Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) – Page 94

SARA RAMEY @ THE HILL: To Achieve Justice, We Must Get The U.S. Immigration Courts Out Of The Department Of Justice!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/388876-doj-shouldnt-be-in-charge-of-immigration-courts

On April 18 the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on strengthening the Immigration Court system. Several organizations, including the American Bar Association and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, recommended that Congress make the immigration courts independent courts under Article I of the Constitution. Congress should do so without delay, especially in light of the attorney general’s May 17 decision in Matter of Castro-Tum eliminating administrative closure.

People on both sides of the political divide agree that the immigration courts are overburdened. The approximately 350 immigration judges who work in about 60 courts around the country are currently tasked with reviewing close to 700,000 cases. The Trump administration has made several, mostly misguided, attempts to fix this backlog. However, as Former Chairman of the BIA Paul Schmidt stated recently ‘‘Nobody… can fix this system while it remains under the control of DOJ.’’

Because the immigration courts, along with the Board of Immigration Appeals, are currently part of the Department of Justice, the attorney general, and others in the executive, not least of all the president, are in charge of agency regulations, case procedures, the hiring and firing of judges, and decision-making.

In recent months the administration has made unprecedented attacks on the judicial independence of immigration judges, including policy changes that are in direct contradiction to the recommendations of an April 2017 Booz Allen Hamilton report commissioned by the Department of Justice.

On March 30 the administration instituted a case completion quota of 700 a year for a “satisfactory” performance rating. This amounts to each Immigration Judge needing to complete on average three cases every working day. For judges who have dockets with a high number of asylum cases, for example, this arbitrary requirement will push them to expedite cases in ways that are extremely dangerous to due process.

As the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, Judge Tabaddor, testified at the congressional hearing, there has been ‘‘no quota ever, in any court; somehow implicit in [designating a quota] is that judges are not doing enough… [However, w]e should focus on [is] how we can support our judges.’’

Over the last six years I have directly or indirectly litigated over a hundred asylum cases, and in 95 percent of the cases the hearing takes about 3.5 hours, or the equivalent of one working morning or afternoon. This does not include the time a judge needs in camera to review the hundreds of pages of evidence in the record. In reality, a judge who completes one asylum case a day, and not three, is already extremely efficient.

The real problem is not with how hard-working the immigration judges are. As I explained in a 2016 article, part of the problem lies with understaffing. Instead of hiring a reasonable number of judges and law clerks, and otherwise investing in supporting the work of our Immigration Judges, the Administration is eliminating administrative closure and calling for administratively closed cases to be put back on the docket, actions that only serve to raise the number of pending cases.

If, for example, the Department of Justice puts all the administratively closed cases back on the docket, it would increase the court backlog to over 1,000,000. These are cases of crime victims and DACA recipients and others where an immigration judge has already determined that it would not be a good use of judicial resources, or in the public interest, to litigate, usually because the person is eligible for some non-judicial form of immigration relief and has a case pending with USCIS. Re-calendaring these cases would not only unnecessarily increase the work of taxpayer-funded DHS Trial Attorneys but it would add more pressure to the already overworked immigration judges.

The attorney general has also stepped into managing the immigration courts by restricting the use of continuances, which in the fast-paced detention context where my organization works are often necessary in order to have time to obtain crucial pieces of evidence and otherwise prepare for trial.

While the attorney general is the boss and is responsible for the judges’ performance, he should have a little more faith in the good judgement of his immigration judges, who, unlike the attorney general, are looking at the situation-specific issues in the individual case before them.

While the helpfulness of the attorney general’s methods for carrying out his job are questionable at best, the underlying problem remains that, regardless of our political opinion on the administration’s policies, those policies are affecting the judicial independence of our immigration courts and putting due process in jeopardy.

What the attorney general says matters to the immigration judges working under him. In one recent case, the immigration judge cited him as saying there is a lot of fraud in the asylum process as evidence that the asylum seeker was lying. Not only was the attorney general’s statement not based on facts — at least not on facts made publicly available, or that anyone even claimed exist, and which statement runs in stark contrast to my six years of on-the-ground experience — but that statement had nothing to do with the truthfulness of the individual asylum seeker present before the court.

Additionally, as stated by the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges Dana Marks, there is a ‘‘conflict of interest between the judicial and prosecutorial functions [of the Department of Justice that] creates a significant (and perhaps even fatal) flaw to the immigration court structure.’’

It appears that the administration is looking for specific outcomes in cases with little regard to the merits of the claim. The attorney general has certified an unprecedented number cases to himself for review with the idea that he might change the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. This extraordinary power of one political-appointee to overturn the decision of trained immigration judges is fundamentally at odds with judicial independence.

Unfortunately, it appears that not only the review and firing of judges has become political, but their hiring too. Information has surfaced that the Department of Justice is asking candidates questions about their political party affiliation, their position on same-sex relationships, and their opinion on abortion; preparing internal memos on those whose immigration views that do not align with the administration’s policies; slowing down review of applications where there are ideological differences; and withdrawing employment offers or delaying start dates by up to a one and a half years.

Making judicial decisions subject to the political whims of the times, and not dependent on the accurate execution of the law, is a serious risk to the checks-and-balances system underlying our democracy. The need for independent immigration courts has never been clearer.

Sara Ramey is an immigration attorney and the executive director at the Migrant Center for Human Rights in San Antonio, Texas. The views in this article are not intended to reflect the official position of the organization.

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

As this article shows, inappropriate anti-asylum statements and knowingly false narratives from Jeff Sessions do affect the fairness of results. Yes, there are many courageous judges in the system who continue to treat respondents fairly and grant relief in appropriate cases.

But, numerous reports have established that there are Immigration Judges with anti-asylum and anti-migrant biases similar to Sessions’s. They now feel “empowered” to ignore the law, fairness, and Due Process to deny most applications and remove more migrants.

Moreover, some of the more experienced judges are retirement eligible and therefore largely immune from Sessions’s power because they are immediately eligible to retire. But, as they grow frustrated with the Aimless Docket Reshuffling and growing backlogs created by this Administration’s irresponsible actions and retire, they will be replaced by inexperienced judges. These new judges, in addition to being hand-picked by Sessions, without public input, are subject to removal at will during a two-year “probationary period.” Therefore, new judges are more likely to be influenced by Sessions’s xenophobic, anti-Due-Process views.

Additionally, Sessions is hard at work misusing his “certification” authority to overturn or limit established interpretations and procedures that implement protection and further Due Process and fairness for migrants.

Another important part of Sara’s article — giving lie to the concept that Immigration Judges can complete more than tow “full merits” asylum hearings per day consistent with Due Process.

Over the last six years I have directly or indirectly litigated over a hundred asylum cases, and in 95 percent of the cases the hearing takes about 3.5 hours, or the equivalent of one working morning or afternoon. This does not include the time a judge needs in camera to review the hundreds of pages of evidence in the record. In reality, a judge who completes one asylum case a day, and not three, is already extremely efficient.

Given the tendency of the current Administration not to settle or otherwise reasonably negotiate Immigration Court cases, the number of “full merits” hearings and appeals is likely to increase dramatically, thus adding to the already overwhelming backlog!

Time to end this farce!

PWS

05-24-17

Judge Patricia A. Cole Dissents From BIA Panel Majority’s Rewriting Of The Agfel Definition Of “Prostitution” To “Zap” Respondent – Majority “Dings Ding” in Matter of Ding, 27 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 2018)

Matter of Ding

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) The term “prostitution” in section 101(a)(43)(K)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(K)(i) (2012), which provides that an offense relating to the owning, controlling, managing, or supervising of a prostitution business is an aggravated felony, is not limited to offenses involving sexual intercourse but is defined as engaging in, or agreeing or offering to engage in, sexual conduct for anything of value.

(2) The offense of keeping a place of prostitution in violation of section 944.34(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes is categorically an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(K)(i) of the Act.

PANEL: BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES COLE, PAULEY, WENDTLAND

OPINION BY: Judge Roger A. Pauly

DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Patricia A. Cole

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

We disagree with the Immigration Judge and with the case law on which he relied because the term “prostitution” in section 101(a)(43)(K)(i) does not necessarily have the same meaning as it does in the inadmissibility provision at section 212(a)(2)(D). “It is not unusual for the same word to be used with different meanings in the same act, and there is no rule of statutory construction which precludes the courts from giving to the word the meaning which the Legislature intended it should have in each instance.” Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1932); see also Evntl. Def. v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561, 574 (2007).

KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the Immigration Judge’s decision that the respondent’s conviction is not for an aggravated felony under the existing Federal definition of “prostitution.” The majority has crafted a definition of prostitution for purposes of section 101(a)(43)(K)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(K)(i) (2012), as engaging in, or agreeing or offering to engage in, sexual conduct for anything of value. The majority decision concludes that this newly crafted definition categorically covers the conduct proscribed by the Wisconsin statute at issue in this case, but it notes that the precise contours of the term “sexual conduct” will be decided in future cases. This overly broad definition is supported by limited analysis, and it is contrary to immigration law, the law of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the canons of statutory construction.

The majority does not provide any analytical authority for its definition other than noting that the definition is “similar” to that of Black’s Law Dictionary and providing, without any analysis, a survey of the definitions of “prostitution” from the 50 States and the District of Columbia in 1994. Additionally, the majority does not even discuss the ramifications of its new definition of prostitution for section 101(a)(43)(K)(ii) of the Act, which references the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421, 2422, and 2423 (2012), which relate to engaging in “prostitution, or in any sexual activity.”

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

Judge Cole’s dissent makes sense to me. Nice to see that occasionally BIA Appellate Immigration Judges stand up for legal constructions that don’t invariably favor deportation of respondents who have been convicted of crimes.

While constructions of immigration statutes often divide Article III judges, all the way up to the Supremes, the BIA’s “Post Ashcroft Purge” jurisprudence has been intentionally bland and one-sided — largely without dissent or transparent deliberation. Moreover, as I have observed before, the BIA’s practice under the Ashcroft “Reforms” and the Obama Administration’s “Go Along to Get Along” approach has been largely to issue published precedents by three-judge panels, rather than en banc.

This allows 80% of the BIA’s permanent judges to avoid expressing a view for against any particular precedent. Indeed, some BIA judges appear hardly at all on “precedent panels,” while others appear frequently. Thus, some BIA judges regularly avoid both possible controversy as well as accountability for their legal positions and votes on critical, life-defining issues. Rather a strange way for a so-called “expert deliberative tribunal” to operate, if I do say so myself.

PWS

05-23-18

GUATEMALAN MOM WAS NEARLY KILLED BY HER HUSBAND BECAUSE OF HER GENDER —THE U.S. GRANTED HER REFUGE UNDER THE REFUGEE ACT OF 1980 — NOW A.G. JEFF SESSIONS APPEARS TO BE READY TO REWRITE WELL-ESTABLISHED LAW TO SENTENCE WOMEN LIKE HER TO DEATH OR A LIFETIME OF ABUSE!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/opinion/jeff-sessions-asylum-domestic-violence.html

Jane Fonda and Professor Karen Musalo of UC Hastings write in the NY Times:

By Jane Fonda and Karen Musalo

Ms. Fonda is an actor and activist. Ms. Musalo directs the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings College of the Law and represents A-B- in her asylum case.

May 17, 2018

Image
CreditMarta Monteiro

In recent years, the United States has been something of a beacon of hope for women fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries. In 2014, in a giant step forward, immigration courts explicitly determined that a person fleeing severe domestic violence may be granted asylum here if the violence rises to the level of persecution, if the government in the victim’s home country cannot or will not punish her abuser and if various other criteria are met. It’s a high bar but one that, sadly, women from many countries can clear. Now their last chance at protection may be under threat.

The case that established that certain victims of domestic violence are eligible for asylum was decided in a landmark ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest court in our immigration judicial system.

The survivor in the case, a Guatemalan named Aminta Cifuentes, was a victim of severe physical and sexual abuse. Ms. Cifuentes had endured 10 years of unrelenting violence at the hands of her spouse, who burned her with acid, beat and kicked her, broke her nose and punched her in the stomach with such force when she was eight months pregnant that the baby was born prematurely and with bruises. Her husband told her it would be pointless to call the police, because “even the police and judges beat their wives.”

The ruling that granted her protection was a transformative one, not just for Ms. Cifuentes but for our country, too. At last, the United States stood firmly in opposition to violence against women and recognized that we can and should offer hope to survivors.

In March, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in an unusual move, suddenly and inexplicably stepped into this seemingly settled matter to assign a similar petition for asylum, known as the Matter of A-B–, to himself for reconsideration.

