Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) – Page 96

HEAR JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR, PRESIDENT OF THE NAIJ TESTIFY LIVE BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 18, 2018 ABOUT THE APPALLING STATE OF “JUSTICE” IN OUR UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURTS UNDER TRUMP & SESSIONS!

From: John Manley [mailto:jmanleylaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:34 PM
To: AILA Southern California Chapter Distribution List <southca@lists.aila.org>
Subject: [southca] IJ Tabaddor to testify in Congress Wednesday

Colleagues,

As currently scheduled, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor is expected to testify this Wednesday at 2:30PM EST 11:30AM PST. at a hearing on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System

Here is the link to the event, if you want to watch it: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/strengthening-and-reforming-americas-immigration-court-system

—

John M. Manley
Attorney at Law
11400 W Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 597-4590
Fax: (310) 597-4591
www.johnmanley.net;
email: jmanleylaw@gmail.com

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

PWS

04-16-18

WASHPOST: SEN DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA) HITS A “HOME RUN” WITH OP-ED — NO, RIGHTS OF CHILD ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE NOT “LOOPHOLES” IN OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS! — What’s Happened To Our Common Sense & Humanity?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protecting-defenseless-children-is-not-an-immigration-loophole/2018/04/13/11bf9012-3e64-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html?utm_term=.8c9ed9210908

Sen. Feinstein writes:

Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, represents California in the U.S. Senate.

I remember watching the nightly television news in the 1990s and seeing a 15-year-old Chinese girl trembling before a U.S. immigration judge. Despite having committed no crime, she was shackled and sobbing. She couldn’t speak English, and it was clear she had no understanding of what the judge was saying or what would happen to her.

Her parents had sent her to the United States in the cargo hold of a container ship because she had been born in violation of China’s rigid family-planning laws — and was therefore denied citizenship, access to health care and education.

By the time the girl appeared before the immigration judge, she had already been detained for eight months. Even more shocking: After she was granted political asylum, she was detained for four more months before she was released.

This situation would not be allowed to occur today because Congress has enacted laws to provide basic humanitarian protections to unaccompanied immigrant children.

The Trump administration recently reignited its attacks on these protections, with the president going so far as to call laws that protect helpless children “loopholes.”

The administration says these laws prevent immigrant children from being removed from the country, when in fact the goal is to ensure that these children are detained for as little time as possible and only in an appropriate setting, they receive adequate food and water, and that they are given the opportunity to apply for asylum.

Under these laws, each child has a right to make their case before a trained asylum officer. If the hearing demonstrates the need for protection by admission to the United States, we’re obligated to provide it. And in cases where a child does not qualify for asylum or other forms of relief, they’re returned safely to their home country.

I know the intent of these laws because I authored two of them. They are not loopholes.

It’s important to understand why Congress acted to thus ensure basic human dignity for children.

The story of the Chinese girl I saw on television was not unique — mistreatment of child immigrants was widespread. Another young girl who fled China was detained in a facility that also held minors who had been convicted of murder and rape. Despite never having violated criminal law or been accused of a crime, she was routinely handcuffed and strip-searched.

A young boy who fled Colombia after being targeted for recruitment by Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia guerrillas was held in the same detention facility for six months.

Children as young as 4 were held in secure prisons, isolated and forced to wear prison uniforms and shackles. Some were even placed in solitary confinement, even though they weren’t accused of any crime.

These stories, which were detailed by Human Rights Watch, illustrate decades of government mistreatment of children, and they were the genesis of laws Congress passed to guarantee minimum requirements for treating children humanely.

A key first step toward reform came in 1997, after years of litigation over treatment of unaccompanied minors, with a settlement called the Flores agreement. Among its provisions were requirements that the government release detained children to an adult as soon as possible, hold children who can’t be released in appropriate facilities and ensure that all facilities meet humane standard

Three years later, I introduced the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act and was able to get portions of the bill included in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.

The two laws, combined with the Flores agreement, are intended to ensure children don’t fall through the cracks of a system that processes thousands of them each year.

They require that children under 18 be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interests. Rather than holding children in detention facilities that also hold adults or criminal juvenile offenders, preference is given to releasing them to family members or appropriate sponsors, such as a family friend.

Such placements ensure that children aren’t held in indefinite detention pending resolution of their cases, which can sometimes take years. They also mean that taxpayers aren’t paying for that detention.

These aren’t loopholes, they are basic principles of common human decency. And to demonize and politicize these children is appalling.

Contrary to the picture painted by this administration, current policies don’t guarantee a child will be able to remain in the United States. Nor do these policies mean dangerous individuals are being released onto our streets.

The Trump administration’s efforts to repeal protections for children are based on an ignorance of history. The only effect of repeal would be more children held in unsafe conditions at exorbitant costs to the taxpayer.

I will oppose any efforts to change these laws, and I call upon my colleagues in Congress to join me in resisting efforts to roll back protections for immigrant children.

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

Of all the depraved xenophobic, White Nationalist, racist ravings of Trump, Sessions, Homan, Neilsen, Kelly, Miller, Goodlatte, Cotton, and other GOP restrictionists, the war on defenseless children has to be the most totally despicable! Most of these kids are fleeing genuine dangers in their home countries. The real problem is that the US has intentionally, for political reasons, twisted refugee law so as to not recognize their legitimate status as refugees and asylees.

As someone said at an Asylum Conference I recently attended, the BIA must be the only 15 so-called “asylum experts” in the world who don’t recognize that those fleeing gang recruitment in the Northern Triangle fit squarely within the “particular social group” classification for asylum protection.

Even if they weren’t a direct fit, these children qualify for relief under the Convention Against Torture or should be given another type of humanitarian relief such as TPS or Deferred Enforced Departure. Screening them for background and rapidly admitting them into the U.S. in some status would prevent them from becoming part of the current politically created Immigration Court “backlog,” actually caused primarily by gross mismanagement, intentionally skewed anti-asylum legal interpretations, and political manipulation by this and past Administrations.

Of course the US could absorb them all, and prosper by doing so! Indeed, we’ve absorbed approximately 11 million individuals outside the system who have largely been a boon to our economy and our society. The real problem here is the White Nationalists who deny the reality of human migration and the inevitability of changing demographics, not the migrants themselves.

PWS

04-14-18

HON. ROBERT VINIKOOR TELLS US EXACTLY WHY QUOTAS ARE A TOXIC IDEA FOR US IMMIGRATION COURTS — One Of the “Best Ever” Tells It Like It Is!

https://www.mmhpc.com/2018/04/take-it-from-a-former-judge-quotas-for-immigration-judges-are-a-bad-idea/

Judge (Ret.) Vinikoor writes:

Take it from a former judge: Quotas for Immigration Judges are a Bad Idea.

On March 30^th, the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Sessions announced that Immigration Judges will now be subject to case completion quotas. This unprecedented change will be effective October 1, 2018, and starting then, immigration judges will be subject to performance reviews (tied to job security and raises) that focus on meaningless numbers and disregards due process. As a recently retired immigration judge, I believe this decision is short sighted and not fair to judges, or to the parties that appear in court on either side (government or immigrant and their families), or to our legal system.

Attorney General Sessions says that the current back log in immigration courts is a primary reason for this entirely new quota system; however, I know from experience that quotas will not reduce backlog and will in fact increase our current backlog problems. About 15 years ago, former Attorney General John Ashcroft attempted to reduce backlogs at the Board of Immigration Appeals (the court that hears all the appeals from immigration judges’ decisions). Ashcroft eliminated the Board’s authority to review de novo (or, review as if hearing the case for the first time) decisions of the Immigration Judges with regard to findings of fact and determination of an immigrant respondent’s credibility. As a result, the Board began issuing summary two page decisions, with little or no legal analysis. Those shortened decisions did reduce the amount of time cases were pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, but had the opposite effect on the actual backlog of immigration cases as thousands of petitions for review were filed throughout the country with the Courts of Appeal. Given the increase in the number of filings and the decrease in the thoroughness of the decision, the Courts of Appeal became extremely hostile to the quality, professionalism and final agency work product of the immigration court judges and particularly the Board. Many cases were remanded, or sent back to immigration judges, for new hearings based on perceived mistakes at the trial level or at the Board, resulting in further delays in court processing times and the issuance of final decisions.

Attorney General Sessions would do well to learn from his predecessor’s mistake. Sessions’ mandate that the judges decide cases “faster” and more “efficiently” ignores the fact that the immigration court judges are currently rendering decisions in a timely manner. However, immigration judges must also follow the constraints of due process, which means giving both sides an opportunity to present their case and then for the judge to fully consider the applicable law and issue a thoughtful decision. A system that evaluates immigration judge performance based on how fast they can complete cases will certainly undermine the quality and thoroughness of decisions. Current law and our legal system requires full and fair hearings, followed by a well-reasoned decision that is consistent with the facts and relevant law. An immigration judge should be evaluated based on quality not quantity. Moreover, quotas will likely produce hastily-made decisions and result in grave errors. As we have seen before, poor decisions will directly result in more appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Courts of Appeal, causing more delays and running contrary to the goals of the Attorney General.

An equally troubling consequence of the case completion requirement is the possibility of a judge’s decision being influenced by factors outside the facts of the case. For example, the court is asked for a continuance in many cases to await action or decision by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on pending applications. Such applications are “u” visas for crime victims, I-601A waivers for unlawful presence, I-130 visa petitions for family members of residents or citizens, or I-751 applications for certain individuals married to US citizens. By law, immigration judges cannot make a decision on these applications; USCIS has sole jurisdiction to make those decisions. To date, case law supports judges granting continuances, when it makes sense, in circumstances like these. However, under the new quota system, a judge could be influenced to deny a request for a continuance he or she otherwise would have reasonably granted, solely because of his concern about his completion numbers and keeping his job. That is not justice; it seems more like an assembly line. Similarly, in some cases a continuance may be necessary because of the need for additional evidence or because of a witness’s unavailability. But now, a judge will be hesitant to grant such a continuance if she is concerned about his completion numbers, salary, or job security.

Additionally, an arbitrary case completion number of 700 ignores the wide disparity of cases appearing before the immigration courts. Unrepresented cases at the border or cases in detention often are completed in expedited fashion where little or no relief is sought. However, in many of the interior courts, such as in Chicago where I was a judge, most applicants are represented, present multiple witnesses including experts, and submit sophisticated legal arguments requiring extended trial time. These interior courts complete far less merit cases than at the border, yet the decisions often involve more complex legal issues. To provide context, I’d guess that judges in the interior, working the same hours and pace as judges on the border, probably complete 400 or 500 cases per year. To average the nationwide completion rate completely ignores the wide disparity of decision complexity required in different parts of the country.

Finally, the new quotas are an affront to due process and our legal system. Immigration judges are required by law and the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment to exercise due process in all cases, considering all the facts of case. Judges currently do this and issue decisions in an expeditious manner as soon as possible; judges do not purposefully stall cases. Putting artificial pressure on judges to complete cases more quickly is wrong; Attorney General Sessions is essentially asking the judges to short cut or violate due process, by disregarding thoroughness, fairness, and litigants’ opportunity to be heard, and abandon current law-abiding procedures for case adjudication.

In short, I believe the administration’s plan to impose numeric quotas on immigration judges will not speed up “deportations” if this is their goal, and may result in unforeseen consequences that actual delay the fair hearing process that presently exists.

Judge Vinikoor joined the law firm of Minsky, McCormick & Hallagan, P.C., in 2017 after serving over 30 years as an Immigration Judge.

Judge Vinikoor was appointed as an Immigration Judge in January 1984. During his long tenure on the immigration bench, Judge Vinikoor has authored numerous precedent deciding cases covering topics such as crimes involving moral turpitude, aggravated felony offenses, frauds committed at time of entry and/or adjustment and claims to U.S. citizenship. Judge Vinikoor’s decisions helped define the age limitations for K-4 beneficiaries seeking adjustment of status, the use of Section 245(i) to waive inadmissibility, and the scope of numerous discretionary waivers. A number of published opinions have addressed Judge Vinikoor’s expert analysis in cases involving burden of proof, marriage fraud, and Section 216(c)(4) evidence. During the past 30 years Judge Vinikoor has heard evidence in asylum cases from around the world. His decisions have led to a better understanding of the scope and evidence needed to qualify as a “refugee” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Upon his retirement from the bench, he was the second most senior Immigration Judge in the country.

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

Prior to his retirement in 2017, my good friend and colleague Judge Bob Vinikoor was one of the most widely respected, indeed revered, U.S. Immigration Judges. Indeed, at the time of his retirement, he was #2 in seniority among all U.S. Immigration Judges.

He was widely known for his fairness, scholarship, kindness, practical wisdom, humor, and ability to “move” a docket while respecting everyone’s rights. In a rational judicial system, those in charge would be looking for a way to “clone” someone like Judge Vinikoor and use his knowledge and skills to teach and mentor younger judges, rather than letting him pass into retirement.

In the “Age of Trump & Sessions” — with a blatant effort underway to “dumb down” the U.S. Immigration Judiciary and reduce it to an assembly line operation — it’s highly unlikely that there will be more Judge Vinikoors. That’s a huge loss for everyone, but particularly for the cause of justice in America and for those who depend on the Immigration Court system to deliver potentially life saving Due Process and fairness!

PWS

04-12-18

FORMER NAIJ PRESIDENT JUDGE DANA LEIGH MARKS SPEAKS OUT AGAINST JUDICIAL QUOTAS! — “The measure of a good judge is his or her fairness, not the number of cases he or she can do in a day.” – This Seems Obvious – So Why Is “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions Being Allowed to Run Roughshod Over Justice In Our U.S. Immigration Courts?

http://fortune.com/2018/04/09/immigration-judge-quotas-department-of-justice/

Judge Marks writes in Fortune:

Immigration judges are the trial-level judges who make the life-changing decisions of whether or not non-citizens are allowed to remain in the United States. They are facing a virtual mountain of cases: almost 700,000 for about 335 judges in the United States. The work is hard. The law is complicated. The stories people share in court are frequently traumatic and emotions are high because the stakes are so dire. Because these are considered civil cases, people are not provided attorneys and must pay for one, find a volunteer, or represent themselves.

In a move that the Department of Justice claims is intended to reduce this crushing backlog, the DOJ is moving forward with a plan to require judges to meet production quotas and case completion deadlines to be rated as satisfactory in order to keep their jobs. This misguided approach will have the opposite effect.

One cannot measure due process by numbers. The primary job of an immigration judge is to decide each case on its own merits in a fair and impartial way. That is the essence of due process and the oath of office we take. Time metrics simply have no place in that equation. Quality measurements are reasonable, and immigration judge performance should be evaluated, but by judicial standards, which are transparent to the public and expressly prohibit quantitative measures of performance. The imposition of quotas and deadlines forces a judge to choose between providing due process and pushing cases to closure without considering all the necessary evidence.

If quotas and deadlines are applied, judicial time and energy will be diverted to documenting our performance, rather than deciding cases. We become bean-counting employees instead of fair and impartial judges. Our job security will be based on whether or not we meet these unrealistic quotas and our decisions will be subjected to suspicion as to whether any actions we take, such as denying a continuance or excluding a witness, are legally sound or motivated to meet a quota. Under judicial canons of ethics, no judge should hear a case in which he or she has a financial interest. By tying the very livelihood of a judge to how quickly a case is pushed through the system, you have violated the fundamental rule of ensuring an impartial decision maker is presiding over the case.

These measures will undermine the public’s faith in the fairness of our courts, leading to a huge increase in legal challenges that will flood the federal courts. Instead of helping, these doubts will create crippling delays in our already overburdened courts. If history has taught us any lessons, it is that similar attempts to streamline have ultimately resulted in an increase in the backlog of cases.

The unacceptable backlogs at our courts are due to decades of inadequate funding for the courts and politically motivated interference with docket management. The shifting political priorities of various administrations have turned our courts into dog and pony shows for each administration, focusing the court’s scant resources on the cases ‘du jour,’—e.g., children or recent border crossers—instead of cases that were ripe for adjudication.

The solution to the delays that plague our courts is not to scapegoat judges. The solution is two-part: more resources and structural reform. We need even more judges and staff than Congress has provided. Additionally, the immigration courts must be taken out of the Department of Justice, as the mission of an independent and neutral court is incompatible with the role of a law enforcement agency. This latest, misguided decision to impose quotas and performance metrics makes that conclusion clear and highlights the urgent need for structural reform. The measure of a good judge is his or her fairness, not the number of cases he or she can do in a day.

Dana Leigh Marks is president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges and has been a full-time immigration judge in San Francisco since 1987. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent the author’s personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.

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

For those of you who don’t know her, my friend and colleague Dana is not just “any” U.S. Immigration Judge. In addition to her outstanding service as a Immigration Judge and as the President of the NAIJ, as a young attorney, then known as Dana Marks Keener, she successfully argued for the respondent in the landmark Supreme Court case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).

That case for the first time established the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum seekers over the objections of the U.S. Government which had argued for a higher “more likely than not” standard. Ironically, it is exactly that generous treatment for asylum seekers mandated by the Supreme Court, which has taken more than four decades to come anywhere close to fruition, that Sessions is aiming to unravel with his mean-spirited White Nationalist inspired restrictionist agenda at the DOJ.

Interestingly, I was in Court listening to the oral argument in Cardoza because as the then Acting General Counsel of the “Legacy INS” I had assisted the Solicitor General’s Office in formulating the “losing” arguments in favor of the INS position that day.

Due Process Forever! Jeff Sessions Never! Join the New Due Process Army and stand up against the White Nationalist restrictionist attack on America and our Constitution!

PWS

04-11-18

DIANNE SOLIS @ DALLAS MORNING NEWS DETAILS GONZO’S ALL-OUT ASSAULT ON INDEPENDENCE OF U.S.IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND DUE PROCESS IN OUR IMMIGRATION COURTS –“Due process isn’t making widgets,” Schmidt said. “Compare this to what happens in regular courts. No other court system operates this way. Yet the issues in immigration court are life and death,” he said, referring to asylum cases.”

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/04/10/immigration-judges-attorneys-worry-sessions-quotas-will-cut-justice-clogged-court-system

Dianne writes:

“A case takes nearly 900 days to make its way through the backlogged immigration courts of Texas. The national average is about 700 days in a system sagging with nearly 700,000 cases.

A new edict from President Donald Trump’s administration orders judges of the immigration courts to speed it up.

Now the pushback begins.

Quotas planned for the nation’s 334 immigration judges will just make the backlog worse by increasing appeals and questions about due process, says Ashley Tabaddor, Los Angeles-based president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

Quotas of 700 cases a year, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, were laid out in a performance plan memo by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They go into effect October 1.

Some have even called the slowdown from the backlog “de facto amnesty.”

“We believe it is absolutely inconsistent to apply quotas and deadlines on judges who are supposed to exercise independent decision-making authority,” Tabaddor said.

“The parties that appear before the courts will be wondering if the judge is issuing the decision because she is trying to meet a deadline or quota or is she really applying her impartial adjudicative powers,” she added.

. . . .

Faster decision-making could cut the backlog, but it also has many worried about fairness.

The pressure for speed means immigrants would have to move quickly to find an attorney. Without an attorney, the likelihood of deportation increases. Nationally, about 58 percent of immigrants are represented by attorneys, according to Syracuse’s research center. But in Texas, only about a third of the immigrants have legal representation.

Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who served as chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals for immigration courts for six years, says he saw decisions rendered quickly and without proper legal analysis, leaving it necessary for many cases to be sent back to the immigration court for what he called “a redo.”

“Due process isn’t making widgets,” Schmidt said. “Compare this to what happens in regular courts. No other court system operates this way. Yet the issues in immigration court are life and death,” he said, referring to asylum cases.

Schmidt said there are good judges who take time with cases, which is often needed in asylum pleas from immigrants from countries at war or known for persecution of certain groups.

But he also said there were “some not-very-good judges” with high productivity.

Ramping up the production line, Schmidt said, will waste time.

“You will end up with more do-overs. Some people are going to be railroaded out of the country without fairness and due process,” Schmidt said.

. . . .

“It doesn’t make any sense to squeeze them,” said Huyen Pham, a professor at Texas A&M University School of Law in Fort Worth. “When you see a lot more enforcement, it means the immigration court will see a lot more people coming through.”

Lawyers and law school professors say the faster pace of deportation proceedings by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spells more trouble ahead. Immigration courts don’t have electronic filing processes for most of the system. Many judges must share the same clerk.

For decades, the nation’s immigration courts have served as a lynchpin in a complex system now under intense scrutiny. Immigration has become a signature issue for the Trump administration.

Five years ago, the backlog was about 344,000 cases — about half today’s amount. It grew, in part, with a rise in Central Americans coming across the border in the past few years. Most were given the opportunity to argue before an immigration judge about why they should stay in the U.S.

This isn’t the first time the judges have faced an administration that wants them to change priorities. President Barack Obama ordered that the cases of Central American unaccompanied children to be moved to the top of docket.

“Our dockets have been used as a political tool regardless of which administration is in power and this constant docket reshuffling, constant reprioritization of cases has only increased the backlog,” Tabaddor said.

The quota edict was followed by a memo to federal prosecutors in the criminal courts with jurisdiction over border areas to issue more misdemeanor charges against immigrants entering the country unlawfully. Sessions’ memo instructs prosecutors “to the extent practicable” to issue the misdemeanor charges for improper entry. On Wednesday, Sessions is scheduled to be in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to speak on immigration enforcement at a border sheriffs’ meeting.

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

Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” — for the record, I’m a retired member of the NAIJ) hits the nail on the head. This is about denying immigrants their statutory and Constitutional rights while the Administration engages in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) an egregious political abuse that I have been railing against ever since I retired in 2016.

Judge Tabaddor’s words are worth repeating:

“Our dockets have been used as a political tool regardless of which administration is in power and this constant docket reshuffling, constant reprioritization of cases has only increased the backlog,” Tabaddor said.

In plain terms this is fraud, waste, and abuse that Sessions and the DOJ are attempting to “cover up” by dishonestly attempting to “shift the blame” to immigrants, attorneys, and Immigration Judges who in fact are the victims of Session’s unethical behavior. If judges “pedaling faster” were the solution to the backlog (which it isn’t) that would mean that the current backlog was caused by Immigration Judges not working very hard, combined with attorneys and immigrants manipulating the system. Sessions has made various versions of this totally bogus claim to cover up his own “malicious incompetence.”

Indeed, by stripping Immigration Judges of authority effectively to manage their dockets; encouraging mindless enforcement by DHS; terminating DACA without any real basis; insulting and making life more difficult for attorneys trying to do their jobs of representing respondents; attacking legal assistance programs for unrepresented migrants; opening more “kangaroo courts” in locations where immigrants are abused in detention to get them to abandon their claims for relief; threatening established forms of protection (which in fact could be used to grant more cases at the Asylum Office and by stipulation — a much more sane and legal way of reducing dockets); canceling “ready to hear” cases that then are then “orbited” to the end of the docket to send Immigration Judges to detention courts where the judges sometimes did not have enough to do and the cases often weren’t ready for fair hearings; denying Immigration Judges the out of court time necessary to properly prepare cases and write decisions; and failing to emphasize the importance of quality and due process in appellate decision-making at the BIA, Sessions is contributing to and accelerating the breakdown of justice and due process in the U.S. Immigration Courts.

PWS

04-11-18

GONZO’S WORLD: LATEST DUE PROCESS OUTRAGE: ATTACK ON LEGAL RIGHTS PROGRAM IN IMMIGRATION COURT — Dumping On The Most Vulnerable & Those Trying To Help Them Is A Gonzo Specialty! — “This is a blatant attempt by the administration to strip detained immigrants of even the pretense of due-process rights,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, one of the organizations that offers the legal services with Vera.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/justice-dept-to-halt-legal-advice-program-for-immigrants-in-detention/2018/04/10/40b668aa-3cfc-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.c604b3ff4532

Maria Sacchetti reports for the Washington Post:

The U.S. immigration courts will temporarily halt a program that offers legal assistance to detained foreign nationals facing deportation while it audits the program’s cost-effectiveness, a federal official said Tuesday.

Officials informed the Vera Institute of Justice that starting this month it will pause the nonprofit’s Legal Orientation Program, which last year held information sessions for 53,000 immigrants in more than a dozen states, including California and Texas.

The federal government will also evaluate Vera’s “help desk,” which offers tips to non-detained immigrants facing deportation proceedings in the Chicago, Miami, New York, Los Angeles and San Antonio courts.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which runs the Justice Department’s immigration courts, said the government wants to “conduct efficiency reviews which have not taken place in six years.” An immigration court official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the audit has not been formally announced, said the review will examine the cost-effectiveness of the federally funded programs and whether they duplicate efforts within the court system. He noted, for example, that immigration judges are already required to inform immigrants of their rights before a hearing, including their right to find a lawyer at their own expense.

But advocates said the programs administered by Vera and a network of 18 other nonprofits are a legal lifeline for undocumented immigrants.

“This is a blatant attempt by the administration to strip detained immigrants of even the pretense of due-process rights,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, one of the organizations that offers the legal services with Vera.

In a statement, the Vera Institute said a 2012 study by the Justice Department concluded that the program was “a cost-effective and efficient way to promote due process” that saved the government nearly $18 million over one year.

The Trump administration has also clashed with the Vera Institute over whether its subcontractors were informing undocumented immigrant girls in Department of Health and Human Services custody about their right to an abortion. The issue was later resolved.

The Justice Department is ramping up efforts to cut an immigration court backlog of 650,000 cases in half by 2020. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week imposed production quotas on immigration judges to spur them to clear cases more quickly.

Immigration courts are separate from U.S. criminal courts, where defendants are entitled to a government-appointed lawyer if they cannot pay for their own legal counsel.

The Vera Institute said approximately 8 in 10 detainees in immigration court face a government prosecutor without a lawyer.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review says on its website that it launched the legal-aid program in 2003, during the administration of George W. Bush, to orient immigrants so that court proceedings would move more quickly.

In Vera’s Legal Orientation Program, lawyers and others hold hour-long group information sessions with detainees to explain their rights, how the court process works and their possible defenses to deportation in federal law, such as seeking asylum if they are in fear for their lives. They also meet with detainees individually and refer detainees to free or low-cost lawyers, but do not represent them in court.

“Experience has shown that the LOP has had positive effects on the immigration court process: detained individuals make wiser, more informed, decisions and are more likely to obtain representation; non-profit organizations reach a wider audience of people with minimal resources; and, cases are more likely to be completed faster, resulting in fewer court hearings and less time spent in detention,” the agency’s website says.

The help desk answers questions and provides similar information to immigrants who are not detained but are facing deportation.

Maria Sacchetti covers immigration for The Washington Post. She previously reported for the Boston Globe.

Follow @mariasacchetti

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

The idea expressed by an “anonymous” DOJ official that the brief, often rote “in court” warnings given by Immigration Judges in open court can take the place of a “Know Your Rights” session being conducted in advance, out of court by Vera is preposterous. The “average” initial hearing or “Master Calendar” takes fewer than 10 minutes. My former Arlington Immigration Court colleague Judge Lawrence O. Burman was once “clocked” by a reporter at seven minutes per case, and he is probably more thorough than most Immigration Judges. Moreover, with Immigration Judges being pressured to churn out more final orders of removal faster, required warnings are just one of the aspects of Due Process that are likely to be truncated as Sessions’s “haste makes waste” initiative continues to destroy even the appearance of justice in our U.S. Immigration Courts.

In other words this totally bogus “audit” couldn’t come at a worse time for the beleaguered Immigration Judges of the U.S. Immigration Courts and particularly the often defenseless immigrants who come before them seeking (but far too often not finding) the justice supposedly “guaranteed” to them by our Constitution.

In my long experience, “Know Your Rights” presentations, which often allowed individuals to assess their cases and retain lawyers before their first Immigration Court appearance were one of the best “bang for the buck” programs ever undertaken by EOIR. Immigration Judges relied heavily on them to “keep the line moving” without denying due process.

Sessions methodically is stripping U.S. Immigration Judges of the tools that allow them to do their jobs fairly and efficiently: administrative closing, continuances, ability to control their own court schedules, time and resources to do research and write opinions, and now the assistance of the “Know Your Rights” Programs.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all. Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions is a coward who consistently uses bogus narratives and specious reasons to pick on the most vulnerable in our legal system. Join the New Due Process Army and stand up to Gonzo and his anti-American, anti-Constitutional, anti-human agenda! Today, Gonzo is eliminating immigrants’ rights. Tomorrow it will be YOUR RIGHTS. Who will stand up for YOU if you remain silent while the weak and dispossessed are attacked by Gonzo and his ilk!

PWS

04-11-18

GONZO’S WORLD: LA TIMES — Gonzo’s Proposed Immigration Judge Quotas Are A REALLY DUMB Idea! – But, Then, This Is A Dude Who Takes Pride In His Prejudice & Lives On The Wrong Side Of Racial Justice & U.S. History!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=841c986a-d552-4fdb-9493-56720e6f6caa

The LA Times Editorial Board writes:

There is no dispute that the nation’s immigration court system is drowning in its own caseload. It began under the Obama administration’s ramped-up efforts to deport people in the country illegally who had recently crossed the border or who had criminal histories, and accelerated under President Trump’s campaign to roust as many undocumented people as he can. Over the past two years the backlog of active deportation cases has increased from 516,000 to 685,000, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, and the cases have taken, on average, almost two years each to be decided — 711 days.

Now Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions is pushing immigration judges to speed things up. Starting in October, the department will measure judges’ performance by a new standard that requires each of them to clear 700 cases a year, with fewer than 15% of decisions sent back by appeals courts, in order to receive a “satisfactory” rating.

That’s an assembly line, not a judicial system, and it runs the very real risk of subverting due process rights as individual judges place their job security ahead of justice.

The immigration courts — a branch of the Justice Department, not part of the independent judiciary — have been understaffed for years. Making matters worse, the pace of proceedings is slowed not only by sheer volume, but also by the absence of attorneys to steer clients through the process (immigrants facing civil deportation proceedings are not entitled to government-supplied lawyers, as they would be in criminal cases). Other challenges include the difficulty in procuring and verifying documents from other (sometimes unstable) countries and the time required to weigh evidence in asylum requests and other complex cases.

Judges and immigration lawyers have warned that speeding up the process could increase the number of appealable decisions because there would be legitimate questions over whether a decision to refuse to hear a witness as duplicative, or to not admit further evidence, is based not on the merits but on the fact that the judge is lagging behind in closing cases.

As it is, judges clear an average of 678 cases a year, so pushing that up to 700 might not seem like a big change. But the clearance rate is well below that average in courts where cases are more complex, and there, the effect of the new quotas could be severe. Judges near the southern border handling cases involving new arrivals are able to make decisions faster than, for instance, a judge in the interior of the country handling cases involving people who have established deep roots or have dependents who are American citizens. Cases involving unaccompanied minors can be particularly complex because the law allows a variety of relief options, including requesting asylum or seeking “special immigrant juvenile status” if they have been abused or abandoned by their parents. Given the totality of Trump and Sessions’ attitudes toward people living in the country without permission, it’s not unreasonable to see this imposition of quotas as a pretext for speeding up deportations, due process be damned.

The government, of course, has a right to establish immigration policies and a duty to secure borders. But even noncitizens enjoy the protections of the Constitution, including the right to due process, when they are in the country. This attempt to accelerate the pace of justice through a management-

directed quota system imperils that.

The smarter way to reduce the backlog of pending cases is to expand the court system itself, which Congress, to its credit, has finally begun to do. The current budget includes funding to add 100 judges to the 350 existing positions, and money to speed up the hiring process. Besides, as a Government Accountability Office report last June found, delays in individual cases usually are due to matters beyond a judge’s control. About a quarter of postponements, or continuances, were the result of technical or other operational problems in the courtroom, or the fault of the Department of Homeland Security, such as not having the deportation target available for the hearing. Forcing the judges to speed things up when they don’t control the things that slow the system down will, in all likelihood, make the system more unfair.

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

Even adding Immigration Judges and staff will not be enough unless the outdated bureaucratic “Vatican type” structure is abandoned and modern technology and court administration services are brought into the picture.

Moreover, the now ingrained practice of both overt and covert political interference in the Immigration Courts’ docket management must end and the emphasis must be placed solely on due process, fairness, quality, and judicial efficiency.

My experience is that left to their own devices, Immigration Judges are hard-working and dedicated to “getting the job done.” With an independent authority, I believe that the system would over time develop “best judicial practices” and be able to better manage and control the docket. This problem has built up over decades; expecting a “silver bullet” solution that will eliminate the backlog overnight is highly unrealistic.

Yes, there are huge discrepancies in decision outcomes. But, if the system were left to its own devices, these could be sharply reduced, even if not completely eliminated, over time. A true merit based selection system that operates in a more realistic time frame and draws judges of different backgrounds and experiences into the mix would also help in promoting the dialogue and critical thinking necessary to achieve systemically fair results.

PWS

04-10-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Sessions’s Quotas Attack Fairness, Due Process, Undermine U.S. Immigration Court System!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/4/7/eoir-imposes-completion-quotas-on-ijs

Apr 7 EOIR Imposes Completion Quotas on IJs

Ten years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided Hashmi v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S.1 The case involved a request to continue a removal proceeding which the Department of Homeland Security did not oppose. The respondent was married to a U.S. citizen; he would become eligible to adjust his status in immigration court once the visa petition she had filed on his behalf was approved by DHS. However, the approval was delayed for reasons beyond the respondent’s control. One of those reasons was that a part of the respondent’s DHS file was needed by both the office in Cherry Hill, NJ adjudicating the visa petition and the DHS attorney in Newark prosecuting the removal case.

The immigration judge decided that he could wait no longer. Noting that the pendency of the case had exceeded the agency’s stated case completion goals, the judge denied the continuance and ordered the respondent deported. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that “to reach a decision about whether to grant or deny a motion for a continuance based solely on case-completion goals, with no regard for the circumstances of the case itself, is impermissibly arbitrary.”

In response to Hashmi, the BIA issued a precedent decision stating that unopposed motions of that type should generally be granted.2 In subsequent decisions, the BIA provided further guidance in allowing IJs to make reasonable determinations to continue such cases,3 and to administratively close proceedings where it would further justice (as in Hashmi, where the need for the DHS file to be in two places at once was preventing the case from proceeding).4

In subjecting immigration judges to strict, metrics-based reviews last week, EOIR’s director, James McHenry, may pressure immigration judges into taking the types of actions barred by Hashmi. Under the newly-announced metrics, individual judges may run the risk of disciplinary action for granting reasonable requests for continuance, or for other delays necessary for reaching a fair result. The combined actions of McHenry (who prior to being promoted to the position of agency director had worked for EOIR for approximately 6 months as an administrative law judge with OCAHO, the only component of EOIR that doesn’t deal with immigration law or the immigration courts), and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in recently certifying four BIA decisions to himself, could erase the above positive case law developments of the past decade, and replace them with an incentive for rushed decisions that do not afford adequate safeguards to non-citizens facing deportation.

Allowing reasonable continuances for the parties to obtain counsel, present evidence, and formulate legal theories, or to allow other agencies to adjudicate applications impacting eligibility, is an essential part of affording justice. Judges also need to fully understand the legal arguments presented. When an issue arises in the course of a hearing, it is not uncommon for a judge to ask the parties for briefs, and for the judge to then conduct his or her own legal research before deciding the matter. A detailed decision is also necessary to allow for meaningful review on appeal. However, all of this takes time, and the performance of individual judges will be found to be unsatisfactory or in need of improvement if they complete less than 700 cases per year, complete less than 95 percent of cases at their first merits hearing, or have 15 percent of their cases remanded on appeal.

Some recently reported actions by immigration judges in the name of expediency are troubling. Last Sunday’s episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (for which my colleague Carol King and I served as subject-matter sources) featured a credible-fear review hearing by an immigration judge that lasted one minute and 43 seconds in its entirety (and was probably doubled in length by the need for an interpreter). The judge asked the unrepresented respondent a total of two questions before reaching this decision: “Well, the government of the United States doesn’t afford you protection for this type of reason. I affirm the Asylum Officer’s decision.” It’s not clear how the judge could have been confident in such conclusion. The respondent was detained and had not yet had an opportunity to consult with counsel. Her claim was only sketched in the broadest outline; upon further development by an attorney, it may well have fallen into the “type of reason” for which asylum may be granted. Her credibility was never doubted; in fact, the program reported that she was assaulted at gunpoint by the man she fled after she was deported to her country.

In another case arising in the Ninth Circuit, C.J.L.G. v. Sessions,5 an immigration judge told the mother of a child in removal proceedings who was unable to retain counsel that she could represent her son, and proceeded with the child’s asylum hearing. Of course, the mother was not qualified for the task. Although the son had been threatened with death for resisting gang recruitment efforts, he was denied asylum in a hearing in which many critical questions that could have helped develop a nexus between his fear and a legally protected ground for asylum were never asked. This occurred because the judge did not feel that he could grant another continuance to provide the respondent an additional opportunity to retain counsel.

All of the above-described actions by IJs occurred prior to last week’s announcement by the EOIR director. Should judges struggling to meet the benchmarks feel their job security to be at risk, will actions such as those described above become the norm?

As previously mentioned, the Attorney General certified four decisions of the BIA to himself shortly before the director’s announcement of the new metrics. In one of those cases, Matter of E-F-H-L-,6 Sessions vacated a 2014 BIA precedent decision requiring immigration judges to provide asylum applicants a full hearing on their claim. In another, Matter of A-B-,7 Sessions chose a case in which the BIA twice reversed an immigration judge’s denial of asylum to a victim of domestic violence, and on certification has made the case a referendum on whether victims of private criminal activity may constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes.

Should Sessions decide this issue in the negative, the two decisions taken together may allow for the type of quick denials of the “Government…doesn’t afford you protection for this type of reason” variety discussed above. Fair-minded judges who will continue to hold full hearings and consider legal arguments in favor of granting relief may find it more difficult to meet all of the above benchmarks.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

531 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2008)

Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).

See Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2009) (concerning continuances due to pending employment-based visa petitions) ; Matter of C-B-, 25 I&N Dec. 888 (BIA 2012) (requiring reasonable and realistic continuances to obtain counsel); Matter of Montiel, 26 I&N Dec. 555 (BIA 2015) (allowing delaying proceedings for adjudication of criminal appeals).

See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012); Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).

No. 16-73801 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2018); Pet. for rehearing and rehearing en banc pending.

27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. March 5, 2018)

27 I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. March 7, 2018)

JEFF CHASE

BIA STANDS UP TO 5TH CIRCUIT‘S IDOCY ON “CONVICTIONS” — MATTER OF MARQUEZ CONDE, 27 I&N Dec. 251 (BIA 2018) — This Is How The System Could & Should Work

Marquez3923

Matter of MARQUEZ-CONDE, 27 I&N Dec. 251 (BIA 2018)

BIA HEADNOTE:

The Board of Immigration Appeals’ holding in Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003), rev’d on other grounds, Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006), regarding the validity of vacated convictions for immigration purposes, is reaffirmed, and the decision is modified to give it nationwide application. Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2002), not followed.

PANEL; BIA VICE CHAIR JUDGE CHARLES ADKINS-BLANCH; BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES ANA MANN, EDWARD KELLY

OPINION BY: JUDGE ADKINS-BLANCH, VICE CHAIR

KEY QUOTE:

In Renteria-Gonzalez, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reasoned that because Congress was silent regarding vacated convictions when it defined the term “conviction” in section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) (2000), it did not intend to include an exception for vacated convictions. Id. at 813. However, as the parties have noted on appeal, Judge Benavides issued a concurring opinion in Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS that he disagreed with the majority’s analysis because it “paint[ed] with too broad a brush with respect to whether a vacated conviction falls within the purview of the definition” of a conviction. Id. at 820 (Benavides, J., specially concurring). Although he agreed with the result, Judge Benavides asserted that “any indication in the majority opinion that a conviction vacated based on the merits constitutes a conviction under [section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act] is entirely dicta in that the case at bar did not involve such a vacatur.” Id. at 823 n.4. He therefore concluded that he would distinguish the vacatur in that case “from cases involving convictions vacated because of a defect in the criminal proceedings.” Id. at 822.

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

Kudos to the BIA for providing this important guidance. Remarkably, the Immigration Judge “ran over” a joint motion by the DHS and respondent’s counsel to reach the absurd result below!

As for the two Fifth Circuit judges who ruled that a conviction vacated on the merits remains a “conviction,” as one of my bosses used to say “What did they teach you at that law school?”

As those who read this blog know, normally I’m not a fan of Chevron or Brand X. But, here they seem to have saved the day from some pretty incompetent/biased judging from some “Article IIIs.’

PWS

04-08-18

JULIE HIRSHFIELD DAVIS IN THE NYT: TRUMP’S BOGUS ORDER ON SO-CALLED “CATCH & RELEASE” DOESN’T ACTUALLY DO MUCH BUT COULD BE PRELUDE TO ALL OUT ASSAULT BY OUR ROGUE, SCOFFLAW ADMINISTRATION ON CONSTITUTION AND LAWS LIMITING CIVIL DETENTION & GRANTING A FAIR RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/us/politics/trump-immigration-policy.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

Julie Hirshfield Davis reports for the NY Times:

President Trump issued a memorandum on Friday directing his administration to move quickly to bring an end to “catch and release,” the practice by which immigrants presenting themselves at the border without authorization are released from detention while waiting for their cases to be processed.

The directive does not, on its own, toughen immigration policy or take concrete steps to do so; it merely directs officials to report to the president about steps they are taking to “expeditiously end ‘catch and release’ practices.” But it is a symbolic move by Mr. Trump to use his executive action to solve a problem that he has bitterly complained Congress will not.

It also caps a week that began with the president offering tough talk on immigration and ended with his ordering the National Guard to patrol the southwestern border, a move formalized on Friday night when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis signed orders to deploy up to 4,000 troops.

“The safety and security of the American people is the president’s highest priority, and he will keep his promise to protect our country and to ensure that our laws are respected,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said in a statement announcing the memorandum.

“At the same time, the president continues to call on congressional Democrats to cease their staunch opposition to border security and to stop blocking measures that are vital to the safety and security of the United States,” she added.

The memo appears intended to prod the administration to move more rapidly in cracking down on unauthorized immigrants at the border, a goal laid out in an executive order Mr. Trump issued last year during his first week in office.

The latest directive instructs the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice and Health and Human Services to report to the president within 45 days on their efforts to ensure that those immigrants are detained, including steps taken to allocate money to build detention facilities near the borders. The agencies must also detail efforts to ensure unauthorized entrants do not “exploit” parole and asylum laws to stay in the United States, including evaluating how they determine whether migrants have “credible fear” of returning to their country of origin — the legal bar that people claiming asylum must meet to avoid prompt removal.

The memo also orders a list of existing facilities, including military sites, that could be used to detain those violating immigration law, and detailed statistics on credible claims of fear and how they have been processed since 2009.

The directive gives officials 75 days to report to Mr. Trump on additional resources or authorities they need to end catch-and-release practices. And within 60 days, it asks the secretaries of state and homeland security to submit a report on actions they are taking against countries that “refuse to expeditiously accept the repatriation of their nationals,” including whether the United States has punished them by refusing to grant visas to their citizens — and if not, why not.

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

The Trump Administration already stands credibly accused in at least one pending court case of violating its legal duty to consider asylum claims by individuals who apply at ports of entry on the Southern Border. Obviously, such legal violations by our Government promote illegal entry as the only way to vindicate statutory rights. Trump’s outrageous creation of a “false crisis” at the Southern Border should prompt the Article III Federal Courts to enjoin the Administration to comply with the asylum law.

Moreover, further attempts to manipulate the “credible fear” criteria against asylum seekers should also lead to Federal Court review and action against the Administration if, as appears likely, it uses biased criteria to deny the legal right of individuals in the U.S. or at the border to apply for asylum.

Moreover, asylum applicants who are “in the United States” whether legally or illegally and are in Removal Proceedings are entitled to an individualized bond consideration (unless they are serious criminals or security risks — the overwhelming number of asylum applicants are neither). Attempts to manipulate bond criteria (which have been undertaken to some extent by the last three Administrations) have almost uniformly been rejected by the Article III Federal Courts.

Therefore, the Administration’s legal options might be limited. However, the Administration arguably might have authority under current law to detain asylum applicants who arrive at ports of entry without providing any rational reasons for doing so. That’s likely to be a hotly contested issue in litigation.

Meanwhile, it’s critically important for those of us who support American values and see through the charade being put on by the Trump Administration to elect only U.S. Senators and Representatives who will “Just Say No” to the Administration’s bogus requests for: 1) more unneeded DHS enforcement personnel; and 2) more unneeded detention space in the “New American Gulag” being created by Trump and his White Nationalist reactionaries.

Harm to the most vulnerable is harm to all of us! Join the New Due Process Army and resist the Trump Administration’s contrived assault on America! Due Process Forever! Trump & Sessions Never!

PWS

04-07-18

JOSEPH TANFANI @ LA TIMES: More Critical Reaction To Sessions’s Immigration Court Quotas — “If you’ve got a system that is producing defective cars, making the system run faster is just going to result in more defective cars.” (PWS)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-immigration-courts-20180406-story.html

Joseph Tanfani reports for the LA TIMES:

The nation’s 58 immigration courts long have been the ragged stepchild of the judicial system – understaffed, technologically backward and clogged with an ever-growing backlog of cases, more than 680,000 at last count.

But a plan by Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, a longtime immigration hawk, aimed at breaking the logjam and increasing deportations of immigrants in the country illegally has drawn surprising resistance from immigration judges across the country.

Many say Sessions’ attempts to limit the discretion of the nation’s 334 immigration judges, and set annual case quotas to speed up their rulings, will backfire and made delays even worse — as happened when previous administrations tried to reform the system.

“It’s going to be a disaster and it’s going to slow down the adjudications,” warned Lawrence O. Burman, secretary of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, a voluntary group that represents judges in collective bargaining.

Cases already move at a glacial pace. Nationwide, the average wait for a hearing date in immigration court is about two years, according to data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research organization at Syracuse University.

But some jurisdictions are much slower. The immigration court in Arlington, Va., where Burman is a judge, has a four-year backlog, meaning hearings for new cases are being scheduled in 2022. Burman says the reality is far worse — the docket says he has 1,000 cases scheduled to begin on the same day in 2020.

. . . .

Another problem: Poorly funded immigration courts still use paper files, slowing access to information, while other federal courts use digital filing systems.

The Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Justice Department office that oversees the courts, started studying the problem in 2001. It has issued numerous reports and studies over the last 17 years, but accomplished little in the way of computerized record keeping.

. . . .

The judges don’t see it that way. Burman and other leaders of the immigration judges’ association, in an unusual public protest, say Sessions’ plan will force judges to rush cases and further compromise the courts’ already battered reputation for fairness.

“Clearly this is not justice,” said the association president, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, who sits in Los Angeles, the nation’s busiest immigration court. The plan will “undermine the very integrity of the court.”

Sessions is not the first U.S. attorney general to try to push deportation cases through the system faster.

John Ashcroft, who served under President George W. Bush, unveiled a streamlined approach in 2002, firing what he called softhearted judges from the 21-member Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws.

The result was an increase of cases sent back by federal courts, which reviewed the decisions – and more delays.

Under the Obama administration, immigration judges were ordered to prioritize old cases to try to clear the backlog. But after thousands of unaccompanied minors from Central America surged to the southwest border in 2014, they were told to focus on those cases instead. As the dockets were reshuffled, the backlog kept growing.

Last fall, Sessions ordered 100 immigration judges from around the country to travel to courts on the border to move cases quickly. The Justice Department pronounced it a success, saying they finished 2,700 cases.

Some of the judges were less enthusiastic.

“We had nothing to do half the time,” said Burman, who spent eight weeks in border courts. “I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but they sent more people than they needed to” while his caseload in Virginia languished for those two months.

Immigration advocates say the answer is more resources: more judges, more clerks, and legal representation for immigrants. They also say the courts should be independent, not under the Justice Department.

“Everybody wants to hear there’s some magical solution to make all this fine. It’s not going to happen,” said Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge and former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

“If you’ve got a system that is producing defective cars, making the system run faster is just going to result in more defective cars,’ he said.

Staff writer Brian Bennett contributed to this report.

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

Go on over to the LA Times at the above link for Joseph’s complete article.

Those of us in the Immigration Courts at the time of the “Ashcroft debacle” know what a complete disaster it was from a due process, fairness, and efficiency standpoint. Far too many of the cases were returned by the Article III Courts for “redos” because Immigration Judges and BIA Members were encouraged to “cut corners” as long as the result was an order of removal.

Some judges resisted, but many “went along to get along.” Some of the botched cases probably still are pending. Worse, some of the botched, incorrect orders resulted in unjust removals because individuals lacked the resources or were too discouraged to fight their cases up to the Courts of Appeals. And, the Courts of Appeals by no means caught all of the many mistakes that were made during that period. Haste makes waste. I analogized it to being an actor in a repertory theater company playing the “Theater of the Absurd.” Now, Sessions is promoting a rerun of another variation on that failed theme.

Somebody needs to fix this incredibly dysfunctional system before shifting it into “high gear.” And, it clearly won’t be Jeff Sessions.

PWS

04-07-18

BIA WRONG AGAIN – 9TH CIR. VACATES MATTER OF G-G-S-, 26 I&N DEC. 339 (BIA 2014) (“PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME”) — GOMEZ-SANCHEZ V. SESSIONS – As Jeff Sessions Plans To Speed Up The System, Rig Law Against Individuals, & Undermine Due Process, The “REAL” Courts Continue To Highlight Serious Substantive Flaws In Immigration Court System That Sessions Is Attempting To Cover Up!

GGS,9TH14-72506

Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 9th Cir., 04-06-18, Published, vacating Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2014)

COURT STAFF SUMMARY:

The panel granted Guillermo Gomez-Sanchez’s petition for review of the published decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 339 (BIA 2014), which concluded that Gomez-Sanchez was statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal because he was convicted of a “particularly serious crime” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B), and vacated and remanded.

Gomez-Sanchez was convicted of assault with a non- deadly firearm weapon in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), which the BIA concluded constituted a particularly serious crime that prevented Gomez-Sanchez from being eligible for withholding of removal. In reaching this decision, the BIA held that a petitioner’s mental health could not be considered when addressing whether he had committed a particularly serious crime.

The panel held that Matter of G-G-S- was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. N.R.D.C., Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under step one of Chevron, the panel concluded that Matter of G-G-S-’s blanket rule against considering mental health is contrary to Congress’s clearly expressed intent that the particularly serious crime determination, in cases where a conviction falls outside the only statutorily enumerated per se category of particularly serious crimes, requires a case-by-case analysis. The panel also concluded that, even if Matter of G-G-S- were to survive step one of Chevron, it would fail at step two because the BIA’s interpretation is not reasonable in that the BIA’s two rationales for its broad rule – 1) that the Agency could not reassess a criminal court’s findings, and 2) that mental health is never relevant to the particularly serious crime determination – are unpersuasive and are inconsistent with the law of this Circuit and the BIA’s own decisions.

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

PANEL:

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw* and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Janet Bond Arterton,**District Judge.

* This case was submitted to a panel that included Judge Kozinski, who recently retired. Following Judge Kozinski’s retirement, Judge Wardlaw was drawn by lot to replace him. Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h. Judge Wardlaw has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to oral argument.

** The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

OPINION BY:

Judge Janet Bond Arterton

KEY QUOTES:

Against this backdrop, the BIA here announced and applied a blanket rule against considering an individual’s mental health as a factor when deciding whether his or her crime of conviction is particularly serious. Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 339, 347.4 This decision is contrary to Congress’s clearly expressed intent that the analysis of whether a crime is particularly serious “requires the agency to conduct a case-by-case analysis of convictions falling outside the category established by Congress,” Blandino- Medina, 712 F.3d at 1345, because such categorical rules undermine the ability of the agency to conduct a case-by- case analysis in each case, see Konou, 650 F.3d at 1128; see also Arteaga De Alvarez, 704 F.3d at 740.

. . . .

Here, the Board cited In re N-A-M- approvingly, as if applying it. See Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 343. However, in reality, its decision to constrain the evidence IJs may consider when making a particularly serious crime determination is at least inconsistent with, if not directly in contradiction with its earlier holding permitting consideration of “all reliable information.” See In Re N-A- M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 338, 342. Petitioner’s case makes this inconsistency clear—despite not disputing the reliability of the information Petitioner submitted concerning his mental illness, the Board entirely precluded consideration of that evidence. Given that the Board made no attempt to address the apparent inconsistencies between its earlier rule and the rule at issue here, we find its current interpretation to be unreasonable and thus decline to afford it deference. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2126 (2016) (“[A]n ‘[u]nexplained inconsistency’ in agency policy is ‘a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency practice,’” and thus finding that the interpretation is not entitled to Chevron deference. (quoting Nat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005)));see also Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903, 920 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Given the severe repercussions of being found to have committed a particularly serious crime, the risk of precluding relevant evidence that might alter that determination is unreasonable. Furthermore, this risk is readily avoided by permitting the IJ to use his or her discretion in weighing relevant, reliable evidence of mental health rather than categorically barring this evidence in all cases.

For all of these reasons the Board’s interpretation of the INA does not warrant deference under Chevron.

. . . .

We find the Board’s conclusion to be unreasonable because it is inconsistent with its own precedent recognizing the relevance of motivation and intent to the particularly serious crime determination. See Alphonsus, 705 F.3d at 1048 (“The BIA acts arbitrarily when it disregards its own precedents and policies without giving a reasoned explanation for doing so.” (quoting Israel v. I.N.S., 785 F.2d 738, 740 (9th Cir. 1986))). In Matter of L-S-, the Board found significant that an individual convicted of alien smuggling did not intend to harm the victim. 22 I. & N. Dec. 645, 655–56 (BIA 1999). Indeed, the Government concedes that a particularly serious crime analysis permits consideration of an individual’s motivation. See Alphonsus, 705 F.3d at 1048 (finding no intent to harm either the arresting officer or members of the public).

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

The BIA got it wrong in just about every conceivable way, including ignoring and misapplying its own precedents, in trying to reach a result unfavorable to the respondent. Against this backdrop of serious substantive problems (and, frankly, anti-respondent bias) permeating the entire U.S. Immigration Court System, from top to bottom, Sessions outrageously is trying to speed up the system without regard to quality or due process.

Suppose you inherited a factory that was producing defective cars. Would you solve the problem by speeding up the assembly line, forbidding the workers to think about their job functions, and denying them necessary training and equipment. No, that would produce even more defective cars, likely putting your company out of business. So, how is Session’s “just pedal faster” approach to assembly line justice acceptable? Obviously, it isn’t!

Sometimes, it doesn’t take a Government Accountability Office study to ferret out waste, fraud, and abuse. In this case, Jeff Sessions is right out there in public view intentionally and maliciously destroying a key part of the U.S. justice system. Why is Congress standing by and letting him get away with it? Why is the taxpayers’ money being wasted on illegal, illogical, and totally counterproductive actions? Whatever happened to effective oversight?

PWS

04-06-18

HON. BRUCE J. EINHORN IN WASHPOST: SESSIONS’S BLATANT ATTEMPT TO INTIMIDATE U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO DEPORT INDIVIDUALS IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS SHOWS A SYSTEM THAT HAS HIT ROCK BOTTOM! — Are There Any “Adults” Out There In Congress Or The Article III Courts With The Guts To Stand Up & Put An End To This Perversion Of American Justice? — “Due process requires judges free of political influence. Assembly-line justice is no justice at all.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-wants-to-bribe-judges-to-do-his-bidding/2018/04/05/fd4bdc48-390a-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.770822e8f813

My former colleague Judge Bruce J. Einhorn writes in the Washington Post:

Bruce J. Einhorn, an adjunct professor of immigration, asylum and refugee law at Pepperdine University, served as a U.S. immigration judge from 1990 to 2007.

It’s a principle that has been a hallmark of our legal culture: The president shouldn’t be able to tell judges what to do.

No longer. The Trump administration is intent on imposing a quota system on federal immigration judges, tying their evaluations to the number of cases they decide in a year. This is an affront to judicial independence and the due process of law.

I served as a U.S. immigration judge in Los Angeles for 17 years, presiding over cases brought against foreign-born noncitizens who Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers believed were in this country illegally and should thus be removed. My responsibility included hearing both ICE’s claims and the claims from respondents for relief from removal, which sometimes included asylum from persecution and torture.

Read These Comments newsletter

The best conversations on The Washington Post

As a judge, I swore to follow the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that “no person” (not “no citizen”) is deprived of due process of law. Accordingly, I was obliged to conduct hearings that guaranteed respondents a full and reasonable opportunity on all issues raised against them.

My decisions and the manner in which I conducted hearings were subject to review before the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals and U.S. courts of appeals. At no time was my judicial behavior subject to evaluation based on how quickly I completed hearings and decided cases. Although my colleagues on the bench and I valued efficiency, the most critical considerations were fairness, thoroughness and adherence to the Fifth Amendment. If our nativist president and his lapdog of an attorney general, Jeff Sessions, have their way, those most critical considerations will become a relic of justice.

Under the Trump-Sessions plan, each immigration judge, regardless of the nature and scope of proceedings assigned to him or her, will be required to complete 700 cases in a year to qualify for a “satisfactory” performance rating. It follows that only judges who complete more, perhaps many more, than 700 cases per year will qualify for a higher performance rating and, with it, a possible raise in pay.

Essentially, the administration’s plan is to bribe judges to hear and complete more cases regardless of their substance and complexity, with the corollary that judges who defy the quota imposed on them will be regarded as substandard and subject to penalties. The plan should be seen for what it is: an attempt to undermine judicial independence and compel immigration judges to look over their shoulders to make sure that the administration is smiling at them.

This is a genuine threat to the independence of the immigration bench. While Article III of the Constitution guarantees the complete independence of the federal district courts and courts of appeal, immigration judges are part of the executive branch. Notwithstanding the right of immigration judges to hear and decide cases as they believe they should under immigration law, they are unprotected from financial extortion and not-so-veiled political intimidation under the U.S. Administrative Procedure Actor any regulations.

Moreover, federal laws do not guarantee respondents in removal hearings a right to counsel, and a majority of those in such hearings are compelled to represent themselves before immigration judges, regardless of the complexity of their cases. Those who lack representation in removal hearings typically cannot afford it, and the funds to help legal aid organizations fill in for private attorneys are nowhere to be found.

Hearings in which respondents proceed pro se, or unrepresented, are often the most challenging and time-consuming for immigration judges, who must take care to assure that the procedural rights of those facing possible removal are protected and to guarantee that inarticulate relief claims are fully considered.

The Trump administration’s intention is clear: to intimidate supposedly independent judges to expedite cases, even if it undermines fairness — as will certainly be the case for pro se respondents. Every immigration judge knows that in general, it takes longer to consider and rule in favor of relief for a respondent than it does to agree with ICE and order deportation. The administration wants to use quotas to make immigration judges more an arm of ICE than independent adjudicators.

In my many years on the immigration bench, I learned that repressive nations had one thing in common: a lack of an independent judiciary. Due process requires judges free of political influence. Assembly-line justice is no justice at all.

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

Thanks, Bruce for speaking out so forcefully, articulately, and truthfully!

Jeff Sessions is a grotesque affront to the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, American values, and human decency. Every day that he remains in office is a threat to our democracy. There could be no better evidence of why we need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court!

Due Process Forever! Jeff Sessions Never! Join the New Due Process Army Now! The fight must go on until Sessions and his toxic “21st Century Jim Crows” are defeated, and the U.S. Immigration Courts finally are forced to deliver on the betrayed promise of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

04-05-18

HEIDI BOAS @ WILKES LEGAL: Following A Colossal 14-Year Battle, The U.S. Asylum System Saved Rodi Alvarado’s Life – Can Jeff Sessions Undo This Critically Needed, Life-Saving Protection For Thousands Of Women & Children Like Rodi With A Single Stroke Of His Pen?

Issue Spotlight:

Will America Shut Its Doors to Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence?

by Heidi Boas, Immigration Attorney

Wilkes Legal, LLC

April 5, 2018

Will the U.S. continue to offer asylum to

immigrant survivors of domestic violence

like Rodi Alvarado Peña?

In January 2018, Wilkes Legal won asylum for an immigrant mother and her children who escaped over a decade of extreme physical, psychological, and sexual abuse that sent our client to the hospital and left one of her children with a permanent physical impairment. Because our client’s domestic partner was a high-ranking military officer in their home country, her pleas for help from government authorities fell on deaf ears, causing her to flee the country for her safety. In recent years, the United States has offered asylum protection to domestic violence survivors like this client. A recent move by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however, could soon limit or end the ability of domestic violence survivors to receive asylum protection in the United States.

Domestic violence has long been a contentious issue in asylum law. More than two decades ago, advocates began a 14-year legal battle to win asylum for Rodi Alvarado Peña, a Guatemalan woman who suffered a decade of brutal violence at the hands of her husband. Even though Ms. Alvarado repeatedly sought help from the Guatemalan police and courts, the Guatemalan authorities refused to intervene and protect her. When Ms. Alvarado tried to escape from her husband, he tracked her down and beat her unconscious. Ms. Alvarado ultimately fled to the United States and became the subject of a controversial, high profile immigration court case, as multiple administrations considered whether to grant asylum to women whose countries fail to protect them from domestic violence. Ms. Alvarado ultimately received asylum in 2009, but her case did not establish legal precedent that could help other asylum-seekers fleeing domestic violence.

In 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finally issued a precedential decision recognizing domestic violence as a basis for asylum. In Matter of A-R-C-G-, the BIA granted asylum to a Guatemalan woman whose husband broke her nose, repeatedly raped her, and burned her with paint thinner. The BIA recognized “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” as a group that can qualify for asylum. This landmark case opened the doors to protection for other immigrant survivors of domestic violence whose countries fail to protect them from abuse.

While the United States has made great strides in offering protection to immigrant survivors of domestic violence, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently took a step that could potentially undo decades of forward progress. As attorney general, Sessions has the authority to refer immigration court cases to himself, overturn decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and set precedent. Last month, Sessions referred an immigration case to himself involving a survivor of domestic violence from El Salvador. If Sessions rules against this woman, he would begin reshaping asylum law for abuse survivors and could potentially shut the doors to countless victims seeking protection in the United States.

In the case under Sessions’ review, a Salvadoran women referred to as A.B. suffered years of domestic violence at the hands of her ex-husband in El Salvador. Even though A.B. separated from her husband and eventually divorced him, her ex-husband returned three years after their separation and raped her. A.B. also testified to receiving threats from her ex-husband’s brother, who is a police officer, and his friend, who told the woman that her ex-husband would kill her and he would help dispose of her body. Although an Immigration Judge denied A.B.’s asylum case, the Board of Immigrant Appeals disagreed with the judge’s ruling and sent the case back to the judge to reconsider his decision. The Immigration Judge again refused to grant asylum to A.B., however, despite the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G-, due to other more recent decisions in his jurisdiction.

Now that Sessions has stepped in to review A.B.’s case, he has the authority to determine whether she should be granted asylum. If Sessions denies her asylum case, his decision could have a far-reaching impact, setting precedent that would make it more difficult for other immigrant survivors of domestic violence to qualify for asylum in the future. If Session limits asylum eligibility for these survivors, he will roll back decades of progress in asylum law and close the doors to immigrant victims of abuse who have nowhere else to turn.

Wilkes Legal stands with immigrant survivors of domestic violence and urges Sessions to uphold the BIA’s current precedent, keeping America’s doors open to victims of domestic abuse whose governments fail to protect them.

Visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or call our office at (301) 576-0491 to learn more about Wilkes Legal, LLC.

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

From his actions to date, Sessions appears to be up to no good. But, by now the “A-R-C-G-/R-A- principles” are deeply ingrained in U.S. protection law as interpreted by the Article III Federal Courts.

I predict that an attempt by Sessions to undo A-R-C-G- protections will be heavy-handed, blatantly biased, and thinly reasoned as have been all of his transparently biased reversals of established legal positions to date.

It’s therefore likely to suffer a fate of emphatic rejection by the Article IIIs much like what happened when Attorney General Michael Mukasey tried to undo years of established legal precedent about proof of crimes involving moral turpitude in Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), rev’d & remanded, Matter of Silva-Trevino, 26 I&N Dec. 550 (A.G. 2015).

I’m hardly a “Charter Member of the Mike Mukasey Fan Club.” His poor stewardship over the U.S. Immigration Court system is at least partially responsible for today’s inexcusable mess in our Immigration Courts.

Nevertheless, before becoming Attorney General, Mukasey was a well-respected U.S. District Judge. He’s 10X the lawyer as Sessions! Sessions’s lack of any discernible legal skills, integrity, humanity, and judgement probably bodes well for the “Good Guys” in the long run.

But, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be unnecessary and unconscionable suffering. Sessions is a bully at heart who relies on the fact that the majority of individuals in the U.S. Immigration Court system are unrepresented and therefore unable to defend themselves against his racist/xenophobic policies.

I’m proud to be one of the “Gang of Five” Appellate Immigration Judges (“Board Members” ) who dissented from the BIA’s original outrageously incorrect decision in Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 908 (BIA 1999), vacated, Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 908 (A.G. 2001) that reversed a clearly correct grant of asylum to Rodi Alvarado. The other dissenters were Judges John Guendelsberger (who wrote the dissent), Lory Diana Rosenberg, Gustavo D. Villageliu, and Anthony C. Moscato.

Not coincidentally, all of us except for Judge Moscato were removed and “exiled” from the BIA during the “Ashcroft Purge of 2003” for the transgression of doing our jobs conscientiously and standing up for a correct interpretation of the asylum law. So much for the “facade of quasi-judicial independence at the BIA.” (Credit to Peter Levinson). And, that’s before the current “descent into the abyss” brought about by Sessions!

We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court now!

PWS

04-05-18

NAIJ PRESIDENT, JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR RESPONDS TO DOJ’S UNILATERAL ACTION ON PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES — DOJ Spokesperson Bald-Faced Lied To Media! — Quota Memo Is An Attack On Quality Of Judicial Decisions & Due Process – What Other Court In America Imposes Artificial Limits On Its Judges’ Ability To Perform Scholarship & Write Fair, Cogent Decisions? Get My “Inside Look” At The Appalling Dysfunction, Intentionally Inflicted Chaos, & Disregard For Fundamental Fairness Plaguing Our U.S. Immigration Courts In The “Age of Sessions!”

I have permission Judge Tabaddor to release the text of the following e-mail, dated April 2, 2018, that I received from her (solely in her capacity as NAIJ President) because I am a retired member of the NAIJ:

Dear NAIJ Members,

Last Friday we all received the Director’s announcement of his decision to impose quotas and deadlines on immigration judges as a basis of our individual performance evaluations effective October 2018. To clarify any confusion, I would like to re-iterate that at no point has NAIJ ever agreed that quotas and deadlines are an appropriate manner in which to evaluate immigration judge performance. To the contrary, NAIJ has always remained deeply concerned about this unprecedented decision which undermines our independent decision-making authority, invites unnecessary litigation, and adds to the existing burdens and demands on our judges.

I also would like to reiterate that NAIJ is pursuing all available means to ensure that these measures are fairly implemented. We have been engaged with EOIR for the past six months on these very issues and continue to stand in full support of our judges and the integrity of the Court. Prior to the email, NAIJ was pursuing the terms of an MOU with EOIR in an effort to reach a mutually agreeable solution in an informal and more cooperative fashion. However, with the Director’s announcement, NAIJ is now exercising formal bargaining rights.

We invite you to reach out to myself or any of our officers and representatives with any questions, concerns, or suggestions. We will keep you apprised of the ongoing negotiations and developments on this issue.

Thank you
Ashley Tabaddor

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

As I had suggested earlier, the claim that the NAIJ had “agreed” to the production quotas was simply another lie by the Sessions DOJ. Lies, mis-representations, distortions, bogus statistics — why is this Dude our Attorney General given his proven record of disdain for truth, our law, our Constitution, and human decency as well as his total lack of any judicial qualifications to be administering perhaps the largest Federal Court system?

Another “under the radar” aspect of this toxic attempt to compromise due process in the Immigration Court system was pointed out to me by my good friend and colleague retired U.S. immigration Judge Carol King of San Francisco. As Judge King points out, by requiring U.S. Immigration Judges to render almost all final decisions at the hearing or within a few days of the hearing, the Attorney General is basically forcing them to use the widely discredited “contemporaneous oral decision” format rather than the preferred “full written decision” format.

Having reviewed thousands of Immigration Judge decisions during my career as an Appellate Immigration Judge on the BIA, and rendered thousands more during my time as a U.S. Immigration Judge in Arlington, I can say that with few exceptions, the “oral decision format” is grossly inadequate to meet the needs of today’s complex asylum litigation, particularly for cases to go to the Courts of Appeals. Oral decisions commonly have factual and citation errors as well as grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors caused by the totally un-judicial format.

Moreover, except in unusual cases, Immigration Judges are not permitted to have a transcript made before rendering a decision! The case is only transcribed by EOIR at the time an appeal to the BIA is actually taken, well after the Immigration Judge has completed his or her decision.

At the beginning of my 45 year legal career, I used “real dictation” in some of my jobs. The basic idea was that the initial draft was a “quick and dirty” that was then reviewed, revised, and corrected numerous times before being issued as a “final.” Indeed, at Jones Day, which had a typing pool back in the 1980s when I was there, I used to leave my dictated drafts when I went home at night for the “overnight typing pool” to have on my desk the next morning. I would never have dreamed of issuing a client letter or brief that hadn’t been reviewed, revised, and retyped (and then probably read by one of my colleagues).

By contrast, a U.S. Immigration Judge must dictate a final oral decision at the conclusion of the hearing, or shortly thereafter, with the parties present (talk about a waste and disrespect for time) and no actual transcriber in the room. If an appeal is taken, the oral decision portion of the digital recording is “separated” and typed in a decision format. While the Immigration Judge does receive an electronic copy of the decision at the time it goes to the Board Panel for adjudication, my experience is that any corrections by the Immigration Judge are seldom in the BIA record file at the time the BIA acts on the case. Moreover, trial judges are specifically limited to making “editorial” changes. Major changes to legal analysis, fact-finding, or even results can’t be made during this review process.

Unlike other Federal and State judges in courts of comparable authority, U.S. Immigration Judges also are forced to work without any individually selected Judicial Law Clerks (“JLCs”). Immigration Judges must share a “pool” of JLCs (occasionally not even in the same court location) selected, assigned, and “supervised” by EOIR Headquarters with minimal, if any, input from the Immigration Judges.

Moreover, the JLCs report to and are “evaluated” by an Assistant Chief Judge who more often than not is in Falls Church, VA, far removed from the actual trial courts! (Immigration Judges are given an option to submit performance comments” to the ACIJ, but never see the final evaluations of the JLCs). Sometimes a JLC may go a year or more without any “in person” interaction with his or her “supervisor.” What other judges, in any system, are forced to work under these types of conditions?

I firmly believe that the clearly inferior work product produced by the “oral decision” format is one of the reasons the U.S. Immigration Judges have an unfortunate “unprofessional” reputation with some of the Courts of Appeals.

Let’s use a “real life” example. My son was a JLC for a U.S. District Court Judge. That Judge actually had sufficient “out of court” time to do some of his own writing. If asked to prepare a draft decision, my son submitted it to his District Judge who carefully reviewed, revised, and commented on the draft. Then my son reworked the decision to his District Judge’s individual specifications and all citations, fact-finding, and other references were carefully checked, as well as spelling, punctuation , style, etc. The end product looked somewhat like a scholarly law review article in judicial decision format. Not surprisingly, that District Judge’s opinions were seldom reversed by the Court of Appeals.

Now imagine a Court of Appeals Judge, just after reading that decision, picks up an immigration file involving a complex life or death asylum case. The decision looks like it was written by a high school student who flunked remedial English. Run on sentences, not many paragraphs, non-standard punctuation, mis-spellings and incomprehensible citations. Moreover, on further examination, the Circuit Court Judge’s personal law clerk has already discovered some glaring factual errors in the Immigration Judge’s “stream of consciousness” recitation of the facts. The BIA “summarily affirmed” the result in a single-Member decision with no reasoning! No wonder the Immigration Courts are often lowly regarded by the reviewing Circuit Courts!

U.S. Immigration Judges are being placed in an impossible position. While Sessions proposes to “grade” them on appellate reversals and remands, he simultaneously will restrict and artificially limit their ability to do research, review actual records and transcripts, and prepare careful, high quality written decisions. Sessions intends to impose new “quotas” without meaningful input from: 1) the ImmigratIon Judges who hear the cases; 2) the Appellate Immigration Judges on the BIA; 3) the parties and attorneys who appear in Immigration Court, or 4) the U.S. Circuit Court Judges who must review the Immigration Court’s work product. What kind of process is that? Why is Sessions being allowed to get away with this? No other court system in America operates in such an intentionally dysfunctional manner.

Instead of working on real reforms that would improve the quality of justice and the ability of already overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Judges to deliver fairness and due process, Jeff Sessions intentionally is further degrading both the Immigration Judges and the process! “Just say no” to the malicious incompetence of Jeff Sessions and his DOJ!

PWS

04-04-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Jeff Sessions Never! Join the New Due Process Army and stand up against the White Nationalist restrictionist attack on America and our Constitution!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Apr 7 EOIR Imposes Completion Quotas on IJs

Related posts:

Related posts:

Harm to the most vulnerable is harm to all of us! Join the New Due Process Army and resist the Trump Administration’s contrived assault on America! Due Process Forever! Trump & Sessions Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court now!

Related posts:

Related posts: