Category: Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

YOU ARE NOT ALONE! — MORE LAW YOU CAN USE FROM COURTSIDE: Pro Bono All-Stars Michelle Mendez & Rebecca Scholtz of CLINIC’s Defending Vulnerable Populations Project Proudly Present “A Practitioner’s Guide To Obtaining Release From Immigration Detention!”

HERE’S THE LINK:

A-Guide-to-Obtaining-Release-from-Immigration-Detention

KEY QUOTE:

As the use of immigration detention continues to increase, it is more important than ever that representatives understand the legal framework governing bond proceedings in order to harness that knowledge toward zealous and well-prepared advocacy on behalf of detained respondents. Successful bond representation can make all the difference in whether a respondent is able to secure release and ultimately prevail on the merits of his or her case. Effective representation in bond proceedings also helps to safeguard the due process rights of detained respondents. The authors encourage practitioners to consider pro bono opportunities available in their jurisdiction or remotely, such as through the Immigrant Justice Campaign, which not only help meet a compelling need but can also provide practitioners with experience and mentoring. Given the ever-changing landscape of immigration detention, practitioners are encouraged to remain connected to others doing bond work in order to share information about the latest trends, successful strategies, and best practices. Finally, the authors wish to remind readers that this guide is intended for general educational use only and that practitioners should independently research the law governing their jurisdiction, as this area of law (like many in the immigration field) is complex and frequently changing.

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

Join the New Due Process Army. Fight for the Due Process rights of everyone in America. Allow yourself to be inspired by and learn from the scholarship, dedication, character, and commitment of amazing attorneys, leaders, and role models like Michelle & Rebecca! 

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all! Due Process forever!

PWS

06-05-18

 

Related posts:

  1. MICHELLE BRANE @ WOMEN’S REFUGEE COMMISSION — “Why I March!”
  2. TAL @ CNN: TRUMP’S “GONZO” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES LIKELY TO FAIL AND ACTUALLY AGGRAVATE FORCES DRIVING UNDOCUMENTED MIGRATION!
  3. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 
  4. LAW YOU CAN USE: ALL-STAR PROFESSOR LINDSAY MUIR HARRIS TELLS US HOW TO STOP THE TRUMP, SESSIONS, NIELSEN PLAN FOR A “NEW AMERICAN GULAG:” “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY DETENTION AND LEGAL ADVOCACY” — 136 Harvard Latinx Law Review Vol. 21 — “This is our time to act and proudly join the brigade of “dirty immigration lawyers” to ensure protection and due process for the most vulnerable!”

HON. JEFFREY CHASE WITH “LAW YOU CAN USE” TO FORCE THIS ADMINISTRATION TO RECOGNIZE REFUGEES FROM THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE — Yes, Many Recently Arrived Refugees From The Northern Triangle Qualify As “Political” Refugees – Here’s How To Argue & Support Their Cases!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/6/3/3rd-generation-gangs-and-political-opinion

3rd-Generation Gangs and Political Opinion

When Attorney General Jeff Sessions issues his decision in Matter of A-B- (the case he certified to himself to decide whether “being a victim of private criminal activity” can constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes),  it may negatively impact those asylum applicants who fear gang violence on account of their membership in a particular social group. Attorneys representing such claimants should consider whether their clients may alternatively claim a well-founded fear of persecution based on their political opinion under a “third-generation gang” theory, supported by country condition evidence.

In their article ‘Third Generation’ Gangs, Warfare in Central America, and Refugee Law’s Political Opinion Ground,1 Deborah Anker and Palmer Lawrence make a very important point: that “the Refugee Convention’s concept of political opinion incorporates ‘any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of the State, government, and policy may be engaged,’ or that of other persecutory agents where the state is unwilling or unable to provide protection” (citing Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 746 (Can.)).

Relying on this broad interpretation of political opinion, Anker and Lawrence next note that some military and law enforcement experts have concluded that the larger Central American gangs (including MS-13 and Mara 18) “have developed a degree of politicization, sophistication, and international reach to qualify them as ‘third generation gangs,’” which “function as de facto governments, controlling significant territory (competing with the state for power).”  Anker and Lawrence cite Lieutenant Colonel Howard L. Gray, Gangs and Transnational Criminals Threaten Central American Stability, 7 U.S. Army War College, Strategy Research Project (2009)); in documenting such claims, practitioners should also reference John P. Sullivan and Robert J. Bunker, “Third Generation Gang Studies: An Introduction,” 14-4 Journal of Gang Research 1 (Summer 2007), and “Third General Gangs Strategic Note No. 1: Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) 500 Man Commando Unit Planned for El Salvador,” Small Wars Journal, Sept. 10, 2016.  The last article quotes Douglas Farah, Visiting Senior Fellow, National Defense University Center for Complex Operations as stating that “The MS has strong political and military ambitions and now views itself as political/military rather than a gang…MS 13 now has troops, weapons, and a cause…efforts to form a joint force with the 18 is less likely but both sides are in discussion to at least have lines of communication open.”2

Under the definition of political opinion cited above, gangs such as MS-13 and Mara 18 are at least other persecutory agents from which the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection.  Such gangs might also be the de facto “state” itself in areas they control.  The idea that opinions or matters that engage such gangs might constitute political opinion finds support from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has recently published Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Guatemala (January 2018), El Salvador (March 2016), and Honduras (July 2016).  These can be found on the website Refworld.org. UNHCR has been described as “the entity that most resembles a supervisory body of the [1951] Convention.”3  Although U.S. courts and the BIA have been inconsistent in the deference accorded to its opinions, given the clearly stated intent of Congress in passing the Refugee Act of 1980 to conform U.S. asylum law to the language of the 1951 Convention (which was binding on the U.S. based on its ratification of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees), it has been argued that courts should defer more consistently to UNHCR’s interpretations of the Convention’s provisions.4

UNHCR’s 2016 Eligibility Guidelines for El Salvador includes an “Assessment of International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from El Salvador.”  The agency concludes that “depending on the particular circumstances of the case, UNHCR considers that persons perceived by a gang as contravening its rules or resisting its authority may be in need of international protection on the grounds of their (imputed) political opinion…”5  The UNHCR Guidelines report at p. 12 that “gangs are reported to exercise extraordinary levels of social control over the population of their territories.”  According to UNHCR, residents in such gang-controlled zones “are reportedly required to ‘look, listen and keep quiet’ (‘mirar, oir, callar’), and often face a plethora of gang-imposed restrictions on who they can talk with and what about, what time they must be inside their homes, where they can walk or go to school, who they can visit and who can visit them, what they can wear, and even, reportedly, the color of their hair.”

At p. 28 of its Guidelines, UNHCR states:

The ground of political opinion needs to reflect the reality of the specific geographical, historical, political, legal, judicial, and sociocultural context of the country of origin. In contexts such as that in El Salvador, expressing objections to the activities of gangs may be considered as amounting to an opinion that is critical of the methods and policies of those in control and, thus, constitute a “political opinion” within the meaning of the refugee definition. For example, individuals who resist being recruited by a gang, or who refuse to comply with demands made by the gangs, such as demands to pay extortion money, may be perceived to hold a political opinion.

Anker and Lawrence note in their conclusion that many denials of such claims “reflect adjudicators’ and courts’ lack of knowledge (often because they are not presented with evidence) of regarding the political nature and context of the present conflict in that region.”  This is an extremely important point. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in Castro v. Holder6 that “a claim of political persecution cannot be evaluated in a vacuum….”  The court noted that it has “remanded cases in which the agency denied an application for asylum based on its failure to properly engage in the “complex and contextual factual inquiry” that such claims often require…Nevertheless, in this case, the agency has once again embraced an ‘impoverished view of what political opinions are, especially in a country where certain democratic rights have only a tenuous hold’” in denying the asylum claim “without any coherent examination of the surrounding political environment.”

Immigration judges dealing with seriously overloaded dockets, limited authority to grant continuances, and completion quotas will be hard pressed to engage in “complex and contextual factual inquiry.”  Practitioners should do their best to educate adjudicators through country condition evidence, expert testimony, memoranda of law, and through detailed direct examination of the asylum-seeker.

Practitioners should also rely on the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996), which held that imputed political opinion may satisfy the refugee definition (relying in part on the UNHCR Handbook and Procedures for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention; and that asylum applicants need not show conclusively why persecution may occur, but need only produce facts to establish that a reasonable person would fear that the danger arises on account of a protected ground.  The Board in S-P- also set forth five elements to consider in identifying motive, including “indications in the particular case that the abuse was directed toward modifying or punishing opinion rather than conduct (e.g., statements or actions by the perpetrators or abuse out of proportion to nonpolitical ends)” (Id. at 494).  With the support of the UNHCR Guidelines, a strong argument can be made that death threats or actual killings for offenses such as “looking mistrustfully at a gang member,” “wearing certain clothing.” or “accidentally turning up uninvited in a gang zone” constitute “statements or actions…out of proportion to nonpolitical ends” under the criteria found in Matter of S-P-.7

Where another motive exists for the feared harm, practitioners should argue that mixed motives will support a grant of asylum where one of the motives is tethered to a statutory ground.  See Matter of S-P-, supra at 495.  In Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit responded to INS’ argument that a labor union leader could not establish a nexus to political opinion because his dispute with the Guatemalan government was economic in nature by finding “any attempt to unravel economic from political motives is untenable in this case.”  The court concluded that the petitioner’s union activities “imply a political opinion,” concluding that “the Government’s view of what constitutes a political opinion is too narrow.” Or, as Anker and Lawrence explain, “gangs can, for example, view a person who refuses extortion as an enemy opposing them and, at the same time, also want the funds.”

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

Notes:

1.  14-10 Immigration Briefings 1 (October 2014).

2.  I first heard Farah speak at a country condition training on gang violence in the Northern Triangle held by USCIS for its asylum officers; at my invitation, Farah was a speaker on the same topic at the 2015 EOIR Training Conference for its immigration judges and BIA staff.

3.  American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees: A Need for Harmony in the Face of a Refugee Crisis (Note), 131 HARVARD L.R. 1399 (March 2018).

4.  See, e.g., American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, supra; Bassina Farbenblum, Executive Deference in U.S. Refugee Law: Internationalist Paths Through and Beyond Chevron,” 60 DUKE L.J. 1059 (2011); Joan Fitzpatrick, The International Dimension of U.S. Refugee Law, 15 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 1 (1997).

5.  UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from El Salvador (March 2016) at 30. http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=56e706e94&skip=0&query=guidelines%20on%20&coi=SLV

6.  597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010).

7.  See UNHCR Guidelines on El Salvador at 29; Matter of S-P-, supra at 494.

 

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Blog     Archive     Contact

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

One of the best ways of putting an end to the Administration’s “false narrative” that refugees from the Northern Triangle aren’t “real” refugees is by 1) getting everyone competently represented; 2) providing documentary and expert proof of what’s “really” happening in the Northern Triangle (not what bogus and biased  Country Reports prepared by the Trump DOS might say); and 3) vigorously litigating these cases with the appropriate citations and legal arguments up to the U.S. Courts of Appeals where judges a) don’t owe their jobs to Jeff Sessions; and b) aren’t bound by Sessions’s legal misinterpretations and this Administration’s xenophobic policies.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all. Join the New Due Process Army and fight for the legal rights of refugees!

PWS

05-04-18

 

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. MORE ARTICLES FEATURE “GANG OF RETIRED JUDGES’ STATEMENT” RE: SESSIONS’S OUTRAGEOUS ATTACK ON SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF PROTECTION LAW! — Media Exposing Corrupt, Inherently Unfair, Biased “Court” System Where The Prejudiced Prosecutor “Cooks” The Results to His Liking! — Jeff Sessions Degrades The American Legal System & Our National Values Each Day He Remains In Office!
  3. TRUMP TREATS KIDS AS HUMAN PAWNS IN UGLY POLITICAL CHESS GAME – Administration’s Continued Spreading Of False Narrative On Migration Makes Continuing Migration Outside of Legal System Inevitable!
  4. TAL @ CNN: TRUMP’S “GONZO” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES LIKELY TO FAIL AND ACTUALLY AGGRAVATE FORCES DRIVING UNDOCUMENTED MIGRATION!

LAW YOU CAN USE: ALL-STAR PROFESSOR LINDSAY MUIR HARRIS TELLS US HOW TO STOP THE TRUMP, SESSIONS, NIELSEN PLAN FOR A “NEW AMERICAN GULAG:” “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY DETENTION AND LEGAL ADVOCACY” — 136 Harvard Latinx Law Review Vol. 21 — “This is our time to act and proudly join the brigade of “dirty immigration lawyers” to ensure protection and due process for the most vulnerable!”

FULL ARTICLE:

SSRN-id3179506

ABSTRACT:

Abstract

This essay explores the contemporary practice of detaining immigrant women and children — the vast majority of whom are fleeing violence in their home countries and seeking protection in the United States — and the response by a diverse coalition of legal advocates. In spite of heroic advocacy, both within and outside the detention centers from the courts to the media to the White House, family detention continues. By charting the evolution of family detention from the time the Obama Administration resurrected the practice in 2014 and responsive advocacy efforts, this essay maps the multiple levels at which sustained advocacy is needed to stem crises in legal representation and ultimately end family detention.

Due to a perfect storm of indigent detainees without a right to appointed counsel, remote detention centers, and under-resourced nonprofits, legal representation within immigration detention centers is scarce. While the Obama Administration largely ended the practice of family detention in 2009, the same administration started detaining immigrant families en masse just five years later. In response to the rise in numbers of child migrants seeking protection in the United States arriving both with and without their parents, and with the purported aim of deterring future flows, the Obama administration reinstituted the policy of detaining families. The Ad- ministration calls these detention centers “family residential centers,” while advocates use the term “baby jail.”

The response from the advocate community was swift and overwhelming. Lawyers and law students from all over the country traveled to the detention centers, in remote areas of New Mexico and later Texas, to meet the urgent need for representation of these asylum-seeking families. This essay calls for continued engagement by attorneys throughout the nation in filling the justice gap and providing representation to these asylum-seeking families and other detained immigrants.

The crisis in representation for detained immigrants is deepening. Given the success of intensive representation at the family detention centers discussed in this article, advocates are beginning to experiment with the same models in other locations. For example, at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, the Southern Poverty Law Center, in conjunction with four other organizations, launched the Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative in 2017. This initiative enlists and trains lawyers to provide free legal representation to immigrants detained in the Southeast who are facing deportation proceedings. The American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Immigration Council have partnered to create the Immigration Justice Campaign, where pro bono attorneys are trained and mentored when providing representation to detained immigrants in typically underserved locations. Given the expansion of the volunteer model of providing legal services to detained immigrants, opportunities will continue to arise for lawyers, law students, and others to engage in crisis lawyering and advocacy. This article provides the background to understand the government’s practice of detaining families, to the extent that it can be understood, and to emphasize a continuing need for legal services for this population.

The introduction explains the population of asylum seekers and the law and procedure governing their arrival, detention, and release into the United States. The essay then traces the evolution of the U.S. government’s most recent experiment in detaining families from the summer of 2014 to present. The next part outlines the access to counsel crisis for immigrant mothers and children in detention and highlights the difference that representation makes. The article concludes with a call to action to attorneys and non-attorney volunteers nationwide to commit and re-commit to providing services to detained immigrant families and individuals.

MY FAVORITE QUOTE:

We are in an era of incredible need for immigration legal services. That need is most acute within detention centers located outside of major metro- politan areas, including within the family detention centers.

Ultimately, neither the Trump nor the Obama administration can claim to have won or be “winning” with the policy of family detention. The vast majority of women and children still receive a positive result during their credible fear interviews, because they are indeed individuals fleeing persecu- tion under the Refugee Convention. It is a poor use of resources, then, to continue to detain this population. Instead, tax-payer dollars, government energy, and resources, should be invested in providing representation and case management for this population to ensure that they appear in court and follow all required procedures to pursue their claims for protection.125 In the current era of intense immigration enforcement, combined with the Trump Administration’s plans to increase detention bed space and Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Session’s clear attacks on asylum-seekers,126 family de- tention is, however, likely here to stay.

In light of this reality, crowdsourcing refugee rights, as Stephen Man- ning articulates, is more important than ever.127 It is heartening to see the expansion of the model of lawyering within immigration detention centers expand to centers in Georgia and Louisiana, where asylum grant rates are dismal, conditions of detention dire, with a historical extreme lack of access to counsel. Lawyers are needed to ensure that individuals can properly ac- cess their due process rights and to help the immigration court system run more smoothly.128

Lawyers, specialized in immigration or not, must arm themselves with the knowledge and tools to join this fight. Just as non-immigration lawyers quickly rose to a call to action in January at the airports,129 lawyers must again rise, and continue rising, to provide representation for families and individuals held in immigration detention. This is our time to act and proudly join the brigade of “dirty immigration lawyers” to ensure protection and due process for the most vulnerable.

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

Lindsay is “one of the best.” We were colleagues at Georgetown Law when I was an Adjunct Professor and she held the prestigious “CALS Fellowship” working with  Professors Andy Schoenholtz and Phil Schrag (of “Refugee Roulette fame”). Lindsay was a guest lecturer in my Refugee Law & Policy class, and I have since returned the favor at both George Mason Law and UDC Law where she now teaches with another of my good friends and superstars, Professor Kristina Campbell. Indeed, my friend Judge Dorothy Harbeck and I are “regulars” at their class and are in the process of planning another session this fall.

Lindsay and Kristina “talk the talk and walk the walk.” They appeared before me frequently at the Arlington Immigration Court with their clinical students.  The have also gone “on site” at some of the worst immigration detention facilities in the country to help refugees in need.

In a truly unbiased, merit-based, independent, Immigration Court system (of the future) they would be ideal judges at either the trial or appellate level. They possess exactly the types of amazing scholarship, expertise and “hands on” experience representing actual individual clients before our Immigration Courts that is sorely lacking in, and in my view has largely been systematically banished from, the 21st Century immigration judiciary, to the detriment of our Immigration Courts, Due Process, and the entire American justice system. That’s one reason why our Immigration Courts are functioning so poorly in basic areas like efficiency, deliberation, quality control, and fundamental fairness!

Some important “take aways” from this article:

  • Contrary to Administration propaganda and false narratives, most of the recent arrivals who have lawyers are found to have credible claims for protection under our laws.
  • Similarly, if given fair access to competent counsel and time to prepare and present their claims in a non-coercive setting to a truly unbiased decision-maker, I believe that majority would be granted asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
  • This is the truth that Trump, Sessions, & Company don’t want revealed: most of the folks we are so cavalierly mistreating are, in fact, legitimate refugees, even under current legal rulings that have been intentionally and unfairly skewed against asylum applicants from Central America for years!
  • Even those who don’t currently fit the arcane legal categories for protection probably have a legitimate fear of harm or death upon return. They certainly are entitled to fully present and litigate their claims before being returned to life-threatening situations.
  • Finally, a better country, with better, wiser, more humane leaders, would devise ways of offering these individuals fleeing the Northern Triangle at least temporary protection, either here or in another stable country in this hemisphere, while doing something constructive to address the severe, festering, chronic human rights problems in the Northern Triangle that are sending us these refugees.
  • The “enforcement only” approach has failed over and over in the past and will continue to do so until we get better political leadership in the future.
  • In the meantime, join Lindsay, Kristina, and the other “Charter Members of the New Due Process Army” in resisting the evil, immoral, and illegal policies of the Trump Administration.
  • Due Process Forever! Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

06-02-18

Related posts:

  1. TRUMP TREATS KIDS AS HUMAN PAWNS IN UGLY POLITICAL CHESS GAME – Administration’s Continued Spreading Of False Narrative On Migration Makes Continuing Migration Outside of Legal System Inevitable!
  2. JOURNAL ON MIGRATION & HUMAN SOCIETY (“JMHS”) PUBLISHES MY TRIBUTE TO JUAN OSUNA (1963-2017): “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era”
  3. GONZO’S WORLD: THIS IS WHY HE STAYS: UNDERNEATH ALL THE “TRUMP NOISE” SESSIONS IS METHODICALLY ERADICATING DUE PROCESS, PERVERTING THE LAW, & TURNING ONE OF THE LARGEST FEDERAL COURT SYSTEMS INTO A “KILLING FLOOR” TARGETING OUR MOST VULNERABLE & DESERVING REFUGEES! — “[Sessions] is dumbing down the judges and treating them like assembly-line workers whose only job is to stamp out final orders of removal.”
  4. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 

“DUH” OF THE DAY: Official Policies Of Child Abuse, The “New American Gulag,” & Routinely Denying Constitutional Due Process Fail To Stem Refugee Tide On Southern Border!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/illegal-border-crossings-remained-high-in-may-despite-trumps-crackdown/2018/06/01/aab543ae-65a9-11e8-a768-ed043e33f1dc_story.html?utm_term=.3943d1d60e43

Nick Miroff reports for WashPost:

The number of migrants attempting to cross illegally into the United States remained high last month, according to administration officials and Border Patrol agents, an early indication that “zero tolerance” measures separating parents from their children and President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops have not had an immediate deterrent effect.

The Department of Homeland Security is expected to publish its closely watched monthly arrest totals in coming days, and Trump administration officials are bracing for a new eruption from the president. He has treated the statistics as a gauge for the success of his hard-line immigration policies, and when border arrests fell to historic lows in the months after his inauguration last year, Trump touted the decrease as a personal triumph.

Since then, migration trends have reversed. In March and again in April, border arrests exceeded 50,000, the highest monthly totals of Trump’s presidency, sending him into fits of rage, aides say. Trump unloaded on DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen during a Cabinet meeting May 9, scorching her for nearly 30 minutes over the spike in illegal crossings, while demanding she “close” the border.

The Trump administration is preparing to renew its push for an $18 billion border wall plan that would also tighten asylum procedures and overhaul other laws Trump officials say are encouraging illegal behavior. Trump has threatened to shut down the government this fall if Democrats don’t provide the funds.

But with midterm elections approaching and the president preparing to campaign on his border crackdown, Nielsen and other Homeland Security officials do not appear to be satisfying his strict enforcement targets. May’s arrest totals are expected to be at least as high as the previous two months, administration officials and Border Patrol agents said.

Large groups of Central American migrants have been taken into custody in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas in recent weeks, according to Border Patrol agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss operations. During one 24-hour span last month, 434 migrants were processed at the Border Patrol station in McAllen, agents said.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and President Trump have had a contentious relationship as illegal border crossings increase. (Patrick Martin/The Washington Post)

“The numbers have been very high,” said one agent assigned to the Rio Grande Valley, the nation’s busiest corridor for illegal migration. “It’s to the point that we have had to bring in buses to come out and load these folks up, or send four of five vans at a time.”

 

 

Another agent said so many migrants were apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley last month that many were diverted to other sections of the border for processing. The Justice Department has reassigned additional prosecutors to the border region to increase the number of migrants it charges with federal crimes, but one veteran border agent said it was “too early to tell” if the tougher enforcement measures were giving pause to migrants thinking of making the journey from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

“It’s going to take longer for the message to get back to those countries,” the agent said.

On Friday, Homeland Security officials would not say whether the tougher enforcement measures were meeting their goals. They said the May border arrest totals were not ready for publication, and they would not confirm whether the figures have been sent to the White House.

“The bottom line is Congress needs to act and close loopholes that serve as a tremendous pull factor for illegal immigration,” said Tyler Houlton, a DHS spokesman. “The Trump administration is restoring the rule of law by increasing prosecutions of illegal border crossers.”

According to a Trump adviser, the president was warned this spring that illegal border crossings were likely to increase. Trump said at the time he would not be satisfied with any such surge and everything needed to be done to block it. That led to the decision to deploy the National Guard.

The number of illegal border crossings “is going to go higher and higher yet,” said the adviser. “You’re going to see a line that goes up all summer long.”

Trump has not been briefed on the May arrest numbers yet, two advisers said.

In a statement late Friday, Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller blamed Democrats for blocking the president’s immigration overhaul.

“The illegal migrant crisis is the exclusive product of Democrats’ shameless refusal to close catch-and-release loopholes that cartels exploit to smuggle illegal aliens into the United States at great cost in taxpayer dollars, jobs and, too often, lives,” Miller said.

Weak border enforcement remains the biggest incentive to illegal migration, according to Miller. “We must end catch-and-release by reforming our asylum laws, and establishing expedited removal, to stop the smuggling and defend the nation,” he said.

As in recent years, many of those taken into custody last month were teenagers or parents traveling with children, and the administration has triggered broad condemnation for separating more families with its push to prosecute anyone who crosses illegally.

More than 10,800 migrant children were in federal custody as of May 31, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, up 21 percent since the end of April. The agency’s shelters are 95 percent full, and HHS officials say they are preparing to add thousands of additional beds to cope with the increase.

A Border Patrol agent in South Texas said the family separation measures were not being applied as broadly as assumed. Some parents who face federal charges are apart from their children for only several hours, then released and assigned a court date, the agent said.

“To us, that’s still ‘catch-and-
release,’ ” the agent said. “People are going to continue to come.”

Arrests along the Mexican border peaked at more than 1.6 million in 2000, then fell sharply during the Obama administration. During the government’s past fiscal year that ended in September, U.S. agents made 303,916 arrests, the lowest total since 1971.

Trump’s fixation is driven, in part, by a view that border security is paramount to his most fervent supporters and that immigration is a winning issue for Republican candidates in November’s congressional elections.

“I’m very proud to say that we’re way down in the people coming across the border,” Trump said in January. “We have fewer people trying to come across, because they know it’s not going to happen.”

The arrest numbers began shooting upward soon after that, from 36,682 in February to 50,296 in March. The yearly total for 2018 is on pace to approach or exceed 400,000, a level more consistent with migration patterns of the past five years, DHS statistics show.

[Trump ‘zero tolerance’ at the border is causing child shelters to fill up fast]

During a visit Thursday to the Nogales border crossing in southern Arizona, Nielsen called the increase in illegal migration a crisis and said Homeland Security officials were working to “end this lawlessness.”

The country’s borders are being violated “by criminals, by smugglers and by thousands of people who have absolutely no respect for our laws,” she said.

“This is changing, it will change, and we will do all that we can to change this,” Nielsen added, emphasizing that the “zero-tolerance” approach announced in April will be applied as aggressively as possible.

“If you come here illegally, whether you’re single, whether you have a family, whether you’re a smuggler or whether you’re a trafficker, you’ve broken the law, so we’re prosecuting,” she said.

On Friday, Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Nielsen and Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding information on the administration’s enforcement efforts, including the number of children who have been separated from their parents and whether there are formal procedures to reunite them.

Border arrests typically rise during spring months, when seasonal labor demands increase. Farms across the Midwest are becoming desperate for workers, with the U.S. unemployment rate at the lowest level since 2000. Lawmakers from both parties have told Nielsen that worker shortages are squeezing an array of industries in their states, and the DHS said last week that it will issue 15,000 seasonal guest-worker visas.

But border agents said much of the increase this spring seems to be driven by the same groups — families and teenagers traveling alone — who have been straining Homeland Security capacity since the 2014 crisis that left Border Patrol stations overflowing.

Photos of recent mass arrests provided by one agent show migrants of all ages walking through willow groves along the Rio Grande or lined up in federal custody along the river levees, waiting to board government buses.

Josh Dawsey contributed to this report.

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

No surprises here. “Toldja so” back when Trump unwisely declared “Victory at Sea” after a few months of reduced border apprehensions. Since Trump is proudly ignorant of history, he apparently didn’t study what happened to Bushie II after he declared “Victory in Iraq” or his “Heck of Job, Brownie” moment. Nor does he have any idea of the actual dynamics driving human migration. That’s the problem with policies driven by racism, bias, xenophobia, and White Nationalism.

Also, trying to rewrite the Constitution and international protection law, as Trump, Sessions, Miller, Cotton, and the rest of the White Nationalist Gang would dearly like to do, to deny established legal rights won’t work either. In fact, it would make things 10X worse.

The laws aren’t the problem!  The problem is the people charged with implementing them.

We can diminish ourselves as a nation, (and in fact, we are diminishing under Trump) but it won’t stop human migration!

 

PWS

06-02-18

Related posts:

  1. TRUMP TREATS KIDS AS HUMAN PAWNS IN UGLY POLITICAL CHESS GAME – Administration’s Continued Spreading Of False Narrative On Migration Makes Continuing Migration Outside of Legal System Inevitable!
  2. VICTORY DANCE! — ICE’S HOMAN SAYS CLIMATE OF FEAR HAS STEMMED BORDER CROSSINGS & PROVES UNRESTRAINED, ARBITRARY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT WORKS! — “There’s no population that’s off the table,” he said. “If you’re in the country illegally, we’re looking for you and we’re looking to apprehend you.” — America Won’t Be Truly Safe Until The Last Cook, Gardner, Construction Worker, Nanny, Janitor, Tree Cutter, Mechanic, Handyman, Carpenter, Home Health Aide, Computer Programmer, Healthcare Worker, Lettuce Picker, Cow Milker, Landscaper, Lawnmower, Bricklayer, Roofer, Window Washer, Waiter, Sandwich Artist, Teacher, Minister, Coach, Student, Parent, Clerk, Fisherman, Farmer, Maid, Chicken Plucker, Meat Processor, Etc., Without Docs Is Removed And US Citizens Take Over All These Jobs!
  3. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”
  4. HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM COURTSIDE! — I Take A Look Forward @ 2019’s Big Immigration Stories

AS SESSIONS DISEMBOWELS DUE PROCESS, THE REAL LEGAL PROBLEMS LEADING TO UNFAIR HEARINGS FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS AND OTHERS CONTINUE UNABATED & UNADDRESSED IN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT – 2d Cir. Delivers A “Double Shot” Rebuke To Misapplication Of Credibility Rules By Immigration Judges & BIA Judges Who Should Know Better — HONG FEI GAO V. SESSIONS

GAO-2D CIR 16-2262_16-2493_opn

Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 2d Cir., May 25, 2018, published

PANEL: WINTER and CHIN, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Judge.*

  • Edward R. Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

    OPINION BY: JUDGE CHIN

    SUMMARY OF HOLDING (From Decision):

    These petitions for review heard in tandem challenge two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the ʺBIAʺ), affirming decisions by two Immigration Judges (ʺIJsʺ), denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (ʺCATʺ) to two petitioners seeking relief from religious persecution in China on adverse credibility grounds. During removal proceedings, petitioners testified regarding the medical attention they received for injuries they sustained from police beatings. The IJs and the BIA relied substantially on the omission of that information from petitionersʹ initial applications and supporting documents to determine that petitioners lacked credibility.

    On appeal, petitioners principally challenge the agencyʹs adverse credibility determinations. In light of the totality of the circumstances and in the context of the record as a whole, in each case we conclude that the IJ and BIA erred in substantially relying on certain omissions in the record. Accordingly, we grant the petitions, vacate the decisions of the BIA, and remand the cases to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

     

KEY QUOTE:

For cases filed after May 11, 2005, the effective date of the REAL ID Act, Pub L. No. 109‐13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), ʺan IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as theʹtotality of the circumstancesʹ establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible,ʺ Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The agency may base a credibility finding on an asylum applicantʹs ʺdemeanor, candor, or responsivenessʺ; the ʺinherent plausibilityʺ of his account; the consistency among his written statements, oral statements, and other record evidence; and ʺany inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicantʹs claim, or any other relevant factor.ʺ 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Even where the agency ʺrelies on discrepancies or lacunae that, if taken separately, concern matters collateral or ancillary to the claim, the cumulative effect may nevertheless be deemed consequential.ʺ Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (quoting Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006)). To resolve the instant appeals, we first clarify the following principles that govern credibility determinations based on omissions following the REAL ID Act.

First, although the REAL ID Act authorizes an IJ to rely on ʺanyinconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination,ʺ even one ʺcollateral or ancillaryʺ to an applicantʹs claims, id. at 167, the Act does not give an IJ free rein. The REAL ID Act does not erase our obligation to assess whether the agency has provided ʺspecific, cogent reasons for the adverse credibility finding and whether those reasons bear a legitimate nexus to the finding.ʺ Id. at 166 (quoting Zhou Yun Zhang, 386 F.3d at 74); accord Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (ʺThe REAL ID Act did not strip us of our ability to rely on the institutional tools that we have developed, such as the requirement that an agency provide specific and cogent reasons supporting an adverse credibility determination, to aid our review.ʺ). Thus, although IJs may rely on non‐material omissions and inconsistencies, not all omissions and inconsistencies will deserve the same weight. A trivial inconsistency or omission that has no tendency to suggest a petitioner fabricated his or her claim will not support an adverse credibility determination. See Latifi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 103, 105 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (remanding where we found ʺany potential discrepancies that might exist to be far from ʹsignificant and numerous,ʹ but rather insignificant and trivialʺ); accord Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044 (noting thatʺtrivial inconsistencies that under the total circumstances have no bearing on a petitionerʹs veracity should not form the basis of an adverse credibility determinationʺ); Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817, 821 (7th Cir. 2007) (faulting IJ forʺfail[ing] to distinguish between material lies, on the one hand, and innocent mistakes, trivial inconsistencies, and harmless exaggerations, on the other handʺ).3

Second, although ʺ[a] lacuna in an applicantʹs testimony or omission in a document submitted to corroborate the applicantʹs testimony . . . can serve as a proper basis for an adverse credibility determination,ʺ Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3, we also recognize that ʺasylum applicants are not required to list every incident of persecution on their I–589 statement,ʺ Lianping Li v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (quoting Pavlova, 441 F.3d at 90); see also Secaida‐Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 308 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that an applicantʹsʺfailure to list in his or her initial application facts that emerge later in testimony will not automatically provide a sufficient basis for an adverse credibility findingʺ), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; accord Pop v. INS, 270 F.3d 527, 531‐32 (7th Cir. 2001) (ʺWe hesitate to find that one seeking asylum must state in his or her application every incident of persecution lest the applicant have his or her credibility questioned if the incident is later elicited in direct testimony.ʺ); Abulashvili v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 663 F.3d 197, 206 (3d Cir. 2011). Because of this tension, although we have noted in dictum that an inconsistency and an omission are ʺfunctionally equivalentʺ for adverse credibility purposes, Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3, in generalʺomissions are less probative of credibility than inconsistencies created by direct contradictions in evidence and testimony,ʺ Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2014). Cf. Lianping Li, 839 F.3d at 150 (upholding adverse credibility determination where petitionerʹs ʺasylum application did not simply omit incidents of persecution. . . . [but rather] described the same incidents of persecution differentlyʺ).

An example of a trivial inconsistency that is entitled to little if any weight is the difference between Gaoʹs hearing testimony that he was interrogated by the police ʺfour timesʺ and his application statement that he was interrogated ʺseveral times.ʺ The BIA correctly held that this ʺdiscrepancyʺ did not support an adverse credibility determination. Likewise, the difference between September 1, 2010 and September 4, 2010 as the date when Shao contacted his cousin is a trivial discrepancy.

Although the federal evidentiary rules do not apply in immigration proceedings, Aslam v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam), it is nonetheless instructive to analogize the use of omissions in adverse credibility determinations to the use of a witnessʹs prior silence for impeachment. In the latter context, we have indicated that ʺ[w]here the belatedly recollected facts merely augment that which was originally described, the prior silence is often simply too ambiguous to have any probative force, and accordingly is not sufficiently inconsistent to be admitted for purposes of impeachment.ʺ United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, 756 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted). In addition, the probative value of a witnessʹs prior silence on particular facts depends on whether those facts are ones the witness would reasonably have been expected to disclose. See Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 239 (1980) (ʺCommon law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted.ʺ(emphasis added)). In the immigration context, in assessing the probative value of the omission of certain facts, an IJ should consider whether those facts are ones that a credible petitioner would reasonably have been expected to disclose under the relevant circumstances.

Finally, the REAL ID Act requires IJs to evaluate each inconsistency or omission in light of the ʺtotality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,ʺ8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That requirement is consistent with our well‐established rule that review of an agencyʹs adverse credibility determination ʺis conducted on the record as a whole.ʺ Tu Lin, 446 F.3d at 402; see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (an applicantʹs testimony must be considered ʺin light of . . . the manner in which it hangs together with other evidenceʺ (citation omitted)); accord Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040 (ʺ[T]he totality of the circumstances approach also imposes the requirement that an IJ not cherry pick solely facts favoring an adverse credibility determination while ignoring facts that undermine that result.ʺ). Thus, ʺan applicantʹs testimonial discrepancies ‐‐ and, at times, even outright lies ‐‐ must be weighed in light of their significance to the total context of his or her claim of persecution.ʺ Zhong v. U.S. Depʹt of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 127 (2d Cir. 2007). An IJ must also ʺʹengage or evaluateʹ an asylum applicantʹs explanations for apparent inconsistencies in the record.ʺ Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 629 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Latifi, 430 F.3d at 105); see also Cao He Lin v. U.S. Depʹt of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir. 2005) (ʺAbsent a reasoned evaluation of [petitionerʹs] explanations, the IJʹs conclusion that his story is implausible was based on flawed reasoning and, therefore, cannot constitute substantial evidence supporting her conclusion.ʺ).

II. Application
In light of the foregoing principles, we conclude that in both cases, the IJs and the BIA erred by substantially relying on certain inconsistencies and omissions that had no tendency to show that petitioners fabricated their claims when considered in light of the totality of the circumstances and in the context of the record as a whole. Because we cannot confidently predict that the IJs would have adhered to their adverse credibility determinations absent these erroneous bases, we remand for further evaluation.

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

So, while Jeff Sessions is busy with a “nuclear attack” on asylum law and Constitutional Due Process, some U.S. Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges are equally busy just mis-applying well-established legal standards to screw asylum seekers.

Rather than looking at the record as a whole, as required by law, and giving asylum seekers the “benefit of the doubt,” too many Immigration Judges and BIA Judges are playing “gotcha” with the law — using minor or irrelevant variances in testimony or minor gaps in proof to justify bogus adverse credibility findings and asylum denials. Obviously, as backlogs stretch out, the problems inherent in “fly-specking” an applicant’s testimony about events many years in the past increases. That’s one of the reasons why Sessions’s insane bid to shove more properly administratively closed removal cases back onto “active dockets,” and to discourage the further removal of “low priority” cases from active dockets, is totally and intentionally destructive to an already failing court system.

The REAL ID ACT was effective in 2005, well over a decade ago. So, its proper application is not “rocket science.” It’s “Immigration Judging 101.”

Yet unfair applications of the law to wrongfully discredit and deny asylum seekers persists in the Immigration Courts and seems to breeze through at least some BIA “Panels” without critical review or analysis. I put “Panels” in quotes because all too often these days the appellate review is conducted by a “Panel of One” judge.

And since the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges now come almost exclusively from Government backgrounds, they are very likely to share some of the same “blind spots” as to the reality of presenting an affirmative asylum application in Immigration Court. If any of them have done it (and most haven’t), it was decades ago when conditions and the law were very different. They all too often draw inferences and reach conclusions that any competent immigration practitioner would know are way out of line with reality.

How are these endemic problems affecting fairness and Constitutional Due Process in the Immigration Courts, and potentially destroying and endangering lives of asylum applicants, solved by cranking up judicial productivity, trying to reverse long-standing precedents that aid asylum seekers pursuing legal protections, and making biased public anti-asylum statements? How is justice and Due Process served by gratuitously attacking immigration lawyers and disingenuously seeking to eliminate laws that provide the already meager and inadequate protections that asylum seekers now have? Yet this is precisely what Sessions’s program is!

The Immigration Court system needs reform to guarantee unbiased, high quality, fair treatment of asylum seekers and other individuals fighting for their very lives. Jeff Sessions is dedicated to the eradication of Due Process and turning the Immigration Courts into a “Death Railroad” for asylum seekers and other migrants. He must be stopped before he destroys our entire U.S. justice system — apparently his ultimate aim.

Join the New Due Process Army and stand up to Jeff Sessions and the other bullying, scofflaw, White Nationalists in the Trump Regime.

PWS

06-01-18

 

Related posts:

  1. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  2. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  3. FELIPE DE LA HOZ @ THE NATION: “The Shadow Court Cementing Trump’s Immigration Policy” — “It’s not a court anymore, it’s an enforcement mechanism,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, who was himself chair of the BIA between 1995 and 2001 and now writes a popular immigration blog called Immigration Courtside. “They’re taking predetermined policy and just disguising it as judicial opinions, when the results have all been predetermined and it has nothing to do or little to do with the merits of the cases.”
  4. PURE BS 💩 — TRUMP’S “BIG LIE” ABOUT MIGRANT APPEARANCES FOR HEARINGS BOGUS AS $3 BILL 🤮👎🏻— Replacing DHS/EOIR With Rational, Qualified, Fact-Based Governance & Real Judiciary Could Bring Appearance Rate Close To 100%!  — Two Items From ImmigrationProf Blog!

A DESPERATE CRY FOR HELP FROM DEEP WITHIN OUR BROKEN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM: “Yesterday as I left court after an individual hearing for a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver, my client told me she felt like she was not a human being because of the way she was treated during the trial.” – JOIN THE “NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY” & STOP THE DEHUMANIZATION OF INDIVIDUALS SEEKING DUE PROCESS!

Here’s what a practicing immigration attorney has to say about what’s really happening in our broken U.S. Immigration Court system:

I was at the FBA conference in Denver and your keynote speech made me feel like someone actually understands the tragedies that are unfolding in our immigration court system, and is trying to do something about it. Each time I go into court I try to look at the system with new eyes and refreshed hope that today’s trial will be different. Each time I leave court I am reminded of how blatantly biased the judges can be, how the government attorneys are given special treatment, how our clients are badgered and treated inhumanely, and how the “dirty immigration lawyers” such as myself are treated with disdain. I know that I will be ok, but worry to the point of losing sleep over how my clients are treated. Yesterday as I left court after an individual hearing for a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver, my client told me she felt like she was not a human being because of the way she was treated during the trial. I consider myself a part of the due process army and want to know what else I can do to advocate for serious changes, including a complete overhaul, of the EOIR system. I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you.

Here’s my response:

You can:
1) Take cases to the Article III Courts. They still have no idea of how Due Process is being mocked every day in the Immigration Courts. They need to be forced to accept responsibility for this travesty which they have the power to end.
2) Make a record of how the IJs are ignoring facts of record and applicable law because they have prejudged cases.
3) Get out the vote for candidates who put Dreamer relief, an independent  Immigration Court, and an end to unnecessary and expensive immigration detention at the top of their legislative “to do” list. (Something that the Dems conspicuously failed to do when Obama was elected in 2008).
4) Actively support candidates for state and local office who are pledged to resist the divisive and racially motivated immigration policies of this Administration to the extent possible under the law.
5) Support efforts for universal representation.

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

It’s both telling and disturbing that most of us who understand the system’s failings and are committed to fixing them are now outside the system — where our voices actually can be heard, our views are taken seriously, and the truth about the national disgrace taking place in our U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump & Sessions can be spoken. 

Yes, there are many conscientious, courageous, and hard-working Immigration Judges still in the system. But, they have been “muzzled, degraded, and disrespected.” Instead, those Immigration Judges who are biased against respondents, particularly asylum seekers, willing to cut corners, and oblivious to what Constitutional Due Process actually means for individuals are being empowered and encouraged by Sessions.

How is it fair or reasonable to have a so-called “court system” where conscientious attorneys like this are “losing sleep” over the unfair, degrading, and dehumanizing treatment that they are receiving at the hands of supposed Federal Judges in what purports to be a Federal Court system? Totally outrageous!

Attorneys — particularly those appearing pro bono and “low bono” — are the undisputed heroes of this system, the only ones standing between the Immigration Courts and unimaginable chaos and injustice at the hands of Jeff Sessions. Indeed, notwithstanding this reprehensible mistreatment, private attorneys are leading the battle for true judicial independence in the Immigration Courts over the objections of the DOJ and EOIR. What does that tell you about this system?

A “real” Attorney General, who took his oath of office seriously, would slow down this entire farce and direct retraining of every judge in the system in what “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all,” carrying out the generous standards for asylum seekers set forth by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca, the BIA in Mogharrabi, and actually reflected in the current regulations really mean in practice!

If Due Process, asylum law, withholding law, and the CAT were properly and fairly applied, the vast majority of applicants and recent arrivals could be competently represented and granted some type of protection either by the DHS or in “short block” Immigration Court hearings. That would both fulfill the law and help reduce the backlog pressure on Immigration Courts, as well as reducing the number of needless petitions for review being filed in the Courts of Appeals to correct basic errors committed by the BIA and the Immigration Courts!

Instead, we are stuck with a “scofflaw” Attorney General who intends to establish and reinforce “worst practices.” It will take a concerted effort on the part of the New Due Process Army to halt the Trump Administration’s attack on human decency and our constitutional rights in the Immigration Court system!

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

05-31-18

Related posts:

  1. NY TIMES: Trump Mocks & Dehumanizes Vulnerable Refugees & His Administration Claims It’s OK To Return Them to Honduras; BUT The Facts Say The Opposite: Honduras Is An Armed Conflict Zone Where Gangs Exercise Quasi-Governmental Control & Those Who Resist Are Severely Punished, Often Maimed, Tortured Or Killed!
  2. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 
  3. REPORT # 2 FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “APPELLATE LITIGATION IN TODAY’S BROKEN AND BIASED IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM: FOUR STEPS TO A WINNING COUNTERATTACK BY THE RELENTLESS ‘NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY’”
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

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

Judge Schmidt –

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend,

 

jc

 

JEAN-CLAUDE ANDRÉ

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

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

Here’s a copy of the remand order:

2018-05-22_Order Remanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

05-30-18

 

Related posts:

  1. THE LATEST FROM THE HON. JEFFREY CHASE: “Amicus Brief Filed in 10th Cir. Petition for Remotely-Detained Asylum Seeker” — PLUS: A Link To The Actual Brief! — MATUMONA V. SESSIONS, 10th Cir.
  2. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: In-Depth Analysis Of “Our Gang’s” Amicus Brief In Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-
  3. ANOTHER AMICUS OPPORTUNITY FOR RETIRED IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND BIA APPELLATE JUDGES – Join My Friend & Colleague Judge Eliza Klein, Pro Bono Counsel Sidley Austin, The Heartland Alliance, & Me In A 10th Circuit Case Involving Access To Counsel In Immigration Detention (There Isn’t Any, For All Practical Purposes)
  4. THE FURTHER EXPLOITS OF “OUR GANG” – 5th Circuit Grants Oral Argument In Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- (requiring asylum applicants to clearly delineate the PSG before the IJ)!

THE GIBSON REPORT – 05-29-18 – COMPLIED BY ELIZABETH GIBSON, ESQUIRE, NY LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP — Highlighting Significant, Yet Unfortunately Unpublished, BIA Holding That 2 Weeks Was An Inadequate Continuance To Seek an Attorney!

 

THE GIBSON REPORT 05-29-18

TOP UPDATES

 

TRAC Finds ICE Deportations Dropped by Almost Half Over Past Five Years

TRAC released a report on ICE deportations, updated through October 2017, finding that deportation levels have dropped by almost half since October 2012. TRAC also provided updated web tools on ICE deportation data including a breakdown on convictions and number of ICE deportations. AILA Doc. No. 18052231

 

BIA Holds Two-Week Continuance Not Sufficient Time to Find an Attorney

Unpublished BIA decision finds that IJ denied respondent’s right to counsel by providing only two weeks to find an attorney. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Santos-Gijon, 6/22/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052337

 

Neglect and Abuse of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children by U.S. Customs and Border Protection

ACLU: Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union featured in a new report released today show the pervasive abuse and neglect of unaccompanied immigrant children detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

 

She came to the US for a better life. Moments after arrival, she was killed

CNN: Claudia Patricia Gomez Gonzalez traveled 1,500 miles to the United States, hoping to find a job and a better future. Shortly after she set foot in Texas, a Border Patrol agent shot and killed her.

 

Border Patrol union calls Trump’s National Guard deployment ‘colossal waste’

LA Times: A month after President Trump called for sending National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, the head of the national Border Patrol union called the deployment “a colossal waste of resources.” “We have seen no benefit,” said Brandon Judd, president of the union that represents 15,000 agents, the National Border Patrol Council.

 

Swept up in the Sweep: The Impact of Gang Allegations on Immigrant New Yorkers

NYIC: Through an extensive field study, the report shows how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with other federal agencies and law enforcement, uses arbitrary methods to profile immigrant youth of color to allege gang affiliation.

 

Deportation by Any Means Necessary: How Immigration Officials Are Labeling Immigrant Youth as Gang Members

ILRC: This report details findings from a national survey of legal practitioners concerning the increased use of gang allegations against young immigrants as a means of driving up deportation numbers, at the encouragement of the Trump administration.

 

Pretermitting Gang PSGs

AILA Listserv: It appears that, at least in some jurisdictions, DHS is moving to pretermit gang PSGs for asylum before merits hearing. Looks like we must also be prepared to respond to these arguments going forward. See useful gang PSG resources attached.

 

Civil rights groups slam DeVos for saying schools can report undocumented students

WaPo: Civil rights groups slammed Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for saying Tuesday that schools can decide whether to report undocumented students to immigration enforcement officials, saying her statements conflict with the law and could raise fears among immigrant students.

 

DHS Prosecutes Over 600 Parents in Two-Week Span and Seizes their Children

AIC: Following implementation of a “zero tolerance” policy, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that 638 parents who crossed with children had been prosecuted in just a 13-day span this month.

 

New RFE Policy

From the USCIS District Director’s meeting: Starting immediately if you are issued an USCIS RFE that you need to submit to 26 Federal Plaza they will be issuing a notice giving you a time to hand deliver it.  The dates will always be on Fridays and the notice will state that you can come in anytime between 7am-12pm on that date to hand the RFE response in at the indicated window.  There will be no interview – you will just hand in the response and get your copy stamped.  They are moving away from mail in RFE responses because of too many problems with the post office.

 

U-visa Categories (attached)

ASISTA: The AAO seems to have paid attention to our amicus arguments on U visa crimes as “categories” in their decision in the case underlying our amicus, see attached redacted decision and the amicus.  We will need to keep pushing this framework, however, so please continue using the arguments in the amicus when arguing crime categories.  We do not, for instance, agree that the DV category contemplates only the facts involving relationships; many crimes are DV depending on the facts of the crimes, not just the relationships.  See attached.

 

Stay Requests

HerJustice: On this topic, I learned last year that ICE ERO (NYC) wasn’t even accepting applications for stay of removal if the applicant didn’t have a current passport—is this still the case?

LSNYC: As I understand it, it’s always been ICE’s policy that the applicant for a stay (I-246) must have a current passport. Really, the Officers are all over the place when it comes to stays.  Some say they are not accepting stays, some say so long as the client has something pending (appeal, MTR, U/VAWA/T, etc) no removal will be effectuated and that no stay is needed until removal is imminent.

Sanctuary: Our office recently filed a stay of removal, and in the alternative request for deferred action, for a client with a removal order from 2009 whose son has hemophilia. ERO accepted the stay without her passport. ERO said that they would make a decision on within 3 months, and if not, she is to return for another check-in at the end of June.

 

Immigrant Legal Aid Group Withdraws Request for Montgomery County Funding with Carve Out

Bethesda Mag: A Washington, D.C., nonprofit set to receive about $374,000 in Montgomery County funds to provide deportation defense to detained immigrants has withdrawn its request for the money in response to an updated list of criminal convictions that would bar certain immigrants from receiving legal aid.

 

Anti-Immigrant Extremist Nominated to Run Refugee Office at State Department

HRF: In response to the nomination of Ronald Mortensen to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, the senior-most American diplomat representing the United States in matters relating to the most vulnerable populations in the world, Human Rights First’s Jennifer Quigley issued the following statement: “Mortensen has spent the past several years working at an anti-immigrant hate group, spewing vile, extremist views that have no relation to reality.”

 

Immigration dominating GOP candidates’ TV ads in House contests across the country

USA Today: House Republican candidates are blanketing the airwaves with TV ads embracing a hard line on immigration — a dramatic shift from the last midterm elections in 2014 when immigration was not on the GOP’s political radar, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from Kantar Media.

 

U.S. Immigration Courts, Long Crowded, Are Now Overwhelmed

The Wall Street Journal reports on the U.S. immigration court system’s backlog increasing 25 percent since President Trump took office, with insights on the situation from AILA National Secretary Jeremy McKinney. AILA Doc. No. 18052342

 

This Salvadoran Woman Is At The Center Of The Attorney General’s Asylum Crackdown

NPR: Attorney General Jeff Sessions is stirring panic in immigrant communities by moving to limit who can get asylum in the United States. Perhaps no one is more alarmed than one Salvadoran woman living in the Carolinas…Now Sessions has personally intervened in her case, questioning whether she and other crime victims deserve protection and a path to American citizenship.

 

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

 

SIJS Family Court Appellate Case

2d dept remanded and ordered a new judge be assigned after a Nassau County Fam Court Judge dismissed a mother’s petition for guardianship and refused to set the motion for special findings, without any hearing. They also made note of the judge’s wildly inappropriate remarks.

 

Supreme Court Delays Further in Deciding Certiorari Petition in Case Involving Abortion by Undocumented Teen

ImmProf: [May 21], the Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases and also issued orders (denied cert, etc.) in a number of cases.  The press room, as it has been for so many weeks, was buzzing about the possible disposition of the U.S. government’s cert petition in Azar v. Garza, a case involving the undocumented pregnant teenager. The government wants the Supreme Court to vacate the D.C. Circuit decision that cleared the way for her to get an abortion.  The Court did not act on the case this morning.

 

Detainees in Stewart Detention Center File Suit Challenging Forced Labor Practices

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against private prison company CoreCivic challenging its practice of depriving detained immigrants of basic necessities so they are forced to work at well below minimum wage to purchase items at the prison commissary. (Barrientos v. CoreCivic, 4/17/18) AILA Doc. No. 18052163

 

DOJ Announces Airlines Staffing Executive Sentenced for Immigration Fraud

DOJ announced that Eleno Quinteros, Jr., the former vice president of operations for two airline mechanic staffing companies, was sentenced today to 12 months in prison for making false statements in support of legal permanent resident petitions for dozens of the companies’ mechanics. AILA Doc. No. 18052162

 

DOJ Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against University of California, San Diego

Posted 5/25/2018

DOJ announced a settlement agreement with the University of California, San Diego. The settlement resolved whether the University’s Resource Management and Planning Vice Chancellor Area discriminated against workers in violation of the INA when verifying their continued authorization to work.

AILA Doc. No. 18052532

 

Documents Relating to Los Angeles’s Challenge to Immigration Enforcement Conditions on Federal Law Enforcement Grants

The court issued an order granting the government’s request to expedite the case. The case will be calendared for September 2018. (Los Angeles v. Sessions, 5/15/18) AILA Doc. No. 18041638

 

BIA Holds Two-Week Continuance Not Sufficient Time to Find an Attorney

Unpublished BIA decision finds that IJ denied respondent’s right to counsel by providing only two weeks to find an attorney. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Santos-Gijon, 6/22/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052337

 

BIA Holds Child Abuse Ground of Deportability Does Not Apply to Attempt Crimes

Unpublished BIA decision holds that attempt to endanger the welfare of a child under N.Y.P.L. 260.10 is not a crime of child abuse because INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) only applies to completed crimes. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of B-Q-, 6/20/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052432

 

BIA Finds Wisconsin Prostitution Statute Is Categorically an Aggravated Felony

The BIA reinstated removal proceedings, after finding that INA §101(a)(43)(K)(i) encompassed offenses related to the operation of a business that involves engaged in, or agreeing or offering to engage in, sexual conduct for anything of value. Matter of Ding, 27 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 2018) AILA Doc. No. 18052164

 

BIA Holds Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in Arizona Is Not a Controlled Substance Offense

Unpublished BIA decision holds possession of drug paraphernalia under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3415(A) is not a controlled substance offense because the state schedule is overbroad and the identity of the drug is not an element of the offense. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Lopez, 6/16/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052160

 

BIA Reverses Discretionary Denial of Adjustment Application

Unpublished BIA decision reverses discretionary denial of adjustment application where respondent had five U.S. citizen children, was active in church, and last DUI offense was more than eight years prior. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Rodriguez, 6/15/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052230

 

BIA Limits Application of Firm Resettlement Bar

Unpublished BIA decision holds that the firm resettlement bar does not apply to asylum applicants who fear persecution in the country of alleged resettlement. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of L-K-U-, 6/16/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052332

 

CA4 Upholds CBP Search of Smartphone Seized While Defendant Was Exiting the United States

The court found it was reasonable for the CBP officers who conducted a month-long forensic analysis of the defendant’s smartphone to rely on precedent allowing warrantless border searches of digital devices based on at least reasonable suspicion. (U.S. v. Kolsuz, 5/9/18, amended 5/18/18) AILA Doc. No. 18052165

 

White House Releases Fact Sheet on MS-13

The White House released a purported fact sheet on MS-13, in which it refers to these individuals as “animals.” AILA Doc. No. 18052232

 

USCIS Issues Policy Guidance on CSPA

USCIS issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). This guidance is controlling and supersedes any prior guidance on the topic. Comments are due by 6/6/18. AILA Doc. No. 18052339

 

USCIS Notice on the Termination of the Designation of Nepal for Temporary Protected Status

USCIS notice on the termination of the designation of Nepal for TPS on 6/24/19. Holders of TPS from Nepal who wish to maintain their TPS and receive an EAD valid through 6/24/19 must re-register for TPS in accordance with the procedures set forth in the notice. (83 FR 23705, 5/22/18) AILA Doc. No. 18052236

 

EOIR Released Percentage of Detained Cases Completed Within Six Months

EOIR released statistics on the percentage of detained cases completed within six months. As of 3/31/18, 89 percent of initial case completions were completed in less than six months. AILA Doc. No. 18052237

 

ICE Announces 24-Month Imprisonment for ICE Agent Impersonator

ICE announced that Matthew Ryan Johnston was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison after possessing multiple destructive devices and using fake ICE badges and uniforms to falsely represent himself as an ICE agent to unsuspecting members of the public. AILA Doc. No. 18052561

 

ACTIONS

 

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

 

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

The second item on Elizabeth’s List is well worth a look. Although the BIA has stayed away from addressing in a precedent the length and number of continuances required to meet minimum standards of Due Process, this unpublished BIA decision finds that a two-week continuance to locate counsel was inadequate.

That certainly would have been the case in Arlington when I was there, particularly given the unnecessary pressure being put on pro bono counsel by the Obama’s Administration’s policies of “ADR” and “gonzo scheduling” of so-called “priority cases.”

This decision also confirms and reinforces what many of us retired U.S. Immigraton Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges have been saying all along: by pushing the court system to move more cases, faster, and with limited continuances, Immigration Judges are effectively being encouraged to deny Due Process to respondents who do have a right to be represented at no expense to the Government. That right clearly includes reasonable access to, and a resonable opportunity to locate, pro bono counsel. Clearly that didn’t happen here. I suspect it’s also not happening in thousands of other cases — particularly detained cases — across the country.

Instead of protecting Due Process and encouraging “best practices” by U.S. Immigration Judges, Sessions and EOIR Management are feverishly working to instill “worst practices” in the Immigration Courts. The BIA won’t catch all of them, particularly in the absence of helpful precedents. Indeed, and quite remarkably, even this modest declaration of minimum Due Process produced a “split” BIA panel with Judge Roger Pauley signing the order, joined by Judge Edward Grant, but with Judge Ana Mann “dissenting without opinion.”

All of this is likely to mean 1) more denials of Due Process in Immigration Court; 2) more lives ruined; and 3) more “otherwise avoidable” remands from the Courts of Appeals.

Just like mother always said:  “Haste Makes Waste!”

PWS

05-30-18

Related posts:

  1. THE GIBSON REPORT — 05-13-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group
  2. BIA’S “GONZO HIRING PLAN” & OTHER TALES FROM THE TRUMP REGIME TWILIGHT ZONE – The Gibson Report – 01-20-21 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group
  3. HALLOWEEN HORROR STORY: Opaque & Biased Politicized Judicial Hiring Denies Migrants The Fair & Impartial Adjudication To Which They Are Constitutionally Entitled – Given The Generous Legal Standards, A Worldwide Refugee Crisis, & Asylum Officers’ Positive Findings In Most Cases, Asylum Seekers Should Be Winning The Vast Majority Of Immigration Court Cases — Instead, They Are Being “Railroaded” By A Biased System & Complicit Article III Courts!
  4. PURE BS 💩 — TRUMP’S “BIG LIE” ABOUT MIGRANT APPEARANCES FOR HEARINGS BOGUS AS $3 BILL 🤮👎🏻— Replacing DHS/EOIR With Rational, Qualified, Fact-Based Governance & Real Judiciary Could Bring Appearance Rate Close To 100%!  — Two Items From ImmigrationProf Blog!

HON. JEFFREY CHASE – DON’T BELIEVE EOIR’S DISINGENUOUS CLAIMS ABOUT “TRANSPARENCY” — Agency Hits New Low In FOIA Obfuscation By Purporting To “Redact” Legal Citations From Unpublished Decisions!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/5/27/eoirs-knee-jerk-redaction

 

 

EOIR’s Knee-Jerk Redaction?

In an action reflecting on the agency’s transparency, EOIR responded to a Freedom of Information Act request by Long Island, NY attorney Bryan Johnson for the remanded decisions of Charlotte Immigration Judge Barry Pettinato by redacting pretty much everything from all of the decisions, including sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the names and citations of published BIA precedent decisions that were referenced in the Board’s judgments.  For example, one such redacted BIA decision provided pursuant to the FOIA request now reads that the appeal was from the IJ’s decision denying the respondent’s “applications for [BLANK] pursuant to section [BLANK] of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”); [BLANK], for [BLANK] pursuant to section [BLANK] of the Act, [BLANK], and for [BLANK] pursuant to [BLANK].” A later section of the same redacted decision now reads: “During the pendency of this appeal, the Board issued [BLANK][BLANK] (BIA 2014) and [BLANK] [BLANK] (BIA 2014, which clarifies the elements required to establish [BLANK] under the Act.”  Here is the link to all 58 redacted decisions: https://amjolaw.com/2018/05/24/doj-redacts-all-the-relevant-facts-and-law-in-all-58-remand-decisions-of-immigration-judge-barry-pettinato/.

As names and all other identifying information were (correctly) redacted from each decision, it is unclear why EOIR saw the removal of virtually all information from the decisions to be necessary.  The BIA publishes precedent decisions in which it substitutes initials for the respondent’s name, but otherwise includes the facts and law relevant to the case. As attorney Johnson points out, “Almost all the cites to BIA and Circuit Court decisions are redacted under the (b)(6) exemption, which is supposed to protect private personal information. The title to a published BIA decision is about as far from personal information as it gets.”

Ironically, the redactions came two weeks after EOIR announced a new “transparency initiative”:  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/executive-office-immigration-review-releases-court-statistics-announces-transparency.  According to the May 9 announcement, posted on EOIR’s website, “Releasing immigration court data to the American public introduces accountability to a system that has been neglected for years,” said EOIR Director James McHenry.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Blog     Archive     Contact

Powered by Squarespace

PWS
05-18-18

Related posts:

  1. THE PROSTITUTION OF EYORE: Founded To Establish Independence, The Immigration Court Agency Puts Out Bogus Statistics To Support Sessions’s White Nationalist Agenda!
  2. EOIR CLIMBS ON TRUMP’S WHITE NATIONALIST DEPORTATION EXPRESS BY UNFAIRLY TARGETING REFUGEE FAMILIES — Read The Latest Analysis From Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase!
  3. COURTS OF INJUSTICE: How Systemic Bias, Bad Precedents, Gross Mismanagement, & Poor Decision-Making Threaten Lives In Immigration Court — What Should Be “Slam Dunk” Grants Of Protection Are Literally “Litigated To Death” Adding To Backlogs While Mocking Justice! — Featuring Quotes From “Roundtable” Leader Hon. Jeffrey Chase!
  4. Suzanne Monyak @ Law360: FEDERAL COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT BILLY BARR’S BIA IS A FRAUD! — So Why Do They Let The Unconstitutional Abuse Of Persons Seeking Justice Continue Under Their Noses?  

LAW YOU CAN USE: HON. DOROTHY HARBECK: “Objections in Immigration Court: Dost Thou Protest Too Much or Too Little?”

Objections in Immigration Court: Dost Thou Protest Too Much or Too Little?1

Hon. Dorothy Harbeck 2

5 Stetson J. Advoc. & L. 1 (2018)

I. Introduction

An objection is generally an expression or feeling of disapproval or opposition. In court, an objection is a reason for disagreeing with some introduction of evidence. 3  In most courts, the reasons and protocols for various objections are set forth in codified rules of evidence; however, the procedures in immigration courts are not so clearly defined since the Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R.E.) are not strictly applied in immigration courts. The rules of evidence applicable to criminal proceedings do not apply to removal hearings. Relevance and fundamental fairness are the only bars to admissibility of evidence in deportation cases. 4  Immigration courts are creatures of statute. They were created under the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) as part of the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The EOIR has a Practice Manual as well as guidance memoranda. 5  The trials are before the bench (with no jury) and a Digital Audio Recording (DAR) is made of the proceedings. Lawyers conduct direct and cross examinations and sometimes — but not often enough — make objections. The F.R.E. can provide some guidance in immigration court practice, although immigration proceedings are not bound by the strict rules of evidence. 6  The relevant F.R.E. citation for each objection has been included. Objections to questions must first be made at the trial court level, because if the objection is not made there, an argument based on that objection cannot be asserted on appeal. 7  In immigration court, as in other courts, evidentiary objections must be made in a timely fashion, and the grounds must, therefore, be identified with particularity. 8
The purpose of this article is to discuss verbal objections in immigration court removal/deportation proceedings. It is notan exhaustive and limiting list. It is merely a discussion of the main fourteen objections out of many potential objections that generally make the most sense in immigration court proceedings. This article does not include any objections based upon the potential mental capacity of a witness. The EOIR has extensive criteria for dealing with witnesses that exhibit such issues and that is well beyond the scope of this discussion. 9  Further, unlike many articles providing a “hip pocket” guide to objections at a trial court level, this article does not examine hearsay objections since hearsay is allowed in immigration court unless its use is fundamentally unfair. 10  The general rule with respect to evidence in immigration proceedings is that admissibility is favored, as long as the evidence is shown to be probative of relevant matters and its use is fundamentally fair so as not to deprive the alien of due process of law. 11
Since I was inspired to write this guide by the line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet where Queen Gertrude comments that a character in a play protests too much, I discuss each of the fourteen objections as though they were part of Shakespeare’s next best known medium, the fourteen line sonnet. 12  A Shakespearean sonnet has three four-line quatrains and then a two line “volta,” or twist, at the end. I have divided up three general groups of objections and saved the best two for the end.

II. The First Quatrain — Questions that Elicit an Organic Response

Argumentative

DISCUSSION: This is not an objection to opposing counsel making a good point. It should be used when the questioning attorney is not asking a question and is instead making an argument of law or application of law that should be argued in summation. It is only valid when the witness is not being asked a question that he or she can properly answer.
F.R.E. Reference: Argumentative (611(a))
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, I am testing the testimony of this witness.” 13

Form

DISCUSSION: An objection that the “form” is improper is a generalization; it is a sort of “catch-all” when the sense is that there is something wrong with a question. The objection is generally dealt with by a direction to counsel to rephrase. The best objections to “form” should state the specific issue.
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, may counsel be requested to inform the court in what specific way is the form of my question insufficient, so that I can remedy any problem?” (Then, when informed, restate the question to eliminate the bad form.)

Compound Question/Double Question

DISCUSSION: The question is really two questions posed as one. This objection should only be used when the question is misleading and the answer could be misconstrued by the jury.
F.R.E. Reference: Compound (611(a))
RESPONSE: Separate the question into the two parts.

Confusing/Vague/Ambiguous

DISCUSSION: Confusing/vague/misleading/ambiguous are all words that convey the objection that the question is not posed in a clear and precise manner so that the witness knows with certainty what information is being sought.
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, I can restate that question.”

Counsel is Testifying/Misstates Evidence/Misquotes Witness/Improper Characterization of Evidence

DISCUSSION: Basically, in immigration court, this is when a lawyer is leading his or her own witness on direct or deliberately misstating facts on cross. The immigration judge has inherent power to administer the trial so that it is fair. The value of making this objection is to both wake up the witness to pay attention and not mindlessly answer the question, and also to call the attention of the immigration judge to the fact that the earlier testimony was different.
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, it is not a misstatement, and certainly the court and jury have heard the evidence.” If the issue is counsel testifying, then, depending on the type of question, the best response is to revert back to non-leading who, what, where, when, how and why questions.

Narrative

DISCUSSION: This type of objection in immigration court is really only useful with expert witnesses. The point being that the immigration judge wants to hear from the respondent in a general narrative form, since so much of the respondent’s case will depend upon whether the immigration judge finds him or her credible. However, objecting to a long narrative by an expert witness has the advantage of preventing an expert witness or other verbally gifted witness from captivating the attention of the immigration judge.
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, this simply asks for a short description of the expert’s methodology.”

III. The Second Quatrain — Questions Based on What Has Happened in Court

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

DISCUSSION: Facts which are not in evidence cannot be used as the basis of a question, unless the immigration judge allows the question “subject to later connecting up.” Generally, in the interest of good administration and usage of time, the immigration judge may allow the missing facts to be brought in later.
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, we will have those facts later in the case, but this witness is here now and it is the best use of time to ask that question now.”

Beyond The Scope of Direct/Cross/Redirect Examination

DISCUSSION: The testimony sought was not covered by the opposing counsel while questioning the witness and is not relevant to any of the previous issues covered. In the testimony of an expert, the scope of what is within the direct examination is not limited to the exact items the expert talked about. Because the expert is an expert in an entire field and is there to explain items in the field of endeavor, the scope of direct is usually understood to be everything in the expert’s field of knowledge that bears on the case in issue.
F.R.E. Reference: Beyond Scope (of Direct, Cross) (1002).
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, this is within the scope of the direct examination (cross-examination) because [explain].”

Speculative

DISCUSSION: The witness does not have first-hand knowledge of the fact about which he or she is testifying. Greater freedom is allowed with expert witnesses, but still the expert is limited by Rule 702 strictures. Expert witnesses are allowed in immigration court proceedings. 14
F.R.E. Reference: Speculation (602; 701)
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, this is an expert giving an expert opinion within the scope of her expertise.”

Foundation/Lack of Personal Knowledge

DISCUSSION: The predicate evidence has not been entered that would make this evidence admissible. This is a good objection to make when the evidence about to come in is objectionable in some way. The objecting attorney must identify what is necessary to correct the lack of foundation for the deponent to answer. 15  If the witness is a layperson, the usual foundation objection is a lack of showing that the witness has personal knowledge of the facts which the question seeks. If the witness is an expert, the usual foundation objection is a lack of showing that the expert is qualified to give the opinion sought. A (non-expert) witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but not must, consist of the testimony of the witness. With some qualifications, experts can testify to facts they used in their process of building an opinion, even if they do not have personal knowledge of the facts supporting the opinion.
F.R.E. Reference: Rule 602, 703; Lack of Foundation (602; 901(a))
RESPONSE: [Establish by preliminary questions that the person has actual personal knowledge.]

IV. The Third Quatrain — Imagery: Questions Based On Rules

Best Evidence Rule

“OBJECTION: Your Honor, this is not the best evidence. The original document is the best evidence.”
DISCUSSION: This objection can be used when the evidence being solicited is not the best source of the information. 16 It usually occurs when a witness is being asked a question about a document that is available to be entered into evidence. The document should be entered as proof of its contents. There are three aspects to the “Best Evidence Rule.” The first aspect is the one most often invoked: ordinarily a non-expert witness is not allowed to describe what is in a document without the document itself being introduced into evidence. Put the document into evidence first, and then have the lay witness talk about what is in it. The second aspect is requiring the original document to be introduced into evidence instead of a copy — if the original is available. Requiring the original document (the best evidence) to be available for examination insures that nothing has been altered in any way. The original document is not always available, especially in cases where a respondent may be fleeing persecution/prosecution. The third aspect is a summary of voluminous documents. The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.
F.R.E. Reference: Rules 1002, 1003, 1006.
RESPONSE: Dependent on the aspect of the Best Evidence rule involved in the objection: [Offer the document into evidence] [“Your Honor, this is admissible as a copy under Evidence Rule 1003”] [“Your Honor, this is a summary admissible under Evidence Rule 1006”].

Opinion

DISCUSSION: An improper lay (non-expert) opinion is when a witness is giving testimony that does not require an expertise, but is still an opinion that does not assist the jury in its understanding of the case. In regard to an expert, this objection is made to the competence of the expert due to the inability of the expert to pass the voir dire requirements for experts. If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical or other specialized expert knowledge.
F.R.E. Reference: Rule 701, 702.
RESPONSE to Objection Regarding Expert: “Your Honor, the witness is an expert and entitled to draw a conclusion.”

Privileged Communication

DISCUSSION: A privilege is a right of an individual not to testify.
Some general privileges are:
  • Attorney-Client 17
  • Attorney Work Product
  • Husband-Wife 18
  • Mental Health Records 19
  • Physician-Patient
  • Psychotherapist-Patient
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, the matter is not privileged because….”

Public Policy

DISCUSSION: The objection regarding public policy does not consist of an optional right of an individual not to testify. The objection based on public policy refers to a non-optional class of evidence that cannot be introduced, no matter that the person who holds the evidence wants to testify. Subjects forbidden by state and federal law are wide:
  • Medical Expense Payments. Evidence of the payment of medical expenses to show liability for negligence leading to the medical expenses is inadmissible.
  • Medical Review Records. Most states forbid discoverability or admissibility of the records of a medical review committee of a hospital. It is a legislative policy decision to promote the ability of a hospital to discover medical malpractice above that of the injured person to discover the malpractice.
  • Parole Evidence Rule. The “parole evidence rule” has long been a rule of law in the English speaking world. In the absence of fraud or mutual mistake, oral statements are not admissible to modify, vary, or contradict the plain terms of a valid written contract between two parties.
  • Witness is Attorney. Ethical rules prohibit a lawyer from serving simultaneously as a witness and an advocate. Generally, a party’s lawyer who attempts to testify is subject to having to choose between being a witness or continuing as a lawyer in a case.
F.R.E. Reference: 409
RESPONSE: [Depends on the statute or rule involved.]

V. The Couplet — The Volta: The Takeaway, Most Important Objections

Leading on Direct Examination

DISCUSSION: The question on direct suggests an answer. This is (1) not an objection on cross, and (2) actually allowed in some circumstances. The important factor is not whether the question is leading, irrelevant, or without foundation, but rather whether the answer would assist the immigration judge in formulating his or her opinion. The special inquiry officer should weigh this objective along with his obligation to keep the record within bounds when ruling upon objections made by either counsel for the alien or the trial attorney. 20  The problem with a leading question is that the question itself suggests the answer that the examiner wants to have. A leading question often, but not always, can be answered with a “yes.” To encourage witnesses telling facts in their own way, leading questions are not allowed on direct examination when an attorney is examining his/her own friendly or neutral witness. When an attorney has called a hostile witness (which may be someone other than the adverse party), leading questions are allowed in direct examination. Leading questions are always proper in cross-examinations.
F.R.E. Reference: Leading (611(c))
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, this question is only preliminary to move us quickly to the matters in issue.” OR “Your Honor, the witness is a hostile witness.” Depending on the type of question, the best response is often to revert back to non-leading who, what, where, when, how and why questions. 21

Rule 403 (Undue Waste of Time or Undue Prejudice/Immaterial/Irrelevant/Repetitive/Asked and Answered/Cumulative/Surprise)

DISCUSSION: The argument is that the evidence being introduced is highly prejudicial to your client and this prejudice far outweighs the probative value. An objectionable piece of evidence is one that not only hurts your case but is also not sufficiently relevant to the merits of your opponent’s case to be let in.
In immigration court, all relevant evidence should be admitted. 22  Determining “probative value” or “weight” is at the discretion of the immigration judge. 23  The amount of “unfair prejudicial effect” also is determined by the judge. The word “unfair” is the key. In determining whether to exclude evidence, immigration judges should give the evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and its minimum reasonable prejudicial value.
F.R.E. Reference: More Prejudicial Than Probative (401–403); Non-responsive (611a).
RESPONSE: “Your Honor, the exclusion of relevant evidence for unfairness is an extraordinary remedy. There is nothing unfair about this evidence.”
Do not be afraid to object in immigration court. The Federal Rules of Evidence are not strictly followed; however, evidence must be relevant and fundamentally fair. If the evidence is not, no protest is too much.

Footnotes

 1 William Shakespeare, Gertrude to Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
 2 Dorothy A. Harbeck is the Eastern Regional Vice President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent the author’s personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of the NAIJ. This article is solely for educational purposes, and it does not serve to substitute for any expert, professional and/or legal representation and advice. Judge Harbeck is also an adjunct Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law in trial skills.
 7 See Matter of Edwards, 20 I. & N. Dec. 191, 196–197 n.4 (BIA 1990) (objections not lodged before the immigration judge are not appropriately raised first on appeal).
 8 Thus, a party who fails to raise a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence generally does not preserve such an objection as a ground for appeal. Matter of Lemhammad, 20 I. & N. Dec. 316, 325 (BIA 1991); see also Fed. Rule of Evidence 103(a)(1). See United States v. Adamson, 665 F. 2d 649, 660 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Arteaga-Limones, 529 F. 2d 1183, 1198 (5th Cir. 1976). See also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(4) (the immigration judge shall “advise the respondent that he or she will have a reasonable opportunity to examine and object to the evidence against him or her.”).
 13 The concept of suggesting a lawyer’s response to a judge after the judge has ruled on the objection was suggested to this author by the work of Leonard Bucklin from his Building Trial Notebooks series (James Publishing). Mr. Bucklin is a Felllow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, which attempts to identify the top 500 trial lawyers in the U.S. He served as a Director of the Academy from 1990 to 1996. He is also a member of the Million-Dollar Advocate’s Forum, which is limited to plaintiffs’ attorneys who have won million or multi-million dollar verdicts, awards, and settlements. On the other side of the table, Mr. Bucklin has been placed in Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys as a result of superior defense work and reasonable fees for over 35 insurers. His training materials have been used by the New Jersey Institute of Continuing Legal Education in basic skills classes.
 14 Matter of D-R-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 445 (BIA 2011). An expert witness is broadly defined as one who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and who has specialized knowledge that will assist the immigration judge to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The “spirit of Daubert” is applicable in immigration court. See Pasha v. Gonzales, 433 F. 3d 530 (7th Cir. 2005) (discussing the rubric of expert testimony and referencing the seminal expert report case under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert v. Merrill Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). The immigration judge has the discretion to exclude expert testimony. Matter of V-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 500, fn. 2 (BIA 2008); Akinfolarin v. Gonzales, 423 F. 3d 39, 43 (1st Cir. 2005).
 16 In the Matter of M-, 5 I. & N. Dec. 484 (BIA 1953) (failure to produce reports of Communist Party activity made by the Government witness to the police department is not a violation of the best evidence rule where the sole issue is whether the respondent was a Communist Party member. Such reports did not create Communist Party membership but reflected the witness’s report of such membership; they were not used by the witness or the Government in the hearing; and there was no showing that they were relevant for the purpose of impeachment).
 17 See generally Immigration Court Practice Manual, Chapter 2, Sec. 2.3(d); Matter of Velazquez, 19 I. & N. Dec. 384(BIA 1986); Matter of Athanasopoulos, 13 I. & N. Dec. 827 (BIA 1971) (finding that attorney-client privilege was lost when the representative was in pursuit of a fraudulent claim); see also Ann Naffier, Attorney-Client Privilege for Non-Lawyers? A Study of Board of Immigration Appeals-Accredited Representatives, Prilege, and Confidentially, 59 Drake L. Rev. 584(2011).
 18 Matter of Gonzalez, 16 I. & N. Dec. 44 (BIA 1976); Matter of B-, 5 I. & N. Dec. 738 (BIA 1954).
 19 Matter of B-, 5 I. & N. Dec. 738 (BIA 1954). (The testimony of a physician of the United States Public Health Service in a deportation hearing is competent and not privileged since he is performing a duty provided by applicable law and regulations and the ordinary relationship of physician and patient does not exist).
 21 Dorothy Harbeck, The Commonsense of Direct and Cross Examinations in Immigration Court, 304 New Jersey Law. Mag. (2017) (NAIJ capacity); Dorothy Harbeck, Terms so Plain and Firm as to Command Assent: Preparing and Conducting Optimal Direct Examination of the Respondent, Fed. Law. 13 (Jan./Feb. 2017) (primary author, NAIJ capacity).

Download PDF version
Download ePub version
Download Kindle version

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

Thanks for sharing, Judge Harbeck.  “Good stuff” as usual! And, for those of you taking “Immigration Law & Policy” with me at Georgetown Law this summer, Judge Harbeck will be a “guest lecturer” at our June 14 class (along with Jones Day’s Worldwide Pro Bono Director Laura Tuell).

 

PWS

05-29-18

Related posts:

  1. LAW YOU CAN USE: ALL-STAR PROFESSOR LINDSAY MUIR HARRIS TELLS US HOW TO STOP THE TRUMP, SESSIONS, NIELSEN PLAN FOR A “NEW AMERICAN GULAG:” “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY DETENTION AND LEGAL ADVOCACY” — 136 Harvard Latinx Law Review Vol. 21 — “This is our time to act and proudly join the brigade of “dirty immigration lawyers” to ensure protection and due process for the most vulnerable!”
  2. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- & The Unresolved Tension In Asylum Adjudication! – Plus My Added Commentary On EOIR Training!
  3. INCONVENIENT TRUTH: HALEY SWEETLAND EDWARDS @ TIME TELLS WHAT TRUMP, MILLER, COTTON, SESSIONS, & THEIR WHITE NATIONALIST GANG DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW: Human Migration Is A Powerful Force As Old As Human History; It’s A Plus For Receiving Nations; It Won’t Be Stopped By Walls, Jails, Racist Laws, Or Any Other Restrictionist Nonsense; But, It Can Be Intelligently Controlled, Channeled, Harnessed, & Used For The Benefit Of The U.S. & The Good Of The Migrants! — “But to maximize that future good, governments must act rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.”
  4. JEFFREY S. CHASE BLOG:  In 1996, The BIA Was Functioning Like A Court & Trying To Develop & Apply Asylum Law In The Rational, Generous Way It Was Intended, Properly Giving The Applicant “The Benefit Of the Doubt” — Today,  The BIA Is A Deadly ☠️☠️⚰️ Clown Show 🤡 Asylum Denial Factory!

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: In-Depth Analysis Of “Our Gang’s” Amicus Brief In Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/5/28/amicus-brief-filed-in-w-y-c-h-o-b-appeal

Amicus Brief Filed in W-Y-C- & H-O-B- Appeal

On May 23, an amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of a group of 13 former immigration judges (including myself) and BIA members in the appeal of the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-.  In that decision, a three-judge panel of the BIA held that an asylum applicant must clearly delineate its proposed particular social group before the immigration judge.  The Board held that the asylum applicant may not alter the social group formulation on appeal to the BIA, citing the “inherently factual nature of the social group analysis.”

Our brief argues that the Board’s reasoning is flawed.  The Board has held that the determination of whether a particular social group is cognizable is a question of law which the Board may review de novo.  Our brief also points out that the Board’s arguments as to why it will generally not consider a new group on appeal overlooks the fact that it has done just that in the past.

One member of our group, former BIA chairperson Paul W. Schmidt, was the author if the Board’s 1996 landmark decision in Matter of Kasinga, the first BIA precedent to grant a gender-based asylum claim.  Two other members of our group, former Board Members Gus Villageliu, and Lory D. Rosenberg,  respectively joined in the majority opinion and wrote a concurring opinion in Kasinga.  As the three pointed out in the drafting process, the particular social group that the Board approved in that case was neither delineated before the IJ nor proposed by either party on appeal.  It was crafted for the first time by the Board itself, in a manner that was consistent with the factual record below and which allowed the Board to grant relief. The three noted that the ability of the Board itself to alter the group’s contours is often necessary to allow an en banc Board to reach consensus.

Our brief also pointed to the Board’s decision in Matter of M-E-V-G- to remand the record where “the respondent’s proposed particular social group has evolved during the pendency of his appeal.”  We also point out how circuit courts have frequently cited to the Board’s decades-long practice of clarifying proposed groups.

Our brief additionally underscores the extreme complexity of particular social group formulation, particularly in light of the highly-criticized additional requirements of particularly and social distinction imposed by the Board in recent years.  We note that group delineations will often be made by pro se respondents, often with a limited mastery of English, sometimes in detained facilities with limited access to counsel or law libraries.

This was the sixth Amicus brief filed by our group.  We are most thankful for the outstanding assistance of attorneys Jean-Claude Andre and Katelyn Rowe of the law firm of Sidley Austin for lending their assistance pro bono for the second time in the drafting of our group’s brief.  We also acknowledge the distinguished counsel for the respondents, led by Fatma Marouf of Texas A&M Law School, Geoff Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center, and Deborah Anker of Harvard Law School.

The link to our full brief is here:  http://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Cantarero-Amicus-Brief.pdf

The cooperation and assistance of so many brilliant minds and caring hearts is a source of great comfort in these challenging times.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

 

 

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

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

It’s a privilege to be part of a team with Jeffrey and my other colleagues. Unfortunately, however, the all-out assault on Due Process, fundamental fairness, and human decency by Trump & Sessions means that we’re busy all the time.

PWS

05-29-18

Related posts:

  1. ROUND TABLE NEWS:  Getting The Due Process Message Across — 9th Cir. Orders Regime To Respond To Round Table’s Amicus Briefs in Matter of A-B- Challenges!
  2. WITH HELP FROM GIBSON DUNN, “GANG OF 16” RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES FILES AMICUS BRIEF OPPOSING AG’S INTERFERENCE IN MATTER OF A-B-
  3. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: MORE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF POLITICIZED HIRING AND UNNECESSARY DELAYS UNDER SESSIONS AS EOIR APPEARS TO JOIN TRUMP’S “WAR ON THE CAREER CIVIL SERVICE” BY ATTACKING THE CAREER PROMOTION SYSTEM FOR BIA ATTORNEY ADVISORS!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/5/27/eoirs-hiring-practices-raise-concerns

EOIR’s Hiring Practices Raise Concerns

In response to a whistleblower’s letter from within EOIR, ranking Senate Democrats have requested an investigation into improper political influence in EOIR’s hiring criteria for immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.  https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/top-dems-request-inspector-general-investigation-allegations-illegal-hiring.  Following up on an April 17 letter to Attorney General Sessions, the Democratic leaders on May 8 stated that in subsequent weeks, more whistleblowers have come forward to corroborate the delaying or withdrawal of IJ appointments to candidates whose political views are not believed to align with those of the present administration.

There seems to be little if any doubt among EOIR employees that this is in fact happening.  The resulting slowdown in IJ hiring is further exacerbating the huge backlog of cases plaguing the immigration courts.  There are presently no judges sitting in the Louisville, Kentucky immigration court; other courts are simply understaffed.  In what my friend and fellow blogger Hon. Paul W. Schmidt has termed “ADR” (Aimless Docket Reshuffling), sitting IJs are being detailed to hear cases in courts with vacancies, forcing the continuance of cases on their own dockets, some of which have been waiting two or more years for their day in court.

It was just under 10 years ago that a 140 page report of the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General found similar wrongdoing in the hiring of IJs under the Bush administration.  https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0807/final.pdf That report noted at p.135 that “both Department policy and federal law prohibit discrimination in hiring for career positions on the basis of political affiliations.”  That investigation found that such policy and law had been violated, and included recommendations to prevent a future recurrence of such improper conduct. Then as now, the slowdown in IJ hiring caused by the improper political screening of candidates compromised EOIR’s mission (in the words of the agency’s Director at the time, at p.96), and contributed to the growing case backlog.

In another employment-related development that has drawn little public notice, the Department of Justice on May 17 posted a hiring ad for 38 vacant staff attorney positions at the BIA.  The twist is that for the first time, the positions were advertised as being entry level grade positions with no potential for promotion.

EOIR Director James McHenry had hinted since his appointment that he believed BIA attorney positions should be downgraded.  There is something disingenuous about such statement. I can think of at least three immigration judges who were appointed to the bench directly from their positions as non-supervisory BIA staff attorneys.  Two of the four temporary BIA Board Members at present are long-term BIA staff attorneys. The present BIA chairperson, David Neal, previously served as a Board staff attorney for 5 years, a position that apparently qualified him to directly become chief counsel to the Senate Immigration Subcommittee.  Nearly all of the BIA’s decisions, including those that are published as precedent binding on the agency and DHS, are drafted by its staff attorneys. Some of those attorneys have accumulated significant expertise in complex areas of immigration law. A number of Board staff attorneys have participated as speakers at the immigration judge training conferences.

The question thus becomes: how are experienced attorneys who are deemed qualified to move directly into immigration judge and BIA Board Member positions, to craft precedent decisions and to train immigration judges only deemed to be entry level, non-career path employees?

There has been much attention paid to the nearly 700,000 cases pending before the nation’s immigration courts.  As the agency moves to hire more judges and limit continuances, and recently had its power to administrative close cases revoked by the AG, the number and pace of cases appealed to the BIA will speed up significantly.  It would seem like a good time for the BIA to be staffed with knowledgeable and experienced staff attorneys. Instead, the agency’s move essentially turns new BIA attorney hires into short-term law clerks.  New attorneys undergo a full year of legal training to bring them up to speed to handle the high volume and variety of complex legal issues arising on appeal. However, attorneys are unlikely to remain in such positions for much more than a year without the possibility of promotion.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

 

 

 

JEFF CHASE
fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

As an Attorney-Manager and Government Senior Executive, I always had high expectations for the professionals working for me, which they achieved in the vast, vast majority of cases. My experience told me that everyone had their strengths and weaknesses and that it was the job of a good manager to find ways for everyone to succeed whenever possible.
If I do say so myself, I believe that I was good at finding the right “sweet spots” for folks to “be the best that they can be.” And, I’ll freely acknowledge getting some of my ideas from watching the late “Legacy INS” General Counsel Mike Inman operate. Whatever else one might think or say about “Iron Mike,” he did have an “eye for talent.” He also could take people who seemed to be “bouncing along” in their careers and position them to be outsized contributors and “superstars,” in his lingo.

At the same time, I saw the importance of insuring that folks working for me had the maximum number of career advancement opportunities and a fair chance to be recognized and move up the “career ladder.” Indeed, former EOIR Director Anthony “Tony” Moscato and I finished the work begun by my predecessor as BIA Chair, the late Judge David Milhollan and his then “Chief Attorney Advisor” now retired BIA Appellate Immigration Judge David B. Holmes in creating a career ladder where all qualified BIA Attorney Advisers could eventually reach the full DOJ career level for attorneys of GS-15.

Additionally, with the support of Tony and then Attorney General Janet Reno, I created various supervisory and leadership positions for senior Attorney Advisors that allowed them to assist in the management of the BIA staff while preparing themselves for other senior-level careers both at EOIR and elsewhere. Indeed a significant number of todays Appellate Immigration Judges, Immigration Judges, and senior EOIR managers, and managers in other divisions of the DOJ  got their start in management at the BIA.
Disappointingly, under Sessions, EOIR appears to have joined the fight against the career civil service by “dumbing down” in various ways both the Immigration Judge and BIA Attorney Advisor position by making them less attractive to those seeking a career in public service.
I recently was discussing the politicized hiring process with a retired colleague who had worked elsewhere in the DOJ but had knowledge of both the past and current problems at EOIR. She said “It’s happening again, Paul. Just wait till it all comes out — ‘you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!'”
It’s time for EOIR to be removed from the DOJ and its politicized policies and practices! In this instance, “past performance predicts future results!” And, that’s not a good thing!
PWS
05-28-18

Related posts:

  1. HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: The History Of A Flawed Judiciary; The Intentional Tilting Of Asylum Law Against Asylum Seekers; The Farce Of Justice In The Immigration Courts; The Need For An Independent Article I Court!
  2. NEW EOIR MEMO ENCOURAGES IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO DUMP ON UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN (“UACS”) – “When In Doubt, Kick ‘em Out” New Motto Of Gonzo’s “Captive Courts!” — We’ve Come A Long Way From “Guaranteeing Fairness And Due Process For All” In A Short Time!
  3. DAG ROSENSTEIN INADVERTENTLY MAKES COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT IN SPEECH TO NEW JUDGES — Places Emphasis On Executive, Fealty To Attorney General, Not Independence. Impartiality, & Insuring Due Process! — REAL “Courts” Don’t Answer to Prosecutors!
  4. TRUTH MATTERS: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: AILA Blasts EOIR’s False & Unethical Anti-Asylum Screed! — “Together, the document’s deceptive information and polarizing rhetoric further undermines the court system’s ability to be a neutral arbiter of justice and comes at a time when there is a severe lack of public confidence in its capacity to deliver fair and timely decisions. EOIR’s skewed portrayal only demonstrates the urgent need for Congress to create an independent court, separate from DOJ.”

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

May 23, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Attorney General Sessions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

PWS

05-26-18

Related posts:

  1. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  2. PROFESSOR STEPHEN LEGOMSKY IN USA TODAY: Gender Is Clearly a “Particular Social Group” – Congress Must Amend The Law To Insure That Neither Bureaucratic Judges Nor Political Hacks Like Sessions & His Ilk Can Deprive Women & LGBTQ Individuals Of The Protections They Need & Deserve!
  3. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

SPLC ON THE POLITICS OF HATE & BIGOTRY: 1) SESSIONS DISSES DUE PROCESS BY TRASHING ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING; 2) TRUMP’S NATIVIST RHETORIC “OVERLAPS” HATE CRIMES AGAINST MINORITIES!

SPLC STATEMENT ON SESSIONS’ DECISION TO CURTAIL ‘ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSINGS’ OF IMMIGRATION COURT CASES

By Dan Werner, Senior Supervising Attorney

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ ideologically driven decision today to bypass the immigration courts and decide himself to remove another avenue of relief for immigrants undermines due process and the rule of law.

It will add thousands more cases back into the huge backlog of the immigration courts, and will result in the imprisonment and deportation of immigrants who now have a clear path toward legal immigration status.

This decision is just further evidence of Sessions’ anti-immigrant agenda, which separates families, creates fear in communities, and punishes vulnerable people who may be fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries. Though President Trump may call them “animals” to justify his administration’s inhumane policies, these immigrants are friends, neighbors, and members of our families and communities.

With every new hate-driven policy emerging from this administration, we must rededicate ourselves to speaking out and taking action to preserve our nation’s fundamental values.

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

How Trump’s nativist tweets overlap with anti-Muslim and anti-Latino hate crimes

Words matter. Heated political rhetoric, especially derogatory language toward groups of people, can create all kinds of unintended consequences, including sometimes physical violence.

When individuals of influence, including political candidates and heads of state use such words, the consequence can be especially pronounced.

In the run-up to, and since his election as President of the United States, Donald Trump’s words have attracted a lot of attention. Many commentators and activists have charged that Trump’s rhetoric has fueled hate crimes in the United States against minorities. Until recently, many individuals voicing such concerns pointed to high-profile individual cases, rather than systematic data. Now that’s changing as new research is emerging.

Hatewatch spoke with Karsten Muller and Carlo Schwarz, two researchers at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom who have been studying the impact of hate speech on social media and how that translates to hate crimes in the real world. Muller and Schwarz discuss their latest study, “Making America Hate Again? Twitter and Hate Crime Under Trump”

Their study used Twitter and FBI hate crimes data to come to a stark conclusion: hate crimes against Muslims and Latinos occurred shortly after Trump made disparaging tweets about Muslims and Latinos. Moreover these anti-Muslim and anti-Latino hate crimes were physically concentrated in parts of the country where there is high Twitter usage.

Karsten and Carlo, can you give us an overview of your research interests and your recent study on President Trump’s tweets and Muslim hate crimes?

Carlo: We are economists working in slightly different areas, but we both have an interest in what people usually call political economy. What we try to do is to apply modern quantitative methods to study political outcomes and the role of social media. In our most recent study, we find that the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. has increased quite markedly under Trump. We show that this increase started with the beginning of Trump’s presidential campaign and is predominately driven by U.S. counties where a large fraction of the population uses Twitter. The data also show that this increase cannot be easily explained by differences in demographics, votes for Republicans, crime rates, media consumption or other factors.

Karsten: The second thing we do in the paper is to look at the correlation between Trump’s tweets about Islam-related topics and hate crimes that target Muslims. And what we find is that this correlation is very strong after Trump had started his campaign, but basically zero before. We also find that when Trump tweets about Muslims, hate crimes increases disproportionately in those areas where many people use Twitter. It is also important to note that hate crimes against Muslims were not systematically higher in those areas during previous presidencies, so it seems unlikely we are simply capturing the fact that people in some areas dislike Muslims more than in others.

Are you claiming Trump’s tweets have caused hate crimes?

Karsten: We are very careful not to make that claim in the paper because I think it is extremely hard to tell based on our data. After all, we are not looking at a controlled laboratory experiment so there is always room for other drivers. But if you look at the results, some point in that direction, for example that Trump’s tweets are particularly correlated with future hate crimes in counties where many people use Twitter.

Carlo: A simple thing to do here is to think about what alternative stories could explain our findings. For example, one could imagine that people who Trump himself follows (such as Fox & Friends or Alex Jones) are the real driving factor. Or that people have recently become more radicalized in rural areas, or where the majority votes Republican. But a careful look at the data reveals that Twitter usage is in fact lower in counties where people tend to vote Republican and in rural areas, and we use some survey data to show that Twitter users generally prefer CNN or MSNBC over Fox News. These factors also cannot easily explain why the increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes should occur precisely with Trump’s campaign start and not before or after.

Karsten: So overall, we take our findings as suggestive of a potential connection between social media and hate crimes. But at the end of the day, readers have to make up their own minds.

What were some of the other key findings that stood out with regard to Muslims?

Karsten: What really stands out to me is just how strong the correlation of Trump’s tweets is with future anti-Muslim hate crimes. So, for example, one might be worried that Trump simply tweets about Muslims when people are generally very interested in everything related to Islam. But what we find is that Trump’s tweets are correlated with hate crimes even if we first even if we control for the effect of general attention to Islam-related topics (as measured by Google Searches). Although there are other explanations, I also found it striking that you see a spike in hate crimes against Muslims in the week of the Presidential election, but only in areas where many people use Twitter.

Carlo: Another thing I found quite interesting is that Trump’s tweets about Muslims are not correlated with other types of hate crimes. The reason this is important is because one could easily imagine that people just happen to be particularly angry at minorities in some weeks compared to others, and that Trump is just part of that. But if this was true, we would also expect there to be more hate crimes against Latinos, or LGBTQ people or African Americans, which does not seem to be the case at all. We also do not find any evidence that other types of hate crimes increased in areas with many Twitter users around Trump’s campaign start — except a small shift for anti-Latino crimes.

Your study also noticed a statistically significant association between anti-Latino tweets and hate crimes. Why do you think there has been a similar, but less robust set of results?

Karsten: When we started our study, we only had data on hate crimes until the end of 2015 — after Trump’s campaign started in June 2015, but before his election. And what you see in the data is a very strong correlation between Trump’s tweets about Latinos and subsequent anti-ethnic hate crimes starting with the beginning of his campaign until December 2015, while there is virtually no correlation before. After the 2016 data were released, we found that the effect becomes substantially weaker from around mid-2016 onwards.

Carlo: When we looked at that more closely — and we think that is consistent with the media coverage during that time as well — Trump toned down his anti-Latino rhetoric quite a lot in the run-up to the campaign. There was, for example, his tweet with a taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo 2016. If you go through Trump’s Twitter feed in the pre-election period, you will see only a handful tweets about Latinos at all during that time. And while hate crimes against Latinos remained slightly elevated in areas with many Twitter users during that time, that means the correlation with the timing of Trump’s tweets became weaker. A potential interpretation is that it is not that the results are so much weaker than those for anti-Muslim hate crime, it’s just that Trump essentially stopped tweeting negative things about Latinos.

How does this study compare and contrast with your earlier investigationinto the online activities of the far-right and nativist political party Alternative for Germany (AfD)?

Carlo: In our study on Germany, we found a very similar correlation between posts about refugees on the AfD’s Facebook page and crimes targeting refugees. We look at these two studies as complementary, even though they use somewhat different methodologies. In the German setting, we have very granular data on internet and Facebook outages that we can use as “quasi-experiments” to get at the causal effect of social media. And what we found there is that, even if you compare neighboring cities, refugees are more likely to be victims of violent attacks where many people use social media, particularly when tensions are high. Importantly, these are relative effects.

What is different for the U.S. is that we find this link between Trump’s campaign start and the increase in the absolute number of hate crimes against precisely those minorities in his verbal crosshairs (e.g. Muslims and Latinos), making the link by using Trump’s tweets. and FBI hate crimes dataset. By using the FBI hate crimes statistics, it also allow us to compare the recent change in hate crimes to those under presidents since 1990s.

For civically conscious users of the internet, what are the most important takeaways and implications from your research?

Carlo:  On one hand, our goal is to suggest that politicians should not ignore social media, because the correlation with real-life hate crimes seems to be pretty strong. We think that this discussion should be taken seriously. On the other hand, we want to caution against any attempts at censorship. Some countries have an outright ban on certain social media platforms, and these states are usually not known for their open political discourse and freedom of speech. The challenge is to come up with solutions that can help protect citizens from violent extremists without imposing drastic limits on freedom of expression. In the end, the people who actually commit hate crimes are the ones we have to hold accountable.

Karsten: I want to give a somewhat different perspective here. Many people talk about a potential “dark side” of social media, but the number of studies that have actually looked at this issue with data is surprisingly small. One of the most important takeaways for me is that as a society we should be spending more time and resources to support researchers working on this area. It is clearly something that many people care about, and it matters tremendously for policymakers as well.

What do you plan to do next in your research?

Karsten: We think a big open question is to come up with more concrete ways of measuring whether “echo chambers” on social media really exist, and how they differ from echo chambers in other domains. If social media is indeed different, the question is what can be done to get people to consider information from outside of their bubble. Our data for Germany in particular will hopefully also allow us to show how exactly online hate on Facebook is transmitted in practice.

Illustration credit: zixia/Alamy Photo

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

Trump is certainly the wrong man for the job at this point in our history.

PWS

05-26-18

 

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. GONZO’S WORLD: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A DIVERSE “NATION OF IMMIGRANTS” ANOINTS A COMMITTED XENOPHOBE AS ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER? – Gonzo Is Deconstructing Our System Of Justice, One Day At A Time!
  3. MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE: GONZO’S GONE! — Bigoted, Xenophobic AG Leaves Behind Disgraceful Record Of Intentional Cruelty, Vengeance, Hate, Lawlessness, & Incompetence That Will Haunt America For Many Years!
  4. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”

WITH HELP FROM SIDLEY AUSTIN (LA), “OUR GANG” OF RETIRED IJs WEIGHS IN WITH 5th CIR. AGAINST BIA’S WRONG-HEADED PRECEDENT IN Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018)!

Cantarero – Amicus Brief

Thanks to “Our Heroes” Jean-Claude Andre and Katelyn N Rowe of Sidley Austin LPP, LA:

 

HERE’S THE TITLE PAGE AND TOC:

No. 18-60115

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

WENDY YESSENIA CANTARERO LAGOS & HENRY OMAR BONILLACANTARERO,

Petitioners,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA Nos. A206-773-719 & A206-773-720

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF RETIRED IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND FORMERMEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS IN SUPPORT OFPETITIONERS AND VACATUR AND REMAND

page1image4161444496page1image4161444768page1image4161445808page1image4161446144

Jean-Claude André
Katelyn N. Rowe
Sidley Austin LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013

(213) 896-6007 jcandre@sidley.com krowe@sidley.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

May 23, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity and Interest of Amici Curiae ……………………………………………… 1

ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………………………3

  1. Because particular social group jurisprudence is unduly
    complex and applicants face various access-to-justice
    barriers, Immigration Judges and Board Members will
    frequently clarify an applicant’s proposed particular social
    group ……………………………………………………………………………………. 9
  2. The decision below disregards prior precedent in which Immigration Judges and Board Members have clarified an applicant’s proposed particular social group or allowed an applicant to present a revised particular social group on
    appeal ………………………………………………………………………………… 21
  3. This Court should vacate the decision below because its ambiguous holding will encourage Immigration Judges to be intolerant of applicants’ efforts to revise their PSGs and will enable the Board to issue boilerplate decisions denying relief ….. 28

CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………. 31 APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………………… App. 1

HERE’S A SUMMARY OF OUR ARGUMENT:

ARGUMENT

In their decades of experience on the bench, amici regularly assisted applicants in the process of clarifying their proposed PSGs.Amici also allowed applicants to present revised PSGs during their administrative appeals. This judicial practice has afforded Board Members the flexibility to engage in an independent, meaningful review of the evidentiary record and provide appropriate relief to applicants based on revised PSGs. See, e.g., Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357, 365 (BIA 1996) (granting the applicant asylum based on a revised PSG that the Board itself formulated). In light of the complexity of PSG jurisprudence and the various access-to-justice barriers that applicants must navigate in immigration court, it is essential that the judicial practice of clarifying PSGs is not chilled by the decision below. See, e.g.,Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S. 129, 138 (1991) (noting “the complexity of

3

immigration procedures, and the enormity of the interests at stake . . . .”).

Because PSG cognizability is a legal determination, amici believe that Immigration Judges and Board Members are obligated to consider any potential PSG that is supported by the factual record—even if the PSG is being proposed for the first time on appeal. PSG clarification is consistent with the requirement that administrative immigration decisions “must reflect meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims.” Abdel-Masieh v. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388, 390-91 (BIA 2014) (“The question whether a group is a ‘particular social group’ within the meaning of the Act is a question of law that we review de novo.”). In this way, the judicial practice of clarifying an applicant’s PSG to match the evidentiary record falls squarely within the traditional roles of impartial administrative immigration tribunals. SeeUNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, 16 (2011) (“It is for the examiner, when investigating the facts of the case, to ascertain the reason or reasons for the persecution feared . .

4

. .”); Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 723 (BIA 1997) (“Although we recognize that the burden of proof in asylum and withholding of [removal] cases is on the applicant, we do have certain obligations under international law to extend refuge to those who qualify for such relief.”). Importantly, Amici did not receive reproach from the Board for clarifying proposed PSGs. Nor were amici overturned by circuit courts on the basis that the Board should not consider newly revised PSGs on appeal.

Amici believe that the decision below, Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018), if affirmed by this Court, will constitute a significant departure from the current judicial practice of PSG clarification. The Board held that it “generally will not address a newly articulated particular social group that was not advanced before the Immigration Judge.” (AR 3) This decision completely ignores an important reality of the immigration court system: that Immigration Judges and Board Members have frequently clarified applicants’ proposed PSGs.

HERE’S THE “CAST OF CHARACTERS:”

APPENDIX BIOGRAPHIES OF AMICI CURIAE

The Honorable Steven R. Abrams was appointed as an Immigration Judge in September of 1997. From 1999 to June 2005, Judge Abrams served as the Immigration Judge at the Queens Wackenhut Immigration Court at JFK Airport in Queens. He has also worked at the Immigration Courts in New York and Varick Street Detention facility. Prior to becoming an Immigration Judge, he was the Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York in the Criminal Division in charge of immigration. Judge Abrams retired in 2013 and now lectures on immigration in North Carolina.

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

App. 1

the supervising attorney in the Legal Aid Society immigration unit. Judge Burr currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.

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

The Honorable George Chew was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1995 and served until 2017, when he retired. He also previously served as a trial attorney for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in New York from 1979 to 1981.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as an Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former

App. 2

president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law and taught immigration law at the University of Baltimore School of Law and more recently at the University of Maryland School of Law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland, and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. Judge Gossart is a past Board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. After retiring from the bench, he became the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates and has 1,500

App. 3

active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.

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

The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid &

App. 4

Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment to the Board, she worked from 1991-1995 as Director of the Legal Action Center at the American Immigration Law Foundation, was in private practice, and was the 1982 co-founder of the asylum and legal program at Centro Presente in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She is the author ofImmigration Law and Crimes, and was an adjunct professor of law and taught immigration law at American University Washington College of Law between 1997 and 2004. An excerpt from one of Judge Rosenberg’s separate opinions was quoted by the United States Supreme Court in its 2001 decision in I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001). Judge Rosenberg has served as a member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges, an elected member of the Board of Governors of AILA, a Board Member of the Federal Bar Association, Immigration Law Section. She also frequently lectures and trains immigration attorneys on current topics of complexity, including asylum and refugee law, human rights, and the intersection of criminal and immigration law. Judge Rosenberg is the founder of the Immigration Defense and Expert Advocacy Solutions (IDEAS) Consulting and Coaching, LLC, where she provides legal mentoring, consulting, and personal and

App. 5

business coaching for immigration lawyers. She currently serves as Senior Attorney and Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLC.

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

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, Virginia. He previously served

App. 6

as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. Judge Schmidt authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995), which extended asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including Acting General Counsel (1986-1987, 1979-1981) and Deputy General Counsel (1978-1987). He also worked as the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, DelRey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995. Judge Schmidt practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992 and was a partner at the firm from 1990 to 1992. Judge Schmidt served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989 and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges and presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, a nonprofit that provides direct legal services to immigrant communities in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. Judge Schmidt assists the National Immigrant Justice

App. 7

Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects, as well as writes and lectures on immigration law topics at various forums throughout the country. Judge Schmidt created immigrationcourtside.com, an immigration law blog.

The Honorable Gustavo D. Villageliu served as a Board of Immigration Appeals Member from July 1995 to April 2003. He then served as Senior Associate General Counsel for the Executive Office for Immigration Review and helped manage FOIA, Privacy, and Security as EOIR Records Manager until he retired in 2011. Before becoming aBoard Member, Villageliu was an Immigration Judge in Miami and oversaw both detained and non-detained dockets, as well as the Florida Northern Region Institutional Criminal Alien Hearing Docket from 1990 to 1995. Mr. Villageliu was a member of the Iowa, Florida, and District of Columbia Bars. He graduated from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1977. After working as a Johnson County Attorney prosecutor intern in Iowa City, he joined the Board of Immigration Appeals as a staff attorney in January 1978 and specialized in war criminal, investor, and criminal alien cases.

App. 8

The Honorable Polly Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in facilities in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando. Previously, Judge Webber practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose. She was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991 and served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990. Judge Webber also taught immigration and nationality law at both Santa Clara University School of Law and Lincoln Law School.

The Honorable Robert D. Weisel served as an Immigration Judge in the New York Immigration Court from 1989 until his retirement at the end of 2016. Judge Weisel was an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, supervising court operations both in New York City and New Jersey. He was also in charge of the nationwide Immigration Court mentoring program for both Immigration Judges and Judicial Law Clerks. During his tenure as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, the New York court initiated the first assigned counsel system within the Immigration Court’s nationwide Institutional Hearing Program.

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

A warm welcome to our good friend and colleague Judge (and former Assistant Chief Immigration Judge)  of the U.S. Immigration Court in New York, NY!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-25-18

 

Related posts:

  1. WITH HELP FROM GIBSON DUNN, “GANG OF 16” RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES FILES AMICUS BRIEF OPPOSING AG’S INTERFERENCE IN MATTER OF A-B-
  2. “GANG” OF RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES IMMEDIATELY CONDEMNS LATEST OUTRAGEOUS ATTACK ON ASYLUM LAW, DUE PROCESS, & HUMAN RIGHTS BY SESSIONS IN MATTER OF A-B-!
  3. RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES FILE AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MINOR RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN 9TH CIRCUIT EN BANC REQUEST – C.J.L.G. v. Sessions, 9th Cir., Filed March 15, 2018 – Read It Here!
  4. THE LATEST FROM THE HON. JEFFREY CHASE: “Amicus Brief Filed in 10th Cir. Petition for Remotely-Detained Asylum Seeker” — PLUS: A Link To The Actual Brief! — MATUMONA V. SESSIONS, 10th Cir.