The facts in the Matter of A-B- are similar to those in the 2014 case. Ms. A-B-, a Salvadoran, was brutalized by her husband for 15 years. He beat and kicked her, including while she was pregnant; bashed her head against a wall; threatened her with death while holding a knife to her throat and while brandishing a gun; and threatened to hang her. Ms. A-B- attempted to secure state protection to no avail.

When she went to the police after her husband attacked her with a knife, their response was that if she had any “dignity,” she would leave him. When Ms. A-B- did attempt to leave her husband, he tracked her down, raped her and threatened to kill her. When she finally got a divorce, her ex-husband told her that if she thought the divorce freed her from him, she was wrong. She fled the country after he told her that he and his friends were going to kill her and dump her body in a river.

When Ms. A-B- came to the United States seeking asylum, her case was heard by an immigration judge in Charlotte, N.C., named V. Stuart Couch, who is notorious for his high denial rate. Judge Couch denied her asylum; Ms. A-B- appealed, and the decision was overruled by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the same board that had ruled favorably in the 2014 case.

The board sent the case back to Judge Couch for security checks to be completed and asylum to be granted. Without any explanation, Judge Couch held on to the case and refused to grant asylum as directed. And then, deviating from normal procedures, Mr. Sessions took jurisdiction.

The attorney general does have the power to reconsider any decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, the procedural irregularities, paired with the possibility that Mr. Sessions may be using his authority to upend the precedent set in the Cifuentes case, are troubling. Mr. Sessions has given himself the power not only to decide Ms. A-B-’s fate but also ultimately to try to rule on how our country handles claims for all survivors of domestic violence looking for asylum.

To be clear, we do not yet know what Mr. Sessions will decide. But in the context of the Trump administration’s antipathy toward asylum seekers, and Mr. Sessions’s statements and actions with regard to immigrant women, his decision to assign himself jurisdiction does not bode well. Asylum seekers who have arrived at the American border seeking protection have been vilified by this administration.

The government has targeted women in ways that would have been unthinkable under prior administrations, including separating mothers who arrive at the border from their children and detaining pregnant women. Mr. Sessions himself has expressed his deep skepticism about asylum claims based on gender-related persecution.

At a time when violence against women and girls is a global crisis, a decision to deny protection to women who flee gender violence, including domestic violence, would be a grave mistake. This is a moment of truth of our country. Will we remain a beacon of hope for women worldwide whose lives are on the line because of domestic violence, and whose governments cannot or will not protect them? The answer, it seems, is in the attorney general’s hands.

Jane Fonda, an actor and activist, is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center and on the board of Sisterhood Is Global. Karen Musalo directs the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings School of Law and represents A-B- in her asylum case.

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

Matter of A-B-, was a straight-forward application by the BIA of its existing precedents on asylum for victims of domestic violence.
The Immigration Judge who wrongfully denied the original asylum application appeared to disregard the BIA’s mandate to check fingerprints and grant on remand, and instead delayed the case without any apparent valid reason for doing so.
Sessions “certified” this case to himself either though neither party had requested his intervention and, remarkably, the DHS requested that the certification be dissolved to allow the BIA to resolve any issues under its existing framework of asylum precedents.
Sessions has made a number of inflammatory, anti-asylum statements including several made in a speech to EOIR adjudicators.
Is this “Justice In America?” Or, is it a “Parody of Justice In America” taking place in a “captive court system” dedicated to one-sided enforcement rather than fairness and Due Process.
Join the “New Due Process Army” and fight against Sessions’s perversion of the U.S. Immigration Court system to fit his “enforcement only” viewpoint.

PWS

05-19-18

RETIRED U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES SPEAK OUT AGAINST SESSIONS’S TRASHING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING IN MATTER OF CASTRO-TUM!

The following statement has been posted on the AILA website:

Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Express Disappointment in Attorney General’s Decision in Matter of Castro-Tum

May 18, 20181

1 This statement was updated on May 21, 2018 with additional signatures.

As retired Immigration Judges and Board Members, we are very disappointed in the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Castro-Tum, which failed to address the excellent arguments made in the numerous briefs (including ours) that were submitted. Based on our combined decades of experience on the bench and the Board exercising administrative closure, we can jointly refute with authority the AG’s mischaracterization of this necessary tool as a permanent status. Sessions failed to distinguish between the different circumstances under which the status has been exercised. We look forward to reiterating our belief that administrative closure is part of the inherent authority granted to immigration judges by Congress on appeal of this issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Sincerely,

Honorable Steven R. Abrams

Honorable Sarah M. Burr

Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase

Honorable George T. Chew

Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn

Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza

Honorable Noel Ferris

Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.

Honorable William P. Joyce

Honorable Edward Kandler

Honorable Carol King

Honorable Susan Roy

Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg

Honorable Paul W. Schmidt

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18) 2

Honorable Polly A. Webber

Honorable Robert D. Weisel

List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.

The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She 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 and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She 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 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 sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Honorable George T. Chew

The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003-2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014 and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.

The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18) 3

Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former 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. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration 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. He is also 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. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 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.

Honorable Edward Kandler

The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She 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 from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

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 Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18) 4

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He 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 (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.

The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.

Honorable Robert D. Weisel

AILA Doc. No 18051806. (Posted 5/21/18

castro-tum-update-aila18051806-2

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

We have by no means heard the last about Sessions’s absurdist decision. As the Immigration Court System crumbles under largely preventable, self-created backlogs resulting from the actions of politicos in this and the past two Administrations, it is critical that Sessions be held fully accountable and not allowed to shift the blame to the respondents, their attorneys, or the Immigration Judges as he is wont to do.

PWS

05-19-18

GONZO’S WORLD: MORE “AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING” & BIGGER CONTRIVED IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOGS ON THE WAY AS SESSIONS SEVERELY LIMITS EOIR’S AUTHORITY TO “ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE” CASES – MATTER OF CASTRO-TUM, 27 I&N DEC. 271 (A.G. 2018)

CASTRO-TUM AG3926

KEY QUOTE:

On January 4, 2018, I directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer for my review its decision in this matter, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), and I invited the parties and any interested amici to submit briefs addressing questions relevant to that certification. Matter of Castro- Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 187 (A.G. 2018).

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, I affirm the Board’s order and remand for further proceedings. I hold that immigration judges and the Board do not have the general authority to suspend indefinitely immigration proceedings by administrative closure. Accordingly, immigration judges and the Board may only administratively close a case where a previous regulation or a previous judicially approved settlement expressly authorizes such an action. Where a case has been administratively closed without such authority, the immigration judge or the Board, as appropriate, shall recalendar the case on the motion of either party. I overrule Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), Matter of W- Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017), and any other Board precedent, to the extent those decisions are inconsistent with this opinion.

Matter of Castro-Tum

In recent years, immigration judges and the Board have increasingly ordered administrative closure to remove a large number of cases from their dockets. The Board has described the practice as “a docket management tool that is used to temporarily pause removal proceedings,” Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17, 18 (BIA 2017), and “remove a case from an Immigration Judge’s active calendar or from the Board’s docket.” Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688, 692 (BIA 2012).

Although described as a temporary suspension, administrative closure is effectively permanent in most instances. Unless a party “move[s] to recalendar [an administratively closed case] before the Immigration Court . . . or to reinstate the appeal before the Board,” id., the case remains indefinitely

271

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3926

suspended without a final resolution. Statistics supplied by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) demonstrate that effect.

Since 1980, immigration judges have recalendared less than a third of administratively closed cases. Because the case comes off the active docket, the immigration judge no longer tracks it, and EOIR does not count the case as active in assessing backlogs in immigration proceedings. See, e.g.,Memorandum for All Immigration Judges, from Brian M. O’Leary, Chief Immigration Judge, EOIR, Re: Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 13-01: Continuances and Administrative Closure at 2–3 (Mar. 7, 2013) (“OPPM 13-01”). Administratively closed cases are also difficult to recalendar. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) may not know when the reason for the suspension (such as the pendency of a collateral proceeding) has been resolved. Even where DHS moves to recalendar, the Board has imposed the burden of persuasion on the movant.W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. at 18 & n.4. And the alien respondent in most cases has few incentives to seek to recalendar because “as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).

The practice of administrative closure has grown dramatically as the Board has made administrative closure easier to obtain. Statistics maintained by EOIR reveal that over three decades, from EOIR Fiscal Year 1980 to Fiscal Year 2011, 283,366 cases were administratively closed. But in a mere six years, from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2017, immigration judges and the Board ordered administrative closure in 215,285 additional cases, nearly doubling the total number of cases subjected to administrative closure.

This sharp increase tracks changes in Board precedent. For decades, the immigration judge would grant administrative closure only if both parties agreed. In its 2012 Avetisyan decision, however, the Board discarded that principle and authorized administrative closure even over a party’s objection. 25 I&N Dec. at 694, 696. After the Avetisyan test proved unwieldy, the Board recently “clarif[ied]” that the deciding factor should be “whether the party opposing administrative closure has provided a persuasive reason for the case to proceed and be resolved on the merits.” W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. at 20 (emphasis added).

This certified case illustrates but one example of how administrative closure encumbers the fair and efficient administration of immigration cases. The respondent entered this country illegally in 2014 and was immediately detained. As an unaccompanied minor, he was served with a Notice to Appear and released to a relative after providing the address where they would reside. Despite several efforts to notify the respondent of his hearing dates, he repeatedly failed to appear. The Immigration Judge nonetheless

272

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3926

continued this case four times and finally ordered the case administratively closed on the ground that DHS had not shown it had a sufficiently reliable address to provide adequate notice.

On appeal, the Board vacated the Immigration Judge’s administrative closure order and remanded. DHS represents that this certified case is one of nearly 200 decisions between April 2017 and December 2017 in which an immigration judge either ordered administrative closure or refused to recalendar an administratively closed case over DHS’s objection. Brief for DHS at 10–11, Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 187 (A.G. 2018).

For the reasons stated below, I affirm the Board’s November 27, 2017 order and hold that there is no general authority for administrative closure. Immigration judges exercise only the authority provided by statute or delegated by the Attorney General. Congress has never authorized administrative closures in a statute, and Department of Justice regulations only permit administrative closure in specific categories of cases. The Attorney General has never delegated the general authority, and I decline to do so now. Cases that have been administratively closed absent a specific authorizing regulatory provision or judicially approved settlement shall be recalendared upon motion of either party. I overrule all Board precedents inconsistent with this opinion and remand for further proceedings.

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

Contrary to Sessions’s usual bogus narrative and distorted statistics, almost all Administrative Closings were either 1) on the DHS’s motion; or 2) on joint motion of the parties. Only minute numbers of cases were closed by IJs over the objection of the DHS under Matter of Avestan.

Indeed, even after this Administration established a basic “no Administrative closing” policy, DHS could only come up with 200 cases closed by IJs over their objection in a period of seven months! That works out to fewer than 400 per year! In other words, citing Avetisyan as a significant factor in the closing of 215,000 cases over the past six years is as absurd as it is intentionally intellectually dishonest.

And, the idea that the DHS is “unfairly burdened” by having to track the Administratively Closed cases is equally absurd. Most cases were closed either because 1) there was relief pending with USCIS, or 2) they were, quite properly, low enforcement priorities for ICE. The idea that it’s unfair to expect DHS to keep track of the cases closed for reasons relating almost exclusively to their own adjudication system and ever-changing enforcement priorities is nonsensical.

The statistic that fewer than one-third of the Administratively Closed cases were ever re-calendared basically supports the idea that they probably shouldn’t have been on the docket in the first place. Obviously, if the USCIS applications were denied, the individuals were picked up for violations, or the cases became ICE enforcement priorities, ICE would have moved to re-calendar. I almost never denied motions to re-calendar by either party, nor am I aware that any of my colleagues did so on a widespread basis. And, denial of such a motion was appealable to the BIA. There has been no showing that many appeals about failures to re-calendar have been filed by any party.

Sessions’s decision also “sweeps under the table” the real major cause of delays and backlogs: “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” instituted by the DHS or EOIR for enforcement or administrative purposes without the input and in many cases over the wishes of private parties. Almost all private immigration practitioners have seen their “ready for trial” cases “shuffled off to the end of the docket” — sometimes 3-5 years away — without their consent to accommodate the latest “IJ details” or the ICE/EOIR “priority of the day.” This often means that the entire case must be prepared again — country conditions change, witnesses die or otherwise become unavailable, memories fade, and most paying clients balk at paying additional fees for circumstances over which they had no control.

Contrary to the “myth” promoted by Sessions and the restrictionists, most individuals in immigration proceedings seek not indefinite delay — which keeps their lives on hold — but a fair, informed, reasoned decision one way or the other within a reasonable period of time.

Sessions and most of the other arrogant bureaucrats driving this absurd parody of a court system have never been in the private practice of immigration law. I have been. While most of my work was not in Immigration Court, I dealt with enough clients to know that neither the lawyer (who has to “babysit” case and prepare it numerous times for the same fee or for free) nor the clients (who also want some certainty in their lives and those of their families) had much interest in lengthy delays.

This case is just further proof of the pressing need for an Article I U.S. Immigration Court and a truly independent immigration judiciary.

Meanwhile, the immigration bar has predictably reacted with outrage to the latest Sessions abuse of power and “dissing” of Due Process.

Below (courtesy of Laura Lynch at AILA) are links to a few statements that were issued earlier this evening by a few NGOs:

AILA: AG’s Latest Move Further Erodes the Independence of Immigration Judge
The American Immigration Council: AIC Condemns Attorney General’s Decision Restricting Immigration Judge’s Authority
NIJC: https://twitter.com/NIJC/status/997262645844639745

PWS

05-18-18

COURTSIDE HISTORY: LEST WE FORGET: THE “ASHCROFT PURGE” AT THE BIA IN 2003 DESTROYED THE PRETEXT OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AT EOIR FOREVER – HERE’S HOW! — Read Peter Levinson’s 2004 Paper: “The Facade Of Quasi-Judicial Independence In Immigration Appellate Adjudications”

Levinson–The Facade Of Quasi-Judicial Independence

Read Peter’s full article at the above link (sorry about the difficult formatting — this was my “file copy.”)

Abstract:

Recently the quasi-judicial appellate process for reviewing decisions of immigration judges in noncitizen removal proceedings changed dramatically when the Department of Justice proposed and later implemented a major downsizing of the Board of Immigration Appeals combined with greatly enhanced reliance on single Board members to decide cases. Because the rule restructuring the Board did not limit the Attorney General�s discretion in identifying those who would lose their Board Member positions�and potential criteria referenced by the Department of Justice in that regard were not helpful in explaining how reassigned Board Members differed from colleagues who remained-�this study undertook an examination of case related data.
The study of closely divided en banc precedent decisions of the Board during the period of service by all five subsequently reassigned Board Members showed that adjudicators inclined to favor the position of noncitizens were particularly vulnerable. In fact, four out of the five Board Members who most often supported outcomes favorable to the noncitizen faced reassignment�and the fifth reassigned Member�s stance in favor of the noncitizen in a high profile case of importance to the Attorney General could explain his reassignment. Outcomes in the closely divided cases also suggested that the Attorney General succeeded in moving the Board of Immigration Appeals in a conservative direction just by announcing his downsizing plans�and the result of implementing downsizing the following year was to remake the Board into a largely homogeneous body without significant dissent.
The paper discusses the need for independent immigration adjudicators and points to the judicial nature of the Board�s work. The Board�s experience under Attorney General Ashcroft, the paper concludes, should give new impetus to efforts to separate review of immigration judge decisions from an agency with law enforcement responsibilities. The alternatives recommended by Federal commissions�a specialized court or an independent Executive Branch adjudicatory agency�continue to provide potential solutions.

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

Ashcroft certainly “poisoned the well” for judicial independence and Due Process at EOIR. And, frankly, the Obama Administration was also a huge part of the problem.

Well aware of the Ashcroft travesty at EOIR, the Obama DOJ basically covered up the truth and furthered a captive, complacent, “go along to get along” Immigration Court system, overwhelmingly composed of judges from government and prosecutorial backgrounds, because it furthered their own aims of compromising judicial independence to achieve “political goals,” when necessary. As one of my colleagues said, “while the Obama Administration was not Sessions, they certainly made Sessions possible, perhaps probable.”

If Ashcroft and the Bushies “poisoned the well,” Obama let the contamination fester, and Sessions now basically “dumps cyanide into the well” on an almost daily basis.

History is repeating itself in the ugliest possible manner at EOIR. The only question is whether armed with knowledge of the evils of the past, we can change the future to create a system of independent judges who will truly aspire to “be the worlds’ best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all.”

Join the New Due Process Army! Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-17-18

DARA LIND @ VOX: Sessions’s Role As Top Enforcer While Purporting To Sit As Judge On Individuals’ Cases Is Unprecedented Violation Of Judicial Ethics & Due Process Right To Impartial Decision-Maker in U.S. Immigration Courts!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/14/17311314/immigration-jeff-sessions-court-judge-ruling

Lind writes:

The fate of tens of thousands of immigrants’ court cases could rest in the hands of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

That’s not a metaphor. Sessions has stepped into the immigration system in an unprecedented manner: giving himself and his office the ability to review, and rewrite, cases that could set precedents for a large share of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants with pending immigration court cases, not to mention all those who are arrested and put into the deportation process in future.

He’s doing this by taking cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals — the Justice Department agency that serves as a quasi-appellate body for immigration court cases — and referring them to himself to issue a decision instead.

Sessions isn’t giving lawyers much information about what he’s planning. But he’s set himself up, if he wants, to make it radically harder for immigration judges to push cases off their docket to be resolved elsewhere or paused indefinitely — and to close the best opportunity that tens of thousands of asylum seekers, including most Central Americans, have to stay in the United States. And he might be gearing up to extend his involvement even further, by giving himself the authority to review a much bigger swath of rulings issued in the immigration court system.

The attorney general has the power to set immigration precedents. But attorneys general rarely used that power — until now.

Most immigrants who are apprehended in the US without papers have a right to a hearing in immigration court to determine whether they can be deported and whether they qualify for some form of legal status or other relief from deportation. The same process exists for people who are caught crossing into the US but who claim to be eligible for some sort of relief, like asylum, and pass an initial screening. In both cases, only after the judge issues a final order of removal can the immigrant be deported.

Immigration courts aren’t part of the judicial branch; they’re under the authority of the Department of Justice. Their judges are supposed to have some degree of independence, and some judges are certainly harsher on immigrants and asylum seekers than others. But their decisions are guided by precedent from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is basically the appellate court of the immigration system and which also answers to the DOJ and the attorney general.

If the attorney general doesn’t like that precedent, he has the power to change it — by referring a case to himself after the Board of Immigration Appeals has reviewed it, issuing a new ruling, and telling the immigration courts to abide by the precedent that ruling sets in future.

Attorneys general rarely ever use that power. Sessions has used it three times since the beginning of 2018; all three cases are still under review. “I can’t remember this many decisions being certified in the past five to 10 years,” says Kate Voigt of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

In theory, Sessions’s office is supposed to make its decision based on amicus briefs from outside parties, as well as the immigrant’s lawyer and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prosecutor. But advocates and lawyers’ groups say they can’t file a good brief if they don’t know what, exactly, the cases Sessions is getting involved in actually are — and Sessions is withholding that information.

In one of the cases Sessions has referred to himself, the DOJ refused to provide a copy of the decision that Sessions is reviewing or any information about where the case came from and who the immigrant’s lawyer was. In another case, congressional staff happened to find the decision under review on a DOJ website days before the deadline for amicus briefs.

That opacity makes it basically impossible to know whether Sessions is planning to issue relatively narrow rulings or very broad ones. In the case in which the decision under review was discovered by congressional staffers, both the immigrant’s lawyer and the Department of Homeland Security (serving as the prosecution) asked Sessions’s office to clarify the specific legal question at hand in the review — in other words, to give them a hint of the scope of the potential precedent being set. They were denied.

“We have no idea how broad he’s going,” said Eleanor Acer of the advocacy group Human Rights First. “The way it was framed was totally inscrutable.”

Sessions’s self-referrals could affect a large portion of immigration court cases

To Acer and other lawyers and advocates, that uncertainty is worrisome. All three of the cases Sessions has referred to himself center on questions that, depending on how they’re answered, could result in rulings that tip the balance of tens of thousands of immigration court cases.

Can judges remove cases from the docket? In the case Sessions referred to himself in January, Matter of Castro-Tum, he asked the question of whether judges are allowed to use something called “administrative closure” — to remove a case from the docket, essentially hitting the pause button on it indefinitely.

Administrative closures were common under the Obama administration, as ICE prosecutors used it to stop the deportation process for “low-priority” unauthorized immigrants. They’re already much less common under Trump — a Reuters analysis found that closures dropped from 56,000 in Obama’s last year in office to 20,000 in Trump’s first year — but that’s still 20,000 immigrants whose deportation cases were halted, and 20,000 cases cleared out of an ever-growing immigration court backlog.

If it’s written broadly enough, the forthcoming Sessions decision could prevent administrative closure from being even a possibility.

Are victims of “private violence” eligible for asylum? In a March self-referral, Sessions asked whether a judge should be allowed to grant asylum to a domestic violence survivor because she was a victim of “private violence” — violence that wasn’t state-based. Theoretically, asylum is supposed to be available only for victims of certain types of persecution, but some judges have found that women in some countries who experience domestic violence are being persecuted for membership in the “social group” of being women.

The self-referral has raised red flags for a lot of domestic violence groups, which are worried that Sessions is about to cut off an important path to relief for some immigrant survivors. But it could be even broader — gang violence is also “private” violence, and the “social group” clause has also been used to give asylum to people fleeing gang violence in Honduras and El Salvador.

“There is no dispute under US law that asylum claims may be based on persecution conducted by nongovernmental actors,” Human Rights First’s Acer told Vox, as long as the asylum seeker shows her government was unwilling or unable to protect her. But Sessions appears to be “directly attacking, essentially, whether a nonstate actor” can ever qualify as a persecutor.

For many of the thousands of Central Americans who’ve entered the US in recent years, that provision has been their best chance to stay here rather than being sent home. And it could be taken away with a stroke of Sessions’s pen.

Can an immigration judge wait for an application to be approved? In his other March self-referral, Sessions appears to be taking aim at “continuances” — a practice of judges kicking the can down the road in a case by scheduling it for the next available court date sometime in the future (often several months) in order for something else to be prepared or resolved.

Sometimes, continuances are requested because the immigrant in question is also involved in another legal proceeding that’s relevant to the case. One example: An immigrant put into deportation proceedings by ICE, in an immigration court run by the DOJ, may still be eligible to apply for legal status from US Citizenship and Immigration Services while waiting for their application to be processed. Sessions is now asking himself whether it’s legally valid to grant a continuance so the parallel legal proceeding can get resolved.

This could affect tens of thousands of cases. A 2012 DOJ Office of the Inspector General report found that more than half of cases examined involved continuances — and one-quarter of all continuances involved requests from the immigrant to delay a case while an application was filed or processed (or a background check was completed).

At the end of April, lawyers’ concern that Sessions is gearing up to issue a broad ruling in this case was amplified when a DOJ notification in the case mentioned two other immigrants whose cases were being combined with this one — indicating to some lawyers that the facts in the original case didn’t lend themselves to the ruling Sessions had already decided to give.

Furthermore, lawyers and advocates worry that Sessions is gearing up to restrict continuances in other circumstances — like allowing immigrants time to find a lawyer or prepare a case.

Sessions’s meddling might not make courts more efficient, but it will make them more brutal

Sessions and the Trump administration claim they’re trying to restore efficiency to a backlogged court system that poses the biggest obstacle to the large-scale swift deportation of border-crossing families and to unauthorized immigrants living in the US. But lawyers are convinced that Sessions’s diktats, if they’re as broad as feared, would just gum up the works further.

“If the attorney general were seriously concerned about the backlog, as opposed to a desire for quick deportations, he would be focused on transferring as many cases away from” immigration judges as possible, attorney Jeremy McKinney told Vox — not forcing them to keep cases on their docket that they would rather close, or that could be rendered moot by other decisions. It’s “not smart docket control.”

And Sessions isn’t simply planning to issue these rulings and walk away. His office is planning to give itself even wider power over the immigration court system. A notice published as part of the department’s spring 2018 regulatory agenda says, “The Department of Justice (DOJ) proposes to change the circumstances in which the Attorney General may refer cases to himself for review. Such case types will include those pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) but not yet decided and certain immigration judge decisions regardless of whether those decisions have been appealed to the BIA.”

In other words, even when a DOJ judge makes a ruling in an immigrant’s favor and ICE prosecutors don’t try to appeal the ruling, the attorney general’s office could sweep in and overrule the judge.

Sessions’s decrees would probably result in more immigration judge decisions getting appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (further gumming up the works) as judges try to interpret precedents Sessions has set, and from there to federal courts of appeals. Many federal judges aren’t keen on the immigration court system, especially when its appeals gum up their own dockets, and they might step in to push back against Sessions’s changes.

In the meantime, though, immigration judges will have fewer ways to move cases off their docket and fewer avenues for asylum seekers to qualify for relief, as they’re simultaneously facing serious pressure to make quick decisions in as many cases as possible. The more pressure is put on immigration judges from above, and the more Sessions moves to block their safety valves, the less likely they are to give immigrants a chance to fully make their cases before they bang the gavel on their deportations.

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

All too true. The real question: Will he be able to get away with this farce of “judicial justice” by probably the most clearly and strongly biased public official short of Trump himself.

An unbiased, impartial decision-maker is a key requirement for Due Process under the Constitution. Having Sessions sit as a the “ultimate judge” in Immigration Court clearly violates that cardinal principle.

For many years, the inherent conflict of interest in having supposedly “fair hearings” run by an enforcement agency in the Executive Branch has basically been swept under the table by Congress and the Article IIIs. As with many things, Sessions’s dogged determination to do away with even the pretense of fairness and Due Process in immigration hearings might eventually force the Article IIIs to confront an issue they have been avoiding since the beginning of immigration laws.

Whether and how they face up to it might well determine the future of our republic and our current Constitutional form of government!

PWS

05-16-18

SOPHIA GENOVESE: “INJUSTICE AT JUSTICE” – The Immigration Court system should not be used as a political tool of the executive branch to effectuate anti-immigrant policies. Rather, it should be an independent system that is committed to the fair adjudication and implementation of our immigration laws.”

http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2018/05/assembly-line-injustice-how-the-implementation-of-immigration-case-completion-quotas-will-eviscerate-due-process.html

Assembly Line Injustice: How the Implementation of Immigration Case Completion Quotas will Eviscerate Due Process

May 7, 2018/0 Comments/in Blog /by Sophia Genovese

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, under the direction of the Department of Justice, announced last year that it had reopened the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) to include case completion quotas in the performance evaluations of Immigration Judges. On March 30, 2018, James McHenry, the Director of the EOIR, formally announced these metrics, which require IJs to complete at least 700 cases per year, have a remand rate of less than fifteen percent, and meet half of the additional benchmarks listed in the evaluation plan, which can be found here. As pointed out by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, “this quota translates into each judge hearing testimony and rendering decisions almost three cases per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year.” According to several retired IJs and Former Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Members, such quotas raise serious due process concerns and will result in a system that is less focused on justice and appearing “more like an assembly line.”

There are a number of issues with the EOIR case completion quotas. First, these quotas may force IJs to breach their ethical obligations. Specifically, the new completion quotas are tied to the financial incentives of IJs, where the performance evaluations affect IJs’ job security and eligibility for raises. IJs are not given life appointments and can be easily removed from the bench by the Attorney General if he finds them to not be meeting these performance thresholds. Thus, IJs may be encouraged to render hasty decisions in order to satisfy these case completion quotas and receive a good review (and thus a raise) instead of making decisions based on what is proper for the cases in front of them. Having such a financial incentive in the completion of a case arguably forces an IJ to violate 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401 to 2635.403,[i] which prohibits IJs from participating in proceedings where he or she has a financial interest. Additionally, IJs must be impartial in their decision-making under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8). It is hard for an IJ to remain impartial when pressured with impossible case completion standards especially when a case is meritorious but an IJ may not grant a continuance for legitimate reasons.

The case completion quotas also violate 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), which provides: “In deciding the individual cases before them, and subject to the applicable governing standards, immigration judges shall exercise their independent judgement and discretion and may take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.” For example, an attorney may have been only recently retained by an asylum-seeker, and may request a continuance in order to gather and assemble evidence that is vital for the asylum-seeker’s claim. Under ordinary circumstances, an IJ would likely grant such a continuance as it would be considered proper under INA § 240(b)(4)(B) which affords a “reasonable opportunity…to present evidence” on one’s behalf. However, under the quota system, an IJ may feel pressure to deny the motion for continuance and may ultimately deny the asylum claim because the asylum-seeker was not afforded sufficient time to present their case. Such an outcome clearly violates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B) where the IJ is stripped of their independent decision-making authority where they feel pressured to quickly close out a case despite compelling reasons to grant a continuance, and where the asylum-seeker is not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Another example is an individual placed in removal proceedings who is the intending beneficiary of a pending I-130 with USCIS. Typically, USCIS takes several months to adjudicate an I-130, and thus, attorneys for respondents file motions for continuance with the IJ until the USCIS has rendered a decision which will determine the respondent’s eligibility for relief from removal. Under the new case quota system, IJs will be less inclined to grant such continuances. This hypothetical similarly implicates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B), as described above. Moreover, the IJ’s denial of the continuance here would violate Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785, 793-94 (BIA 2009) where the Board held that compliance with a IJ’s case completion goals “is not a proper factor in deciding a continuance request” where there is an meritorious pending I-130. We’ve previously blogged about AG Sessions’ stripping of judicial independence through his self-referral of Matter of L-A-B-R- et al, 27 I&N Dec. 245 (AG 2018), which can be found here.

The case completion quotas will also lead to an unprecedented number of BIA and federal court appeals. This would needlessly increase the BIA’s backlog and indeed affect the dockets of the federal court systems, resulting in the tremendous waste of taxpayer’s dollars where a proper decision could have been rendered at the IJ level. In addition, the number of remanded cases may exceed fifteen percent, and thus, the IJ would again fail to meet the performance metrics in their performance evaluation.

There is no denying that the Immigration Courts face tremendous pressure to address the ballooning backlog of cases. As of this writing, there are 692,298 pending cases in Immigration Courts across the country, with only approximately 330 judges to hear them. Advocates during the Obama-era consistently advocated for the appointment of more IJs to address the backlog. However, in the Trump-era, advocate are now skeptical of such a move where it is clear that this Administration seeks to deport as many people as possible. Indeed, the Department of Justice, headed by Jeff Sessions, has celebrated deportations under the Trump Administration. Such an emphasis on deportation, as opposed to fair adjudication of claims, undermines the independence and impartiality of IJs. The implementation of the DOJ/EOIR case completion quotas will undoubtedly lead to a rise in unfair hearings and erroneous deportations, which is exactly what this Administration wants. The appointment of Trump-supporting IJs will only exacerbate the problem.

For many years, the NAIJ has advocated for the creation of an Article I Immigration Court that is independent of the political whims of the Department of Justice. Under the current Administration, and in light of the newly imposed DOJ/EOIR performance quota metrics, these calls have never been more relevant. The Immigration Court system should not be used as a political tool of the executive branch to effectuate anti-immigrant policies. Rather, it should be an independent system that is committed to the fair adjudication and implementation of our immigration laws. The case completion quotas will undoubtedly undermine the integrity of our immigration system and should be vigorously challenged by IJs and practitioners.

[i] The author acknowledges that 5 CFR § 2635.402 directly implicates 18 U.S.C. 208(a), a criminal statute. This author suggests that the EOIR case completion quotas may jeopardize an IJ’s ethical obligations where their financial interests are directly and predictably impacted by blind adherence to such arbitrary quotas. Criminal liability for these actions, however, goes beyond the scope of this article.

Tags: 5 C.F.R. § 2635.402, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), Case completion quotas, Immigration court backlog, INA § 240(b)(4)(B), James McHenry, Matter of Hashmi, Motion for continuance

WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL BOARD: MALICIOUS DEMAGOGUE SESSIONS LIES & ABUSES CHILDREN IN SUPPORT OF HIS XENOPHOBIC IMMIGRATION AGENDA!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessionss-breathtaking-policy-of-malice-toward-migrants/2018/05/08/026d4764-52d5-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html?utm_term=.815ff4098582

The Post’s View

Opinion

Jeff Sessions’s breathtaking policy of malice toward migrants

A child traveling with migrants from Central America waits to enter the U.S. border and customs facility on April 29. (Jorge Duenes/Reuters)

By Editorial Board May 8 at 7:55 PM

ATTORNEY GENERAL Jeff Sessions is indifferent about whether undocumented immigrants crossing into the United States are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families or whether they are fleeing domestic abuse, drug cartels, extortion rackets or political violence. It’s all the same to Mr. Sessions, who said Monday that all those who come into the country illegally would be prosecuted — and separated from their children in the bargain. Thus has the top law enforcement official in the United States enshrined callousness as administration policy.

Will babies be separated from nursing mothers? Will toddlers be housed in institutions far from parents? How many children will be traumatized by being carted away from their parents for weeks or months — or longer? The attorney general doesn’t say or, apparently, care.

Mr. Sessions’s policy of separating parents and children is intentionally and unapologetically punitive. There was no talk from him of developing additional detention centers that could accommodate families while parents await prosecution for the misdemeanor of illegal entry. There was no public recognition of the United States’ historical role as a beacon for refugees, nor its obligation in law and international treaty to accept migrants seeking asylum from danger in their native countries. There were no estimates of how many children will be removed from their parents, for how long, and with what long-term damage to their emotional and psychological welfare.

Instead, the attorney general offered indifference. Proclaiming a new policy of “zero tolerance,” he rebranded the United States as a crueler place than the countries from which people are fleeing. And never mind that, in many cases, parents are seeking refuge in this country in order to escape violence and persecution — and to protect their children.

The impetus for the new stance, of course, is President Trump, who has made clear that his crusade against all immigrants, with or without documents, knows no limits. Having washed his hands of the “dreamers,” mainly teenagers and 20-somethings raised and educated in this country after being brought here by their parents, Mr. Trump need not travel a great moral distance to upend the lives of brand-new migrant families by removing children from their parents.

The administration’s stated justification is a surge in migrants in recent months. The number of apprehensions of those coming into the country without papers, especially from Central America, has spiked from a year ago. However, the overall flow of migrants over the southwest border is near a four-decade low.

In other words, Mr. Sessions’s talk of a “massive influx” of undocumented immigrants is a falsehood. Against his incendiary vow that the administration will not allow the United States to be “invaded” and “stampeded ” is the plain truth that the southwest border is more secure, and less frequently breached, than at any time since the Nixon administration.

Yet Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions propose a breathtaking innovation: wrenching every small child away, as a matter of policy, from his or her family. They have now matched their demagoguery on immigration with malice.

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

YUP! In a highly competitive race, Gonzo Apocalypto gets my vote for “Worst Government Official in America!” Willful ignorance, arrogance, incompetence, cruelty, racism, maliciousness, dishonesty, fake religion, and lawlessness all put together in one toxic package.

PWS

05-11-18

HON. BRUCE J. EINHORN IN THE HILL: SCOFFLAW AG JEFF SESSIONS PERVERTS RULE OF LAW, “PERSECUTES THE PERSECUTED,” AND UNDERMINES THE FUNDAMENTAL PROTECTION PURPOSES OF THE REFUGEE ACT OF 1980

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/386956-persecuting-the-persecuted-in-asylum-cases-is-not-the-answer

Judge Einhorn writes:

As a young Justice Department lawyer, I was present at the creation of the Refugee Act of 1980, which together with its amendments and implementing regulations constitute the regime of asylum and refugee protection in the United States. During the Carter administration, I had a hand in the final drafting of the 1980 asylum law. As a U.S. immigration judge in Los Angeles from 1990 through 2007, I heard and decided thousands of cases in which citizens and stateless persons from foreign countries sought asylum in our nation. As a law professor both in California and in England, I have lectured on asylum and refugee law.

The asylum law was intended as a humanitarian measure to defend the defenseless by offering them the possibility of a new and secure life in the United States. But that will no longer be the case if Attorney General Jeff Sessions has his way. The Refugee Act of 1980 grants asylum status in the United States for any foreign-born individual who demonstrates past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution for reasons of “race, religion, nationality” as well as “membership in a particular social group” and “political opinion.”

Additionally, under precedent set over the course of decades by federal courts across the country, the persecution that triggers asylum protection must be committed or attempted by a foreign government, or by forces that the government is unable or unwilling to control. That the persecution may be official or private recognizes the fact that in many countries, civil society and the rule of law are nowhere to be found. In their place, governments often unofficially depend on ad hoc private parties and organizations to aid in the torture, persecution and murder of those deemed “enemies of the state.” The use of nongovernmental persecutors provides plausible deniability to regimes that deny complicity in the mistreatment of those they seek to eliminate.

Now the attorney general is attempting to undermine if not eliminate the “unable or unwilling” standard applied in asylum cases for decades. In 2016, in a case entitled “Matter of A-B-,” the Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative court that reviews decisions of immigration judges, ruled that based on prevailing precedent, an asylum applicant seeking refugee status based on her membership in a particular social group” that led to her gross domestic abuse, had demonstrated that the government of her native El Salvador was unwilling or unable to protect her from her abusive ex-husband. The board remanded the case to the trial judge so that he might apply the correct “unwilling or unable” standard.

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

Go on over to The Hill to read Judge Einhorn’s complete article!

Judge Bruce J. Einhorn has spent his career advancing the true rule of law and seeking to rectify the wrongs of the past: first as a prosecutor in the Office of Special Investigations at the U.S. DOJ bringing Nazi war criminals to justice (where I first came in contact with him); then as a U.S. Immigration Judge; and finally as a law professor. (Yes, folks, there was a time long ago when the USDOJ actually was on the side of seeking and guaranteeing justice for the persecuted, rather than engaging in child abuse, spreading false scenarios about immigrants and crime, promoting xenophobic myths about refugees, building the “New American Gulag,” and mis-using the US Immigration Court system as a tool of DHS enforcement to discourage refugees from seeking protection under our laws and international treaties to which we are party.)

By contrast, Jeff Sessions has spent his entire legal & “public service” career on the wrong side of history: trying to “turn back the clock” to the era of Jim Crow; promoting intolerance, unequal treatment, and hate directed at African-Americans, Hispanics, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community; perverting the rule of law and the Constitutional guarantee of individual rights and fairness for everyone in America; and denying the massive contributions to the success of the United States made by non-White, non-Christian, and non-U.S. citizen individuals.

Jeff Sessions is a much bigger threat to the security, welfare, and future of the United States than are desperate women and children from the Northern Triangle seeking to save their lives by exercising their lawful rights under U.S. and international law to apply for asylum.

PWS

05-10-18

NO, IT’S NOT “NORMAL DEVIATION:” U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE V. STUART COUCH’S RECORD ON CENTRAL AMERICAN WOMEN CLAIMING ASYLUM BASED ON A-R-C-G- SHOWS DEVIANT JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR, BIAS, & INSUFFICIENT CONTROL BY THE BIA – These Are The Glaring Problems Demeaning Due Process In Today’s U.S. Immigration Courts!– Yet, Jeff Sessions Appears Determined To Reinforce Bias and Denial Of Due Process Rather Than Solving The REAL Problems!

FOIA results: evidence of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch’s shocking prejudgment of all domestic violence asylum claims

by Bryan Johnson on April 20, 2018

At the bottom, readers will find the all of the decisions of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch that resulted in BIA remands for the Fiscal Year of 2017.

Time and time again, IJ Couch’s decisions denying victims of domestic violence asylum contain carbon copy language.

Thus, it is clear that IJ Couch’s has been prejudging all claims that have a history of domestic violence, and quite literally copying and pasting language he used to deny other domestic violence victims asylum. The following is one of his favorite passages to copy and paste.

The respondent’s evidence reflects that [the] physical and verbal abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature…The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.

Immediately below, I have excerpted key parts of the BIA & IJ Couch decisions. A clear pattern has emerged: IJ Couch does not grant asylum to women who are victims of domestic violence, despite clear instructions to the contrary from the BIA.

Pages 31-48:

Immigration Judge’s decision:

“As noted in the particularity analysis supra, Guatemala has significant and troubling

issues related to domestic violence and crimes against women. However, unlike the married

alien in Matter of A-R-C-G-, the respondent lacks an identifiable trait like marriage or

inability to seek assistance from authority that distinguishes her from other women in

Guatemalan society. Similar to the particularity analysis supra, the Court finds the

respondent is an unfortunate victim of violence against women like far too many women in

Guatemala, and thereby renders her past harm indistinct by comparison.”

BIA’s holding:

The respondent’s testimony reflects that people in the community knew them as a couple and

made comments reflecting their notions that the respondent could not escape the relationship (Tr. 232 at 66).

The respondent also testified that her parents did not help her leave the

relationship because of ingrained views that women are the property of men (Tr. at 33-35).

Under these circumstances, we conclude under the same reasoning as Matter of A-R-C-G-,

supra, that the proffered social group here is “immutable,” “particular” and “socially distinct.”

To the extent that the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent is not a member of this

particular social group, that determination is clearly erroneous. See Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra,

at 3 91 (the question whether a person is a member of a particular social group is a finding of fact

that we review for clear error).”

Pages 65-80:

Immigration Judge’s decision:

“As noted in the particularity analysis supra, El Salvador has significant and troubling

issues related to domestic violence and crimes against women. However, unlike the married

alien in Matter of A-R-C-G-, the respondent lacks an identifiable trait like marriage or

inability to seek assistance from authority that distinguishes her from other women in

Salvadoran society. Similar to the particularity analysis supra, the Court finds the

respondent is an unfortunate victim of violence against women like far too many women in

El Salvador, and thereby renders her past harm indistinct by comparison.”

BIA decision:

Finally, the record does not support the Immigration Judge’s determination that the past harm

the respondent suffered is “consistent with acts of general violence” which undermines her claim

for asylum (l.J. at 10). Further, even assuming her former partner’s “criminal tendencies and

substance abuse” played a role in his conduct (/d.), the appropriate inquiry is whether the

asserted protected ground was or would be “at least one central reason” for the claimed or feared

harm. See section 208(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act; Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I&N Dec. 341, 349 (BIA

2010)

Pages 81-96:

Immigration Judge Decision:

The respondent testified that when was drunk, he would physically and

verbally abuse her. She further testified “he was fine” when he was not under the influence

of alcohol. Thus, ‘s abuse appears related to his own criminal tendencies and

substance abuse, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted the respondent on account of

her proposed particular social group. The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of

general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a

statutorily protected ground.

BIA decision:

Upon review of the record, we conclude that a remand is necessary for the Immigration

Judge to further assess whether the respondent established that she is a member of a cognizable

particular social group. The Immigration Judge found that the respondent’s case is factually

distinguishable from Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), because she was not in

a marital relationship with her former partner and did not seek assistance from authorities

(I.J. at 7-9). While relevant, the distinguishing factors identified do not preclude the respondent

from establishing that her proposed particular social group is cognizable under the Act, and we

find that further fact-finding regarding the respondent’s experiences in El Salvador is necessary

to determine whether she satisfied the elements required to establish a valid particular social

group. See Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, at 393 (stating that “adjudicators must consider a

respondent’s own experiences, as well as more objective evidence, such as background country

information”).

Pages 102-120:

BIA decision:

We find clear error in the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent was not

abused by her former partner on account of her particular social group. See l.J. at 12; 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.l (d)(3)(i); Matter of N-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011) (a persecutor’s actual

motive is a matter of fact to be determined by the Immigration Judge and reviewed by this Board

for clear error). The respondent testified that her former partner told her that a woman is not

more intelligent than he is and that the respondent has no value, comments which indicate that he

harmed her because of her perceived lesser status in the relationship (Tr. at 46).

Immigration Judge Decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that [the] physical and verbal abuse of her

was related to his violent and jealous nature, sometimes accompanied by his use of alcohol.

Thus, ‘s abuse appears related to his own criminal tendencies or substance abuse,

rather than conclusive evidence he targeted the respondent on account of her proposed

particular social group. The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of general

violence and therefore does not co nstitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily

protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d 9 at l 000; Ruiz v. US. Att’y Gen., 440

F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pages 137-155

BIA decision:

We disagree with the Immigration Judge that the respondent’s proposed social group, consisting of Honduran women

who are viewed as property and whose domestic partners refuse to allow them to leave their

relationship lacks the requisite immutability, particularity, and social distinction (l.J. at 7-10).

See Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 l&N Dec. 227, 236-43 (BIA 2014) (outlining factors to be

considered when discerning whether a social group is cognizable under the Act); Matter of

W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208, 213-18 (BIA 2014) (same).

Immigration Judge Decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that ‘s physical and verbal abuse of her

was related to his violent and jealous nature, heavy use of drugs and alcohol, and association

with drug traffickers. Exhibit 3, tab C at 17-19. Thus, ‘s abuse appears related to his

own criminal tendencies or substance abuse, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted the

respondent on account of her proposed particular social group. The evidence in this case is

more consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of

persecution based on a statutorily protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at

1000; Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court finds

that the respondent has not established targeted her due to her particular social group,

which is required to prove the requisite nexus for asylum relief. INA§ 208(b)(l)(B)(i).

Pages 157-173

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that Mr. ‘ physical, verbal, and sexual abuse

of her was related to his violent and jealous nature. The respondent testified Mr. ‘

motivation to harm her was anger when she would ask him for money so she could buy food

for her family. She recalled the final argument that led to their separation occurred when the

respondent confronted Mr. regarding his affair with her sister-in-law. Thus, Mr. ‘

abuse of the respondent appears related to his own violent and criminal tendencies, rather than

conclusive evidence he targeted her on account of her membership in a particular social group.

The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does

not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.

Consistent with its immutability and particularity analysis supra, the Court finds the

respondent is an unfortunate victim of violence against women like far too many women in

Guatemala, and thereby renders her past harm indistinct by comparison. For these reasons, the

Court finds the respondent has not met her burden to show the requisite social distinction

necessary for membership in a particular social group.

BIA decision:

The Immigration Judge further concluded that the respondent did not meet the immutability,

particularity and social distinction requirements for a cognizable particular social group (I.J. at 9-

12). We have held that depending on the facts and evidence in an individual case, victims of

domestic violence can establish membership in a cognizable particular social group that forms the

basis of a claim for asylum or withholding of removal. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N

Dec. 388 (BIA 2014).

Pages 228-243

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that Mr. ‘s physical, verbal, and sexual

abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature. The respondent testified Mr.

‘s motivation to harm her was anger after she reported his abuse to government

authorities. Thus, Mr. ‘s abuse of the respondent appears related to his own

violent and criminal tendencies, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted her on account of

her membership in a particular social group. The evidence in this case is more consistent with

acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a

statutorily protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at 1000; Quinteros-Mendoza

v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court finds that the respondent has not

established Mr. targeted her due to her membership in a particular social group,

which is required to prove the requisite nexus for asylum relief. INA§ 208(b)(l)(B)(i).

BIA decision:

There appears to be no dispute that the verbal, physical and sexual abuse suffered by the

respondent at the hands of her stepfather, which occurred several times per week over a period of

years, rises to the level of past persecution. See, e.g., Barahon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228, 232,

(4th Cir. 2009) (observing that “[a] key difference between persecution and less-severe

mistreatment is that the former is ‘systematic’ while the latter consists of isolated incidents”).

However, the Immigration Judge rejected as invalid the respondent’s proposed particular social

group of”Mexican children who are perceived as property and lack effective familial protection,”

finding that it lacked the requisite immutability, particularity, and social distinction (I.J. at 7-9).

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. Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, at 390. On review, we find

that the particular social group posited by the respondent, under the circumstances of this case, is

valid under the reasoning of our recent decisions clarifying the approach to particular social

groups. See Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N

Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).

Pages 264-283

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that her former spouse’s physical, sexual, verbal,

and psychological abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature, and frequent

intoxication from alcohol. The respondent testified that is an alcoholic whose

motivation to harm her stemmed from his anger, dislike for her, jealous nature, and infidelity

with other women. Exhibit 2, tab C at 12-13. Based upon the respondent’s testimony, it

appears the threats, assault and rape she suffered at the hands of was intended to

intimidate and threaten her to comply his own selfish and criminal demands for sex.

Thus, the abuse suffered by the respondent appears related to the violent and criminal

tendencies of her abusive former spouse, rather than conclusive evidence she was targeted on

account of her membership in a particular social group. The evidence in this case is more

consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of

persecution based on a statutorily protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at

1000; Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court fmds

that the respondent has not established her former spouse targeted her due to her membership

in a particular social group, which is required to prove the requisite nexus for asylum relief.

INA§ 208(b)( l)(B)(i).

BIA decision:

We additionally conclude that the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent was able

to leave her ex-husband is clearly erroneous (l.J. at 10-11).

However, the record reflects that the respondent’s ex-husband continued to threaten and physically abuse the respondent after -their separation,

despite her move to a town over 2 hours away from him, and that he raped her in…2014, after their divorce.

Pages 315-334

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that Mr. ‘ physical, verbal, and sexual abuse

of her was related to his violent and jealous nature, often fueled by his use of alcohol and

drugs. Exhibit 2, tab H at 1-2. Mr. ‘ motivation to harm her appears to be based upon his

own criminal tendencies and substance abuse, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted

her on account of her membership in a particular social group.

BIA decision:

We also note that even if the evidence and testimony support a finding that the

respondent’s husband has a “violent and jealous nature” (I.J. at 12), this is not clearly separate

from a motive to persecute his wife based on feelings of domination and control, the hallmarks

of domestic violence.

Pages 373-393

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that her husband’s physical, verbal, and

psychological abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature, at times affected by his

use of alcohol. The respondent testimony suggests her husband’s motivation to harm her was

his dislike for her and suspicion she was being unfaithful to him. His motivation also appears

related to the respondent’s desire to leave him because of his infidelity, and his demands for

custody of their son. Based upon the respondent’s testimony, it appears the threats, assaults

and psychological abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband was intended to intimidate

her to obtain some unclear result.

BIA decision:

We conclude, based on the particular facts presented on this record that the respondent

established that she was a member of the particular social group she articulated. We further

conclude that the Immigration Judge erred in concluding that this case is distinguishable from

Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, based principally on the fact that the respondent was able to separate

and live apart from her husband after he moved out of their home in 2013 (l.J. at I 0-l l ).

The respondent’s ability to live apart from her husband in Honduras is not a distinguishing factor

from the social group rationale articulated in Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, where the respondent

credibly testified that her husband refused to consent to a divorce and showed up unannounced

and uninvited at her home on several occasions, once touching her in a sexual manner and telling

her that he has a “right” to her as his wife. Additionally, the respondent testified that she was

unable to leave the relationship in Honduras for numerous cultural reasons, including her fear that

would take their son away from her and her belief that she was unable to obtain a divorce

because of ‘s ties to local government officials (l.J. at 3-4; Tr. at 51, 56, 64-73, 99, 105).

See Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, at 393 (recognizing that “a married woman’s inability to leave the

relationship may be informed by societal expectations about gender and subordination, as well as

legal constraints regarding divorce and separation.”). Further, that domestic violence is prevalent

in Honduras does not mean that the respondent’s proposed particular social group lacks discrete

boundaries, as the Immigration Judge determined (l.J. at 11).

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

EOIR has been known to pass off this type of judicial misconduct as “normal deviations” in judging. But, there is a difference between honest variances in judicial philosophies and approach, which are present to some extent in all diverse judicial systems and might produce differing results, and clearly biased and unfair judging. Judge Couch’s performance clearly fits within the latter.

To state the obvious:

All of these incidents were “specifically targeted.” Therefore, Judge Couch’s determination that they were part of “generalized violence” is clearly fiction.
Asylum applicants are not required to demonstrate “conclusive evidence” of anything. “Conclusive evidence” is not a legal standard in any part of asylum adjudication.

What should have happened:

Judge Couch should have been removed from each of these cases for bias;
Like U.S. Courts of Appeals, the BIA should have “outed” Judge Couch, by name, in published opinions to give both applicants and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals notice of his problematic adjudication of asylum cases.
If Judge Couch continued his biased and unfair judging he should have been 1) ordered by the BIA not to hear any asylum cases involving women from the Northern Triangle, and 2) told that if his performance in asylum cases did not improve, he would be referred to the EOIR disciplinary system for Immigration Judges based on actual bias against asylum applicants.

There is simply no room in a true Due Process system, particularly one where many respondents are unrepresented, for a biased, anti-asylum judge like Judge Couch. Is this “being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all?” No Way! Jeff Sessions, who often enunciates biased, anti-asylum positions, is part of the problem, not the solution! Due Process can’t be restored to the U.S. Immigration court system until Jeff Sessions and the USDOJ are removed from the process.

We need an independent judiciary capable of telling judges who perform like Judge Couch to correct their behavior immediately — in other words, “shape up or ship out.”

PWS

05-09-18

ABA NEWS: “Panelists debate how to fix a broken immigration court system”

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2018/05/panelists_debatehow.html

Expert panelists address immigration court reform at a discussion hosted by the ABA Commission on Immigration

America’s immigration justice system is broken. The case backlog is huge – nearly 700,000 immigrants and asylum-seekers are waiting for hearings or decisions – technology is old and there aren’t enough judges.

All five panelists agreed on that much at a May 4 discussion of how to reform immigration courts. They disagreed on who broke the system and how to fix it.

Several panelists accused Congress of underfunding the courts and the Justice Department of politicizing them. The head of the federal office that oversees immigration courts said he is working to cut down the backlog and hire more judges.

James McHenry, director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), said the agency will hire 150 additional judges and the hiring process will be much shorter than it has been. It previously took two years to hire new immigration judges. It now takes less than a year, McHenry said.

The discussion was sponsored by the ABA Commission on Immigration and held at the Washington, D.C., office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Three panelists – a sitting judge, a retired judge and an immigrant advocate – criticized EOIR’s handling of the courts. All three said the courts should be removed from the Justice Department and become independent.

Judge Denise Slavin of Baltimore, representing the National Association of Immigration Judges, said the immigration system today deserves a grade of D or D-minus. “The system is failing, there is no doubt about it,” she said.

The two biggest problems, she said, are the backlogs and public perception that the courts are unfair. The backlog, she said, was caused by “years of fiscal neglect” by both political parties. “Enforcement has been funded at levels that the courts have not,” she said.

She also accused Attorney General Jeff Sessions of politicizing the immigration courts. “It does not help matters much when our attorney general states to the press that we are being sent to the border to deport people. Not to hear cases, to deport people,” Slavin said.

She also criticized Sessions’ recent order that all immigration judges must clear at least 700 cases a year to get a “satisfactory” rating on their performance evaluations. No other American courts have such a quota, she said. “The only other court that we found that has that is in the People’s Republic of China,” Slavin said.

Retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt, an adjunct law professor at Georgetown University, accused the Justice Department of “aimless docket reshuffling” and have a “morbid fascination with increased immigration detention as a means of deterrence.” These actions “have turned our immigration court system back into a tool of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) enforcement,” he said.

He said the Trump administration has shown “unprecedented levels of open disdain and disrespect” for pro bono lawyers and immigration judges – “the two groups that are struggling to keep due process afloat in the immigration courts.”

He urged the audience to “join the new due process army and stand up for truth, justice and the American way in our failing, misused and politically abused United States immigration courts.” That earned the only applause of the morning.

Heidi Altman, policy director at the National Immigrant Justice Center, also accused the Justice Department of political interference in the immigration courts. “We are faced today with an administration that, at the very highest levels of leadership, is using rhetoric designed to reframe the goals and mission of our immigration court system,” she said. “The politicization of the immigration court system is particularly harmful because the courts are meant to be neutral bodies.”

McHenry said his agency is fixing the court system. Document e-filing will roll out nationally next year, he said. He denied Slavin’s accusation that judicial hiring is politicized. Merit hiring “will be the standard as long as I’m the director,” McHenry said.

In addition to hiring more judges, EOIR will shorten the backlog by using more teleconferencing, bringing back retired judges and re-examining all its policies, McHenry said. He said he sees no conflict between making the system more efficient and providing due process. “We believe judges can do both.”

The panel was moderated by Karen Grisez, special adviser to the ABA Commission on Immigration and public service counsel at Fried Frank.

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

Couldn’t be clearer: Jeff Sessions is a huge part of the problem and is incapable of being part of the solution. Yes, other Administrations have also helped destroy justice in the Immigration Courts. But, Sessions graphically demonstrates why Due Process can never be safe from attack as long as the DOJ is in charge.

PWS

05-07-18

This entry was posted on Mon May 07 12:49:14 CDT 2018 and filed under Top Stories and Commission on Immigration.

DAVID G. SAVAGE @ LA TIMES: REFUGEE ROULETTE CONTINUES – But, It’s Not What You Might Think – The “Outliers “ Are All On The Anti-Asylum Side In A System Systematically Biased Against Asylum Seekers From The Northern Triangle!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=73fad225-44bc-4757-97fa-b9369552de1e

By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — Central Americans who travel north to plead for entry at the U.S. border are taking their chances on an immigration system that is deeply divided on whether they can qualify for asylum if they are fleeing domestic violence or street crime, rather than persecution from the government.

The law in this area remains unclear, and the outcome of an asylum claim depends to a remarkable degree on the immigration judge who decides it.

And sitting atop the immigration court system is Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, a longtime advocate of much stricter limits on immigration who has recently taken an interest in reviewing asylum cases.

Lawyers say they are troubled by a legal system in which decisions turn so much on the views of individual judges.

Among the 34 immigration judges in Los Angeles, two granted fewer than 3% of the hundreds of asylum claims that came before them in the last five years, while another judge granted 71% of them. The disparity is even greater in San Francisco, where the judge’s rate of granting asylum claims ranged from 3% to 91%.

Overall, asylum seekers would do much better in San Francisco, where 32% were denied between 2012 and 2017, compared with a 68% denial rate in Los Angeles during the same period, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

This is not news to immigration lawyers. A decade ago, several law professors published a study called “Refugee Roulette” that revealed how asylum cases depend heavily on the views of individual judges. “The level of variation was shocking. And it hasn’t changed,” said Georgetown University professor Philip Schrag.

Judge Ashley Tabaddor from Los Angeles, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, discounts the statistics. “They’re not reliable,” she said, since judges may have very different caseloads. Some judges hear claims from people who have been detained for crimes, while others hear mostly claims from juveniles, she said.

“We are human. Different people can have different views about the same set of facts,” she said.

Several Los Angeles lawyers who have won or lost asylum cases in recent months said the identity of the judges played an important role. “It’s astounding how much variation there is from judge to judge. The system is in need of repair. It’s an embarrassment,” said Joseph D. Lee, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson.

He represented an El Salvador mother who fled north with her three children after gang members shot and killed her husband’s brother in front of her family and then threatened to do the same to her relatives.

“The Central American cases can be difficult to win. Some judges are pretty hostile to gang-related claims,” he said. His client’s claim was denied, and he plans to appeal. “Your chance of winning an asylum claim shouldn’t turn on the luck of the draw on which judge you get. But that is exactly how it works,” he said.

It may soon become much harder to win such claims. Under an unusual feature of the law, the attorney general, as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, also oversees the immigration courts. He can overrule their decisions and announce new rules that are binding on them.

In March, Sessions announced he would review the question of whether women fleeing domestic violence or other “private criminal activity” can rely on this to win asylum.

Last fall, Sessions spoke to a meeting of immigration judges and complained America’s “generous asylum” system has become “overloaded with fake claims.… The credible fear process was intended to be a lifeline for persons facing serious persecution. But it has become an easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States.”

In the last week, the American Bar Assn., faith-based groups and a coalition of immigration law professors have submitted “friend of the court” briefs to Sessions urging him not to reverse years of precedent involving women fleeing abuse and terror.

But veteran immigration judges are not optimistic. Sessions “just wants more people to be removed,” said Paul W. Schmidt, a retired immigration judge from Virginia and an outspoken critic of the attorney general. “He will make it a lot harder for Central Americans to get asylum.”

The dispute begins with the words of the asylum law. In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress adopted the United Nations standard and said people may seek asylum if they are “unable or unwilling to return” to their home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Under the law, asylum seekers are treated differently than, for example, refugees from a war-torn nation or immigrants seeking work.

Four of those terms in the asylum law are clear enough: race, religion, nationality and political opinion. But lawyers and judges have struggled to decide what counts as “membership in a particular social group.”

Courts have agreed that gays and lesbians can count as a social group, since they have suffered persecution in many societies. Some judges have also said women and girls fleeing sexual abuse and violence can seek asylum because their society views women as the property of men — and with no hope for protection from their government.

But the question becomes harder when considering the gang violence that has spread through some Central American countries. For example, people who testified against violent gangs or resisted them in other ways have sought asylum on the grounds they are members of a particularly endangered social group.

“These cases are challenging,” said Nareeneh Sohbatian, a Los Angeles lawyer at Winston & Strawn who supervises asylum claims. “We talk a lot about this. If they are targeted because of a gang, it can be difficult to show it was caused by their membership in a particular social group.”

Jenna Gilbert, managing attorney for Human Rights First in Los Angeles, said it is clear the asylum law does not protect people fleeing “generalized violence.” A claim “needs to be tied to the one of the protected categories,” she said. “The cases are very fact-dependent.”

But the odds of winning asylum are not good for Central Americans. In the last five years, China had the largest number of asylum seekers in the U.S. immigration courts, and only 20% of their claims were denied. Ethiopians did even better, with only 17% denied. By contrast, the highest denial rates arose from claims brought by natives of Jamaica (91%), the Philippines (90%), Mexico (88%), El Salvador (79%), Honduras (78%) and Guatemala (75%).

Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge who works at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter enforcement, said it is not surprising that Sessions will reconsider rulings on asylum in cases of domestic violence. “Right now, the law is very unclear. The phrase ‘particular social group’ is vague. A lot of these claims are compelling, but that doesn’t mean it is ‘persecution’ under the law. If a gang wants to recruit me, that’s not persecution.”

Last month, Sessions criticized a caravan of Central American asylum seekers approaching the border as a “deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system. There is no right to demand entry without justification. Smugglers and traffickers and those who lie or commit fraud will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

People who present an asylum claim at the border must only show they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they were to return home. Most asylum seekers are allowed to stay and make their claim.

Sessions said he would send more prosecutors and judges to the border area to resolve these claims quickly, rather than let them linger for many months or years.

Meanwhile, lawyers are also rushing to represent the asylum seekers. “Unfortunately, the Trump administration has waged a yearlong campaign to undermine asylum seekers and demonize those who only wish to live in safety with the families,” said Gilbert of Human Rights First. “We’re proud to assist these individuals who are fleeing unspeakable horror as they try to rebuild their lives.”

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

It’s really not that complex.

Under the BIA’s seminal precedent decision in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 1985) resisting gang recruitment is undoubtedly a characteristic that is “fundamental to identity” therefore making an individual a member of a “particular social group” (“PSG”) for asylum purposes.
- Undoubtedly, this conduct is threatening to a gang’s existence and power and is “at least one central reason” why forced recruitment and other forms of harm are used, among other things, to overcome this fundamental characteristic of the PSG.
- Therefore, the vast majority of those fleeing the Northern Triangle over the years because of various forms of resistance to gangs should have qualified for asylum under the Acosta test.
- However granting most of these cases might have been perceived as “opening the floodgates” and therefore career threatening to the BIA.
Following the “Ashcroft Purge,” which removed almost all of the Appellate Judges on the BIA who consistently stood up for the rights of migrants and asylum seekers, the BIA came up with bogus requirements of “particularity” and “social visibility/social distinction” to facilitate the denial of most asylum grants to individuals from the Northern Triangle.
- To do this, the BIA actually had to intentionally and disingenuously misapply criteria developed by the UNHCR to expand the protection available on the basis of a particular social group to instead restrict the group entitled to protection.
  - With the “due process” group of judges removed by Ashcroft, the BIA was able to get away with this with no visible internal resistance.
However even under the BIA’s new “bogus test” almost all experts agree that individuals resisting gang recruitment in countries where “go along to get along (and live)” is the norm would be both a well-defined “particularized” group and highly “socially distinct.”
- Consequently, the BIA and a number of anti-asylum Immigration Judges simply resorted to intentionally misconstruing country conditions and making biased “no nexus” findings or largely bogus “adverse credibility rulings” to keep the Northern Triangle grant rate unrealistically low.
- A great way to maximize denials is to hold individuals in detention or game the system so that they can’t obtain competent representation and/or “fail to appear” in Immigration Court thereby denying them the relief that the likely could win in a truly fair, unbiased system.
- Remarkably, the article quotes a source who espouses one of the many DHS “enforcement myths” — that forced recruitment can’t be a basis for asylum.
  - This is nonsense. Even under BIA’s intentionally restrictive precedents, the factual reasons why the respondent is being recruited (“nexus”) are important.
  - But, as a practical matter, no detained, unrepresented applicant has any realistic chance of understanding the law and developing the factual record necessary to support relief.
Also, in the Northern Triangle gangs have infiltrated the system to the extent that it is almost impossible to separate “political motives” from supposedly “criminal ones/”
- Individuals are forcibly recruited as punishment for a variety of reasons including family membership, having been witnesses against gangs, actual or imputed political opinion, and actual or imputed religious views.
- With competent lawyers, time to prepare, and an attentive Court of Appeals, most credible gang-related cases should qualify for asylum.
  - Without lawyers or the chance to develop and document a case, the chances for success are almost nil.
Even though the system is already heavily rigged against bona fide asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made it clear that he intends to further misconstrue the law to make it virtually impossible for refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle to qualify for asylum
Given the total corruption of the governments in the Northern Triangle and the serious infiltration by gangs, a fair process should result in a “blanket precedent” that would give almost everyone credibly fleeing gang threats in the Norther Triangle at least “temporary withholding of removal” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
No, the problem is not just that different Immigration Judges have different opinions. It’s that both the composition of the Immigration Court and the administrative case-law have been consciously “rigged” to deny those seeking protection from the Northern Triangle the protection to which they should be entitled under both U.S. and international law.
- Yes, I of all people certainly agree that judges can and should have differing views and philosophies,
- But, at some point, “differences” become “biases.”
- There is no way that those judges whose grant rates are below 10% can actually be applying asylum law in the generous manner set forth by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca or the BIA itself in Matter of Mogharrabi.
- Nor are they properly applying the “benefit of the doubt” as it’s supposed to be given according to the UNHCR in systems based on the 1952 Geneva Convention on Refugees.
- No, I wouldn’t “fire” any current Immigration Judges (although I might over time make everyone re-compete for their jobs in a true merit-based selection system). But we do need:
  - An independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, free from the pernicious political influence that the DOJ has been applying for many years.
  - A real merit selection system for future Immigration Judges that emphasizes expertise in immigration and asylum law and proven ability to deal fairly, effectively, and objectively with the public and which utilizes panels with some members from outside the Federal Government who practice before the Immigration Courts.
  - An Appellate Division that functions like a true independent Appellate Court, with a diverse membership, that will rein in those judges who are biased against asylum seekers and not applying Cardoza-Fonseca.
  - As I’ve pointed out before, things simply can’t happen under the highly biased, xenophobic Jeff Sessions. He is the “perfect storm” of why the Immigration Judiciary must be removed from the DOJ.
- As a historical aside, an unfortunate harbinger of things to come, the BIA actually misapplied their own “immutability/fundamental to identity” test to the facts in Acosta!
  - Of course “taxi drivers in San Salvador” were a PSG! Ask any New Yorker whether being a taxi driver is “fundamental to identity!”
  - Occupational identification, at all levels of society, is one of the most powerful indicators of self-identity and one that we seldom ask individuals to involuntarily change. Think that “truck drivers” aren’t a “PSG?” Just walk into the next Pilot Truck Stop you see on the Interstate in your little black judicial robe and shout that next to the Drivers” Lounge or rest rooms. I think you would find some “strong dissenters.”
  - Or how about going before a group of judges and telling them that being a judge isn’t “fundamental to identity!” I remember when a somewhat “tone-deaf” (but in retrospect, perhaps clairvoyant) invited speaker at one of our past Annual Immigration Judges’ Conferences referred to us as “just highly paid immigration inspectors working for the Attorney General.” He barely got out alive!
  - The BIA ruling in Acosta was “doubly absurd” in the context of 1985. The U.S. was then actively engaged in supporting the Government of El Salvador against the guerrillas. The BIA suggested that the taxi drivers in San Salvador could merely quit their jobs en masse or participate in the guerrillas taxi strike called by the guerrillas. Both of which would have crippled the country of El Salvador and seriously undermined the government we were supporting!
  - In short, the BIA has a long ugly history of twisting the law and the facts against legitimate asylum seekers, particularly those from Latin America.
    - Jeff Sessions, well-known for his long history of xenophobia, racially charged attitudes and actions, and bias against nearly every non-White-male-straight-right-wing-Christian social group in America is on the cusp of making things even worse for vulnerable refugees entitled to our protection by abusing his power as AG and stripping the hard earned asylum rights from abused women — who had to labor through 15 years of wrong BIA decisions, outrageous political maneuvering at the DOJ, and task avoidance at the BIA to win their hard-earned rights in A-R-C-G- in the first place!
    - Only cowards pick on the vulnerable and the dispossessed!

Eventually, long after I’m gone, I’m sure the “truth will out.” However, that will be little help to those currently being railroaded through the travesty that passes for justice in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts or those who have been denied justice in the past.

PWS

05-06-18

READ MY SPEECH TO THE ABA COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION: “CARICATURE OF JUSTICE: Stop The Attack On Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, and Human Decency In Our Captive, Dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Courts!”

CARICATURE OF JUSTICE:

Stop The Attack On Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, and Human Decency In Our Captive, Dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Courts

ABA COMMISISON ON IMMIGRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MAY 4, 2018

Thank you, Madam Moderator. I am pleased to be on this distinguished panel. And, I am particularly delighted that EOIR Director James McHenry has joined us.

Clearly, this isn’t about Director McHenry, who by my calculations was still in law school when the wheels began coming off the EOIR wagon. Also, as a former Senior Executive in past Administrations of both parties, I’m familiar with being sent out to “defend the party line” which sometimes proved to be “mission impossible.”

For me, no more disclaimers, no more bureaucratic BS, no more sugar coating, no more “party lines.” I’m going to “tell it like it is” and what you need to do to reestablish Due Processand fundamental fairnessas the only acceptable missionof the United States Immigration Courts.

It’s still early in the morning, but as Toby Keith would say, “It’s me, baby, with your wakeup call!”

Nobody, not even Director McHenry, can fix thissystem while it remains under the control of the DOJ. The support, meaningful participation, and ideas of the judges and staff who work within it and the public,particularly the migrants and their lawyers, who rely on it, is absolutely essential.

But, the current powers that be at the DOJ have effectively excludedthe real stakeholdersfrom the process. Worse,they have blamed the victims,you, the stakeholders, for the very problems created by political meddling at the DOJ. We’re on a path “designed and destined for failure.”

The decline of the Due Process mission at EOIR spans several Administrations. But, recently, it has accelerated into freefallas the backlog largely created by “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) by political officials at the DOJ over the past several Administrations and chronic understaffing have stripped U.S. Immigration Judges of all effective control over their dockets, made them appear feckless, and undermined public confidence in the fairness, independence, and commitment to individual Due Process of our Immigration Courts.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is there for one, and only one reason. To protect all individuals in the United States, not just citizens, from abuses by the Federal Government. In simple terms, it protects individuals appearing in Immigration Court from overstepping and overzealous enforcement actions by the DHS. It is notthere to insure either maximum removals by the DHS or satisfaction of all DHS enforcement goals.

Nor is it there to “send messages” – other than the message that individuals arriving in the United States regardless of statuswill be treated fairly and humanely. It serves solely to protect the rights of the individual, and definitelynotto fulfill the political agenda of any particular Administration.

The “EOIR vision” which a group of us in Senior Management developed under the late Director Kevin Rooney was to “be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Sadly, that noble vision is now dead and buried.

In fact, when I mentioned it to a recently hired EOIR attorney just prior to my retirement in 2016, she looked at me as if I were from outer space. Indeed, nobody in his or her right mind would seriously suggestthat today’s Immigration Courts are on track to meet that vision or that it motivates the actions of today’s DOJ.

No, instead, the Department of Justice’s ever-changing priorities, Aimless Docket Reshuffling, and morbid fascinationwith increased immigration detention as a means of deterrence have turned our Immigration Court system back into a tool of DHS enforcement. Obviously, it is long past time for an independentU.S. Immigration Court to be established outside the Executive Branch.

I work with a group of retired colleagues on various Amicus Briefs trying to defend and restore the concept of Due Process in Immigration Court. I doubt that it’s what any of us thought we’d be doing in retirement. As one of those colleagues recently said, it’s truly heartbreaking for those of us who devoted large segments of our professional lives to improving Due Process and fairness in the Immigration Courts to see what has become of those concepts and how they are being mocked and trashed on a daily basis in our Immigration Court system.

Those of us watching from retirement treat each day’s EOIR news with a mixture of disbelief, disappointment, anger, and total outrage. But, it drives and inspires us to actionto halt and reverse the travesty of justice now taking place in our US Immigration Courts.

I am one of the very few living participants in the 1983 creation of EOIR when it was spun off from the “legacy INS” to create judicial independence and better court administration during the Reagan Administration.

And, I can assure you that the Reagan Administration was not filled with “knee jerk liberal.” No, those were tough, but fair minded and practical, law enforcement officials. The other “survivors” who come to mind are former Director and BIA Judge Tony Moscato and then Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani, whom I understand is “otherwise occupied” these days.

Sadly, although EOIR appeared to have prospered for a period of time after its creation, it has now regressedto essentially the same problematic state it was in prior to 1983: lack of actual and perceived judicial independence; a weak appellate board that fails to function as an independent judiciary promoting due process; an unwieldy structure, poor administrative support, and outdated technology; a glacial one-sided judicial selection process that effectively has eliminated private sector attorneys with actual experience in representing immigrants and asylum applicants in court from the 21^stCentury Immigration Judiciary; and an overwhelming backlog with no end in sight.

Only now, the backlog is multiples of what it was back in 1983, nearing an astounding 700,000 cases! And additional problemshave arisen, including grotesque overuse of detention courts in obscure, inappropriate locations to discourage representation and inhibit individuals from fully exercising their legal rights; a lack of pro bono and low bono attorney resources; and new unprecedented levelsof open disdain and disrespect by Administration officials outside EOIR, at the DOJ, for the two groups that are keeping Due Process afloat in the Immigration Courts: private attorneys, particularly those of you who are pro bono and low bono attorneys representing vulnerable asylum applicants and the Immigration Judgesthemselves, who are demeaned by arrogant, ignorant officials in the DOJ who couldn’t do an Immigration Judge’s job if their lives depended on it.

But, wait, and I can’t make this stuff up, folks, it gets even worse! According to recent news reports, the DOJ is actually looking for ways to artificially “jack up” the backlog to over 1,000,000 cases – you heard me, one million cases– almost overnight. They can do this by taking cases that were properly “administratively closed” and removed from the Courts’ already overwhelmed “active dockets” and adding them to the backlog.

Administratively closed cases involve individuals who probably never should have been in proceedings in the first place – DACA recipients, TPS recipients, those waiting in line for U visa numbers, potential legal immigrants with applications pending at USCIS, and long-time law-abiding residents who work, pay taxes, are integrated into our communities, have family equities in the United States, and were therefore quite properly found to be low to non-existent “enforcement priorities” by the last Administration.

Some of you in the audience might be in one of these groups. They are your neighbors, friends, fellow-students, co-workers, fellow worshippers, employees, workmen, child care workers, and home care professionals., and other essential members of our local communities.

And you can bet, that rather than taking responsibility for this unnecessary cruelty, waste, fraud, and abuse of our court system, the DOJ will attempt to falsely shift blame to Immigration Judges and private attorneys like those of you in the audience who are engaged in the thankless job of defending migrants in the toxic atmosphere intentionally created by this Administration and its antics.

Expose this scam! Don’t let the DOJ get away with this type of dishonest and outrageous conduct aimed at destroying our Immigration Court system while disingenuously directing the blame elsewhere.

Basically, respondents’ attorneys and Immigration Judges have been reduced to the role of “legalgerbilson an ever faster moving treadmill” governed by the unrestrained whims and indefensible, inhumane “terror creating” so-called “strategies” of the DHS enforcement authorities. And, instead of supportingour Immigration Judges in their exercise of judicial independence and unbiased decision-making and nurturing and enhancing the role of the private attorneys, the DOJ, inexcusably, during this Administration has undercut them in every possible way.

For the last 16 years politicians of both parties have largely stood by and watched the unfolding Due Process disaster in the U.S. Immigration Courts without doing anything about it, and in some cases actually making it worse.

The notion that Immigration Court reform must be part of so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” is simply wrong. The Immigration Courts can and must be fixed sooner rather than later, regardless of what happens with overall immigration reform. It’s time to let your Senators and Representatives know that we need due process reforms in the Immigration Courts as one of our highest national priorities.

Folks, the U.S Immigration Court system is on the verge of collapse. And, there is every reason to believe that the misguided “enforce and detain to the max” policies being pursued by this Administration, at levels over which Director McHenry has no realistic control, will drive the Immigration Courts over the edge. When that happens, a large chunk of the entire American justice system and the due process guarantees that make American great and different from most of the rest of the world will go down with it.

Our Constitution and our protection laws, which adhere to international treaties that we have signed, are not“loopholes.” Treating migrants fairly, humanely, and in accordance with the rule of law does notshow “weakness.” It shows our strengthas a nation.

There is a bogus narrative being spread by this Administration that refugees who are fleeing for their lives from dangerous situations in the Northern Triangle, that we had a hand in creating, are mere “economic migrants” not deserving of our protection. Untrue!

Migrants should be given a reasonable chance to get lawyers; an opportunity to prepare, document, and present their cases in a non-coercive setting; access to a truly independent, unbiased judge who is committed to guaranteeing individual rights and the fair application of U.S. protection laws in the generous spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cardoza-Fonsecaand the BIA’s oft cited but seldom followed precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi; and a fair decision, preferably in writing, without being placed under duress by unnecessary, wasteful, inhumane detention and separation of families. This Court System should not be run by a Cabinet Member who has already announced his predetermination of the preferred outcomes and his total disdain for migrants and their lawful representatives.

Once fully documented, many of these cases probably could be granted either as asylum cases or as withholding of removal cases under the CAT in short hearings or by stipulation if the law were applied in a fair and unbiased manner. Those who don’t qualify for protection after a fair and impartial adjudication, and a chance to appeal administratively and to the Article III Courts, can be returned under the law.

This Administration and particularly this DOJ depend on individuals notbeing competently represented and therefore not being able to assert their rights to either legal status or fair treatment. But, there are still real,truly independent Article III Courts out there that can intervene and put an end to this “deportation railroad” and its trampling on our Constitution, our laws, our values, and our dignity as human beings. For, friends, if we are unwilling to stand up against tyranny and protect the legal and Constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us, like asylum seekers, then our ownrights and liberties as Americans mean nothing!

I urge each of youin this audience to join the “New Due Process Army” and stand upfor “truth, justice, and the American way” in our failing, misused, and politically abused United States Immigration Courts and to continue the fight, for years or decades if necessary, until this systemfinally is forced to deliveron its noble but unfulfilled promise of “being the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Harm to one is harm to all! Due process forever!

Thank you, Madam Moderator, I yield back my time.

(04-04-18)

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

ADMISSION: Notwithstanding the last sentence, I went “overtime,” so there actually was no time to “yield back.”

PWS

05-04-18

DAVID LEONHARDT @ NYT: FROM FORD TO NOW – HOW THE CONCEPT OF “NEUTRAL JUSTICE” & THE AGs WHO BELIEVED IT DISAPPEARED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITHOUT A TRACE! – Today’s DOJ Offers A “Disingenuous Charade” Of “Equal Justice For All!” — “It undermines the idea of equal justice. It tells Americans that our legal system is merely another instrument of partisan battle, that our prosecutors and law-enforcement officers are political hacks in disguise.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/29/opinion/the-sense-of-justice-that-were-losing.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Leonhardt writes:

Edward Levi and Griffin Bell were very different men. One was the son and grandson of rabbis, a legal scholar whose life revolved around the University of Chicago. The other was a country lawyer who became a master operator in the Atlanta legal world. One was appointed to high office by a Republican president, the other by a Democrat.

Yet for all their differences, Levi and Bell came to share a mission. Together, they created the modern Department of Justice and, more important, the modern American idea of the rule of law.

They were the first two attorneys general appointed after Watergate — Levi by Gerald Ford and Bell by his fellow Georgian Jimmy Carter. And they both set out to refashion the Justice Department into the least political, most independent part of the executive branch. “Our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose,” Levi said. It cannot become “anyone’s weapon.” Bell described the department as “a neutral zone in the government, because the law has to be neutral.”

They understood Richard Nixon’s deepest sins: He saw the law as an instrument not of justice but power. Yet Levi and Bell also knew that Nixon hadn’t been the only problem. Other administrations had also misused the law — investigating enemies and rivals, like civil-rights leaders. So Levi and Bell made sure that the crisis of Watergate didn’t go to waste.

They changed the rules for F.B.I. investigations. They put in place strict protocols for communication between the White House and Justice Department. They made clear — with support from Ford and Carter — that the president must have a unique relationship with the Justice Department.

“It’s perfectly natural and fine for the president and others at the White House to have interactions with the Justice Department on broad policy issues,” Sally Yates, the former deputy attorney general, told me last week. “What’s not O.K. is for the White House, and especially the president, to have any involvement with criminal prosecutions. That really turns the rule of law on its head.”

No administration has been perfect in the pursuit of neutral justice, but every one from Ford’s through Barack Obama’s stayed true to the post-Watergate overhaul. They allowed uncomfortable investigations to proceed unimpeded. They did not treat the law as a weapon.

Then came President Trump.

The story of Levi and Bell highlights how fragile the rule of law is. Much of it does not depend on the Constitution or legislation. It depends on political culture and habits. And that culture and those habits can change. In the sweep of history, the reforms of Levi and Bell are still quite young.

The most obvious ways that Trump is undermining the law involve the Russia investigation. Like Nixon, Trump is enraged that anyone in his administration would investigate anyone else in it. But Russia is only one part of the problem: Trump really does view the law as a weapon, to protect his allies and strike his enemies.

The incomplete list includes: He suggested an end to the prosecution of someone he likes (Joe Arpaio) and the start of prosecutions of people he hates (Hillary Clinton, James Comey). Trump defended his personal lawyer by claiming that the government regularly fabricates evidence. Trump has dragged federal prosecutors into politics, bringing one of them — John Huber, Utah’s top federal prosecutor — to the White House to give a speech lobbying for new immigration laws.

Other presidents did none of this. It undermines the idea of equal justice. It tells Americans that our legal system is merely another instrument of partisan battle, that our prosecutors and law-enforcement officers are political hacks in disguise.

The Trump attacks on the justice system demand a stronger response. The media can’t become numb. His aides and appointees need to stand up to him more often — rather than, for example, assenting to a baseless new inquiry into Clinton, overseen by none other than Huber.

And other Republicans, in Congress and private life, should summon more courage. “We don’t see senior Republican officials, either current or past, defending the Department of Justice and the F.B.I.,” John Bellinger III, a veteran of the George W. Bush administration, said last week at a Georgetown University conference on democratic norms. “It’s just inexplicable.”

Where are the Republican defenders of law and order? Where are you, John Ashcroft? What about C. Boyden Gray, Larry Thompson, Paul Clement, Ted Olson, Susan Collins and Ben Sasse? At least a few of them should be willing to take a little heat in defense of the American system of justice.

In retrospect, Levi almost seemed to be pleading with them in his 1977 goodbye speech as attorney general: “We have shown that the administration of justice can be fair, can be effective, can be nonpartisan. These are goals which can never be won for all time. They must always be won anew.”

You can join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook. I am also writing a daily email newsletter and invite you to subscribe.

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

Yup! And, in some cases, the disguise is pretty transparent — perhaps the only “transparency” in today’s DOJ.

This time period comes close to spanning my career in the DOJ. I worked for both Attorney General Ed Levi and Attorney General Griffin Bell (“known on the “5th Floor” of the DOJ as “Judge Bell”).

I don’t have a recollection of personally meeting Attorney General Levi. However, I did have a strong impression of his integrity because he disqualified himself from a key BIA disbarment case being then being written by my office mate Lauri Steven Filppu who later served with me as an Appellate Judge at the BIA.

The case was Matter of Koden, 15 I&N Dec. 739 (BIA 1974; A.G., BIA 1976), aff’d , 564 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1977). The conflict apparently involved the fact that Levi’s wife served on the board of a charitable organization in Chicago where Koden had worked as an attorney.

Compare that with Jeff Sessions who continues to interfere in BIA cases by certification notwithstanding the obvious conflict of interest and ethically required disqualification stemming from his many pejorative (often untrue and/or distorted) statements about migrants exercising their legal rights, particularly asylum seekers.

I knew Judge Bell better. As INS Deputy General Counsel I accompanied my then boss General Counsel (now Judge) David Crosland to a number of meetings in Bell’s office. I believe that our response to the Iranian Hostage situation was the main topic. I remember him as having a very pronounced Southern accent and being just what I expected of a former judge — concerned with the fair enforcement of the law.

Those days are long gone. The DOJ now appears to have reverted to what it was in the Nixon Administration, when Attorney General John Mitchell actually plotted Federal Crimes from his office.

PWS

04-30-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Join the New Due Process Army! Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

The attorney general has the power to set immigration precedents. But attorneys general rarely used that power — until now.

Sessions’s self-referrals could affect a large portion of immigration court cases

Sessions’s meddling might not make courts more efficient, but it will make them more brutal

Related posts:

Related posts:

Jeff Sessions’s breathtaking policy of malice toward migrants

Related posts:

Related posts:

FOIA results: evidence of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch’s shocking prejudgment of all domestic violence asylum claims

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: