges and the BIA not to apply Gracein individual asylum hearings.

But, that shouldn’t stop you from shoving Grace back down their throats! There is an outstandingonline practice advisory on how to argue Gracein Immigration Court by my fellow panelist Blaine’s amazing colleague, my good friend Professor Karen Musalo. I also reposted it in my blog, immigratoncourtside.com.

I’m going to give you sevenvery basic tips for overcoming Matter of A-B-. I’m sure that Blaine and her colleagues, who are much more involved in the day to day litigation going on in the courts than I am, can give you lots of additional information about addressing specific issues.

First, recognize that Matter of A-B- really doesn’t change the fundamental meaning of asylum.It just rejected the way in which the BIA reached its precedent in A-R-C-G-— by stipulation without specific fact-findings based on the administrative record. Most of it is mere dicta.

On a case by case basis, domestic violence can still be a proper basis for granting asylum in many cases. Indeed, such cases still are being granted by those Immigration Judges committed to following the rule of law and upholding their oaths of office, rather than accepting Sessions’s invitation to “take a dive.”

Just make sure you properly and succinctly state your basis, establish nexus, and paper the record with the overwhelming amount of reliable country condition information and expert opinion that directly contradicts the bogus picture painted by Sessions.

Second, resist with all your might those lawless judges in some Immigration Courts who are using, or threatening to use, Sessions’s dictum in Matter of A-B- to deny fair hearings or truncate the hearing process for those claiming asylum through domestic violence.If anything, following the overruling of A-R-C-G-,leaving no definitive precedent on the subject, full, fair case-by-case hearings are more important than ever. Under Due Process, asylum applicants are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present their claims in Immigration Court. Don’t let wayward, biased, or misinformed Immigration Judges deny your clients’ constitutional and statutory rights.

Third, keep it simple. Even before A-B-, I always said that any proposed “particular social group” (“PSG”) longer than 25 words or containing “circular” elements is D.O.A. I think that it’s time to get down to the basics; the real PSG here is gender! “Women in X country” is clearly a cognizable PSG. It’s undoubtedly immutable or fundamental to identity; particularized, and socially distinct. So, it meets the BIA’s three-part test.

And, “gender” clearly is one of the biggest drivers of persecution in the world. There is no doubt that it is “at least one central reason” for the persecution of women and LGBT individuals throughout the world.

As Judge Chase and I recently reported on our respective blogs, a number of these “women as a PSG” cases have succeeded in the “Post-A-B-Era.” The detailed unpublished analyses by Immigration Judges are available online and, although of course not precedents, should give you helpful ideas on how to construct arguments and rebut ICE attempts to invoke A-B- to bar meritorious asylum claims by abused women.

Fourth, think political. There is plenty of recent information available on the internet showing the close relationship between gangs and the governments of the Northern Triangle. In some cases, gangs are the “de facto government” in significant areas of the country. In others, gangs and local authorities cooperate in extorting money and inflicting torture and other serious harm on honest individuals who resist them and threaten to expose their activities. Indeed, a very recent front-page article in the Washington Postpointed out that gangs are so completely in charge in El Salvador that U.S-trained policemen are forced to flee and seek asylum in the United States. Additionally, gangs are the largest employer in El Salvador.

In many cases, claiming political or religious persecution should be a stronger alternative ground than PSG. As one of my friends recently pointed out, because of the incorrect precedents by the BIA, Immigration Judges almost always reject gang cases as actual or imputed political opinion. That’s plain wrong.

We need to start making the record and fighting back, using the large amount of available evidence and expert testimony on how gangs have infiltrated and influence every aspect of life in the Northern Triangle including, of course, politics and government. It’s time for the “EOIR charade” of “let’s not grant gang-based asylum cases” to end, once and for all.

Fifth, develop your record. The idea that domestic violence and gang-based violence is just “common crime” advanced by Sessions in A-B-is simply preposterous with regard to the Northern Triangle. Establish records that no reasonable factfinder can refute or overlook! Use expert testimony or expert affidavits to show the real country conditions and to discredit the watered down and sometimes downright false scenarios set forth in Department of State Country Reports, particularly under this Administration where integrity, expertise, and independence have been thrown out the window.

Sixth, raise the bias issue. As set forth in a number of the Amicus Briefs filed in Matter of A-B-, Sessions clearly was a biased decision maker. Not only had he publicly dismissed the claims of female refugees suffering from domestic violence, but his outlandish comments spreading false narratives about immigrants, dissing asylum seekers and their “dirty lawyers,” and supporting DHS enforcement clearly aligned with him with one party to litigation before the Immigration Courts. By the rules governing judicial conduct there was more than an “appearance of bias” here – there was actual bias. We should keep making the record on the gross violation of Due Process caused by giving a biased enforcement official like Sessions a quasi-judicial role.

Seventh, and finally, appeal to the “real” Article III Courts.I can’t over-emphasize this point. What’s happening in Immigration Court today is a parody of justice and a mockery of legitimate court proceedings. It’s important to “open the eyes” of the Article III Judges to this travesty which is threatening the lives of legitimate refugees and other migrants.

Either the Article III’s do their jobs, step in, and put an end to this “theater of the absurd,” or they become complicitin it. There’s only one “right side of the law and history” in this fight. Those who are complicit must know that their actions are being placed in the historical record – for all time and for their descendants to know – just like the historical reckoning that finally is happening for so- called “Confederate Heroes” and those public officials who supported racism and “Jim Crow.”

Now is the time to take a stand for fundamental fairness, the true rule of law, and simple human decency! Join the New Due Process Army and fight to vindicate the rights of asylum seekers under our laws against the forces of darkness and xenophobic bias! Due process forever! Xenophobia never!

(03-11-19)

PWS

03-12-19

GW CLINIC REPORT: Justice Finally Triumphs — 7-Year Battle On Behalf Of Abused Refugee Woman Succeeds!

Paulina Vera, Esq.; Professor Alberto Benitez; Rachel Petterson

Friends,

Please join me in congratulating S-P-G-G, from El Salvador, whose asylum application was granted by IJ David Crosland on February 26. We received the decision today. When told of the grant, S-P-G-G screamed. She can start the process of bringing her minor son to the USA. Please also join me in congratulating Rachael Petterson, Julia Navarro, Solangel González, Chen Liang, Xinyuan Li, Abril Costanza Lara, Allison Mateo, and Paulina Vera, who worked on this case.

The IJ found that S-P-G-G warranted humanitarian asylum because she established compelling reasons arising from the severity of her persecution. Among other things, she had been raped by her sister’s ex-boyfriend, which resulted in her becoming pregnant, and giving the child up for adoption. S-P-G-G testified that she experiences recurring nightmares, suicidal feelings, a sense of hopelessness, and fear as a result of her persecution.

FYI. The client’s initial hearing was on December 18, 2012, IJ Crosland denied asylum, she appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which remanded to the IJ, he denied asylum again, she appealed to the BIA, which denied asylum, she appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded to the IJ, and he finally granted asylum on February 26.

**************************************************
Alberto Manuel Benitez
Professor of Clinical Law
Director, Immigration Clinic
The George Washington University Law School

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

Congrats to SPGG and her wonderful team at the GW Immigration Clinic! More than six years of litigation, two wrongful denials, two appeals to the BIA, one incorrect BIA decision, and a remand from the Fourth Circuit before justice was finally done.

Illustrates four things:

The absolute BS of those like Sessions and other restrictionists who say asylum cases can be raced through the system on an assembly line;
The further BS of claiming that asylum applicants and their lawyers are “gaming” the system when many delays, like this, are caused by poor anti-asylum decision-making within EOIR combined with the DOJ’s incompetent administration of the Immigration Courts;
The importance of full appellate rights, including review by a U.S. Court of Appeals that is actually an independent, fair, and impartial court, not a Government agency masquering as a court;
The absurdity of claiming that unrepresented asylum seekers can receive anything approaching Due Process in the EOIR system, particularly when they are held in inherently coercive “civil immigration detention.”

What if we had a fair, expert Immigration Court system that made every effort to do right by asylum seekers in the first instance by interpreting and applying the law in the generous and humanitarian manner to protect those in need as originally intended in the Refugee Act of 1980 and described by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca?

What if we had a Government that cared about Due Process and worked to promote it rather than attempting to whack it out of shape to screw the most vulnerable among us at every opportunity?

What if the emphasis in the Immigration Courts was on fairness, scholarship, respect, and teamwork with all concerned (not just “partnership” with the prosecutor and politicized Administration goals) rather than on “haste makes waste” methods and gimmicks.

Hey, we could have a working court system where justice was served and more things got done right in the first place, instead of the disgraceful mess that EOIR has become under DOJ’s highly politicized mismanagement!

PWS

03-07-19

IN MATTER OF A-B-, SESSIONS DISINGENUOUSLY SUGGESTED SALVADORAN POLICE COULD PROTECT ABUSED WOMEN – THE TRUTH IS STARKLY DIFFERENT: American-Trained Cops Flee El Salvador Because Gangs Are In Control – Ex-Cops Granted Asylum While Helpless DV Victims Sent Back To Face Deadly Abuse – Trump Administration Continues To Pervert Asylum Law!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/its-so-dangerous-to-police-ms-13-in-el-salvador-that-officers-are-fleeing-the-country/2019/03/03/e897dbaa-2287-11e9-b5b4-1d18dfb7b084_story.html

Kevin Sief reports in WashPost:

SAN SALVADOR — They were given one of the most dangerous tasks in policing: Take down MS-13.

They were bankrolled by the United States and trained by FBI agents. But members of the Salvadoran police have been killed by the dozens in each of the past three years, most in attacks that investigators and experts blame on MS-13, an international street gang. At least nine officers were killed in the first month of this year.

Now, a number of El Salvador’s police officers are fleeing the gang they were tasked with eliminating.

There is no list in either El Salvador or the United States of Salvadoran police officers who have fled the country. But The Washington Post has identified 15 officers in the process of being resettled as refugees by the United Nations and six officers who have either recently received asylum or have scheduled asylum hearings in U.S. immigration courts. In WhatsApp groups, police officers have begun discussing the possibility of a migrant caravan composed entirely of Salvadoran police — a caravana policial, the officers call it.

The exodus of Salvadoran police points to how the country’s security forces have failed to break the stranglehold of organized crime. It also shows that among those seeking refuge in the United States during the Trump administration are some of America’s closest security partners.

“These are among the most vulnerable people in El Salvador,” said Julio Buendía, the director of migration at Cáritas El Salvador, a nonprofit organization that works with the United States and United Nations on refugee resettlement.

The United States has been bolstering the Salvadoran police, part of a regional strategy intended to stabilize Central America’s most violent countries and reduce migration. The State Department spent at least $48 million to train police in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras from 2014 through 2017, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The department opened a law enforcement training academy in San Salvador, where 855 Salvadoran officers were trained by the FBI and other American law enforcement agencies in those four years.

“The Salvadoran government, with U.S. government support, has made significant gains in the area of security, including reductions in homicides and every other category of violent crime measured,” the State Department said in a statement issued in response to an inquiry by The Post.

Citing “privacy reasons,” the department would not comment on whether it was receiving asylum or refugee applications from Salvadoran police officers.

By some measures, the U.S.-backed security efforts appeared to be showing results. In 2018, El Salvador’s murder rate was 50.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. That was still among the highest in the world, but it was down from 60.8 per 100,000 in 2017 and 81 per 100,000 in 2016.

MS-13 was born in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, expanding as more Salvadorans arrived in the United States after fleeing the country’s civil war. The group splintered, with Barrio 18 becoming a chief rival, and both groups grew in American prisons before reaching El Salvador through mass deportations. Between 2001 and 2010, the United States deported 40,429 ex-convicts to El Salvador, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

El Salvador’s government adopted an “iron fist” response to the gangs, including more police operations. When that approach failed, it tried to broach a truce with the gangs in 2014. The pact quickly disintegrated and was followed by another surge in violence. It was then that the gangs began to explicitly broadcast their threats against police officers.

“If you kill a ‘pig,’ or a police officer, you’re more respected in these gangs. That’s the policy — using death as exchange currency,” said Héctor Silva Ávalos, a journalist and researcher who has written a book on the Salvadoran police and has served as an expert witness at several asylum hearings for former police officers in the United States.

A man with an MS-13 tattoo is detained by Salvadoran security forces during an operation in San Salvador in January. (Marvin Recinos/AFP/Getty Images)

With salaries of $300 to $400 per month, the low-level police officers who make up the majority of the force often have no choice but to live in neighborhoods vulnerable to gangs. And so, in the vast majority of the cases, police officers are killed when they are home from work or are on leave.

In August, Manuel de Jesús Mira Díaz was killed while buying construction materials. In July, Juan de Jesús Morales Alvarado was killed while walking with his 7-year-old son on the way to school. In November, Barrera Mayén was killed after taking leave to spend time at home with his family.

The police investigated a number of the killings since 2014 and found members of the major gangs responsible.

“They have more control than we do. When we go home, we’re in neighborhoods where there’s one police to 100 gang members. We’re easy victims,” said one officer in the country’s anti-gang unit, who, after being threatened by MS-13 in his home, is awaiting refugee status from the United Nations. He spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear for his safety.

An MS-13 member killed a man on a New York subway platform. The gang dates back to the 1970s.

Police arrested a 26-year-old man, who they said is an MS-13 member, after he fatally shot an alleged rival gang member Feb. 3 in Queens. (Allie Caren/The Washington Post)

Complicating their response to the threats, Salvadoran police are also not legally allowed to take their weapons home with them.

“I bring it home anyway. I sleep with it on my waist,” said a female officer, who is awaiting refugee status from the United Nations and spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear for her safety. “My husband and I take turns sleeping. We know they are going to come for us.”

Many units in the Salvadoran police are forbidden to wear balaclavas to conceal their identities. In anti-gang units, officers are allowed to wear such masks during operations, but they are frequently asked to testify in court, where they must show their faces and identify themselves by name while gang members look on.

In 2017, El Salvador’s attorney general, Douglas Meléndez, urged the government to do more to protect off-duty police, asking the parliament to pass a “protection law” for police and soldiers that would also provide funding to protect their families. The law was never passed.

Last month, security concerns played a central role in a presidential election won by San Salvador’s 37-year-old former mayor, Nayib Bukele. At least 285 people were killed in January, leading up to the vote, which many saw as the gangs’ attempt to leverage their influence amid the election campaign. In a security plan leaked to the Salvadoran news media, Bukele’s campaign wrote: “The expansion of these criminal groups is undeniable, as is the impact on the lives of ordinary citizens.”

In response to the targeting of police officers this year, El Salvador’s police chief introduced a policy: For their own protection, officers were not allowed to return to their homes. The police chief declined multiple interview requests.

Suspects are detained by police in a neighborhood in San Salvador dominated by MS-13. (Marvin Recinos/AFP/Getty Images)

Many officers, feeling unprotected by their own force, have said their only option is to leave the country.

Organizations that work with the United Nations to resettle Salvadoran refugees in the United States say they have found more and more police officers arriving unannounced at their offices. In addition to the 21 asylum seekers and refugees identified by The Post, several others have recently arrived in Spain and Mexico, according to news reports, applying for humanitarian visas or other forms of protection. Lawyers for police officers and many officers themselves say that far more officers are preparing to flee.

One of the cases that Buendía, the migration director of Cáritas, referred to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is an officer who survived two attacks while off duty. First, he was shot eight times by suspected gang members; then, two years later, he was shot four times. The officer pleaded for protection from his commander.

Buendía included a letter from the commander in the officer’s refugee application. “There’s nothing we can do for you,” the commander wrote. “You need to protect yourself.”

A police spokesman declined to comment on the letter.

In one case, concerning a police officer now applying for asylum in U.S. immigration courts, gang members threatened to kidnap the officer’s child at an elementary school in rural El Salvador.

“That’s not what these guys signed up for. It’s one thing to be shot at on the job. It’s another for your family to be targeted while you’re off duty,” said Emily Smith, the attorney representing the officer.

Lawyers such as Smith who are representing the officers typically try to explain to immigration judges that as former police officers, their clients would be persecuted if they were forced to return to El Salvador. But the attorneys are also aware of how narrowly U.S. asylum law can be applied, and that the courts are unlikely to grant asylum to all former officers.

“What we chose to do is focus on the specific threats facing our client,” said Patrick Courtney, who last year represented a Salvadoran officer who had been physically assaulted in his home before fleeing. “We focused on his anti-gang views, on the fact that the threats were directed at him individually.”

Courtney’s client was granted asylum late last year. They discussed where he would live in the United States, and what he would do next. The former officer had only one goal: He wanted to join the United States military.

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

Former policemen have been recognized by BIA precedent as a “particular social group” for asylum for many years. Matter of Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988). However, in their rush to deny asylum to Central Americans, particularly under this xenophobic Administration, some U.S. immigration Judges and BIA panels simply choose to ignore precedent or to manufacture other reasons to deny asylum.

Granting asylum to endangered former police officers clearly is appropriate; but, granting it to the women targeted because of their gender whom those police cannot protect is equally required. Nevertheless, Sessions simply “streamrolled” the asylum law in Matter of A-B-.

While some U.S. Immigration Judges have recognized that even A-B-, properly read without regard to its pernicious dicta, leaves plenty of room for protecting refugee women who have suffered or fear domestic violence, others, and a number of BIA “panels” have jumped on the “Sessions deportation express.” I wouldn’t count on new AG Bill Barr to restore justice to this system, particularly since he has retained some of Sessions’s worst and most unqualified henchmen on his staff.

That’s why we need a legitimate, independent Immigration Court system not beholden to prejudiced “enforcement only” officials in the DOJ and the Executive Branch. It’s also time for a better and wiser Congress to specifically write gender into the asylum law to guard against this and future scofflaw Administrations who seek to inflict cruelty and injustice on some of the most vulnerable and deserving among us.

PWS

03-04-19

SYSTEMIC FAILURE: 9TH Circuit’s Most Recent Reversal Of BIA Demonstrates Disturbing Lack Of Basic Judicial Competence At All Levels Of EOIR – But, Even The 9th’s Rebuke Misses The Real Point – There Can Be No Due Process In Complex Cases Of This Type Without Legal Representation! – Arrey v. Barr

Arrey v Barr — 9th — Firm Resettlement

Arrey v. Barr, 9th Cir., 02-16-19, Published

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

The panel granted in part a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture to a citizen of Cameroon, and remanded.

The panel rejected petitioner’s contention that she was deprived of her due process right to a full and fair hearing based on the denial of her right to retained counsel and an unbiased fact finder. The panel held that the IJ in this case provided petitioner reasonable time to locate an attorney, where the IJ provided several continuances so she could do so, warned her repeatedly that he would not grant further continuances, and attempted to call her attorney when he failed to appear on the day of her merits hearing. The panel also held that although the IJ was rude and harsh with petitioner, petitioner failed to establish that the IJ’s conduct prejudiced her, where the IJ held a complete hearing and made a thorough decision that fully examined the underlying factual matters, and any potential prejudice caused by the IJ’s questionable adverse credibility determination was cured by the Board’s subsequent decision assuming the credibility of petitioner’s testimony in full.

The panel held that the Board committed three legal errors in its application of the firm resettlement bar, which precludes asylum relief if an applicant was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States. First, the panel held that the Board erred by failing to consider whether the conditions of petitioner’s offer of resettlement in South Africa were too restricted for her to be firmly resettled. Second, the panel held that the Board erred by applying the firm resettlement rule not as a mandatory bar to petitioner’s asylum claim, but instead as a limitation on the evidence the Board considered in support of her claim for relief from removal to Cameroon, thus causing the Board to improperly ignore evidence of the abuse petitioner suffered in Cameroon before fleeing to South Africa, as well as evidence of the nature of her relationship with her abuser. Third, the panel held that the Board erred by applying the firm resettlement bar to petitioner’s withholding of removal claim, which is not subject to the firm resettlement bar.

Turning to petitioner’s CAT claim, the panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that petitioner could avoid future harm through internal relocation in Cameroon.

The panel remanded petitioner’s asylum, withholding, and CAT claims for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

PANEL: Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and Frederic Block,* District Judge.

* The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

OPINION BY: Judge Gould

KEY QUOTE:

Petitioner Delphine Arrey petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) decision dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We conclude that the IJ did not deny Arrey her due process rights to counsel and an unbiased factfinder. As to Arrey’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, we conclude that the Board erred as a matter of law in its analysis and application of the “firm resettlement” rule. As to Arrey’s claim for relief under CAT, we conclude that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s determination that Arrey could safely relocate in another area of Cameroon. We grant the petition in part and remand for reconsideration of Arrey’s claims consistent with our opinion.

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

Even the 9th Circuit “blew” the fundamental issue here: No matter how annoying the respondent’s conduct might have been, there was no way to conduct a fair hearing in a case of this complexity without counsel present.

From this recitation of facts, it’s pretty obvious that the respondent had no idea what “firm resettlement” was or how the process for proving or disproving it worked. Going ahead with the hearing created a miscarriage of justice that simply wasted time by going all the way the 9th Circuit and then being returned for competent judicial adjudication applying the correct standards. Haste makes waste.

And the overwhelming backlog that obviously was on the judge’s mind here was not created by this respondent and her attorney; no, it primarily results from “aimless docket reshuffling,” poor administration, Congressional neglect, and “designed to fail policies” by politicos in the DOJ (under the improper and unethical political influence of the DHS) which went into “overdrive” under Sessions.

Getting to the merits, beyond apparently correctly setting forth the respondent’s name and “A number,” the Immigration Judge and the BIA got largely everything else in this case wrong! The basic errors range from a “clearly erroneous” adverse credibility ruling, to a legally incorrect standard for “firm resettlement,” to an idiotically nonsensical ruling that “threats and one attempted assault of rape” did not “rise to the level of persecution” (cases involving these facts were routinely granted by the BIA during my tenure and, to my knowledge, were uniformly granted by IJs in Arlington; indeed, I can’t even imagine an ICE Assistant Chief Counsel during my tenure in Arlington arguing the contrary), to wrong evidentiary determinations, to another completely nonsensical finding on internal relocation.

In other words, this was a “rubber stamp” by BIA “judges” of a staff attorney’s writeup with canned “any reason to deny” language. It was not a fair and impartial adjudication by an “expert” group of appellate judges.

Far from it. If a student had turned this in as an exam answer to a hypothetical case on my Georgetown Law final exam, it would have received “zero credit.” So, how is it “OK” to have a system where individuals in what are supposed to be senior judicial positions, requiring great expertise in immigration, asylum, and human rights law, perform in a manner that would have been deemed unacceptable for L2s and L3s?

It isn’t; and it’s up to the Article III Courts and Congress to get some backbone and some integrity and put an end to this travesty. Yeah, this is “only one case.” But, it involves a human life. Cameroon is a horrible country; credible Cameroonian asylum cases were routinely granted in the Arlington Immigration Court, normally without appeal by ICE.

And for every case where a respondent is lucky enough to get a “Court of Appeals intervention,” dozens of individuals, many without lawyers or the faintest knowledge of what’s happening, are “railroaded” through this fundamentally unfair and constitutionally defective system. This, rather than the bogus wall, or an influx of desperate refugee families seeking asylum, is our true “national emergency” involving immigration: The disdain by our current Administration for the rule of law, human rights, judicial quality, simple human decency, and Due Process of Law under our Constitution!

Congrats to Attorney Ron Richey, an “Arlington Immigration Court regular,” who appeared before me many times, for fighting for due process and justice in another jurisdiction. You are an inspiration to all of us in the “New Due Process Army!”

PWS

03-01-19

JUSTICE DENIED: U.S. Immigration Judge @ Stewart Detention “Court” (“Where Asylum Cases Go To Die”) Denies “Slam Dunk” Asylum Bid To Unrepresented Refugee From DRC, Threatening Him & Family With Death! — System That Once Promised To “Guarantee Fairness and Due Process for All” Is Now A Bastion Of Injustice!

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-separated-father-20190227-story.htm

Kate Morrissey writes in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Constantin Bakala and his family have survived kidnapping, torture, rape, poison and a shipwreck.

Now, faced with the complexities of the U.S. immigration system, they may be on the verge of defeat.

Bakala, 48, and his family fled their home in the Democratic Republic of Congo in late 2016 after they were targeted for Bakala’s participation in an opposition party that promoted democracy in the country, according to his wife.

After traveling through more than 10 countries, the family arrived at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in November 2017. Bakala was separated from his wife and seven children and sent to an immigration detention center in Georgia while they were released to live in the San Diego area, a common practice at the time. He hasn’t seen them since.

Because they were separated physically, their cases were also handled separately in immigration court. Since the federal government prioritizes detained cases, Bakala’s finished before the family’s even began, according to their attorney.

Unable to find an attorney to represent him at the detention center in rural Georgia and with little money to even pay for phone calls to the outside world to try to get help, Bakala faced by himself an immigration court known for being tough on asylum seekers. Judge Michael Baird, who heard his case, granted 11 of the 152 asylum cases that he decided between fiscal 2013 and 2018, records show.

Bakala lost.

He tried to appeal the case by himself and was denied that as well, according to court records. Now the family, with the help of a San Diego church, has found an attorney to help him, but it may be too late.

He is convinced that if he returns to the Democratic Republic of Congo, he will be murdered by his own government.

Bakala’s party membership card shows he was part of the Rassemblement des Congolais Démocrates et Nationalistes, or RCDN, which opposed former president Joseph Kabila’s maneuvers to stay in power past his term limit. When Bakala wasn’t at his job at the Ministry of Health, he worked with the party’s youth and advised them on how to demonstrate peacefully against the ruling party, his wife Annie Bwetu Kapongo said.

Bwetu Kapongo tells their story slowly, haltingly, sometimes with painful detail and sometimes in circles, a symptom of the trauma she carries from what happened.

She remembers when her husband first told her about getting threatened, and she remembers the day he went missing in 2016.

When she went to the police to ask for help finding him, she was locked in a room that reeked of urine. Later, three policemen came in, beat her and raped her. She tried to stop them and pointed out that she was pregnant.

The men didn’t care, she said. She ended up losing the baby.

When she was eventually able to return home, her husband was still missing. The two stores she owned, one that sold fish and one that sold cakes and juice, were broken into and robbed by people looking for her husband, who had by this point escaped where he had been imprisoned and tortured, according to his attorney.

One night, Bwetu Kapongo woke up to the family dog’s aggressive barking before hearing it abruptly stop. They found the dog dead the next day.

Another night, she and the children got sick. Their heads were spinning, and they were vomiting. Eventually, they found a tool someone had used to release poison into the house, she said.

Finally, one night she heard a knock on her window. It was her husband.

Aided by people he’d brought to help the family, they scooped the children out of their beds while they were sleeping and fled in a boat down a river to the Republic of Congo, where the people helping them paid for their hotel, Bwetu Kapongo said.

They waited a couple of months there until they had travel documents to get to Brazil and left in early 2017 to begin a grueling journey to the U.S. border.

“We came because America respects the law, and they know how to protect people,” Bwetu Kapongo said through a translator.

In each of the countries they passed through, officials told them that they could not stay, she added. They were sent from Panama back to Colombia when they tried to get across the border by boat and ended up having to make the grueling 6- to 7-day walk through the jungle to Costa Rica.

In Costa Rica, they found a boat that would take them to Nicaragua.

After they’d been on it for about 45 minutes, Bwetu Kapongo heard shots fired at them. She told her children to lay down. Then, the boat broke, she said, and it began to sink.All of a sudden, her youngest child Joseph, who is now 5, was no longer in her arms.

She started to drown.

“Is this a nightmare? Is this real? Is this happening?” she recalled asking the darkness that surrounded her.

She felt other bodies in the water, hands pushing her head down as they tried desperately to reach the surface. She felt someone clutch her neck. It was David, her 12-year-old son.

When a rescue boat pulled her to safety, she found her 17-year-old daughter Marie Louise. Bwetu Kapongo began to pray, crying out the names of her five other children and asking God to find them. Her husband was soon rescued from the water and prayed with her.

When rescuers noticed bubbles moving in the water, they found Joseph along with 8-year-old Moses and 10-year-old Augustine clinging to a rope and pulled them to safety.

Emmanuel, her 15-year-old son, had been carried further away into the water with 14-year-old Daniel. They found a life preserver that had been thrown into the water and clung to it, bringing with them two girls from another family who were also nearly drowning.

When Emmanuel used the last of his strength to cry out, rescuers found them, Bwetu Kapongo said. Two people who had been on the boat died, one adult and one child.

Though the family survived, all of the documents and photos that could have been used as evidence were lost in the water.

They would have to journey by boat two more times between Costa Rica and Nicaragua before successfully making it the rest of the way up to the U.S. border.

Constantin Bakala and wife Annie Bwetu Kapongo while the family was in Brazil (Emmanuel Bakala)

Bwetu Kapongo said she expected to receive “protection and respect” when they arrived. Instead, her husband was quickly taken away.

It is only when she reaches this point in the story that she begins to cry.

She wouldn’t hear from him for about a month. He told her that he didn’t know how to find her, that it took that long for officials to give him information about where she was.

The family’s attorney Julie Hartlé said the family’s story is “horrific but not unusual.” Other attorneys she knows have had similar cases.

“This family meets every criteria. They were persecuted for being democracy activists, kidnapped and tortured by their own government,” Hartlé said. “It meets the exact definition of asylum for political persecution. It should’ve been straightforward. They were able to use the detention system against them.”

Bakala had to fill out his asylum application in English, a language he does not speak well. Though he told the judge verbally about three times he was taken by police, how he was beaten, interrogated and held without food, he only put information about one of the incidents in his application.

“That sounds like a pretty bad event,” the judge said in his ruling of one of the incidents Bakala described. “Unfortunately, it is never mentioned anywhere in the respondent’s application for asylum.”

The evidence that Bakala was able to gather and present — including a notice from his political party about his disappearance, another notice that the ruling party was looking for him, his voter ID card and party membership card — was not translated into English, so the judge said he couldn’t consider it, according to court records. He found Bakala’s story not credible.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review said it does not comment on judges’ decisions.

Neither Immigration and Customs Enforcement nor Customs and Border Protection were able to respond to request for comment in time for publication.

As immigration officials prepared to deport Bakala, attorneys filed emergency motions to temporarily keep him in the U.S. to try to reopen his case with new evidence. Last week, the 11th Circuit granted him a stay until Friday.

In the meantime, members of the church helping the family here in San Diego are planning a protest outside of the federal building at noon on Thursday in support of Bakala.

Bwetu Kapongo said the most important thing for her is protection for her children.

“He sacrificed his life to protect his kids,” she said in French. “If we hadn’t done what we did, they would already be dead.”

Beyond that, she wishes for her husband’s return. She tries to hide her exhaustion and her tears from her children, but she doesn’t think she can raise them alone.

“After the mountain I went through, I’ve got no more strength,” she said.

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

So, how might a real judge, one committed to guaranteeing fundamental fairness, due process, and properly applying the generous dictates of U.S. asylum law have approached this case?

First, Bakala comes from a country, the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) which is one of the most repressive regimes in the world, where persecution is rampant. For example, the DRC received a score of 17 on a scale of 100 in the latest Freedom House freedom rankings.

Here’s a quote from the most recent U.S. State Department Country Report summarizing the daily horrors of life in the DRC:

The most significant human rights issues included: unlawful killings; disappearances and abductions; torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment, including sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and rape; life-threatening conditions in prisons and detention facilities; arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention; denial of fair public trial; arbitrary interference with privacy, family, and home; restrictions on freedoms of speech and the press, assembly, and association; abuse of internally displaced persons (IDPs); inability of citizens to change their government through democratic means; harassment of civil society, opposition, and religious leaders; corruption and a lack of transparency at all levels of government; violence and stigmatization against women, children, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities, indigenous persons, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons, and persons with albinism, with little government action to investigate, prosecute, or hold perpetrators accountable; trafficking in persons, including forced labor, including by children; and violations of worker rights.

Authorities often took no steps to investigate, prosecute, or punish officials who committed abuses, whether in the security forces or elsewhere in the government, and impunity for human rights abuses was a problem.

Therefore, knowing that Bakala comes from a notorious “refugee producing country,” the Immigration Judge should have insisted as a matter of due process and fundamental fairness that the case be continued until the respondent could get the assistance of a competent lawyer to fully and fairly present a case for saving his life.

Asylum law has been made intentionally and unnecessarily complicated by a politicized system run with a strong enforcement bias; statistics, as well as experience, show that unrepresented individuals have virtually no realistic chance of success, particularly in a system run by an Administration clearly prejudiced against them. Human lives become mere “case completions.”

Second, Bakala’s wife also appears to have a strong asylum claim in her own right. If granted, he could also have been protected as a derivative asylee under his wife’s application. Therefore, unless ICE were basically willing to stipulate to an asylum grant, proceeding with the cases separately was presumptively unfair. A judge committed to fairness, would have “pushed” the ICE Counsel on why this family’s cases were not being heard together.

Third, to justify an adverse credibility finding under the statute and BIA precedents, the judge’s ruling must demonstrate significant discrepancies or omissions, provide cogent reasoning, and carefully consider and give reasons for not accepting the respondent’s explanations for any problems. This judge’s ruling appears to have “flunked” all of those tests. The idea that a detained unrepresented individual’s omission of an event from the asylum application is a cogent basis for finding him not credible is facially absurd. That’s particularly true where the respondent is not a native English speaker and is held in detention where his ability to prepare, or, indeed, to even understand what is required for a successful asylum application, is intentionally impaired.

Moreover, a simple reference to the most current State Department Country Report (quoted above) would have shown the judge that the respondent’s testimony was highly plausible in light of known country conditions. Indeed, persecution, torture, and abuse are daily occurrences in the DRC.

Additionally, the judge violated due process by requiring a detained individual to get translations of key corroborating documents. It’s simply not possible in most cases. How is a detained unrepresented individual going to find a qualified foreign language translator in the Stewart prison? A judge doing his job fairly would have asked the respondent to summarize the documents and accepted a “proffer;” or he could have had the documents read into the record by the interpreter.

For the purpose of a detained adjudication, I would have assumed that the documents were what the respondent said they were and acted accordingly. If the DHS wanted to challenge the decision, they could have the documents translated. Just one of many problems in purporting to conduct “due process hearings:” in place where due process often can’t really be achieved.

Then, the “rubber stamp” BIA (a/k/a the “Falls Church Adjudication Center”) also “tanked” by not applying its own precedents which should have resulted in a finding that the Immigration Judge’s specious reasoning was “clearly erroneous.”

I heard a number of asylum cases from the DRC during my time on the bench in Arlington. I doubt that I denied any except for individuals who were aggravated felons, engaged in persecution of others, or had provided material support to a terrorist organization. Even those who failed to establish asylum eligibility often had valid claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture, given the prevalence of government sponsored or endorsed torture in the DRC. Most DRC asylum cases in Arlington were well-represented, well-documented, and either largely unopposed or not appealed by ICE.

Even without a lawyer, it appears that Bakala’s testimony was credible under the circumstances and that he suffered harm that should have warranted a grant of asylum on account of political opinion based on known country conditions. At one time in Arlington, a case like this with representation probably could have been granted largely by stipulation, with brief testimony, on a “short docket.”

That’s how cases can “move” on the Immigration Court’s crowded dockets without compromising due process or fundamental fairness. Instead, this Administration encourages a biased “haste makes waste” approach, issues statements of strong prejudgment against asylum seekers and their attorneys, motivates judges to cut corners, and enables judges to look for “any reason” to deny asylum and crank out final orders of removal. It’s a “cavalcade of worst practices!”

While some judges courageously resist and insist on “doing the right thing,” others choose or feel compelled to “go along to get along” with the Administration’s unethical (and incompetent) administration of these so-called “courts.” Indeed, today’s Immigration Judges are not even properly trained on how to correctly adjudicate and grant asylum under the generous standards mandated by the law, the Supreme Court, and even the BIA’s (seldom followed) precedent supposedly implementing generous standards following the Supreme Court’s admonishment. It’s an exercise in extreme intellectual dishonesty.

Allowing serious, “life or death” cases to be tried in places like Stewart, notorious for being the home of unsympathetic judges and an inherently coercive atmosphere, intentionally located in and out-of-the-way place where it is hard for attorneys to participate, is a stain on America.

The DOJ has abandoned any semblance of running its “wholly owned courts” in a fair and constitutional manner. Congress, ultimately responsible for creating and countenancing this mess, has long abdicated its duty to establish an independent system that complies with Due Process.

Article III Judges also have been largely complicit in allowing this pathetic imitation of a “court” system to continue operating in a fundamentally unfair and unreasonable manner and spewing forth skewed, unjust, often unlawful, and sometimes deadly results. It’s a national disgrace!

Sadly, the individuals being abused by the Immigration Court system are some of the weakest and most vulnerable among us. That’s what allows such systematic injustice to operate “largely below the radar screen.” However, the individuals who are participating in and enabling such outrageous contempt for the rule of law and human dignity, and thereby violating their oaths of Federal office, will not escape the judgment of history.

Fixing this unfair and intentionally broken system is well within our power as a country. It could be done for much less than $5.7 billion. Put an end to the “New American Gulag” and the “theater of the absurd” masquerading as a “court” that operates within its bowels!

PWS

03-01-19

THE ASYLUMIST FINDS “MIXED BAG” IN U.S IMMIGRATION COURT DETAINED UNREPRESENTED ASYLUM CASES: Most U.S. Immigration Judges (& ICE Assistant Chief Counsel) Apparently Conduct Themselves Professionally, But Detained Unrepresented Asylum Seekers Are Being Systematically Denied Due Process — “[M]any of these pro se cases are not well developed and are lacking in evidence. This is because the cases we review are for individuals who are detained. If these people had access to a lawyer and could better prepare their cases, many—even most—would achieve a better outcome.”

http://www.asylumist.com/2019/02/25/when-the-judge-is-a-jerk/

Jason Dzubow writes:

The vast majority of Immigration Judges, DHS attorneys, Asylum Officers, and USCIS officers are professional and respectful. But what if they are not? What do you do then?

First off, I think it is important to understand that the bad officials are a small minority. I’ve been to many interviews and court hearings, and I’ve only ever made one complaint (against a USCIS officer at a Green Card interview). In other words, at least in my experience, government officials in immigration-world are generally pretty good.

Now admittedly, I am a lawyer and I know my clients’ rights and what to expect from “the system.” Pro se (unrepresented) applicants may not receive the same level of respect. They are easier to abuse, and it is more likely that decision-makers will cut corners in cases where the applicant is unable to protect herself.

That said, I am also involved in the BIA Pro Bono Project, where I review a dozen or so unrepresented appeals cases each month. I see the transcript of the Immigration Court case, and I can read how the Immigration Judge and the DHS attorney treated the applicant. While it is fairly common to see Judges and DHS attorneys moving quickly through a pro se hearing, it is also common to see these same officials taking extra time to ensure they are properly adjudicating the case. Once in a while, I see a case where the Judge steamrolled the proceedings to reach a quick decision, but that is the exception. In most cases, even those that were adjudicated quickly, the outcome seems fair, given the available evidence and testimony (one big caveat – many of these pro se cases are not well developed and are lacking in evidence. This is because the cases we review are for individuals who are detained. If these people had access to a lawyer and could better prepare their cases, many—even most—would achieve a better outcome).

The government takes your complaints very seriously.

While outright hostility and rule breaking seem quite rare, adjudicators can sometimes be testy, intimidating or unfriendly. What to do if you have the bad luck of encountering a hostile or impolite decision-maker?

The first thing to do is to remain calm. The demeanor of the decision-maker is often unrelated to the outcome of the case, and we have seen examples where an unfriendly officer issues a positive decision. Remember too that this person is not someone you will likely ever encounter again in your life. All you want from him is a favorable decision. Even if your experience at the interview is unpleasant or frightening, that won’t matter much if the case is granted. If you can keep your cool, answer all the questions, remain polite, and not lose your composure, you increase the likelihood of a good result. Getting angry, or arguing with the decision-maker is unlikely to get you the decision you want.

Second, make your record. This means, if you have something that you think is important to say, you should try to say it. In other words, don’t let an aggressive officer or judge intimidate you into silence. Court hearings and some USCIS interviews are recorded. Asylum Officers are supposed to write down everything you say (and if they do not write down what you say, you can complain to a supervisor). Even if you are ultimately prevented from saying something, if you indicate that you had something else to say, that exchange might be reviewed on appeal (or by a supervisor) and could result in a new trial or interview.

In making your record, you can be explicit. You can say to the judge or officer, “I think you are treating me unfairly because you are not allowing me to talk about X.” Say this politely and calmly, and it might soften the decision-maker’s stance. Say it aggressively, and you will likely harden the decision-maker’s position. I remember one case where the DHS attorney seemed (to me at least) to be taking a very aggressive position towards my asylum-seeker client. Finally, I simply asked (politely) why DHS was so opposed to asylum in the case. The attorney explained his motivation, which helped me better understand the case, and ultimately, the client received asylum.

Third, especially if you are unrepresented, you should write down what happened after the interview or court hearing. When things go wrong, it is important to try to understand what happened, and the more information you have, the better. If you write down what happened immediately, the information is more likely to be accurate. This will be useful if you later want someone else, like a lawyer, to review the case. It is also important if you need to make a formal complaint against the decision-maker.

Finally, if you feel you were subject to unfair treatment, you can make a complaint. Different forums have different procedures for complaining. For example, if you are with an Asylum Officer, you can ask to speak with a supervisor. You do this during the interview itself by telling the Asylum Officer that you would like to speak to a supervisor. For an Immigration Court case, you would typically contact the judge’s supervisor (called the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge) after the court hearing, or–more typically–you would just file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Periodically, I receive decisions that I think are wrong or unfair, but my clients have never been subject to treatment by an Asylum Officer or Judge that warranted a complaint. I did make a complaint once about a USCIS officer. I spoke to the officer’s supervisor immediately after the interview, and then sent a written complaint directly to the supervisor. I do not know whether the officer herself was informed of the complaint (I never saw her again), but I do know that my client’s case was approved in short order.

Most Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers are professional and respectful, and so hopefully, you will never encounter an official who is treating you unfairly. But if you do, keep calm, remain respectful, and politely make the points you need to make. This is the best way to maximize your chances for a positive decision.

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

There is a systemic problem here that must be resolved before the current Immigration Court System can be expanded. It isn’t “rocket science.” A competent Administration interested in Due Process, efficiency, and the rule of law would:

Reduce detention of asylum seekers to a bare minimum;
Work with NGOs and the private bar toward universal representation of asylum seekers (which also means basically “universal appearance at hearings”);
Establish positive precedents to guide Immigration Judges & ICE Counsel to work with the private bar to grant more well-documented cases to implement the generous intent of the Refugee Act of 1980;
Ultimately, establish robust refugee programs in the areas of the Northern Triangle (thus making it unnecessary for folks to travel to the border to apply) and authorize and encourage Asylum Officers to grant more asylum, withholding of removal, and/or Convention Against Torture applications, thus eliminating the need to place so many cases where protection is clearly warranted into Immigration Court.

As long as we insist on dealing with a humanitarian refugee situation as a bogus “law enforcement” issue, we will continue to fail and actually divert resources from real law enforcement. Contrary to the false narrative pushed by DHS officials before Congress, increasing arrivals of “families with children” is not a law enforcement crisis, although the way this Administration approaches it does waste law enforcement resources.

An Administration truly interested in solving problems could initially process most of these individuals promptly and fairly at or near Ports of Entry, and then send those found to have a “credible fear” on to interior locations where they could work with attorneys to develop and present their claims in Immigration Court. Those legitimately found to be without credible fear would be subject to “Summary Removal” without going to Immigration Court.

The vast bulk of the 1.1 million cases in the largely “artificially created” and unnecessary Immigration Court backlog could be removed from the docket through a sensible exercise of prosecutorial discretion or processed for other forms of relief through USCIS. With a reduced docket, the Immigration Courts with 475 Immigration Judges (if allowed to operate independently, without idiotic quotas or other inappropriate and unethical political interference) should be able to fairly process arriving asylum applicants, detainees, other “priority criminal cases,” and recent arrivals without relief on a reasonable 12-18 month cycle. (Note that many in the latter category would be subject to “summary removal” without going to Immigration Court.) The Border Patrol and ICE Investigations could then focus on real law enforcement issues.

We can diminish ourselves as a nation; but, that won’t stop human migration.

PWS

02-28-19

SUPREMES: DEAD JUDGES CAN’T VOTE! — Federal Judges Serve For Life, Not Eternity!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/judges-are-appointed-for-life-not-eternity-supreme-court-rules/2019/02/25/3278a54e-390b-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html

Robert Barnes for the Washington Post:

“Federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity,” the Supreme Court concluded Monday, saying the late judge Stephen Reinhardt’s vote should not have been counted in a decision issued after his death.

In an unsigned opinion, the justices sent back a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that found a practice of the Fresno County Office of Education violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Reinhardt died March 29, 2018, but the 9th Circuit counted his vote after that. He was listed as the author of an en banc decision — one made by a majority of the full court — 11 days later.

“Without Judge Reinhardt’s vote, the opinion attributed to him would have been approved by only 5 of the 10 members of the en banc panel who were still living when the decision was filed,” the opinion stated. “Although the other five living judges concurred in the judgment, they did so for different reasons. The upshot is that Judge Reinhardt’s vote made a difference.”

The court decided that was unlawful.

“That practice effectively allowed a deceased judge to exercise the judicial power of the United States after his death,” the opinion said. “But federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity.”

Because the opinion is unsigned, lost perhaps for eternity will be the identity of the justice who penned that line. But it was not Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who noted that she “concurs in the judgment.”

The case, Yovino v. Rizo, returns to the 9th Circuit.

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

Sorry Judcge Reinhardt. The “Heavenly Bench” doesn’t get to vote on temporal matters.

Actually we had this rule at the “Old BIA:” The Appellate Judge’s vote didn’t count if he or she retired before the decision was actually issued by our Clerk’s Office. Thankfully, during my tenure, none of my judicial colleagues died on duty.

PWS

02-16-19

MARIA SACCHETTI @ WASHPOST: Substantial Majority Of Those Migrants Detained in Trump’s “New American Gulag” Have No Criminal Record!

tohhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national/when-trump-declared-national-emergency-most-detained-immigrants-were-not-criminals/2019/02/22/a332480e-36ad-11e9-a400-e481bf264fdc_story.html

Maria writes:

Before President Trump declared a national emergency on the U.S. southern border on Feb. 15, he cited concerns that the United States was being flooded with murderers, kidnappers and other violent offenders from foreign countries.

According to new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement figures obtained by The Washington Post, the nation’s immigration jails were not filled with such criminals. As of Feb. 9, days before the president’s declaration, nearly 63 percent of the detainees in ICE jails had not been convicted of any crime.

Of the 48,793 immigrants jailed on Feb. 9, the ICE data shows, 18,124 had criminal records. An additional 5,715 people had pending criminal charges, officials said, but they did not provide details. ICE also did not break down the severity of the crimes committed by or attributed to detainees.

An average of 59 percent of detainees in custody during this fiscal year had no criminal history, according to ICE.

“It proves this is a fake emergency,” said Kevin Appleby, policy director at the Center for Migration Studies, a New York-based nonpartisan immigration think tank. “It really shows that what the president’s doing is abusing his power based on false information.”

. . . .

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

Read Maria’s complete article at the above link.

We know that most of the migrants held in the “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) are neither security threats nor realistic dangers to our communities. From my experience many of those held because they are “criminals” have either relatively minor offenses (e.g., driving without a license) or even if the offenses were more serious have long ago completed criminal sentences and have been free in society without recurring problems.

So, why are the “non-criminals” being held in the NAG? Well, DHS would say it’s because they are threats to “abscond” before hearings, citing highly questionable “self-fulfilling” numbers opaquely generated by EOIR and DHS. But outside studies of DHS and EOIR statistics have shown a much different picture.

Individuals with lawyers and applications filed, particularly for asylum, who have the system and their obligations thereunder carefully explained to them in their own language, show up almost all the time for Immigration Court.

Likewise, migrants released on moderate bonds (in the $1.5 to $5K range — much lower than the current “national average”) also appear with regularity, as do those with ankle monitors and other “alternatives to detention.”

Thus, a reasonable Administration genuinely interested in the integrity of the Immigration Court process would severely curtail the use of civil immigration detention, particularly by private entities, which is both wastefully expensive and inhumane.

Instead, they would rely on a proven combination of lower-cost, more humane, and due process promoting alternatives: getting applicants matched with lawyers, pro bono, low bono, or paid; encouraging individuals to locate in communities where lawyers, family resources, and NGOs are available; and using reasonable bonds, ankle monitors and other types of “call in monitoring” to help insure appearance at further hearings.

An improved Immigration Court system where all judges were uniformly fair, impartial, and courteous to applicants and their lawyers, and where asylum was granted more generously in accordance with the standards set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980, the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the BIA’s precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi, and the regulations establishing a strong presumption of future persecution for those who have been persecuted in the past would also help.

Hope tends to draw people. Hostility and bias understandably tend to repel them. As long as we have a U.S. Immigration Court that tolerates, and even aids, abets, and encourages, some biased, anti-asylum, unprofessional judges in the “Jeff Sessions mode” who deny asylum at rates exceeding 90%, it will lack credibility.

Without credibility and a demonstrable commitment to fairness, impartiality, and due process above the DHS’s and the Administration’s often questionable and other times downright bogus “enforcement priorities,” the system will continue to fail our country, inflict unjustifiable harm and suffering on the most vulnerable among us, and indirectly harm every one of us who believes in Constitutional Government and a firm commitment to respecting human rights. Critical examination of the Government’s positions against a rigorous standard of legality, reasonableness, and fundamenal fairness under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution is essential to an independent judiciary. It isn’t happening in today’s “captive” Immigration Courts. That’s a national disgrace that must be fixed.

PWS

02-23-19

COURTING DISASTER: NEW AILA REPORT SHREDS DOJ’S “BUILT TO FAIL” IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG REDUCTION PROGRAM — “Malicious Incompetence” Turns Tragedy To Travesty! — McKinney, Lynch, Creighton, & Schmidt Do Press Conference Exposing Injustice, Waste, Abuse — Listen To Audio Here!

OUR TEAM:

Jeremy McKinney, Attorney, Greensboro, NC, AILA National Treasurer

Laura Lynch, Senior Policy Counsel, AILA,

Emily Creighton, Deputy Legal Director, American Immigration Council

Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired U.S. Immigration Judge

Read the AILA Report (with original formatting) at the link below:

19021900

FOIA Reveals EOIR’s Failed Plan for Fixing the Immigration Court Backlog February 21, 2019
Contact: Laura Lynch (llynch@aila.org) 1
On December 19, 2018, AILA and the American Immigration Council obtained a partially redacted memorandum through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), entitled the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan (hereinafter “EOIR’s plan”). EOIR’s plan, which was approved by the Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 31, 2017,2 states that the overarching goal was “to significantly reduce the case backlog by 2020.” 3 In the following months, DOJ and EOIR implemented the plan by rolling out several policy initiatives, including multiple precedent-setting opinions issued by then-Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions.
Contrary to EOIR’s stated goals, the administration’s policies have contributed to an increase in the court backlog which exceeded 820,000 cases at the end of 2018.4 This constitutes a 25 percent increase in the backlog since the introduction of EOIR’s plan.5 For example, the October 2017 memorandum reveals that EOIR warned DOJ that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) potential activation of almost 350,000 low priority cases or cases that were not ready to be adjudicated could balloon the backlog.6 Nonetheless, then-AG Sessions ignored these concerns and issued a decision that essentially stripped immigration judges (IJs) of their ability to administratively close cases and compelled IJs to reopen previously closed cases at Immigrations Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) request.7
The policies EOIR implemented as part of this backlog reduction plan have severely undermined the due process and integrity of the immigration court system. EOIR has placed enormous pressure on IJs by setting strict case quotas on and restricting their ability to manage their dockets more efficiently. This approach treats the complex process of judging like an assembly line and makes it more likely that judges will not give asylum seekers and others appearing before the courts enough time to gather evidence to support their claims. People appearing before the courts will also have less time to find legal counsel, which has been shown to be a critical, if not the single most important factor, in determining whether an asylum seeker is able to prove eligibility for legal protection.
The foundational purpose of any court system must be to ensure its decisions are rendered fairly, consistent with the law and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Efforts to improve efficiency are also important but cannot be implemented at the expense of these fundamental principles. EOIR’s plan has not only failed to reduce the backlog but has eroded the court’s ability to ensure due process. Furthermore, EOIR’s plan demonstrates the enormous power DOJ exerts over the immigration court system. Until Congress creates an immigration court that is separate and independent from DOJ, those appearing before the court will be confronted with a flawed system that is severely compromised in its ability to ensure fair and consistent adjudications.
I. Background on EOIR’s Inherently Flawed Structure
The U.S. immigration court system suffers from profound structural problems that have severely eroded both its capacity to deliver just and fair decisions in a timely manner and public confidence in the system
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

itself.8 Unlike other judicial bodies, the immigration courts lack independence from the Executive Branch. The immigration courts are administered by EOIR, which is housed within DOJ – the same agency that prosecutes immigration cases at the federal level. This inherent conflict of interest is made worse by the fact that IJs are not classified as judges but as government attorneys, a classification that fails to recognize the significance of their judicial duties and puts them under the control of the AG, the chief prosecutor in immigration cases. The current administration has taken advantage of the court’s structural flaws, introducing numerous policies — including EOIR’s plan — that dramatically reshape federal immigration law and undermine due process in immigration court proceedings.
II. Policies Identified in EOIR’s Plan
Administrative Closure
Stated Policy Goal: To reduce the case backlog and maximize docket efficiency, EOIR’s plan called for the strengthening of EOIR and DHS interagency cooperation.9 EOIR’s plan advised DOJ that “any burst of case initiation by a DHS component could seriously compromise EOIR’s ability to address its caseload and greatly exacerbate the current state of the backlog.”10
Reality: Despite EOIR’s warning, then-AG Sessions issued a precedent decision in Matter of Castro Tum,11 which contributed to a rise in the case backlog. This decision severely restricts a judge’s ability to schedule and prioritize their cases, otherwise known as “administrative closure” and even compels IJs to reopen previously closed cases at ICE’s request.12
Administrative closure is a procedural tool that IJs and the BIA use to temporarily halt removal proceedings by transferring a case from active to inactive status on a court’s docket. This tool is particularly useful in situations where IJs cannot complete the case until action is taken by USCIS or another DHS component, state courts and other authorities. Prior to the issuance of Matter of Castro Tum, numerous organizations, including the judges themselves, warned DOJ that stripping IJs of the ability to utilize this docket management tool “will result in an enormous increase in our already massive backlog of cases.”13 In fact, an EOIR-commissioned report identified administrative closure as a helpful tool to control the caseload and recommended that EOIR work with DHS to implement a policy to administratively close cases awaiting adjudication in other agencies or courts.14
Nonetheless, the former AG issued Matter of Castro Tum15 sharply curtailing IJs’ ability to administratively close cases. The decision even called for cases that were previously administratively closed cases to be put back on the active immigration court dockets.16 In August 2018, ICE directed its attorneys to file motions to recalendar “all cases that were previously administratively closed…” with limited exceptions—potentially adding a total of 355,835 cases immediately onto the immigration court docket.17 Three months later, ICE had already moved to recalendar 8,000 cases that had previously been administratively closed, contributing to the bloated immigration court case backlog.18 In response, members of Congress sent a letter to DOJ and DHS outlining their concerns about ICE’s plans to recalendar potentially hundreds of thousands of administratively closed cases, further clogging the system and delaying and denying justice to the individuals within it.19
Quotas and Deadlines
Stated Policy Goal: To expedite adjudications, EOIR’s plan calls for the development of caseload
management goals and benchmarks.20
Reality: EOIR imposed unprecedented case completion quotas and deadlines on IJs, that pressure judges to complete cases rapidly at the expense of balanced, well-reasoned judgment.21
2
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

At the time EOIR’s plan was issued, EOIR’s collective bargaining agreement with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) prohibited “the use of any type of performance metrics in evaluating an IJ’s performance.”22 Despite opposition from NAIJ,23 DOJ and EOIR imposed case completion quotas and time-based deadlines on IJs, tying their individual performance reviews to the number of cases they complete.24 Among other requirements, IJs must complete 700 removal cases in the next year or risk losing their jobs.25 Disturbingly, DOJ unveiled new software, resembling a “speedometer on a car” employed to track the completion of IJs’ cases.26
Sample Image of “IJ Performance Data Dashboard”
(Source: Vice News)27
AILA, the American Immigration Council, and other legal organizations and scholars oppose the quotas that have been described by the NAIJ as a “death knell for judicial independence.”28 The purported argument for these policies is that it will speed the process up for the judges. However, applying this kind of blunt instrument will compel judges to rush through decisions and may compromise a respondent’s right to due process and a fair hearing. Given that most respondents do not speak English as their primary language, a strict time frame for completion of cases interferes with a judge’s ability to assure that a person’s right to examine and present evidence is respected.29
These policies also impact asylum seekers, who may need more time to gather evidence that is hard to obtain from their countries of origin, as well as unrepresented individuals, who may need more time to obtain an attorney. The Association of Pro Bono Counsel explained that the imposition of case completion quotas and deadlines “will inevitably reduce our ability to provide pro bono representation to immigrants in need of counsel.”30 Unrepresented people often face hurdles in court that can cause case delays, and scholars have concluded that immigrants with attorneys fare better at every stage of the court process.31 Furthermore, these policies compel IJs to rush through decisions may result in errors which will lead to an increase in appeals and federal litigation, further slowing down the process.
Continuances
Stated Policy Goal: To “streamline current immigration proceedings”32 and “process cases more
efficiently,”33 EOIR’s plan called for changes in the use of continuances in immigration court.34
Reality: The restrictions DOJ and EOIR placed on the use of continuances make it far more difficult for immigrants to obtain counsel and interfere with judges’ ability to use their own discretion in each case.
EOIR and DOJ introduced policies that pressure judges to deny more continuances at the expense of due process. In July 2017, the Chief IJ issued a memorandum which pressures IJs to deny multiple continuances, including continuances to find an attorney or for an attorney to prepare for a case.35 Following this policy change, then-AG Sessions issued the precedential decision, Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., interfering with an IJ’s ability to grant continuance requests and introducing procedural hurdles that will also make it harder for people to request and IJs to grant continuances.36
3
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

These policy changes weaken due process protections and contradict the agency’s plan to “improve existing laws and policies.” Continuances represent a critical docketing management tool for IJs and are a necessary means to ensure that due process is afforded in removal proceedings. The number one reason respondents request continuances is to find counsel, who play a critical role in ensuring respondents receive a fair hearing.37 Continuances are particularly important to recent arrivals, vulnerable populations (such as children), and non-English speakers—all of whom have significant difficulties navigating an incredibly complex immigration system. Furthermore, individuals represented by counsel contribute to more efficient court proceedings. NAIJ’s President, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, explained, “It is our experience, when noncitizens are represented by competent counsel, Immigration Judges are able to conduct proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly.”38
Video Teleconferencing (VTC)
Stated Policy Goal: To expand its adjudicatory capacity, EOIR called for pilot VTC “immigration
adjudication centers.”39
Reality: EOIR expanded the use of VTC for substantive hearings undermining the quality of communication and due process.
A 2017 report commissioned by EOIR concluded that court proceedings by VTC should be limited to “procedural matters” because appearances by VTC may lead to “due process issues.”40 Despite these concerns, EOIR expanded use of VTC for substantive hearings. A total of fifteen IJs currently sit in two immigration adjudication centers—four in Falls Church, Virginia, and eleven in Fort Worth, Texas.41 IJs are currently stationed at these “centers” where they adjudicate cases from around the country from a remote setting.42
For years, legal organizations such as AILA and the American Bar Association (ABA) have opposed use of VTC to conduct in immigration merits hearings, except in matters in which the noncitizen has given consent.43 Technological glitches such as weak connections and bad audio can make it difficult to communicate effectively, and 29 percent of EOIR staff reported that VTC caused meaningful delay.44 Additionally, VTC technology does not provide for the ability to transmit nonverbal cues. Such issues can impact an IJs’ assessment of an individual’s credibility and demeanor, which are significant factors in determining appropriate relief.45 Moreover, use of VTC for immigration hearings also limits the ability for attorneys to consult confidentially with their clients. No matter how high-quality or advanced the technology is that is used during a remote hearing, such a substitute is not equivalent to an in-person hearing and presents significant due process concerns.
IJ Hiring
Stated Policy Goal: In order to increase the IJ corps and reduce the amount of time to hire new
IJs, the former AG introduced a new, streamlined IJ hiring process.46
Reality: Following DOJ’s implementation of the streamlined IJ hiring process, DOJ faced allegations of politicized and discriminatory hiring47 that call into question the fundamental fairness of immigration court decisions.
On its face, the agency “achieved” its goal to quickly hire more IJs, reducing the time it takes to onboard new IJs by 74 percent and increasing the number of IJs on the bench from 338 IJs at the end of FY2017 to 414 IJs by the end of 2018.48 What these statistics do not reveal is that the new plan amended hiring processes to provide political appointees with greater influence in the final selection of IJs.49 In addition to procedural changes, DOJ also made substantive changes to IJ hiring requirements, “over-emphasizing litigation experience to the exclusion of other relevant immigration law experience.”50 Both Senate and
4
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

House Democrats requested an investigation with the DOJ Inspector General (IG) to examine allegations that DOJ has targeted candidates and withdrawn or delayed offers for IJ and BIA positions based on their perceived political or ideological views.51 These allegations are particularly troublesome given the influx in the number of IJs resigning and reports that experienced IJs are “being squeezed out of the system for political reasons.”52
Telephonic Interpreters
Stated Policy Goal: EOIR requested additional funding to support additional IJs on staff and to
improve efficiency.53
Reality: EOIR failed to budget for needed in-person interpreters54 resulting in the use of telephonic interpreters for most hearings, which raises concerns about hearing delays and potential communication issues.55
In April of 2017, an EOIR-commissioned report revealed that 31 percent of court staff reported that telephonic interpreters caused a meaningful delay in their ability to proceed with their daily responsibilities.56 With more than 85 percent of respondents in immigration court relying on use of an interpreter, EOIR’s decision to replace in-person interpreters with telephonic interpreters will undoubtedly make court room procedures less efficient.57 In addition, similar to many of the technological concerns cited with use of VTC, communication issues related to use of remote interpreters can jeopardize an immigrant’s right to a fair day in court. For example, it is impossible for telephonic interpreters to catch non-verbal cues that may determine the meaning of the speech.
III. Conclusion
The immigration court system is charged with ensuring that individuals appearing before the court receives a fair hearing and full review of their case consistent with the rule of law and fundamental due process. Instead of employing policies that propel the court toward these goals, the administration’s plan relies on policies that compromise due process. IJs responsible for adjudicating removal cases are being pressured to render decisions at a break-neck pace. By some accounts “morale has never, ever been lower” among IJs and their staff.58 Moreover, since the introduction of EOIR’s plan, the number of cases pending in the immigration courts has increased 25 percent (from 655,932 on 9/31/17 to 821,726 on 12/31/18). This number does not even account for the 35-day partial government shutdown that cancelled approximately 60,000 hearings while DHS continued carrying out enforcement actions.59 Congress must conduct rigorous oversight into the administration’s policies that have eroded the court’s ability to ensure that decisions are rendered fairly, consistent with the law and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. But oversight is not enough. In order protect and advance America’s core values of fairness and equality, the immigration court must be restructured outside of the control of DOJ, in the form of an independent Article I court.60
900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000
0
792,738 821,726
655,932 521,416
460,021 430,095
356,246
PENDING IMMIGRATION CASES
EOIR Pending Cases
5
Pending cases equals removal, deportation, exclusion, asylum-only, and AILA Doc. No. w1it9hh0o2ld1in9g0o0nl.y. (Po
Source: Department of Justice
sted 2/21/19)

1 For more information, contact AILA Senior Policy Counsel Laura Lynch at (202) 507-7627 or llynch@aila.org.
2 *An earlier version of this policy brief, dated February 19, 2019, incorrectly stated that the memo was signed on October 17, 2017. This typo has been corrected. FOIA Response, see pg. 9.
3 On December 5, 2017, EOIR publicly issued a backgrounder for the EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan. U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017.
4 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, (Dec. 31, 2018). The over 820,000 cases does not account for the 35-day partial government shutdown that cancelled approximately 60,000 immigration court hearings while at the same time, DHS continued carrying out enforcement actions, Associated Press, Partial shutdown delayed 60,000 immigration court hearings, Feb. 8, 2019.
5 U.S. Department of Justice, Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, Dec. 31, 2018.
6 FOIA Response, see pg. 6.
7 Jason Boyd, The Hill, “8,000 new ways the Trump administration is undermining immigration court independence,” Aug. 19, 2018.
8 ABA Commission on Immigration, Reforming the Immigration System, Proposals to Promote the Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases (2010).
9 FOIA Response, see pg. 6. See also U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017.
10 FOIA Response, see pg. 6.
11 Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
12 Id.
13 NAIJ Letter to then-Attorney General Sessions, Jan. 30, 2018.
14 AILA and The American Immigration Council FOIA Response, Booz Allen Hamilton Report on Immigration Courts, Apr. 6, 2017, pg. 26, [hereinafter “Booz Allen Report”].
15 Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).
16 Id.
17 ICE Provides Guidance to OPLA Attorneys on Administrative Closure Following Matter of Castro Tum, June 15, 2018.
18 Hamed Aleaziz, Buzzfeed News, “The Trump Administration is Seeking to Restart Thousands of Closed Deportation Cases,” Aug. 15, 2018.
19 Congressional Letter Requesting Information Regarding Initiative to Recalendar Administratively Closed Cases, Sept. 13, 2018.
20 FOIA Response, see pg. 5.
21 Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018.
22 FOIA Response, see pg. 5.
23 Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, NAIJ, May 2, 2018.
24 FOIA Response, pg. 5. See also Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018; See also Imposing Quotas on Immigration Judges will Exacerbate the Case Backlog at Immigration Courts, NAIJ, Jan. 31, 2018. See also Misunderstandings about Immigration Judge “Quotas” in Testimony Before House Appropriations Committee, NAIJ, May 2, 2018.
25 See Memorandum from James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review on Immigration Judge Performance Metrics to All Immigration Judges, March 30, 2018.
26 C-SPAN, Federal Immigration Court System, Sept. 21, 2018. (“[t]his past week or so, they [EOIR] unveiled what’s called the IJ dashboard…this mechanism on your computer every morning that looks like a speedometer on a car… The goal is for you to be green but of course you see all of these reds in front of you and there is a lot of anxiety attached to that.” NAIJ President, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor).
27 Ani Ucar, Vice News, “Leaked Report Shows the Utter Dysfunction of Baltimore’s Immigration Court,” Oct. 3, 2018.
28 AILA and the American Immigration Council Statement, DOJ Strips Immigration Courts of Independence, Apr. 3, 2018. See also NAIJ, Threat to Due Process and Judicial Independence Caused by Performance Quotas on Immigration Judges (October 2017).
29 INA §240(b)(4)(B) requires that a respondent be given a “reasonable opportunity” to examine and present evidence.
6
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

30 Association of Pro Bono Counsel (APBCo), Letter to Congress IJ Quotas, Oct. 26, 2017.
31 Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court (2016).
32 U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, EOIR Strategic Caseload Reduction Plan, Dec. 5, 2017, pg. 2.
33 FOIA Response, pg. 8.
34 FOIA Response, pgs. 7-8.
35 U.S. Department of Justice, Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 17-01: Continuances, July 31, 2017. 36 Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018).
37 GAO Report, 17-438, Immigration Courts, Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges, (June 2017).
38 Sen. Mazie Hirono, Written Questions for the Record, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Apr. 18, 2018.
39 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
40 Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
41 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Immigration Court Listings, Feb. 2019.
42 Katie Shepherd, American Immigration Council, The Judicial Black Sites the Government Created to Speed Up Deportations, Jan. 7, 2019.
43 AILA Comments on ACUS Immigration Removal Adjudications Report, May 3, 2012; ABA Letter to ACUS, Feb. 17, 2012.
44 Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
45 An EOIR commissioned report suggested limiting use of VTC to procedural matters only because it is difficult for judges to analyze eye contact, nonverbal forms of communication, and body language over VTC. Booz Allen Report, pg. 23.
46 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
47 Priscilla Alvarez, The Atlantic, Jeff Sessions is Quietly Transforming the Nation’s Immigration Courts, Oct. 17, 2018.
48 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Adjudication Statistic, IJ Hiring, (Jan. 2019).
49 U.S. Department of Justice, EOIR Announces Largest Ever Immigration Judge Investiture, Sept. 28, 2018; Document Obtained via FOIA by Human Rights First, Memorandum for the Attorney General, Immigration Judge Hiring Process, Apr. 4, 2017.
50 Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System, Hearing Before Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. 5 (2018) (A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, NAIJ), See also Questions for the Record.
51 Senate and House Democrats Request IG Investigation of Illegal Hiring Allegations at DOJ, May 8, 2018. Problematic hiring practices are not new for this agency. Over a decade ago, the IG and the Office of Professional Responsibility revealed that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales utilized political and ideological considerations in the hiring of IJ and BIA candidates. U.S Department of Justice IG Report, (2008).
52 Hamed Aleaziz, BuzzFeed News, Being an Immigration Judge Was Their Dream. Under Trump, It Became Untenable, Feb. 13, 2019.
53 FOIA Response, pg. 3.
54 NAIJ Letter to Senators, Government Shutdown, Jan. 9, 2019.
55 Id.
56 Booz Allen Report, pg. 25.
57 Laura Abel, Brennan Center For Justice, Language Access in Immigration Courts, (2010).
58 Hamed Aleaziz, Buzzfeed News, “The Trump Administration is Seeking to Restart Thousands of Closed Deportation Cases,” Aug. 15, 2018.
59 Associated Press, Partial shutdown delayed 60,000 immigration court hearings, Feb. 8, 2019.
60 AILA Statement, The Need for an Independent Immigration Court Grows More Urgent as DOJ Imposes Quotas on Immigration Judges, Oct. 1, 2018. See also the NAIJ letter that joins AILA, the ABA, the Federal Bar Association, the American Adjudicature Society, and numerous other organizations endorsing the concept of an Article I immigration court. NAIJ Letter, Endorses Proposal for Article I Court, Mar. 15, 2018.
7
AILA Doc. No. 19021900. (Posted 2/21/19)

Here’s the link to the audio:

https://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-press-call-on-eoir-memo-obtained-via-foia

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

Here’s “simul-coverage” from LA Times star reporter Molly O’Toole:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-immigration-court-backlog-worsens-20190221-story.html

The Trump administration’s controversial plan to shrink the ballooning backlog of immigration cases by pushing judges to hear more cases has failed, according to the latest data, with the average wait for an immigration hearing now more than two years.

Since October 2017, when the Justice Department approved a plan aimed at reducing the backlog in immigration court, the pending caseload has grown by more than 26%, from 655,932 cases to just shy of 830,000, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Access Records Clearinghouse, which tracks data from immigration courts.

Even that figure likely understates the backlog because it doesn’t include the impact of the 35-day government shutdown in December and January. Because the system’s roughly 400 immigration judges were furloughed during the shutdown, some 60,000 hearings were canceled. Thousands were rescheduled, adding to the already long wait times.

The administration “has not only failed to reduce the backlog, but has eroded the court’s ability to ensure due process” by pressuring judges to rule “at a breakneck pace” on whether an immigrant should be removed from the United States, the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. — a nonprofit organization of more than 15,000 immigration attorneys and law professors — said in a statement.

When the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, which administers immigration courts, released its plan, officials described it as a “comprehensive strategy for significantly reducing the caseload by 2020,” according to a partially redacted copy of an October 2017 memo obtained by the immigration lawyers group through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“The size of EOIR’s pending caseload will not reverse itself overnight,” the memo said, but by fully implementing the strategy, the office can “realistically expect not only a reversal of the growth of the caseload, but a significant reduction in it.”

Instead, the average wait has grown by a month from January alone, to 746 days — ironically extending the stay of thousands of migrants whom the administration might want to deport from the United States. The Justice Department declined to immediately comment on the growth of the backlog.

The number of pending immigration cases has risen dramatically in recent years, doubling from less than 300,000 in 2011 to 650,000 by December 2017, the end of Trump’s first year in office, according to the Justice Department.

The Trump administration has blamed the ballooning backlog on President Obama’s immigration policies, saying that “policy changes in recent years have slowed down the adjudication of existing cases and incentivized further illegal immigration that led to new cases.”

Administration officials have pointed to Obama’s effort to focus deportation on immigrants with serious criminal records and protecting certain immigrants known as Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children as examples of policies that have provided incentives for illegal border crossings.

The administration’s plan to reverse the backlog included a number of controversial steps.

One move restricted the ability of immigration judges to schedule and set priorities for their cases under a process known as “administrative closure.” That change compelled judges to reopen thousands of cases that had been deemed low priority and had been closed. Within three months of the memo, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had moved to reschedule 8,000 cases, prompting concern from lawmakers, according to the immigration lawyers association. Potentially, as many as 350,000 cases ultimately could be added back onto the court dockets.

The administration’s plan also tied immigration judges’ individual performance reviews to the number of cases they complete, calling for them to finish 700 removal cases in the next year.

In contrast to regular courts, immigration judges are not independent; they’re part of the Justice Department. Because of that, the attorney general is both the chief prosecutor in immigration cases and the ultimate boss of the judges, who are classified as government attorneys.

The National Assn. of Immigration Judges, as well as the immigration lawyers association and other groups, have long called for Congress to end what they see as a built-in conflict of interest and create an immigration court separate from the Justice Department.

“As long as we continue to allow the court to be used as a law enforcement tool,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, “you’re going to get these kinds of backlogs and inefficiencies.”

Any speedup that may have resulted from the imposition of quotas on the judges has been overtaken by the administration’s stepped-up enforcement efforts, which have pushed thousands of new cases into the system.

Stepped-up enforcement without a corresponding increase in judicial resources provides the main reason the backlog has gone up so dramatically, said Stephen Legomsky, Homeland Security’s chief counsel for immigration from 2011 to 2013.

“Immediately upon taking office, President Trump essentially advised Border Patrol agents and ICE officers that they were to begin removal proceedings against anyone they encountered that they suspected of being undocumented, without sufficiently increasing resources for immigration judges,” Legomsky said.

Under previous administrations, “the thinking was, ‘Let’s not spend our limited resources on people who are about to get legal status,’” he said, “Taking that discretion away dramatically increased the caseload.”

Some officials warned that could happen when the effort to curtail the backlog began.

“Any burst of case initiation,” by Homeland Security “could seriously compromise” the Justice Department’s “ability to address its caseload and greatly exacerbate the current state of the backlog,” the acting director of the immigration review office wrote in the October memo to Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein.

The quota effort could also prevent attorneys from providing representation to immigrants, according to the Assn. of Pro Bono Counsel, which represents lawyers who handle cases free of charge for the poor.

Whether immigrants have legal representation makes a huge difference in the outcome of cases: Between October 2000 and November 2018, about 82% of people in immigration court without attorneys were either ordered deported or gave up on their cases and left the country voluntarily, while only 31% of those with lawyers were deported or left.

The administration has succeeded in speeding the hiring of new immigration judges by 74%. The number of immigration judges has grown from 338 when the plan was introduced to 414 by the end of 2018.

Lawmakers have raised concerns that some of those new hires have been politically motivated. In May, House Democrats requested an investigation by the Justice Department Inspector General’s office into allegations that candidates have been chosen or rejected for perceived ideological views.

“The current administration has taken advantage of the court’s structural flaws,” the immigration lawyers association wrote, “introducing numerous policies … that dramatically reshape federal immigration law and undermine due process in immigration court proceedings.”

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

My Takeaways:

The DOJ politicos made the already bad situation immeasurably worse;
At no time did any of those supposedly “in charge” seriously consider taking measures that could have promoted Due Process and fundamental fairness in a troubled system whose sole function was to insure and protect these Constitutional requirements;
Sessions was warned about the severe adverse consequences of eliminating “administrative closure” by EOIR, but went ahead with his preconceived “White Nationalist” agenda, based on bias, not law;
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on this monstrosity, is no “hero” just because he stood up to Trump on the Mueller investigation; he’s just another “go along to get along,” like the rest of the Trump DOJ political appointees (with the possible exception of FBI Director Chris Wray);
No sitting judge, indeed no real “stakeholder,” was consulted about these “designed to fail” measures;
The placement of what purports to be a “court system” dedicated to Due Process within the Justice Department is preposterous;
Congress, which created this parody of justice, and the Article III Courts who have failed to “just say no” to all removal orders produced in this “Due Process Free Zone” must share the blame for allowing this Constitutionally untenable situation to continue;
Once again, the victims of the Trump Administration’s “malicious incompetence” are being punished while the “perpetrators” suffer few, if any, consequences.

PWS

02-21-19

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

UPDATE: Molly’s article was the “front page lead” in today’s print edition of the LA Times.

https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/latimes/default.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e

Gotta give the crew at DOJ/EOIR HQ credit for screwing this up so royally that it’s now off the “back pages” and into the headlines where it belongs. You couldn’t buy publicity like this!

First EOIR Director David “No News Is Good News” Milhollan must be rolling over in his grave right now. And his “General Counsel/Chief Flackie,” my friend and former BIA Appellate Judge Gerald S. “No Comment/We Don’t Track That Statistic” Hurwitz must be watching all of this with amusement and bemusement from his retirement perch. Just goes to support the “Milhollan/Hurwitz Doctrine” that “only bad things can happen once they know you exist.”

PWS

02-22-19

U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS: FEINBLOOM, STEVENS, & SCHMIDT TAKE CASE FOR ARTICLE I IMMIGRATION COURT TO FBA’S 2019 CIVIL RIGHTS ENTOUFFEE IN NEW ORLEANS, LA, FEB. 16, 2019

“Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere. . . . Whatever Affects One Directly, Affects All Indirectly.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Letters From the Birmingham Jail

New Orleans– Appearing before the Federal Bar Association’s 2019 Civil Rights Entouffee, Attorney Jeffrey Feinbloom of the FBA Civil Rights Section, FBA Immigration Section Chair Elizabeth “Betty” Stevens, and I made a powerful pitch to assembled Civil Rights Attorneys for their support for an Article I United States Immigration Court.

Our panel emphasized that the current Immigration Courts under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), U.S. Department of Justice are a “failed system” threatening everyone’s civil rights. Notwithstanding more Immigration Judges, these “courts” have continued to build backlog at an astonishing and accelerating rate, now topping 1.1 million pending cases following the Government shutdown.

Worse yet, they have essentially become a “hostile environment” for migrants, their attorneys, and sometimes the Immigration Judges and court staff themselves. They also are an impediment to realistic, professional immigration enforcement by DHS. Perhaps worst of all, due process of law has become the apparent enemy of DOJ and EOIR, rather than the objective.

The only way out of this mess is the establishment of an independent Article I Immigration Court, administered in a professional and apolitical manner by sitting judges, not politicized bureaucrats in Washington. Section Chair Betty Stevens and other Section members have helped develop a non-partisan bill to create an Article I Court. We urge everyone to ask their Congressional representatives to make Immigration Court reform an urgent national priority.

Schmidt’s Five Points On Why U.S. immigration Courts Are Unlike Any Other Court System in America

Judges are selected, directed, and “supervised” by the Attorney General, the chief prosecutor;
There is no right to appointed counsel, so young children and others without any understanding of the U.S. legal system, often in detention, are forced to “represent themselves” in life or death cases against experienced ICE Counsel;
The chief prosecutor, the Attorney General, can change any individual case result that he doesn’t like, and rewrite immigration law in the DHS’s favor through “certified precedents;”
There is a 1.1 million case backlog, resulting largely from “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by the DOJ that continues to grow, despite an increase in judges, without any realistic plan for reducing it;
So-called “civil immigration detention” can be used by the Government to limit representation, and for coercion and deterrence of migrants with little or no effective judicial recourse in many cases.

PWS

02-21-19

COLBY KING @ WASHPOST: The “Original Dreamers” Were Disenfranchised African Americans! — “That fight must continue on behalf of today’s dreamers, the disenfranchised, the demeaned and left out, and all freedom-loving people in this nation.“

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-black-men-of-the-civil-war-were-americas-original-dreamers/2019/02/15/8c00088e-30a8-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html

Colby King writes in WashPost:

Today, a wall looms large in my thoughts. It isn’t the structure President Trump has in mind for our southern border. I’m thinking of the Wall of Honor at the African American Civil War Memorial, located at Vermont Avenue and U Street NW.

Listed on the wall are the names of 209,145 U.S. Colored Troops who fought during the Civil War. One of those names is that of Isaiah King, my great-grandfather.

I think of those courageous black men as America’s original “dreamers.”

Today’s dreamers are in their teens and 20s, having arrived in this country as children. King’s generation of dreamers were former slaves or descendants of slaves brought to these shores against their will.

However, the black men who fought in the Civil War had the same status as today’s dreamers: noncitizens without a discernable path to citizenship.

Like dreamers of today, those black soldiers and sailors also had families and attended churches; some were enrolled in schools. They could dream of a future, anchored in the rights and privileges that come with democracy. But they had no legal claim to an existence within America’s borders.

My great-grandfather was born in the slave-holding city of Washington in 1848, but his mother was a freed woman. She moved the family to New Bedford, Mass., when he was 4. Around the time of his 17th birthday, Isaiah King enlistedin the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry (Colored), thinking, “I would have it easier riding than walking,” he told the New Bedford Evening Standard in an interview on the eve of Memorial Day services in 1932.

Black men such as my great-grandfather signed on to fight for a Union in which the right to citizenship was reserved for white people. The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, that black people were not citizens of the United States. Putting it bluntly, the high court said black people were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

And even then, they started their service to the United States one step behind.

In his book “The Fifth Massachusetts Colored Cavalry in the Civil War,” Steven M. LaBarre cited the first disparity: It was enshrined in the Second Confiscation and Militia Act of July 17, 1862, which authorized recruitment of black men into the Union army. The law stated that a “person of African descent [of any rank] . . . shall receive ten dollars per month . . . three dollars of which monthly pay may be in clothing.” White privates at the time received $13 per month plus a $3.50 clothing allowance. It wasn’t until July 15, 1864, that Congress granted equal pay to black soldiers.

Yet, serve they did.

As evidence of the regard in which they were held, LaBarre quoted Massachusetts Gov. John Albion Andrew’s commendation of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry when it was launched: “In this hour of hope for our common country and for themselves; at a time when they hold the destiny of their race in their own grasp; and when its certain emancipation from prejudice, as well as slavery, is in the hands of those now invited to unite in the final blow which will annihilate the rebel power, let no brave and strong man hesitate. One cannot exaggerate the call sounding in the ears of all men, in whose veins flows the blood of Africa, and whose color has been the badge of slavery. It offers the opportunity of years, crowded into an hour.”

Volunteering was a start. They still had something to prove.

According to National Archives, by the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men were serving as soldiers — 10 percent of the Union army — and 19,000 served in the Union navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war — 30,000 of infection or disease. By war’s end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor .

King came back to the capital in May 1864 as a private with the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry to defend the city against attack by Confederate troops. His unit participated in the Siege of Petersburg. They guarded Confederate prisoners at Point Lookout, Md. And his unit was among the first Union regiments to enter Richmond, capital of the dying Confederacy, on April 3, 1865.

The Civil War ended, but not his service. Three months later, the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry was sent to Texas to defend against threats from Mexico. (Sound familiar?) He was mustered out of service on Oct. 31, 1865, at Clarksville, Tex. — still not a citizen of the United States.

It wasn’t until 1868 that the threat of removal from the United States was lifted by the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in this country, including former slaves.

The men with names on the African American Civil War Memorial’s Wall of Honor fought and died to end two centuries of slavery, without being able to count democracy as their own.

For their descendants, the fight for full rights, for full participation in every part of our democracy, goes on.

That fight must continue on behalf of today’s dreamers, the disenfranchised, the demeaned and left out, and all freedom-loving people in this nation.

Read more from Colbert King’s archive.

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

Thanks, Colby, for putting the current plight of “Dreamers” (and I might add refugees and other migrants who are serving, contributing, and building our society despite their disenfranchisement and the government-sponsored dehumanization being inflicted upon them) in the historical context of the fight for civil rights and human dignity in America.

That’s why the “21st Century Jim Crows” like Trump, Sessions, Stephen Miller, Sen. Tom Cotton, Rep. Steve King, and others (largely associated with the GOP) are so pernicious. Like the “Jim Crows of the past,” these guys use degrading racial stereotypes, intentionally false narratives, and bogus “rule of law” arguments to generate hate and bias, sow division, and use the law to suppress and violate rights rather than advancing them.

While sycophant DHS Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen does not appear to be an “ideological racist,” her mindless and disingenuous parroting of the Trump White Nationalist “party lies” and “enforcement” (read “de-humanization”) agenda certainly makes her a “functional racist.”

It’s quite outrageous and dangerous that individuals with these types of views have been elevated to powerful public offices in the modern era, after the death of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?

PWS

02-16-19

“’DUH’ ARTICLE OF DA DAY” – Former FBI Acting Director McCabe Says “then–Attorney General Sessions [was] a Trump-like idiot and racist” – Gee, Seems Like That Was What Liz, Corey, & The Black Caucus Told Us – But McConnell Silenced The Truth & He & His GOP Cronies Subjected America To Perhaps The Worst & Least Qualified Attorney General In U.S. History!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/andrew-mccabe-book-jeff-sessions-irishmen.html

Molly Olmstead reports for Slate:

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s new book, which details his frustrations with President’s Trump administration, has made it clear that his “disdain for Trump is rivaled only by his contempt for [Jeff] Sessions,” according to an assessment from Washington Post reporter Greg Miller.

According to Miller’s review of the book, McCabe saw then–Attorney General Sessions as a Trump-like idiot and racist who had “trouble focusing, particularly when topics of conversation strayed from a small number of issues,” failed to read intelligence reports, and jumbled classified material with publicly reported news.

The strangest detail from the book, though, had to do with Sessions’ thoughts on the FBI’s hiring practices. According to the Post:

The FBI was better off when “you all only hired Irishmen,” Sessions said in one diatribe about the bureau’s workforce. “They were drunks but they could be trusted. Not like all those new people with nose rings and tattoos — who knows what they’re doing?”

According to a Wall Street Journal review of the book, McCabe wrote in his book that Sessions was only interested in immigration issues. He obsessed over the connection between crime and immigration, and he believed that Islam was an inherently violent religion, according to the Post. When presented with a counterterrorism case, he would first ask where the suspect was born or where the suspect’s parents were from. “He blamed immigrants for nearly every societal problem and uttered racist sentiments with shocking callousness,” Miller concluded from McCabe’s book.

McCabe’s assessment is surprising in only that it comes so bluntly from a man who once was acting head of the FBI but now seems intent on speaking out against the men who made his professional and personal life so difficult for 10 months (before he was fired just hours before his planned retirement, blocking him from receiving his full pension benefits). Sessions has a long, long history of making racist and anti-immigrant comments, while also implementing racist and anti-immigrant policies. A non-exhaustive list includes: allegedly warning a black lawyer to “be careful how you talk to white folks”; calling the NAACP “un-American”; reportedly joking that he used to think the KKK was “OK” until he discovered some smoked marijuana; praising an 1924 immigration act promoted by Nazi-style eugenics; denigrating a judge in Hawaii as “sitting on an island in the Pacific”; fondly remembered George Wallace, America’s most famous segregationist politician, as “one of the most formidable third-party candidates in this century; and lauding “the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.”

As for actions, in Alabama, Sessions punished black activists, defended voter suppression tactics, and kept black judges off the federal bench. He opposed sentencing reform over the crack-cocaine disparity. He has opposed hate crime protections and defended the official display of the Confederate flag. He has regularly attended events hosted by anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim groups, which he maintains a close relationship with. He touted falsehoods about DACA and immigrants in general. And of course, he pushed, relentlessly, for deportations and prosecutions of undocumented immigrants and even refugees fleeing domestic and gang violence.

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

Sessions is a living example of how someone can spend a lifetime “on the dole” as a so-called “public servant” without providing any meaningful positive service or contributions to the public good.

Compare this “life not so well lived” with the “real world” contributions of the many decent, hard-working, honest, and dedicated civil servants who were screwed over by Trump’s shutdown. Or, compare Sessions’s squandered, anti-social life with the significant “real life” contributions of many of the immigrants, both documented and undocumented, who came before me in Immigration Court over 13 years.

I’m not sure even the worst of the aggravated felons that I ordered deported did as much lasting damage to our nation and its future as did Sessions! He was a child abuser on a grand scale, and someone who used knowingly false narratives to send deserving refugees, particularly abused women, back to torture or even death in the countries from which they had fled. He was the architect of both family separation and the unbridled expansion of the “New American Gulag.”

He promoted hate, intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, bias, and intolerance of all kinds, and was an avowed enemy of kindness and human compassion. He even had the absolute audacity to cite the Christian Bible, the compassionate, merciful, inclusive, and forgiving teachings of one of the world’s greatest “outcasts,” in support of his own perverted, bias-driven, and totally un-Christian world view.

Oh yeah, and he had no management qualifications going into the job and proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he couldn’t manage his way out of a paper bag. Seldom in modern times has there been a more demoralized, mission-less, and dysfunctional mess than today’s Department of Justice. Even Watergate didn’t do as much institutional damage.

Sessions’s only real contribution to justice, due process, and the public good was the day he walked out of the U.S. Department of Justice for the last time. But, it will take years, if not generations, to repair the damage he has inflicted on the rule of law, our Constitution, honest government, and humane values.

Truly, Liz was right! This was one supremely unqualified dude!

PWS

02-16-19

“SIMPLY BRILLIANT” — Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Carol King Tells Us All We Need To Know About The Deplorable State Of EOIR & Practice In The Largely “Due Process Free” Zone Of Today’s Immigration Courts In Her Keynote Address To The AILA Northwest Regional Immigration Law Conference!

KEYNOTE SPEECH

I.
KEYNOTE: AILA NORTHWEST REGIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CONFERENCE February 14, 2019
Seattle, Washington
PRACTICING IN PERILOUS TIMES
INTRODUCTION: Practicing in Perilous Times a.What does it mean to be PRACTICING IN
PERILOUS TIMES? Is this time really so
different? b.ALWAYS:
i. You have ALWAYS worked with the most vulnerable clients
ii.You have ALWAYS taken in stories of trauma, persecution and grief in the normal course of your work
iii.You have ALWAYS had an uphill battle obtaining the relief to which your clients are entitled, because you operate in a system that is broken and often oblivious to their suffering.
c.YOU PERSISTED:
i. But you PERSISTED on behalf of your
clients because you had the skills and the courage to fight those battles on a relatively consistent, if not level, playing field.
1

ii.You PERSISTED because you had for inspiration the resilience and courage and dreams of your immigrant clients
iii.You PERSISTED because, maybe not as often as you’d like, but at least occasionally, you had the satisfaction of helping someone achieve a second chance in life – a chance to start over in the country they chose as home, to work and contribute in their chosen manner, to be with their families, to enjoy a life free of persecution or torture or crushing poverty.
d.NOW
i. NOW the playing field tilts more
drastically every day and the battles are so bloody and so mean-spirited and the results so frequently demoralizing and unfair and lacking in due process, that it has become really difficult to carry on, to keep on persisting.
ii.NOW you’re not only experiencing stories of past trauma, but you are witnessing, in real time, the traumatization of your clients as this administration literally terrorizes them with its rhetoric and actions.
2

iii.NOW you see decades of hard-won development of protections for your clients swept away in a single day and with a single pen stroke.
iv.In my more than 30 years both practicing as an immigration attorney and sitting as an immigration judge, I don’t believe there has been a more difficult or perilous time to practice in this area.
1.What you are all doing at this time in history is really, really difficult
2.It takes an inordinate amount of dedication, courage and vision.
3.I am in awe of each and every one of you.
II. IMMIGRATION COURT UPDATE a.I’ve been asked to give today an
IMMIGRATION COURT UPDATE.
i. That’s a bit of a difficult task, since
you are the experts on what you’re seeing every day in court, and since I have been off the bench and somewhat “out of the inside loop” for two years, and much has occurred since then. Despite that, I’m going to venture an opinion, and that is that the Immigration Court system itself is also
3

in serious peril, as is its ability to provide due process of law to those who appear before it.
ii.I want to focus on a few issues that I think are extremely important to protecting due process in our court system.
b.ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES resulting in a Crushing caseload: The Immigration Court has been functioning under a crushing caseload and with entirely inadequate resources for as long as I worked there.
i. That caseload is now growing exponentially for a variety of reasons (the last statistic I heard was that, on average, individual Immigration Judges have a pending caseload of over 2500 cases). What are some of the reasons for this exponential growth?:
1.Priorities: This administration has absolutely refused to set any kind of meaningful priorities for prosecution of cases. The policy is to prosecute every issue in every possible case to the max. There is no recognition that limitations on resources require prosecutorial discretion.
4

2.Erosion of case management tools:
a.The current management of EOIR has eroded the case management tools that in the past allowed judges to juggle a massive caseload and prioritize the cases that were ripe for adjudication. First, administrative closure was taken away by AG Sessions, with a suggestion that such situations could be dealt with by continuances. Then, once that was in place, EOIR openly discouraged continuances, requiring judges to issue a long- form written decision justifying each granted continuance. No such decision is required to deny a continuance. In addition to eliminating essential tools for managing a massive caseload, incentivizing a particular outcome in decision-making undermines the independence of the court and due process
5

and has no place in a court
system!
3.Aftermath of Gov’t Shut Down:
a. My contacts are with the SF
Immigration Court, not Seattle, but I think some generalizations can be made: First, there was ZERO GUIDANCE from EOIR management on how to deal with the specifics of the shut-down. Thus, each court administrator decided how to deal with, for instance, filings during the shut down, and the resetting of cases.
b.In San Francisco, all mail was opened and date stamped, then set for a 10 day call up to begin the day the government reopened. They received 10,000 filings during the 5 week shutdown. None of them could be entered into the system. They all came up for call up on Feb 7, 2019.
6

Thus, the SF court, which is one of the most efficient and well-run courts, is overwhelmed still by the remnants of the shut down.
c. In addition, when the SF Court Administrator asked EOIR for a 3 day “recovery period” after the shutdown, the request was denied and they were told that all courtrooms had to be in full swing as of the morning of the first day the government reopened. ACCs did not have their files, court files had not been pulled for Master Calendar and Individual Calendar hearings. At that point 10,000 filings, including those filed before the two week filing deadline for cases scheduled that morning, were in a pile waiting to be entered into the court
7

system and were
inaccessible to the judges. d.The only support offered
from EOIR was unlimited overtime for staff, so some staff has now been consistently working 20 hours a week overtime to try to catch up on the aftermath of the shutdown.
e.As an example of the delays engendered by the shutdown, in San Francisco 67 full Master Calendars had to be cancelled. As new cases pour in and add to the backlog, all these cases have to be reset to new Master Calendars, not to mention hundreds of individual cases which must now be reset.
4.Severe shortage in resources: As always, the Immigration Court is operating under a severe shortage of resources. As an example, in San Francisco, by this summer they will have a full complement of 27
8

Judges and all courtrooms will be full, but the court is already down 30 Legal Assistants from what they should have and all Legal Assistants are carrying 2 judges’ caseloads, a nearly impossible task even in a short-term emergency situation. Because Legal Assistant hiring falls far behind even IJ hiring, by summer all the Legal Assistants will have to carry 3 judges’ caseloads.
c.LEGAL AND INDEPENDENCE ISSUES
i. I talked about incentivizing denying
continuances. But there are even more direct ways in which this administration has undermined the independence of the Immigration Court. When the Attorney General of the United States goes to a conference of Immigration Judges and specifically tells judges that entire categories of asylum cases should “generally” be denied (as AG Sessions did in the summer of 2018), this is a direct and blatant attack on the decisional independence of the Immigration Judges.
9

ii.Matter of A-B- was only one in a series of decisions in which the current Department of Justice is inappropriately using the AG Certification Process in an attempt to roll back decades of painstaking development of the law, developments which had finally brought us into closer compliance with our international obligations to protect true refugees. This tactic has gone hand in hand with vicious attacks on immigrants in the press and disregard of their true motives for coming to the United States.
iii.Add to all of this the jurisdictional issues raised by the Supreme Court in Pereira v. Sessions and the Immigration Court system is in severe peril. It seems to me extremely clear that the legal conclusion in that case compels a finding that the vast majority of Notices to Appear filed with the court during the entire time I have been involved in immigration law are invalid and incapable of conferring jurisdiction on the Immigration Court. As I’m sure you know, a panel of the 9th Circuit
10

recently held otherwise, but with very shaky reasoning. If eventually all these NTA’s are declared invalid, I have grave concerns for the impact that will have on the Immigration Court system, and even on tens of thousands of immigrants who have been granted relief by Immigration Courts over the last 40 years.
iv.The final perilous factor I want to talk about today is the pressure on judges to complete an overwhelming number of cases in a very short period of time, probably the most dangerous threat to due process of all.
1.Immigration Judges have, for the first time, been mandated to complete 700 cases per year. In the past we had “aspirational goals” to complete certain cases by a certain time, and that in and of itself, created a lot of pressure and fear among judges.
2.But now, not only have the case completion goals become mandatory, they have been tied to the Immigration Judge’s Performance Evaluations. If you
11

look at the ABA’s guidelines for evaluation of judges, you will see that completing a particular number of cases is absolutely inappropriate as a factor to evaluate judges. Judges are evaluated by their peers and party/ stakeholders on criteria such as legal reasoning ability; knowledge of the law; knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence; keeping up on current developments; Integrity and Impartiality; communication skills; professionalism and temperament; administrative capacity (including managing a docket efficiently and effectively) – while this includes promptness in deciding cases, the commentary makes clear that these are aspirational goals, that some factors affecting promptness of decisions may be outside the judges’ control and that the purpose of such an evaluation is primarily for the individual improvement of each judge and
12

should never be tied to
disciplinary action.
3.Now we have a situation in the Immigration Court in which the judges’ continued employment depends on their ability to keep up with an artificial and unrealistic case completion mandate, which requires the completion of approximately three full hearings a day, leaving complex asylum and cancellation hearings lucky to be scheduled for 90 minutes, where such hearings used to be scheduled for a full morning or afternoon, and might take even more than one such session.
4.This is something that requires vigilance by all of us. Knowing that the judges are under an incredible amount of pressure, and even sympathizing with that situation (please do!), does not relieve us of zealously representing our clients. What does that mean in this milieu? It means being super prepared. It means being super efficient in the presentation of your cases. It
13

means trying to work out stipulations with ICE counsel as to issues, admissibility of evidence, the need for cross examination (anything you can think of to make the hearing go faster for the judge), it means briefing every or almost every case and making sure all arguments are addressed in writing in case time is not given for closing arguments or opening statements. And then, after you have done the most thorough, efficient, and complete job you can at presenting your case, if the time given is not sufficient and the judge is cutting off the presentation of the case, it means standing up on the record and using the words “denial of due process”.
III. CONCLUSION:
a.What does all this mean as we struggle to
deal with the peril in which we find ourselves?
i. As a community, we must continue to advocate for a more independent
14

court, one which exists outside of any prosecutorial agency such as the DOJ.
1.For years we had mostly small incursions into decisional independence, most often when EOIR management made what they believed to be an “administrative” decision which inadvertently encroached on decisional independence
2.But, as judges, we saw the potential and feared that more intentional and direct incursions could be made under the current system. Therefore, at peril to our own jobs, we chose to advocate for an independent court under Article 1 of the United States Constitution. Since then, the Federal Bar Association, AILA and others have joined us in this call.
3.We are now seeing the types of direct and intentional attacks on the independence of the Immigration Judges that we mostly only feared before. Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to attain
15

independent status for the
Immigration Court.
ii.As individuals, as I said in the
beginning, we are facing truly perilous times, and we can’t underestimate the impact that has on our health, our ability to stay in the work for the long term, and our competence as attorneys.
1.It bears saying that, in such perilous times, it is terribly easy to feel that there is no time to rest, no time to take a break, spend time with family, engage in self- care such as meditation or exercise or dancing or surfing or whatever floats your boat and helps you renew your stamina. It’s so easy to feel that our clients are suffering so badly that we ourselves have no right or ability to rest.
2.A young lawyer said to me recently, “We start out in this work feeling like warriors; but we wind up barely hanging on.” That got me thinking what it would mean to approach our work with the heart
16

of a warrior. The characteristics of warriors are:
a.Persistence: not accepting what seems to be inevitable. We didn’t accept it when years of “settled law” seemed to preclude effective use of Particular Social Group in asylum cases, and we must not accept either when the AG “grabs” cases in order to undermine decades of patient and attentive legal development, as he did in Matter of A-B-. Likewise, we must not accept having our cases rushed beyond all semblance of due process.
b.Preparation: Warriors prepare themselves for battle – as we are doing now, and do regularly, by educating ourselves, learning from each other, strategizing and skills training. As warriors, we also prepare our cases as well as ourselves, and do so zealously and to the best of our ability.
17

c.Dedication: As warriors, we must consistently ask ourselves – does this work bring me joy? If not, you will not be able to fully dedicate yourself to it for the long term. Because we believe in the work we are doing and the people we are representing, we WANT to give of ourselves 110%. But what does that mean? As part of her preparation for battle, a warrior prepares herself by taking care of body and soul.
I propose to you that in these perilous times, self-care becomes even more essential than it ordinarily is. It HAS to figure in to the 110% that you are giving! Our brains and bodies break down if we remain consistently in fight or flight mode and that effects not only our own happiness and health, but our ability to represent our clients competently and intelligently over a long period of time. Don’t put off this
18

aspect of your role as a warrior for your clients. Please don’t wait, as I did, until you are too fundamentally exhausted to implement a self-care plan.
d.Do it now, do it for yourselves, do it for your family, do it for your current and future clients.
3.Thank you
19

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

Thank you, Carol. Proud to be your colleague in “Our Gang!”

PWS

02-15-19

Related posts:

Chairman Serrano Statement at Hearing on Executive Office for Immigration Review

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

OUR TEAM:

My Takeaways:

Related posts:

“Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere. . . . Whatever Affects One Directly, Affects All Indirectly.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Letters From the Birmingham Jail

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: