EOIR Director Judge James McHenry – Page 20

PROFESSOR MAUREEN SWEENEY ON WHY THE BIA DOESN’T DESERVE “CHEVRON” DEFERENCE – JEFF SESSIONS’S ALL OUT ATTACK ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY IS EXHIBIT 1!

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2018/08/immigration-article-of-the-day-enforcingprotection-the-danger-of-chevron-in-refugee-act-cases-by-mau.html

Go on over to ImmigrationProf Blog at the above link for all of the links necessary to get the abstract as well as the full article. Among the many current and former Immigration Judges quoted or cited in the article are Jeffrey Chase, Ashley Tabaddor, Dana Marks, Lory Rosenberg, Robert Vinikoor, and me. (I’m sure I’m missing some of our other colleagues; it’s a very long article, but well worth the read.)

In an article full of memorable passages, here is one of my favorites:

Full enforcement of the law requires full enforcement of provisions that grant protection as well as provisions that restrict border entry. This is the part of “enforcement” that the Department of Justice is not equipped to fully understand. The agency’s fundamental commitment to controlling unauthorized immigration does not allow it a neutral, open position on asylum questions. The foundational separation and balance of powers concerns at the heart of Chevron require courts to recognize that inherent conflict of interest as a reason Congress is unlikely to have delegated unchecked power on refugee protection to the prosecuting agency. In our constitutional structure, the courts stand as an essential check on the executive power to deport and must provide robust review to fully enforce the congressional mandate to protect refugees. If the courts abdicate this vital function, they will be abdicating their distinctive role in ensuring the full enforcement of all of our immigration law—including those provisions that seek to ensure compliance with our international obligations to protect individuals facing the danger of persecution.

This is a point that my friend and colleague Judge Lory Rosenberg made often during our tenure together on the BIA. All too often, her pleas fell on deaf ears.

The now abandoned pre-2001 “vision statement” of EOIR was “to be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Nothing in there about “partnering” with DHS to remove more individuals, fulfilling quotas, “sending messages to stay home,” securing the border, jacking up volume, deterring migration, or advancing other politically motivated enforcement goals. Indeed, the proper role of EOIR is to insure fair and impartial adjudication and Due Process for individuals even in the face of constant pressures to “just go along to get along” with a particular Administration’s desires to favor the expedient over the just.

Under all Administrations, the duty to insure Due Process, fairness, full protections, and the granting to benefits to migrants under the law is somewhat shortchanged at EOIR in relation to the pressure to promote Executive enforcement objectives. But, the situation under the xenophobic, disingenuous, self-proclaimed “Immigration Enforcement Czar” Jeff Sessions is a true national disgrace and a blot on our entire legal system. If Congress won’t do its job by removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ forthwith, the Article III courts must step in, as Maureen suggests.

PWS

08-23-18

THE PROSTITUTION OF EYORE: Founded To Establish Independence, The Immigration Court Agency Puts Out Bogus Statistics To Support Sessions’s White Nationalist Agenda!

THE PROSTITUTION OF EYORE: Founded To Establish Independence, The Immigration Court Agency Puts Out Bogus Statistics To Support Sessions’s White Nationalist Agenda!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt (U.S. Immigration Judge, retired)

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, known as “EOIR” and pronounced “Eyore” as in the sad little donkey from Wininie the Pooh,was founded in 1983 to promote judicial independence and Due Process. Sadly, those have ceased to be the focus, as the beleaguered agency now develops and promotes bogus statistics to advance the White Nationalist xenophobic agenda of chief immigration “enforcer,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Some might have noticed a new way of presenting so-called “asylum statistics.’ Recently, EOIR published the following so-called “statistical tables” on “defensive” asylum applications — that is, those filed by respondents as a defense to removal after they have been placed in proceedings before the Immigration Court. By contrast, applications filed with the USCIS Asylum Office before proceedings are instituted and thereafter “referred” to the Immigration Court if they are not granted are known as “affirmative” applications.

EYORE ROLLS OVER FOR SESSIONS

Here’s the chart:

Executive Office for Immigration Review

DefensiveAsylumApplications Fiscal Year	Filed	Granted	Defensive Receipts : Defensive Grants Ratio
2008	13,213	2,928	4.51:1
2009	12,258	2,458	4.98:1
2010	12,771	2,273	5.61:1
2011	17,988	2,807	6.4:1
2012	19,908	2,891	6.88:1
2013	23,372	2,620	8.92:1
2014	31,046	2,765	11.22:1
2015	45,960	3,388	13.56:1
2016	68,849	4,863	14.15:1
2017	120,094	6,995	17.16:1
2018 (as of 6/30/2018)	83,534	6,946	12.02:1

Anyone familiar with how immigration proceedings actually work immediately would see the problem with this presentation. However, few of those not familiar with EOIR and Immigration court would notice that glaring disconnect.

What’s the problem? This is a classic “apples and oranges”analysis. The number of “applications filed” in a particular year has little, indeed almost nothing, to do with the number granted. That’s because given the dockets at EOIR, applications are very seldom actually decided in the year that they are filed.The minority that are decided in the year filed are almost always applications by detained, usually unrepresented, aliens. Such applications are literally like “shooting fish in a barrel.” Detained unrepresented asylum applicants seldom receive anything even resembling Due Process and are therefore routinely denied asylum.

Moreover, because the system forces respondents to file all possible applications for relief before an “Individual Hearing” is scheduled, respondents who might actually be relying on cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, so-called “stateside waivers,” and other forms of relief must file the “backup” asylum application even if it might well never proceed to a final adjudication. Additionally, even respondents seeking only the lesser relief of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture must file on the asylum application, Form I-589, and thus are counted as “asylum applicants” even if they never pursue asylum.

By artificially maximizing the number of “defensive filings,” while taking the grants out of context to minimize them, EOIR artificially creates a bogus picture of only a small number of asylum applications being granted on the merits. Moreover, EOIR compounds the error by presenting a totally bogus and highly pejorative statistic of “filings to grants” without correlating the year filed with the year granted.

No honest professional statistician would participate in such a hoax. The intent obviously is to create a false narrative of overwhelmingly non-meritorious asylum applications to support Sessions’s disingenuous fabricated scenario of “asylum fraud” infecting the system. For example, according the EOIR’s bogus numbers, the ratio of “applications to grants” in FY 2017 was 17 to 1, falsely suggesting very few meritorious asylum applications.

THE “REAL DEAL”

So, what are the only meaningful EOIR asylum statistics. The number of asylum applications granted and denied on the merits in a particular year. And, those statistics present a radically different picture. Let’s look at EOIR’s own Statistical Yearbookthrough 2016 (the last year for which it was published – the 2017 Statistical Yearbookshould have appeared in the spring of 2018 but, for some curious reason hasn’t) the last full year of the Obama Administration:

Immigration Court Defensive Grant Rate

Grants Denials Grant Rate

FY 12 2,854 5,480 34%

FY 13 2,592 6,188 30%

FY 14 2,747 7,254 27%

FY 15 3,390 7,644 31%

FY 16 4,836 10,842 31%

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download

As recently as 2016, despite the Obama Administration’s ill-advised “Southern Border Initiative” that forced more unprepared individuals into the “defensive” system faster, and notwithstanding the overall politicized slant of asylum law against Central American Asylum seekers (even before Sessions), the grant rate was a very “robust” 31%, essentially one in three, rather than the bogus one out of every 14.5 put forth in EOIR’s Sessions-driven false narrative.

Let’s look a little further into what the real numbers show. Here are the overall grant rates for asylum and withholding of removal (by regulation, all asylum applications are also considered applications for protection under the withholding of removal provisions of the INA) for the five-year period ending in 2016 :

Immigration Court Asylum or Withholding of Removal Grant Rate
	Asylum Grants	Withholding of Removal Grants	Denials of Both Asylum and Withholding of Removal	Grant Rate
FY 12	10,575	1,527	6,978	63%
FY 13	9,767	1,493	7,293	61%
FY 14	8,672	1,453	7,888	56%
FY 15	8,184	1,184	7,685	55%
FY 16	8,726	969	10,533	48%

While there is a remarkable drop in approvals in FY 2016, again, likely due to the Obama Administration’s ill-advised “Southern Border Initiative,” in FY 2016, 48% of asylum applicants whose cases were actually adjudicated on the merits received protection – essentially one-half of applicants.Again, this is a far cry from EOIR’s current misleading scenario which compares grants to both asylum applications that were not adjudicated on the merits during the year and asylum applications that have never been adjudicated and might never be adjudicated at all, as a result of Session’s mismanagement of the Immigration Courts.

Let’s dig a little further. Here is what happens to so-called “affirmative applications,” that is those made initially to the USCIS asylum Office, when they are “referred” to the Immigration court for a full hearing:

Immigration Court Affirmative Grant Rate

Grants Denials Grant Rate

FY 12 7,721 2,964 72%

FY 13 7,175 2,589 73%

FY 14 5,925 1,937 75%

FY 15 4,794 1,172 80%

FY 16 3,890 801 83%

As we can see, the overwhelming number of affirmative asylum applications not granted by the Asylum Office are eventually granted by the Immigration Courts – a huge majority, 83% in FY 2016. At a minimum, this suggests that the USCIS Asylum Offices should be granting many more affirmative asylum applications, thereby keeping them out of Immigration Court altogether.

ACCURATE STATISTICS LEAD TO BETTER CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the real numbers lead to some obvious conclusions that refute the bogus picture of asylum abuse being painted by Sessions and his EOIR accomplices:

About 50% of asylum applicants whose cases are decided on the merits by the Immigration Courts gain protection;
Asylum applicants who are given fair access to lawyers and time to prepare, generally those filing “affirmative” asylum applications, succeed at extremely high rates;
The USCIS Asylum Office could grant many more “affirmative applications” than they currently do.

All of this suggests that a much more logical approach to asylum adjudication would be:

Treating all asylum applicants applying at ports of entry or who are apprehended near the border and found to have a “credible fear” of persecution or torture as “affirmative applicants” whose cases can be initially adjudicated, and often approved, on the merits by the USCIS Asylum Office without bothering the already overloaded Immigration Courts;
Insuring fair access to counsel and adequate preparation time, preferably in a non-detained setting, to those seeking asylum at the border (significantly, represented asylum applicants show up for their court hearings at extremely high rates);
Encouraging “priority scheduling” for cases in Immigration Court where the documentation is compelling and the Assistant Counsel and private counsel have worked together to narrow the issues for a likely grantof protection (obviously, there are less likely to be Due Process issues with “expediting” grants as opposed to denials).
Exploring other forms of protection or legal status for those whose cases are now “stuck” in the Immigration Court backlog (many are now married to U.S. citizens and eligible for “stateside processing,” or have or will have viable claims for Cancellation of Removal as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pereira.)
Restoring a more realistic and generous “prosecutorial discretion” (or “PD”) policy along the line of that followed during the later years of the Obama Administration would also help reduce and restore some order to the Immigration Court dockets.
Keeping in mind that even denied asylum applicants more often than not are facing life threatening situations in their “home countries;” they just don’t happen to fit our current overly restrictive and legalistic interpretations of asylum law. (Indeed, in my experience most of those denied asylum were credible and had a well-founded fear of harm – they just failed to meet the rather arcane “nexus” requirements for asylum. Upon return, denied asylum seekers often suffer harm or even death. See, e.g.,https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/when-deportation-is-a-death-sentence;https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/12/obama-immigration-deportations-central-america

Of course, under Sessions, EOIR and DHS are moving in the opposite direction: seeking, without any probative evidence to support their claims, to falsely paint asylum applicants as de-humanized “numbers” who are “gaming” the system. There is “gaming” going on; but, it’s by Sessions and his “go alongs” at EOIR who intentionally are using bogus statistics to paint a false picture of our asylum system.

NO JUSTICE UNTIL BOTH SESSIONS AND EYORE RIDE INTO THE SUNSET

Asylum is an important part of our immigration system. It should and could be much more generously granted and with far less red tape and bureaucracy. Granting asylum is not only our legal obligation (with a moral foundation stemming from the disaster of World War II and its aftermath) but also benefits both our country and, of course, the individuals whose lives are saved.

Yes, there is so-called “asylum fraud.” But, by and large, it doesn’t involve those currently applying at our Southern Border. Indeed, the parts of ICE Investigations that perform reallaw enforcement work, in my experience, do an excellent job of taking apart large asylum fraud rings and “undoing” those asylum grants that were based on fraud. Several significant Chinese and Indonesian “rings” and at least one involving Cameroonian claims were exposed and prosecuted in that manner.

The U.N Convention and Protocol relating to refugees, implemented by our Refugee Act of 1980, was intended to inspire “a generous asylum policy”and actually to extend protection

to those in flight who might not fully satisfy all of the technical requirements of the “refugee” definition. The generous letter and spirit of the Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980 also are reflected in the leading U.S. Supreme Court case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, implementing the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum.

Jeff Sessions and his White Nationalist gang are moving to dismantle refugee and asylum protections at all levels. Part of their strategy depends on de-humanization of refugees, bogus statistics, and false narratives. Shamefully, “Eyore” has now become part of that effort, just proving again that Due Process and the rule of law won’t ever be totally restored to our country until we get an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court.

My friend and colleague, The Honorable Jeffrey Chase, also contributed to this article. The views expressed are mine, and mine alone.

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

PWS

08-16-18

LEADING ACADEMICS FILE OPPOSITION TO JUDICIAL QUOTAS WITH SESSIONS – The Continuing Saga Of The Due-Process-Killing Move That Nobody But Sessions Wants!

https://commonwealthlaw.widener.edu/files/resources/letter-to-sessions-immigration-adjudication-with-s.pdf

Professor Jill Family

Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Director, Law and Government Institute
Widener University Commonwealth Law School

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

page1image2446232864

August 14, 2018

Honorable Jeff Sessions Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Sessions:

We are scholars and teachers of immigration law and of administrative law. We write to express our alarm about the Department of Justice’s new performance metrics for immigration judges. We believe the Department’s performance metrics are unacceptable and fear they are a part of larger goal to undermine the independence of the immigration courts.

Longstanding problems with immigration adjudication have simmered through both Republican and Democratic administrations.1 These problems have manifested in a tremendous backlog of cases awaiting adjudication: over 700,000 cases.2 The wait for a removal hearing can last years.3 The status quo is not acceptable and actions to reform the system are imperative.

Reforms, however, need to enhance fairness by protecting individual rights. Whether the adjudicating body is the Environmental Protection Agency, the Internal Revenue Service, or the Department of Justice in a removal proceeding, how government power is used against a respondent should be scrutinized. This concern is amplified in immigration law because Congress has eliminated federal court review of some issues. For many, the agency hearing before the Department of Justice is the only opportunity to seek statutory protections.

1 Our comments here focus on the Department of Justice’s proposed performance metrics for immigration judges, but there are other issues facing the immigration adjudication system, including a lack of access to counsel and the many types of diversions used to prevent an individual from reaching immigration court. SeeIngrid V. Eagly & Steven Shafer, A National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, 164 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (2015); Jill E. Family, A Broader View of the Immigration Adjudication Problem, 23 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 595 (2009).2 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Backlog of Pending Cases in Immigration Courts as of May 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog.php.

3 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Average Time Pending Cases Have Been Waiting in Immigration Courts as of May 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog_avgdays.php.

Widener University Commonwealth Law School, 3800 Vartan Way, Harrisburg, PA 17110
t: 717-541-3911 f: 717-541-3966 e: jefamily@widener.edu w: commonwealthlaw.widener.edu

page1image2495023184 page1image2495023456 page1image2495023728

The concept of fair process in implementing the rule of law is one of the most fundamental American principles. It is a pillar of meaningful democracy. The idea that the government should not deprive any person4 of life, liberty or property without first providing fair process is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The repercussions of a lack of fair procedure can be devastating. While it is incumbent on any federal administration to act efficiently, the adjudication process must be fair.

The fair process calculus demands an adjudicator who does not feel compelled to rule in a certain way due to unacceptable influences. The law itself may of course compel an adjudicator, but the scenario becomes very murky very quickly when an adjudicator has a personal stake in the outcome of a case.

Agency adjudicators are not Article III judges and never have had the full independence of federal court judges. Immigration Judges do not have even the job protections that other agency adjudicators enjoy, however.5 Immigration judges are attorney employees of the Department of Justice.6 The Department of Justice sets the conditions of employment, including location of employment and whether employment continues.7 A Department of Justice regulation, nevertheless, tells immigration judges to “exercise independent judgment and discretion” when making decisions.8 Also, the immigration judge position has evolved over time to make it more independent,9 even if it has not reached the ideal level of independence.10

Congress has tasked you, the Attorney General, with the management of the Department of Justice, including immigration adjudication. It is your duty to insist that fairness and independence are a part of the system. Agency adjudicators are by nature more accountable to the executive branch. But that does not mean that agency adjudicators should be mere vessels who fail to apply statutory standards or who apply the law subject

4 The Due Process Clause is not limited to citizens. U.S. CONST. amends. V, IV.
5 See Kent Barnett, Against Administrative Judges, 49 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1643, 1647 (2016).
6 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(a).
7 See Board of Immigration Appeals: Procedural Reforms to Improve Case Management,
67 Fed. Reg. 54,878, 54,893 (Aug. 26, 2002) (codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 3).
8 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b).
9 Sidney B. Rawitz, From Wong Yang Sung to Black Robes, 65 INTERPRETER RELEASES 453 (1988).
10 There are proposals, for example, to recreate immigration adjudication as an Article I court with greater autonomy from the executive branch. Christine Lockhart Poarch, The FBA’s Proposal to Create a Federal Immigration Court, THE FEDERAL LAWYER (April 2014), available at http://www.fedbar.org/Image- Library/Government-Relations/CH16/Proposed-Article-I-Immigration-Court.aspx; American Bar Association,Reforming the Immigration System (2010) at E9, available athttps://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/media/nosearch/immigration_reform_executive_s ummary_012510.authcheckdam.pdf; American Immigration Lawyers Association, Resolution on Immigration Court Reform (2018), available at https://www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile/74919. See also Stephen H. Legomsky, Restructuring Immigration Adjudication, 59 DUKE L.J. 1635, 1640 (2010) (recommending that immigration judges become administrative law judges and be relocated from the Department of Justice to an independent tribunal within the executive branch).

page2image2496209728 page2image2496210000 page2image2496210272 page2image2496210544 page2image2496210880 page2image2496211216

to unfair influence or a conflict of interest. Independence and a lack of bias help to protect individual rights and to secure public confidence in the integrity of the process.

The Department of Justice should not conflate enforcement with adjudication. Immigration judges are not prosecutors. Immigration adjudication is different than other functions of the Department of Justice. Immigration judges hear cases initiated by the Department of Homeland Security.11 The Department of Homeland Security therefore decides who enters the immigration adjudication system. The Department of Justice is tasked not with enforcement, but rather with carefully evaluating another agency’s claims that an individual should be removed from the United States.12

The Department of Justice must adjust and rapidly respond to the work thrust upon it by the Department of Homeland Security. One tool to help improve the efficiency and operations of the immigration courts would be for the Department of Homeland Security to more carefully assess and vet the cases it chooses to bring forward. We urge you to work with the Department of Homeland Security to improve their procedures rather than expecting all management of enormous dockets to fall on the shoulders of the immigration judges.

Instead of providing adequate resources13 or implementing other case management tactics, the Department of Justice has proposed the case completion quotas. 14 We believe that these quotas show disregard for the importance of independence,15 including avoidance of a conflict of interest, in adjudication. The quotas seem to align with President Trump’s

11 Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 12 (2012), available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness- in-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf.
12 Congress has charged immigration judges with the duty to adjudicate charges of removal. 8 U.S.C. §1229a.13 The Administrative Conference of the United States has recognized the need for additional resources for immigration adjudication. See Administrative Conference Recommendation 2012-3 at 3, 5, available athttps://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012-3.pdf. We recognize that the Department of Justice has been hiring more immigration judges, but the number of judges has not kept pace with the workload. In 2012, there were 264 immigration judges and now there are approximately 330. Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 6 (2012),available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness-in- Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf; (reporting 264 immigration judges in 2012); U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the- chief-immigration-judge (stating that there are approximately 330 immigration judges).

14 EOIR Performance Plan, available at http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/04/02/immigration-judges- memo.pdf.
15 We implore the Department of Justice to promote independence even outside the context of the quotas. A group of former immigration adjudicators recently objected to the Department’s removal of an immigration judge from a particular case and replacement with a supervisory judge who implemented the administration’s preferred outcome. Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement in Response to Latest Attack on Judicial Independence, July 30, 2018, available at,https://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-ijs-former-bia-mems-attack-on-jud-independ.

page3image2495416384 page3image2495416656 page3image2495416928 page3image2495417200 page3image2495417536 page3image2495417808 page3image2495418080 page3image2495418352 page3image2495418816 page3image2495419088 page3image2495419360

displeasure with the need for process in immigration cases. In response to a Republican proposal to add 375 immigration judges, he said, “We don’t want judges; we want security on the border.”16 He also characterized the Republican proposal as adding five or six thousand more judges (in actuality the legislation proposed adding 375 judges).17 He said that to add that many judges must involve graft.18 He also has claimed that there is something wrong with foreign nationals having lawyers represent them in immigration proceedings.19

Performance metrics for judges are not inherently objectionable. Careful data collection and analysis can be helpful for training adjudicators and for marshalling court resources. Immigration judges already are subject to qualitative evaluations of their work. These new quantitative performance metrics, however, appear to affect conditions of employment20such as salary and location of employment.21 This is unacceptable. These metrics will diminish independence in immigration adjudication as immigration judges will now have a personal stake in the outcome of cases. Meeting the performance metrics will become a powerful influence over immigration decision-making.

The metrics establish case completion quotas for immigration judges at 700 completions per year. This sets up many immigration judges to fail, or perhaps even worse, encourages immigration judges to cut corners to meet the quota.22 As far as we know, the Department has not introduced a case weighting system. Not every immigration court docket is the

16 Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration, June 19, 2018, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks- president-trump-national-federation-independent-businesses-75th-anniversary-celebration/.
17 Id; GOP Moves to End Trump’s Family Separation Policy, but Can’t Agree How, N.Y. TIMES, June 19, 2018,available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-separated- families.html.

18 Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration, June 19, 2018, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks- president-trump-national-federation-independent-businesses-75th-anniversary-celebration/.
19 Id.

20 We are aware of your congressional testimony stating that an immigration judge would not be fired automatically for failing to meet the quota and that the Department of Justice would consider an explanation why a judge did not meet a quota. Department of Justice FY19 Budget: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, 115th Cong., available at https://www.c- span.org/video/?444369-1/attorney-general-sessions-testifies-justice-department-budget#&start=1786(testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions at 31:20). The Department, however, has not clarified exactly how these performance metrics would be used, and immigration judges believe that a failure to meet a quota would be used punitively. See Letter from A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, National Association of Immigration Judges, to Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions, May 2, 2018, available athttps://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4452614/NAIJ-Letter-to-the-AG-5-2-2018.pdf.
21 Location of employment is valuable in a system with immigration courts in major cities and in extremely remote detention centers.
22 Russell Wheeler, Amid Turmoil on the Border, New DOJ Policy Encourages Immigration Judges to Cut Corners, June 18, 2018, available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/18/amid-turmoil-on- the-border-new-doj-policy-encourages-immigration-judges-to-cut-corners/.

page4image2447820752 page4image2447821024 page4image2447821296 page4image2447821568 page4image2447821904 page4image2447822176 page4image2447822448 page4image2447822720 page4image2447823120 page4image2447823392 page4image2447823664 page4image2447823936

same. Deciding 700 claims for asylum is not the same workload as deciding 700 cases where the only issue is whether a foreign national entered the United States without inspection. Asylum cases require careful consideration of evidence about country conditions and an applicant’s experiences in that country. Also, the unique characteristics of a particular judge’s caseload could prevent meeting the case completion goal. Some immigration courts have specialized dockets for vulnerable populations such as those with mental illness or juveniles. Judges assigned to these dockets have additional obligations to ensure minimum standards of fairness.23

The quota motivates judges to come up with coping mechanisms. 24 Efficiencies can come at too great of a cost. For example, what if an immigration judge decides to review paper records and then decide which cases to invite to provide live testimony? If a judge is worried about meeting a quota, a judge might only schedule those matters that could be handled quickly. That would leave more complicated cases to be decided on paper submissions alone.

The quota also sets up an incentive for immigration judges to deny applications for relief. Cancellation of removal provides just one example. By statute, the number of grants of cancellation of removal is limited to 4,000 per year.25 Once the cap is reached, immigration judges may delay a grant to the following fiscal year. If deferring a grant is not considered a completion, then the incentive is to deny the application for relief to earn a completion. This incentive exists even if an immigration judge sincerely believes that the individual is eligible for relief from removal. There are similar issues where the Department of Homeland Security must complete final security checks before a grant of asylum. The immigration judge knows that an asylum case requires multiple steps to complete, but a denial of a case shortens the completion time. Should the judge erroneously deny relief to maintain his or her conditions of employment?

In addition to the case completion quotas, the Department’s proposal calls for certain types of cases to be decided within a certain number of days. This further erodes an immigration judge’s independence to decide what cases need more attention or to allow a continuance to ensure fairness. For example, the plan calls for 95% of all individual merits hearings to take place on the originally scheduled date. The problem here is that there are many forces

23 The federal courts impose obligations on individual immigration judges. For example, in a recent decision on whether a juvenile must be appointed counsel, the Ninth Circuit held that the detailed questioning by the immigration judge was an adequate substitute for appointed counsel. C.J.L.G. v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 1122, 1137-42 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting the obligations of the immigration judge to develop the record). While many of us disagree with the lack of appointed counsel for indigent children, it is clear that federal courts mandate an active and inquisitorial role of immigration judges that requires time and patience.

24 Your own recent decision in Matter of Castro-Tum eliminated a docket management tool known as administrative closure. Now immigration judges must keep these cases active and open on their dockets. 27 I&N Dec. 271 (2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1064086/download.
25 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(e).

page5image2447443024 page5image2447443296

at work that lead immigration judges to issue continuances. Because there is no right to government funded counsel in removal proceedings, foreign nationals may ask for a continuance to find a lawyer, or a newly hired lawyer may need time to prepare. Also, witnesses may not be available on a particular date, or testimony may run long, and the hearing may need to be continued to another day. The 95% goal encourages immigration judges to hold hearings without lawyers even when the foreign national desires one and provides incentive for immigration judges to cut hearings short. Moreover, a study conducted on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States revealed a significant percentage of the delays in cases were made at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, not the respondent.26 If the Department of Homeland Security is not ready to proceed and the immigration judge rushes to completion, the government may have to file more appeals. That would simply create more work somewhere else.

As we noted above, the priorities of the Department of Homeland Security directly and at times dramatically impact the work of the immigration courts. The case completion quotas have arrived at the same time that President Trump’s administration has changed its prosecutorial discretion policies to make more foreign nationals priorities for removal.27The administration has announced its plans to open more actions in immigration court.28

Also, the Department of Justice has announced that it is reviewing the Legal Orientation Program, which provides information about the removal process to immigration detainees in a group setting.29 This review is taking place despite previous reviews that have found the program to increase the efficiency of the immigration courts and to save the government money.30 Without an adequate increase in resources, putting more individuals in removal proceedings and/or ending the Legal Orientation Program will only magnify the negative effects of the performance metrics.

26 Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 73 (2012), available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness- in-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf (reporting that 11% of delays were because a Department of Homeland Security attorney was not ready to proceed and that 14% were because the Department of Homeland Security was missing a file).

27 Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (Jan. 25, 2017), available athttps://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united- states/.
28 See, e.g., US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Updated Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens (June 28, 2018), available at,https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2018/2018-06-28-PM-602-0050.1- Guidance-for-Referral-of-Cases-and-Issuance-of-NTA.pdf.
29 Sessions Backtracks on Pausing Legal Aid Program for Immigrants Facing Deportation, WASH. POST. (April 25, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/sessions-backtracks-on-pausing- legal-aid-program-for-immigrants/2018/04/25/c0d27a12-48cb-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html.
30ICE Praised Legal-aid Program for Immigrants that Justice Dept. Plans to Suspend, WASH. POST. (April 17, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/ice-praised-legal-aid-program-for- immigrants-that-justice-dept-plans-to-suspend/2018/04/17/c0b073d4-3f31-11e8-974f- aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.8fa7c90bba02.

page6image2446777488 page6image2446777760 page6image2446778032 page6image2446770080 page6image2446770288 page6image2446770496 page6image2446770768 page6image2446771040 page6image2446771440 page6image2446771712 page6image2446771984 page6image2446772320

The Department’s performance metrics are a poor fit for the realities of immigration adjudication. Immigration law is extremely harsh and complex, and the consequences of the decisions of immigration judges are weighty. These decisions should not be made too quickly. An immigration judge must apply statutes that rival the tax code in complexity and must ensure the opportunity to be heard to a diverse and often poorly educated pool of respondents. The Supreme Court regularly hears immigration law cases that require it to resolve thorny questions. These Supreme Court opinions often leave many questions unanswered, as the Court only decides issues directly before it. Immigration judges need time to digest new interpretations and to think about how those new interpretations apply in a wide array of factual scenarios. For example, a recent Supreme Court decision holding certain Department of Homeland Security charging documents31 to be ineffective has created motions within the immigration courts to terminate proceedings and to reopen older cases. Finally, immigration judges are deciding cases with grave consequences. If an individual is removed, they may face death upon return to their country of nationality. Or an individual may be separated from children or other close family.

The immigration adjudication system needs more resources. More immigration judges need to be hired to guarantee that we do not sacrifice our cherished American values and our constitutional obligations. We also note that with the hiring of judges it is critical that the agency adequately provide support staff from law clerks to court administration. All immigration judges need more time to work through their cases fairly and efficiently. Immigration judges need to be given independence so that we all have confidence that their decisions are based on their judgment as adjudicators, and not influenced by what the adjudicators think best will guarantee positive conditions of employment.

We appreciate that you want to work to ensure efficiency in immigration adjudication. However, you are also charged with guiding our government to comply with the rule of law and to protect American legal values. Accordingly, we urge you to reconsider the new performance metrics.

Respectfully,
(Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.)

Jill E. Family
Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Director, Law and Government Institute
Widener University Commonwealth Law School

31 Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105, 585 U.S. ___ (June 21, 2018).

page7image2407044480 page7image2407044768

Lenni B. Benson Professor of Law New York Law School

Matthew Hirsch
Attorney/Adjunct Professor of Immigration and Nationality Law Delaware Law School, Widener University

Huyen Pham
Professor
Texas A&M University School of Law

Jacqueline Stevens
Professor and Director, Deportation Research Clinic Northwestern University

Anju Gupta
Professor of Law and Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic Rutgers School of Law

William Brooks
Clinical Professor of Law Touro Law Center

Maria Isabel Medina
Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

Jennifer Moore
Professor of Law University of New Mexico

Dina Francesca Haynes Professor of Law
New England Law

Nickole Miller
Clinical Teaching Fellow
University of Baltimore School of Law, Immigrant Rights Clinic

Estelle M McKee Clinical Professor Cornell Law School

Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

Marisa Cianciarulo
Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Chapman University Fowler School of Law

Lucy E. Salyer
Associate Professor
History Department, University of New Hampshire

Deborah M. Weissman
Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law UNC School of Law

Carrie Rosenbaum
Adjunct Professor
Golden Gate University School of Law

Emily Robinson
Co-Director, Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic Loyola Law School Los Angeles

Fatma Marouf
Professor of Law
Texas A&M School of Law

Karen Musalo Professor U.C. Hastings

Miriam Marton
Assistant Clinical Professor University of Tulsa College of Law

Helena Marissa Montes Co-Director
Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic

Alan Hyde Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School

Stephen H. Legomsky
John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus Washington University School of Law

Erica Schommer
Clinical Associate Professor of Law St. Mary’s University School of Law

Renee C. Redman
Adjunct Professor
University of Connecticut School of Law

Linda Bosniak Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School

Jonathan Weinberg Professor of Law Wayne State University

Denise Gilman
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic

Kayleen R. Hartman Clinical Teaching Fellow Loyola Law School

Lynn Marcus
Director, Immigration Law Clinic
University of Arizona Rogers College of Law

Elizabeth McCormick
Associate Clinical Professor University of Tulsa College of Law

Christopher N. Lasch
Professor of Law
University of Denver Sturm College of Law

John Palmer Tenure-Track Professor Universitat Pompeu Fabra

Julie Ann Dahlstrom
Clinical Associate Professor Boston University School of Law

Susan Gzesh
Senior Lecturer University of Chicago

Violeta Chapin
Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado

Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law
Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law

Rachel E. Rosenbloom
Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law

Caitlin Barry
Assistant Professor of Law
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Dr. Richard T. Middleton, IV
Adjunct Professor of Law; Associate Professor of Political Science St. Louis University School of Law; University of Missouri-St. Louis

Anna Welch
Clinical Professor
University of Maine School of Law

Charles Shane Ellison
Director of the Immigrant and Refugee Clinic Special Assistant Professor
Creighton University School of Law

Yolanda Vázquez
Associate Professor of Law
University of Cincinnati College of Law

Claire R. Thomas
Director, Asylum Clinic; Adjunct Professor of Law New York Law School

Laura A. Hernandez Professor of Law Baylor Law School

Kate Evans
Associate Professor of Law University of Idaho College of Law

Stella Burch Elias
Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law

Rachel Settlage Associate Professor Wayne State Law School

Hiroko Kusuda
Clinic Professor
Loyola New Orleans University

Sabi Ardalan
Assistant Clinical Professor Harvard Law School

Joshua I. Schwartz
E.K. Gubin Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School

Florence Wagman Roisman
William F. Harvey Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Professor Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Richard J. Pierce Jr.
Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law George Washington University

Michael Sharon
Adjunct Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Susan Rose-Ackerman
Henry R. Luce Professor of Law and Political Science, Emeritus Yale University

Jaya Ramji-Nogales
I. Herman Stern Research Professor Temple Law School

Michael Asimow
Visiting Professor of Law Stanford Law School

Natalie Gomez-Velez
Professor of Law
City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law

Adell Amos
Associate Dean & Clayton R. Hess Professor of Law University of Oregon

Harold J. Krent
Dean & Professor of Law Chicago-Kent College of Law

Aila Hoss
Visiting Assistant Professor
Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Richard Reuben
James Lewis Parks Professor of Law and Journalism University of Missouri School of Law

Morell E. Mullins, Sr. Professor Emeritus
UALR Bowen School of Law

Bernard W. Bell
Professor of Law and Herbert Hannoch Scholar Rutgers Law School

Rose Cuison Villazor Professor of Law Rutgers Law School

Lauris Wren
Clinical Professor of Law
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

Victor Romero
Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Scholar Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Professor of Law Penn State Law (University Park)

David Baluarte
Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington and Lee University School of Law

Michelle N. Mendez
Adjunct Professor, Immigrant Rights Clinic University of Baltimore School of Law

Jeffrey A. Heller
Adjunct Clinical Professor Emeritus Brooklyn Law School
Seton Hall University School of Law

Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor and Director, International Human Rights Law Clinic Boston University School of Law

Laila L. Hlass
Professor of Practice
Tulane University School of Law

Joanne Gottesman Clinical Professor of Law Rutgers Law School

Jennifer Lee Koh
Professor of Law
Western State College of Law

Geoffrey Hoffman
Director
Univ. of Houston Law Ctr. Immigration Clinic

Ingrid Eagly Professor of Law UCLA School of Law

Jason A. Cade
Associate Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law

Peter M. Shane
Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Ohio State University

Anna Williams Shavers
Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law University of Nebraska College of Law

Stewart Chang
Professor of Law
UNLV Boyd School of Law

Margaret H. Taylor
Professor of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law

Elora Mukherjee
Jerome L. Greene Clinical Professor of Law Columbia Law School

Michael J. Churgin
Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor in Law The University of Texas at Austin

Kathleen Kim
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School Los Angeles

Ming H Chen
Associate Professor
University of Colorado Law School

Anil Kalhan
Professor of Law
Drexel University Kline School of Law

Shruti Rana
Professor
Indiana University Bloomington

Hilary Evans Cameron Instructor
Trinity College

Fernando Colon
Professor
Thurgood Marshall School of Law

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law Penn State Law – University Park

Blake Close Nordahl Clinical Professor McGeorge Law School

Kaci Bishop
Clinical Associate Professor of Law
The University of North Carolina School of Law

Craig B. Mousin Adjunct Faculty DePaul University

Joel A. Mintz
Professsor of Law Emeritus
C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law Nova Southeastern University College of Law

Raquel E Aldana
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Diversity and Professor of Law UC Davis

Lindsay M. Harris
Assistant Professor of Law
Co-Director of Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law

Sheila Hayre
Visiting Associate Professor Quinnipiac University School of Law

Andrew Moore
Associate Professor of Law
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

Krista Kshatriya Lecturer
UC San Diego

David B. Thronson
Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of Law

Mary Holper
Associate Clinical Professor Boston College Law School

Amelia McGowan
Adjunct Professor
Mississippi College School of Law Immigration Clinic

Maryellen Fullerton Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School

Renée M. Landers
Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Health and Biomedical Law Concentration Suffolk University Law School

Leti Volpp
Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law UC Berkeley

Alexander Vernon
Director, Immigration Law Clinic Detroit Mercy School of Law

Irene Scharf
Professor of Law
University of Massachusetts School of law

Seymour Moskowitz Senior Research Professor Valparaiso Law School

Veronica T. Thronson
Clinical Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of Law

Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law

Mariela Olivares
Associate Professor of Law Howard University School of Law

Barbara Hines
Retired Clinical Professor of Law University of Texas School of Law

Richard T. Middleton, IV
Associate Professor of Political Science Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Missouri-St. Louis
St. Louis University School of Law

Deborah Gonzalez
Director of the Immigration Clinic Associate Clinical Professor Roger Williams University School of Law

Alizabeth Newman
Int. Dir. Alumni Engagement & Initiatives CUNY School of Law

Juliet Stumpf
Robert E. Jones Professor of Advocacy & Ethics Lewis & Clark Law School

Bijal Shah
Associate Professor of Law
Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

Niels W. Frenzen
Sidney M. and Audrey M. Irmas Endowed Clinical Professor of Law Univ. of Southern California, Gould School of Law

Jon Michaels Professor of Law UCLA School of Law

Kit Johnson
Associate Professor of Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law

Nina Rabin
Director, UCLA Immigrant Family Legal Clinic UCLA School of Law

Karen E. Bravo
Professor
IU McKinney School of Law

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

Not likely to make any difference with Sessions & Co. But, Sessions is rapidly driving an already crippled and demoralized system into collapse. If Congress doesn’t fix it soon, which almost nobody thinks will happen, the Article III Federal Courts will eventually have to sort out (not for the first time — witness child separation, sanctuary cities, Travel Ban 1&2, violation of stays of removal, DACA termination, etc.) this self-inflicted mess created by the Department of Justice under the last three Administrations and accelerated by Sessions and his White Nationalist agenda.

And, NO, the answer isn’t to blame the victims: the respondents, their courageous, hard-working counsel, and the judges and their dedicated staff. The answer is to hold the “perps,” in this case Sessions and his gang, accountable and place them under strict judicial supervision until Due Process and order are restored to our Immigration Courts.

PWS

08-15-18

RETIRED ARTICLE III JUDGES OFFER TO SERVE AS U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO HELP RESOLVE BACKLOGS!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/26/us/retired-judges-immigration-case-backlog/index.html

Emanuella Grinberg reports for CNN:

(CNN)The number of pending cases in US immigration courts hit a record high this year and the trend shows no sign of slowing down.

With more than 700,000 open cases as of May, judges face a heavy case load. To alleviate the burden, two retired federal judges have proposed a solution: bring jurists like them back to the bench.

“We certainly have the expertise. We’ve handled heavy dockets of cases and we’re accustomed with having to get up to speed very quickly in various areas of the law,” retired US District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel said.

Patel and retired Judge D. Lowell Jensen sent a letter with the recommendation earlier this month to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and James McHenry, director of the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday night.

“We are aware that at this time there are extraordinary burdens and backlogs faced every day by the country’s immigration judges, particularly along the southern border. We believe retired federal judges are a valuable untapped resource who could be called into service to assist in handling the immigration caseload fairly and efficiently,” the pair wrote in a letter dated July 12.

Retired judges have been vetted before so the process for obtaining security clearances wouldn’t take as long as it would for new appointees, the letter said. And because federal judges receive an annuity from the government, they could potentially “volunteer” their time without drawing a salary, Patel added.

Retired US District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in 1992.

They also bring experience in immigration law from their time on the bench and other chapters of their career, Patel said. She worked as a DOJ attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1967 to 1971. She served as district court judge for 32 years before retiring in 2012.

Like many federal judges, especially those in large metropolitan areas or near ports of entry, Patel said she handled various immigration matters: asylum cases, deportations, removals and petitions for release, or habeas corpus. None in particular stand out — “they sort of merge all together,” she said. But one of her cases resurfaced after she retired, through the Trump administration’s travel ban.

In 1983, Patel overturned Japanese-American Fred Korematsu’s criminal conviction for disobeying government orders during World War II to leave his Bay Area home and enter an internment camp. But the infamous 1944 Supreme Court decision that blessed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II remained intact — until Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the court was overruling it in its ruling upholding the travel ban.

Otherwise, Patel said she has kept a relatively low profile, with a few speaking engagements and some consulting work here and there. But as controversy and caseloads grew along the southern border, she felt compelled to act, she said. She contacted Jensen, who served on the federal bench for 28 years, who agreed to co-sign the letter.

“We urge you to utilize this considerable resource since we know that vetting and appointment of new [immigration judges] will take some time, and time is of the essence to meet the crushing burden of pending and new cases,” the letter said.

Patel said she had yet to receive any response from the government.

“I’m not holding my breath,” she said. “I know federal judges are perceived as being very independent and that may not be to the liking of the attorney general or the Department of Justice at this time.”

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

Interesting!

Sounds like a great idea! I think it would be an eye opener for both the Article IIIs and the IJs.

Suspect, though, as suggested in the article, the “real judges” would be too independent for Sessions & McHenry.

How DOJ & EOIR respond to this offer will tell us lots about whether they genuinely desire to resolve the Immigration Court backlog in a fundamentally fair manner, consistent with Due Process, or whether the backlog is purposely being “jacked up” and used as a “bludgeon” by Sessions to eliminate Due Process and otherwise push for draconian changes in the law.

PWS

07-30-18

KATIE BENNER @ NYT: SESSIONS USES IMMIGRATION JUDGE “TRAINING” CONFERENCE TO INSTILL FEAR AND UP ALREADY ASTRONOMIC STRESS LEVELS ON IMMIGRATION JUDGES – IMPROPERLY TOUTS “VOLUME” WHILE FAILING TO PROMOTE IMPARTIALITY, FAIRNESS, AND DUE PROCESS!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/us/politics/immigration-judges-jeff-sessions.html

Katie writes:

TYSONS, Va. — As the nation’s immigration judges gathered here for training this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a message: They needed to help “end the lawlessness that now exists in our immigration system.”

But to many of the judges, Mr. Sessions’s hard-line immigration agenda is increasingly standing in the way of their ability to mete out justice.

In interviews, some objected to quotas he imposed on them this spring of 700 cases per year, as well as his ban on a bureaucratic tool they used to reduce their caseloads. Others expressed concern about the impact his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration could have on their dockets, and his push for faster rulings. They viewed those together as leaving them at risk of creating a system that sacrifices due process for efficiency.

“Sessions is treating them like immigration officers, not judges,” said Paul Schmidt, a former judge in the immigration courts, which count more than 300 judges in their ranks and another two dozen or so on an immigration appeals board.

Mr. Sessions’s carrying out of his immigration agenda has reignited a long-running debate about the independence of immigration judges, who are part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch. Some of the judges fear that they could be used to help fulfill the administration’s priorities, endangering their independence.

“The Justice Department is the premier law enforcement agency, but the role of law enforcement is different from that of a neutral court,” said Dana Leigh Marks, the president emeritus of the immigration judges’ union. She said the organization believes the time has come to separate immigration courts from the department.

. . . .

In a speech on Monday at the judges’ conference outside Washington, hosted by the Justice Department, Mr. Sessions asked them to look for inefficiencies to finish cases more quickly.

“We have to be very productive,” he said. “Volume is critical.”

Three judges said they were struck by his emphasis on speed, prosecutions and policy matters without acknowledgment of the need to balance those demands with ensuring due process for immigrants. They said they feared the focus on metrics and closing cases would make it harder to sort through complicated cases and easier to simply deny applications for entry into the United States.

Scores of attendees wore American flag pins in support of “judicial independence and integrity in our courts,” according to a note accompanying the pins.

Dozens of judges who gathered early Monday evening expressed anxiety over their treatment, according to one person present who was not authorized to share the details of the private meeting.

They said they lacked specifics on which cases would count toward their quotas. They pointed to Mr. Sessions’s ban on their use of administrative closure, the tool that effectively allowed them to close cases. And they worried that his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration would flood the system with new cases and make it hard for them to decrease the system backlog of about 700,000 cases.

The potential impact of Mr. Sessions’s zero-tolerance policy toward immigration has been of particular concern to judges who are already grappling with a large caseload. “It’s as if local police and prosecutors decided to prosecute every traffic ticket of anyone going 2 miles per hour over the speed limit and filled the court system with those cases,” Mr. Schmidt said.

Judges are also resigning in large numbers, Ms. Marks said, a pattern she expected to continue. As of last year, 39 percent of immigration judges were eligible for retirement, according to a study conducted by the Government Accountability Office. Many immigration judges were sworn in during a wave of hiring in the 1990s.

The Justice Department has said it is on pace to hire 100 more judges this year, and its data shows that the department has never filled every slot. Currently there are 336 judges out of the 484 authorized slots.

In a conference session on Tuesday afternoon with Mr. McHenry, one judge asked if they could delay disciplining judges on the attorney general’s directives about metrics and streamlining the system. The room erupted in applause, but the question went unanswered.

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

Read Katie’s full article at the above link!

Immigration is an incredibly complex area of the law — often compared with the Tax Code. And, it almost certainly has more direct and potentially life-threatening and life-changing effects than does tax law (with due apologies to my tax lawyer colleagues). For better or worse, when they have an opportunity to get together at annual conferences (which aren’t necessarily held annually), most Immigration Judges love to “talk shop.”

Normally, you’d expect to hear things like questions about pending Supreme Court cases, the latest BIA precedent decision, immigration reform legislation, or how to constructively react to some of the criticism dished out by Circuit Courts, as well as sharing “best practices” to achieve fundamental fairness with efficiency.

But, while I was waiting in the lobby to meet my “dinner group” of some former colleagues, the “hall chatter” was all about things like “judicial dashboards,” “production quotas,” “what counts as a completion,” “docket rearrangement without consultation,” “required retraining” (sounded very much like a judicial version of the former Soviet “re-educaton camps”), “stress relief,” “not losing it in court,” “retirement estimates,” and, perhaps most tellingly “how can I remain true to my oath of office and job description without getting harassed, fired, or reassigned?”

Not much room for talk of law, Due Process, best methods and practices, and how to insure that folks, including the unrepresented, get the relief they might be entitled to under the immigration laws.

Appropriate for a judicial conference? Of course not! But, when your “keynote address” is delivered by a totally non-judicial Enforcement Cheerleader in a tone and with content more appropriate to a class of new Border Patrol officers than a group of supposedly independent, senior, quasi-judicial officers of the U.S. Government, that’s what you’re going to get. What must newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judges — some who gave up other good jobs to serve in these positions — have thought?

What made it even worse was the misuse of the judicial conference as a “platform” to release a “personal rewrite” by Sessions (although I suspect some outside group actually drafted it for him or gave him the outline) of established asylum principles in a way that dripped with overt hostility to legitimate asylum seekers, most of them desperate abused women, and was accompanied by unsupported statements about asylum fraud and bogus statistics that could have come right out of a “restrictionist group’s backgrounder.” The message to the judges was very clear — most asylum seekers are fraudsters, so you should cut corners, prejudge cases, look for any reason to deny asylum, preferably at the preliminary stage without wasting time on a full hearing, and crank out those denials to deter folks from fraudulently seeking refuge under our laws — or start looking for a new job!

From a legal, ethical, moral, and intellectual honesty standpoint, the Attorney General’s speech to the Immigration Judges was simply jaw-droppingly inappropriate! How is a quasi-judicial officer sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and charged by regulation with “exercising independent judgment” supposed to “negotiate” a system where the “boss” is basically saying “to heck with fairness, respect, and quality — just crank up the volume.”

Contrary to what Sessions said, DHS isn’t EOIR’s “partner.” No, DHS is a party in interest to every adversary proceeding in Immigration Court! They are legally entitled to no better treatment or consideration than any foreign national respondent, even an unrepresented one!

Indeed, the Due Process Clause of our Constitution applies to respondents but not to the DHS! The “founding fathers” weren’t trying to protect the rights of the Government under the Bill of Rights. They were seeking to protect individuals against Govenment overreach and abuses. Jeff Sessions is just the type of overbearing Government official that the founding fathers might have envisioned abusing the power and authority of his office.

“Rumored” assertions by some EOIR management officials that “we don’t care how you decide these cases” are patently absurd! Of course, Jeff Sessions cares about the results! He wants removal orders — fast and by the truckload!

He certainly wasn’t talking about racing through hundreds of thousands of cases to grant 43%-56% of the asylum cases that are decided on the merits, which is what should happen based on past performance had Sessions not reached in to “tilt” the law against asylum seekers and to use detention and family separation to coerce individuals into giving up potentially winnable claims. Anybody who perceived Sessions’s remarks to the judges on Monday as an encouragement to treat asylum applicants fairly, impartially, humanely, respectfully, and to insure that the generous interpretation of well-founded fear set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca was followed would need their head examined!

Even though immigrants, both legal and undocumented, forced and voluntary, built America and are primarily responsible for our success as a nation, I can’t remember ever hearing Jeff Sessions say anything kind or nice about any foreign national! Indeed, it’s hard to think of any public occasion when Sessions addressed immigration without providing some false narrative, ethnic slur, bogus or misleading statistic, denigrating the contributions of immigrants, dehumanizing them, or seeking to drum up xenophobia by touting false links between migrants and crime.

Sessions’s other message to the judges: By the way, folks, this backlog mess that we and our predecessors have created and are now intentionally aggravating by aimlessly reshuffling dockets, cranking up needless detention, poor enforcement policies, lousy management and hiring practices, absurdly inadequate technology, and attempting to use the Immigration Courts as “deterrents” is your fault (along with the respondents and their attorneys) because you don’t work hard enough or smart enough! You’re going to “take the fall” when we aren’t able to stop human migration by using the Immigration Court as an enforcement tool! We’re giving you “mission impossible,” and if you can’t carry it out, you’re not doing your job!

Congress — which is ultimately responsible for this mess — and the Article III Courts who have knowingly and intentionally swept the glaring Due Process deficiencies, stunning ethical conflicts, lack of quality control, and failure to consistently provide fundamental fairness under their “Ivory Tower carpets” for far too long are going to have to step up and put an end to this parody of justice or accept responsibility for the implosion of the Immigration Courts and Constitutional Due Process that are looming on the horizon.

One thing is for certain: You can’t run a Due Process, fundamentally fair court system under Jeff Sessions. He proved that this week — beyond any reasonable doubt! Anybody who doubts that, isn’t being reasonable — or isn’t paying attention!

PWS

06-13-18

“GANG” OF RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES IMMEDIATELY CONDEMNS LATEST OUTRAGEOUS ATTACK ON ASYLUM LAW, DUE PROCESS, & HUMAN RIGHTS BY SESSIONS IN MATTER OF A-B-!

http://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-ijs-and-former-members-of-the-bia-issue

Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement in Response to Attorney General’s Decision in Matter of A-B-.

As former Immigration Judges with decades of experience at the trial and appellate level, we consider the Attorney General’s decision an affront to the rule of law. As former judges, we understand that in order to be fair, case law must develop through a process of impartial judicial analysis applying statute, regulations, case law, and other proper sources to the facts of the case.

The life-or-death consequences facing asylum applicants makes it extremely important to keep such analysis immune from the political considerations that appointed cabinet members are subject to.

The BIA’s acknowledgment that a victim of domestic violence may qualify for asylum as a member of a
particular social group was the culmination of a 15 year process through the immigration courts and BIA. The issue was certified by three different Attorneys General (one Democrat and two Republican), who all chose in the end to leave the final determination to the immigration judges and the BIA. The private bar, law enforcement agencies (including DHS), the BIA, and the circuit courts all agreed with this final determination.

What is more, a person who suffers persecution that is perpetrated by private parties whom their government cannot or will not control, is equally eligible for asylum protection under both US law and international refugee treaties.

For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development
that was universally agreed to be correct. Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them. We hope that appellate courts or Congress through legislation will reverse this unilateral action and return the rule of law to asylum adjudications.

Sincerely,

Honorable Steven R. Abrams

Honorable Sarah M. Burr

Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase

Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn

Honorable Cecelia Espenoza

Honorable Noel Ferris

Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.

Honorable William P. Joyce

Honorable Carol King

Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb

Honorable Margaret McManus

Honorable Susan Roy

Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg

Honorable Paul W. Schmidt

Honorable Polly A. Webber

1
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)

List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members
The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.
The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.
The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.
The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003- 2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014 and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.
The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.
The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in
2
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)

immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.
The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.
The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues. The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb
Judge Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench after twenty-seven years in January 2018. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in 1973, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. Judge McManus was an attorney for Marion Ginsberg, Esquire from 1989 to 1990 in New York. She was in private practice in 1987 and 1990, also in New York. Judge McManus worked as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services from 1987 to 1988 in New York. She was an adjunct clinical law professor for City University of New York Law School from 1988 to 1989. Judge McManus served as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1983 to 1987. She is a member of the New York Bar.
The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.
The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of
was appointed as an Immigration Judge in September 1995. She received
a Bachelor of Arts degree from the College of Mt. St. Vincent in 1968, and a Juris Doctorate in 1975 from St.
John’s University. From 1983 to 1995, she was in private practice in New York. Judge Lamb also served as an
adjunct professor at Manhattan Community College from 1990 to 1992. From 1987 to 1995, Judge Lamb
served as an attorney for the Archdiocese of New York as an immigration consultant. From 1980 to 1983, she
worked as senior equal employment attorney for the St. Regis Paper Company in West Mark, New York. From
1978 to 1980, Judge Lamb served as a lawyer for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services in
New York. She is a member of the New York Bar.
3
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)

the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.
The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.
The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.
4
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)

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

The AP already picked up our statement in this article:

https://townhall.com/news/us/2018/06/12/sessions-excludes-domestic-gang-violence-from-asylum-claims-n2489683

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said the decision was “despicable and should be immediately reversed.” And 15 former immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals members signed a letter calling Sessions’ decision “an affront to the rule of law.”

“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the former judges wrote. “Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them.”

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

Also, I was quoted in this article by Alan Pyke posted yesterday in ThinkProgress:

https://thinkprogress.org/jeff-sessions-asylum-domestic-violence-5e1a3e1aa996/

Marching orders, not friendly advice

The attorney general also took care to remind the judges that his decisions aren’t advice from a fellow lawyer but binding instructions from their one true boss. Though they are termed “judges” and wear robes behind a bench in court, the immigration judiciary is essentially a staff arm of the Attorney General rather than the independent arbiters that most envision when hearing their job titles.

Sessions’ frank expression of expectations was jarring to retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt. When attorneys general addressed the training conference in the past, Schmidt said, they stuck to the kind of collegial rah-rah stuff common to executives addressing underappreciated staff — but also stressed an expectation of careful, diligent, and independent professional conduct.

“I’ve never seen an AG come and basically tell the judges they’re part of the border enforcement effort. It’s outrageous,” Schmidt said. “Whether they’re inside DOJ or not, this is supposed to be an administrative court that exercises independent judgment and decisionmaking. And he’s reduced to to where they’re little enforcement officers running around carrying out the AG’s border policies.”

Sessions did go briefly off-book on Monday to offer one conciliatory note, looking up from his notes after calling the current backlog in immigration courts“unacceptable” to acknowledge that it’s been a tougher problem than he expected. “We thought we could get those numbers down, but they’re not going down yet,” Sessions said, before returning to his prepared remarks. He did not acknowledge that his own policies have contributed to the swelling of the backlog, which hit an all-time high in May.

Immigration court backlog hits all-time high, days before Sessions speech to immigration judges

Sessions is redrawing lines more tightly atop an already perversely narrow system.

A separate ruling last Friday helps underline the severity of the limits on traumatized migrants’ rights to seek protection in the United States. In a decision pertaining to the immigration courts’ handling of those accused of providing “material support” to terrorist organizations abroad, the Board of Immigration Appeals decided even labor compelled with death threats counts as grounds to bar someone from the United States.

The Salvadoran woman whose appeals gave rise to the case had been married to a sergeant in El Salvador’s army during a bloody civil war there. Guerrillas kidnapped the woman and her husband, made her watch as he dug his own grave and was shot dead, then made her wash clothes and do other menial chores for the rebel fighters while in captivity.

This clothes-washing and death-avoiding makes her, in the DOJ’s immigration overseers’ eyes, a terrorist no better than the unnamed group — presumably the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMNL) — who killed her husband in front of her and forced her into servitude.

The board denied her appeals and used the case to set a broader line across all immigration courts. Violently coerced labor while imprisoned by a terror organization will permanently bar you from crossing the U.S. border to seek protection. If you try it, we’ll send you back to your captors — presumably after first taking your kids away from you, pursuant to Sessions’ new policy mandating all immigrants crossing the border without documentation be referred to criminal court and thus separated from any minors who accompanied them.

This piece has been updated with additional context about Sessions’ immigration policies and further perspective from immigration policy experts.

Read Alan’s full analysis at the above link. According to many observers, the “small aside” by Sessions in the article is the closest he’s ever come to accepting responsibility for a mess that he, the Trump Administration, and the two previous Administrations actually have caused with their horrible and highly politicized mismanagement of the U.S Immigration Courts.

For the most part, the ever disingenuous Sessions, has tried to shift blame for his gross mismanagement to the victims: migrants (particularly asylum seekers); private attorneys (particularly those heroic attorneys performing pro bono); and the beleaguered, totally demoralized U.S. Immigration Judges themselves who have been stripped of dignity, wrongfully accused of laziness, and placed under inane, sophomoric, “performance standards” — incredibly developed by Sessions and other politicos and “Ivory tower” bureaucrats who have never themselves been Immigration Judges, have no idea what is happening in Immigration Court, and are driven entirely by political bias and/or a desire to keep their comfy jobs on the 5th floor of the DOJ or in the Falls Church Tower — well away from the results of the havoc they are wreaking on local Immigration Courts every day!

What a way to “manage” one of the nation’s largest and most important court systems! The real blame here goes to Congress which created this awful mess, yet has done nothing to remove this joke of a system from the toxic incompetence of the DOJ and create an independent court system where fairness, Due Process, quality, respect, and efficient, unbiased decision-making will be the hallmarks!

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

UPDATE:

The fabulous Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis also reminds me that our statement was the “banner, above the fold” headline on today’s bibdailyonline!

Here’s the link which also includes tons of other “great stuff” that Dan publishes!

http://www.bibdaily.com/

PWS

06-12-18

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

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

May 27 EOIR’s Knee-Jerk Redaction?

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

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

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

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

PWS

05-18-18

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

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

May 27 EOIR’s Hiring Practices Raise Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

As an Attorney-Manager and Government Senior Executive, I always had high expectations for the professionals working for me, which they achieved in the vast, vast majority of cases. My experience told me that everyone had their strengths and weaknesses and that it was the job of a good manager to find ways for everyone to succeed whenever possible.

If I do say so myself, I believe that I was good at finding the right “sweet spots” for folks to “be the best that they can be.” And, I’ll freely acknowledge getting some of my ideas from watching the late “Legacy INS” General Counsel Mike Inman operate. Whatever else one might think or say about “Iron Mike,” he did have an “eye for talent.” He also could take people who seemed to be “bouncing along” in their careers and position them to be outsized contributors and “superstars,” in his lingo.

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

Additionally, with the support of Tony and then Attorney General Janet Reno, I created various supervisory and leadership positions for senior Attorney Advisors that allowed them to assist in the management of the BIA staff while preparing themselves for other senior-level careers both at EOIR and elsewhere. Indeed a significant number of todays Appellate Immigration Judges, Immigration Judges, and senior EOIR managers, and managers in other divisions of the DOJ got their start in management at the BIA.

Disappointingly, under Sessions, EOIR appears to have joined the fight against the career civil service by “dumbing down” in various ways both the Immigration Judge and BIA Attorney Advisor position by making them less attractive to those seeking a career in public service.

I recently was discussing the politicized hiring process with a retired colleague who had worked elsewhere in the DOJ but had knowledge of both the past and current problems at EOIR. She said “It’s happening again, Paul. Just wait till it all comes out — ‘you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!'”

It’s time for EOIR to be removed from the DOJ and its politicized policies and practices! In this instance, “past performance predicts future results!” And, that’s not a good thing!

PWS

05-28-18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

05-07-18

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

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

CARICATURE OF JUSTICE:

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

ABA COMMISISON ON IMMIGRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MAY 4, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(04-04-18)

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

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

PWS

05-04-18

PUBLIC INVITED TO ABA COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION PANEL ON US IMMIGRATION COURT REFORM: FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2018 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM

final_may_4_program_flyer.authcheckdam

Featured Panelists:

(Ret.) Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law

Center Heidi Altman, Policy Director, National Immigration Justice Center James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

Karen Grisez, Special Advisor to the ABA Commission on Immigration; Public Service Counsel, Fried Frank LLP

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

This event is FREE & OPEN TO ALL. I believe there will be a “public comment” opportunity. So, this is your chance to weigh in on the US Immigration Court “Train Wreck” and the Attorney General’s recent actions!🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂

Seating might be limited, and I would expect interest to be high. So, I strongly recommend arriving early!

PWS

04-25-18

TAL @ CNN: DENYING DUE PROCESS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS — Sessions’s Plans & Actions Contravene Many Key Recommendations Of Recent Independent Internal Evaluation – Feuding With Judges, Suspending Legal Orientation Program, Establishing Evaluations Based On “Quotas,” Detailing Judges To Border Detention Centers, Restricting Administrative Closing, Increasing Use Of Televideo Hearings, Emphasis On Increasing Removals Over Due Process All Run Counter To Recent Recommendations!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/immigration-courts-justice-department-report/index.html

Justice report’s findings clash with Sessions’ actions

By Tal Kopan

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made overhauling the chronically backlogged immigration courts a top priority — but some of his moves seem to run counter to recommendations in a Justice Department-commissioned report made public on Monday.

While some of the recommendations, such as increasing staffing, have been part of his efforts, other steps — such as requiring judges to process a target amount of cases — run contrary to the study’s suggestions.

The report was written by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton last April after a yearlong analysis commissioned by the Justice Department’s immigration courts division. A redacted version was made public Monday as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and American Immigration Council.

The report looks at the chronic inability of the immigration courts to keep up with the number of cases before them. Cases related to immigration status are handled in a court system separate from the typical criminal and civil courts in the US — a system that is run entirely by the Justice Department and in which the attorney general effectively functions as a one-man Supreme Court.

Because cases can take years to finish, undocumented immigrants can end up living and building lives in the US as they await a final decision on whether they are legally allowed to stay in the US — something the Trump administration has cited as a driver of illegal immigration.

The Booz Allen Hamilton analysis identifies a number of issues that contribute to the backlog, including staffing shortages, technological difficulties and external factors like an increasing number of cases.

Sessions has worked to hire more immigration judges and has ordered other upgrades like the use of an electronic filing system, as the report recommends.

But the American Immigration Lawyers Association expressed concern about a number of other recommendations that seemed ignored or on which opposite action was taken.

Responding to the report, a Justice Department official who requested not to be named said that the efforts of the department are “common-sense.”

“After years of mismanagement and neglect, the Justice Department has implemented a number of common-sense reforms in the immigration court system, a number of them address these issues and we believe that focusing our efforts on these reforms has been an effective place to start,” the official said.

The report’s recommendations include a performance review system for judges, who are hired and managed by the Justice Department, that “emphasizes process over outcomes and places high priority on judicial integrity and independence,” including in dialogue with the union that represents immigration judges. The Justice Department recently rolled out a performance metrics system, though, that requires judges to complete a certain number of cases per year and sets time goals for other procedural steps along the way, which immigration judges have strongly opposed as jeopardizing the ability of judges to make fair, independent decisions.

In a call with reporters, AILA representatives and a retired immigration judge argued that while the report doesn’t explicitly reject a quota system, it’s clear that putting one in place is contrary to the recommendation. They say that judges who are fearful of their job security and opportunity for advancement may be pressured to speed up hearing cases at the expense of due process for the immigrants, which could skew the outcome of the case.

A Justice Department official said the agency rejects the notion of a “false dichotomy” that improving efficiency sacrifices due process and said the agency has also put in place court-based metrics that lend itself to the recommendation of the report.

In another example, the report recommends that the Justice Department consider expanding legal orientation programs for immigrants and increasing their access to attorneys, so they can better navigate the system. The Justice Department recently put on hold a legal advice program for immigrants in the courts, saying it needed to be reviewed, though audits in the past had consistently shown it was productive and had saved the government money long-term. Officials say they may reinstitute the program if the audit shows it is effective.

The report also recommends limited use of video hearings, saying judges are stymied by technical difficulties and also are less able to read the subtle cues and nonverbal communications of witnesses and people involved in the hearings. Sessions’ immigration courts plan includes expanding the use of video hearings.

In another example, one of Sessions’ first moves in taking office was to send a number of judges to the border on a temporary assignment to handle cases there. The report says temporary assignments should be avoided, as they create more delays when judges have to catch up on their workloads back home.

The report also recommends administratively closing cases if they are being adjudicated in some other venue, like a visa petition or another court case. The Trump administration has sought to curtail the administrative closing of cases.

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

DOJ’s ridiculous claim that Sessions’s actions are “common sense” is refuted by virtually everyone with expertise or true understanding of the Immigration Court system including those working in it, those stuck in it, and even ICE!

There can be no effective, Due Process oriented, “actual common sense” Immigration Court reforms so long as Jeff Sessions controls those courts.

PWS

04-23-18

HERE’S THE VIDEO LINK TO THE APRIL 18, 2018 SENATE HEARINGS ON IMMIGRATION COURT REFORM — SEE & HEAR JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR’S TESTIMONY AND FOLLOWING Q&A HERE!

Here’s the link to the hearing. I had to move the “time bar” at the bottom to about 28 minutes in before the “action” started. Thanks to both Laura Lynch of AILA and Nolan Rappaport for forwarding this to me.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/strengthening-and-reforming-americas-immigration-court-system

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

PWS

04-19-18

“GANG OF 18” RETIRED IMMIGRATION JUDGES WEIGHS IN BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY ON SESSIONS’S ABUSES OF DUE PROCESS & NEED FOR ARTICLE I COURT — NAIJ PRESIDENT JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR PRESENTS STUNNING EVIDENCE OF SESSIONS’S ALL OUT ATTACK ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, PROFESSONALISM, & FAIRNESS TO THOSE APPEARING BEFORE THESE COURTS!

With the help of the amazing Laura Lynch, Senior Policy Counsel at AILA (picture above), here’s the statement filed by our (ever-growing) “Gang of 18” Retired Judges:

Statement of Retired Immigration Judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration

Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System”

April 18, 2018

This statement for the record is submitted by retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Drawing upon our many years of combined service, we have an intimate knowledge of the operation of the immigration courts. Immigration judges and Board members are supposed to act as neutral arbiters; however, they are considered to be employees of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), rather than true judges. The DOJ is run by politically appointed law enforcement officials, making EOIR vulnerable to improper political pressures. In order to restore public confidence in the immigration court system and to insulate EOIR from political pressure, the immigration court system must be removed from the DOJ to an independent article I court structure that focuses on due process and efficient court administration.

For over a decade, the immigration courts have been severely underfunded when compared to the

budget increases that Congress has provided to immigration enforcement. EOIR has been unable to keep pace with the growing number of removal proceedings. The Trump administration has further contributed to this backlog, announcing broad new immigration enforcement priorities in January of 2017 that make almost everyone who is undocumented a priority for arrest. With the immigration court case backlog approaching 700,000 cases, we can all agree that our immigration court system is in crisis.

Instead of working to improve the immigration court system, DOJ and EOIR have issued policies that will threaten the integrity and independence of the immigration courts.

Imposing case completion quotas

On March 30th, the Director of EOIR 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 disregard due process. An immigration judge should be evaluated based on the quality of her decisions, not the quantity. Moreover, quotas will likely produce hastily-made decisions and result in grave errors. Poor decisions will also directly result in more appeals to the BIA and the Courts of Appeal, and more remands, causing more delays and running contrary to the goals of the Attorney General (AG).

Curbing use of docketing management tools such as use of continuances

On July 31, 2017, the Chief Immigration Judge issued a memorandum making it more difficult for judges to grant multiple continuances. This policy along with the imposition of case completion quotas heightens concerns that cases will be rushed through the immigration court system. Continuances are necessary in a

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 2

variety of circumstances, such as when an individual is facing deportation in immigration court while awaiting a decision by the U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services (USCIS) on a pending application. Examples of 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 U.S. citizens. By law, immigration judges cannot make a decision on these applications; USCIS has sole jurisdiction to make those decisions. But the result of those applications may be outcome determinative in removal proceedings. 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 concern about completion numbers and job retention. That is not justice; it seems more like an assembly line. Circuit courts will not excuse due process violations based on immigration judges having to meet arbitrary completion goals.

The AG is taking dramatic steps to rewrite immigration law.

The AG recently utilized his authority to certify two BIA decisions to himself for review to examine a judges’ authority to utilize docket management tools including use of continuances and administrative closure. As described in our amicus brief, immigration judges have inherent powers (including the power to control their own dockets, and to administratively close cases as a means of exercising such control) delegated to them by Congress, and not the Attorney General. Such authority of judges to control their dockets has been recognized by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Both the issuance of continuances and administrative closure are important docket management tools that allow judges to manage high caseloads. The certification of these cases signals the AG’s intent to massively curtail judicial independence. The solution is to create an independent, Article I immigration court, allowing IJs to continue to decide cases with fairness and neutrality free from such policy-driven interference.

Additional Resources from Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

● Jeffrey S. Chase, The Need For an Independent Immigration Court, Jeffrey S. Chase Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law, (Aug. 17, 2017), https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/8/17/the-need-for-an-independent-immigration-court.

● Jeffrey S. Chase, IJs, Tiered Review and Completion Quotas, Jeffrey S. Chase Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law, (Nov. 9, 2017), https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/11/9/ijs-tiered-review-and-completion-quotas.

● Bruce Einhorn, Jeff Sessions wants to bribe judges to do his bidding, Washington Post, (Apr. 5, 2018), 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=.758f0b92e2e6.

● John F. Gossart, Time to fix our immigration courts, The Hill, (Feb. 26, 2014), http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/199224-time-to-fix-our-immigration-courts.

● Lory Rosenberg, Much Sound and Fury: Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018), ILW, (Mar. 6, 2018),http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10427-Much-Sound-and-Fury-Matter-of-E-F-H-L-27-I-amp-N-Dec-226-(A-G-2018)

● Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired Immigration Judge and Former Chairman of the BIA Responds to Implementation of Production Quotas, Immigration Courtside, (Apr. 4, 2018), http://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-immigration-judge-and-former-chairman

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 3

● Paul Wickham Schmidt, We Need An Article I United States Immigration Court — NOW — Could The Impetus Come From An Unlikely Source?, Immigration Courtside, http://immigrationcourtside.com/we-need-an-article-i-united-states-immigration-court-now/.

● Robert Vinikoor, Take it From a Former Immigration Judge: Quotas Are a Bad Idea, Minsky, McCormick & Hallagan, P.C. Blog, (Apr. 12, 2018), https://www.mmhpc.com/2018/04/take-it-from-a-former-judge-quotas-for-immigration-judges-are-a-bad-idea/.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement for the record and look forward to engaging as Congress considers reforming the immigration court system.

Contact with questions or concerns: Jeffrey Chase, jeffchase99@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Honorable Steven R. Abrams

Honorable Patricia L. Buchanan

Honorable Sarah M. Burr

Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase

Honorable George T. Chew

Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn

Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza

Honorable Noel Ferris

Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.

Honorable William P. Joyce

Honorable Carol King

Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb

Honorable Margaret McManus

Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg

Honorable Susan Roy

Honorable William Van Wyke

Honorable Paul W. Schmidt

Honorable Polly A. Webber

List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

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

The Honorable Patricia L. Buchanan served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from June 2015 to July 2017, having responsibility for a detained docket for more than a year and a half. From December 2003 to October 2014, she served in various roles within the Immigration Unit of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, including

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 4

Assistant United States Attorney and Chief of the Immigration Unit. From 2001 to 2003 she served as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation in Washington, DC. From 1996 to 2001, she served as a trial attorney on a detained docket with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in the New York District. During a significant period of her time as a federal court litigator, she authored a monograph analyzing hundreds of precedent decisions on process and procedural issues (including rights and limitations to continuances) in removal proceedings and presented at numerous DOJ and DHS trainings on due process issues. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, she worked as a Temporary and Volunteer Attorney at Westchester/Putnam Legal Services from 1995 to 1996 and worked at Mid-Hudson Legal Services from 1991 to 1995.

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

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

Honorable George T. Chew

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

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

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 5

and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.

The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.

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

The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb was appointed to the immigration bench in 1992. Previously she served as EEO counsel to the St. Regis paper company and was of counsel to Catholic Charities in New York City for immigration matters. Before law school she served as press secretary for then Congressman Hugh L. Carey and later for commissioner Bess Myerson at the New York City Department of Consumer

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 6

Affairs. Her first job after graduation from law school was for the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services. She retired on January 6, 2018.

The Honorable Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench after twenty-seven years in January 2018. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in 1973, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. Judge McManus was an attorney for Marion Ginsberg, Esquire from 1989 to 1990 in New York. She was in private practice in 1987 and 1990, also in New York. Judge McManus worked as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services from 1987 to 1988 in New York. She was an adjunct clinical law professor for City University of New York Law School from 1988 to 1989. Judge McManus served as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1983 to 1987. She is a member of the New York Bar.

The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

The Honorable William Van Wyke

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 7

Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.

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

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18

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

It was a great honor and privilege to be part of this distinguished group. To our other retired colleagues out there, we’re always more than happy to have join the group an continue the fight to “guarantee fairness and due process to all.” (Actually, the long-forgotten mission of EOIR). It also provides a great opportunity to chat online with each other and catch up on some of the amazing “post-bench” achievements of our colleagues.

And, once again, that’s to Laura Lynch without whose support, skill, and expertise, this effort could never have happened.

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

Here’s the detailed and deeply disturbing statement of Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, of the United States Immigration Court in Los Angeles, CA, in her capacity as President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”). It’s impossible to read Judge Tabaddor’s heartfelt words without being totally outraged by the all-out assault on fairness to, and the human dignity of, those seeking justice from the Immigration Courts and those trying to help them present their cases; the intentional demeaning and de-professionalization of U.S. Immigration Judges struggling to provide impartial justice in a system intentionally rigged against it; the patently dishonest attempt to shift blame for the Immigration Court’s current dysfunction from the politicos who caused it to their victims; and the all out disrespect for truth, the law, ethics, our Constitution, and basic human rights and decency shown by Jeff Sessions.

Statement of

Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, President

National Association of Immigration Judges

April 18, 2018

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Border Security and Immigration Subcommittee

Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System”

INTRODUCTION

I am Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), and an Immigration Judge.1 For the past twelve years I have served in the Los Angeles Immigration Court. My current pending case load is approximately 2000 cases. Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Durbin and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.

1 I am speaking in my capacity as President of the NAIJ and not as employee or representative of the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). 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 my personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.

I am pleased to represent the NAIJ, a non-partisan, non-profit, voluntary association of United States Immigration Judges. Since 1979, the NAIJ has been the recognized representative of Immigration Judges for collective bargaining purposes. Our mission is to promote the independence of Immigration Judges and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Courts, which are the trial-level tribunals where removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are conducted. We work to improve our court system through: educating the public, legal community and media; testimony at congressional oversight hearings; and advocating for the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts and Immigration Court reform. We also seek to improve the Court system and protect the interests of our members, collectively and individually, through dynamic liaison activities with management, formal and informal grievances, and collective bargaining. In addition, we represent Immigration Judges in disciplinary proceedings, seeking to protect judges against 2

unwarranted discipline and to assure that when discipline must be imposed it is imposed in a manner that is fair and serves the public interest.

I am here today to discuss urgently needed Immigration Court Reform and the unprecedented challenges facing the Immigration Courts and Immigration Judges. Immigration Courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads and unacceptable backlogs for many years. Many of the “solutions” that have been set forth to address these challenges have in fact exacerbated the problems and undermined the integrity of the Courts, encroached on the independent decision-making authority of the Immigration Judges, and further enlarged the backlogs. I will be focusing my discussion on the inherent structural defect of the Immigration Court system, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) misguided “solutions” to the current court backlog, and proposed solutions to the challenges facing the court, including the only enduring solution: restructuring of the Immigration Court as an independent Article I Court.

THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW

⦁ The Placement of a Neutral Court in a Law Enforcement Agency

The inherent conflict present in pairing the law enforcement mission of the DOJ with the mission of a court of law that mandates independence from all other external pressures, including those of law enforcement priorities, has seriously compromised the very integrity of the Immigration Court system and may well lead to the virtual implosion of this vital Court.

Immigration Judges make the life-changing decisions on whether or not non-citizens are allowed to remain in the United States. Presently, approximately 330 Immigration Judges in the United States are responsible for adjudicating almost 700,000 cases. The work is hard. The law is complicated; the labyrinth of rules and regulations require expertise in an arcane field of law. The stories people share in court are frequently traumatic and emotions are high because the stakes are so dire. The proceedings are considered “civil” cases, in contrast to “criminal” cases. Thus, people are not provided attorneys and must either pay for one, find a volunteer, or represent themselves. Last year, approximately 40 percent of the individuals who appeared in our courtrooms represented themselves, a figure that rises to 85 percent when only detained cases are considered. Further complicating the situation, only 15 percent of immigration cases are conducted in the English language. Finally, our courtrooms and systems lack modern technology and unlike federal courts, the Immigration Courts still rely on paper records.

But here’s the core of the problem: Immigration Judges wear two hats. On the one hand, we are statutorily recognized as “Immigration Judges,” wear judicial robes, and are charged with conducting ourselves consistently with canons of judicial ethics and conduct, in order to ensure our role as impartial decision-makers in the cases over which we preside. In every sense of the word, on a daily basis, when presiding over our case in our courts, we are judges: we rule on the admissibility of evidence and legal objections, make factual findings and conclusions of law, and 3

decide the fate of thousands of respondents each year. Last year, our decisions were final and unreviewed in 91% of the cases we decided.

In addition, and in contrast to our judicial role, we are considered by the DOJ to be government attorneys, fulfilling routine adjudicatory roles in a law enforcement agency. With each new administration, we are harshly reminded of that subordinate role and subjected to the vagaries of the prevailing political winds.

At first glance, this may not seem too damaging; after all, our government structure is resilient and must respond to changes demanded by the public. However, this organizational structure is the fundamental root cause of the conflicts and challenges that have plagued the Immigration Court system since its inception and now threatens to cripple it entirely because the very mission of a neutral court is to maintain balance despite political pressures.

⦁ Politicization of the Immigration Courts

Examples of where this conflict of interest has led to the infringement on the independence of the Immigration Court are numerous throughout the past decades and under administrations of both political parties. It is no secret that the DHS, whose attorneys appear before the Court, regularly engages in ex-parte communication with the DOJ. On the macro level, these communications have directly led to the use of the Immigration Court system as a political tool in furtherance of law enforcement policies.

One common use of the Courts as a political tool has been the incessant docket shuffling in furtherance of various law enforcement “priorities.” For example, during the last administration, the mandated “surge” dockets prioritized recent arrivals, such as unaccompanied minors and adults with children, over pending cases before the Court. Similarly, this administration uprooted approximately one third of all Immigration Judges in the 2017 calendar year to assign them temporarily to “border courts” to create the “optics” of a full commitment to law enforcement measures, even at the expense of delaying hundreds of cases at each home. The DOJ claimed that the border surge resulted in an additional completion of 2700 cases. This number is misleading as it does not account for the fact that detained cases at the border are always completed in higher numbers than non-detained cases over a given period. Thus, the alleged 2700 additional completions was a comparison of apples to oranges, equating proceedings completed for those with limited available relief to those whose cases by nature are more complicated and time consuming as they involve a greater percentage of applications for relief. Moreover, many questioned the veracity of the Agency’s reported numbers because so many judges who went to the border courts had no work to do and faced malfunctioning equipment, often with no internet connection, or files. Meanwhile the dockets of these Immigration Judges at their home courts were reset to several years later, not to mention the unnecessary additional 4

financial costs of these details. Such docket shuffling tactics have led to further increases in delays and to the backlog of cases before the Immigration Court system as a whole.

On the micro level, individual judges have been tasked with responding to complaints voiced by DHS to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) management about how a particular pending case or cases are being handled, in disciplinary proceedings without the knowledge of the opposing party.

⦁ DOJ Priorities

One of the most egregious and long-standing examples of the structural flaw of the Courts’ placement in the DOJ is that Immigration Judges have never been able to exercise the congressionally mandated contempt authority statutorily authorized by Congress in 1996. This is because the DOJ has never issued implementing regulations in an effort to protect DHS attorneys (who it considers to be fellow federal law enforcement employees). However, as Congress recognized in passing contempt authority, misconduct by both DHS and private attorneys has long been one of the great hindrances to adjudicating cases efficiently and fairly. For example, it is not uncommon for cases to be continued due to private counsel’s failure to appear or be prepared for a hearing, or DHS’ failure to follow the Court’s orders, such as to conduct pre-trial conferences to narrow issues or file timely documents and briefs. Just a couple of months ago, when I confronted an attorney for his failure to appear at a previous hearing, he candidly stated that he had a conflict with a state court hearing, and fearing the state court judge’s sanction authority, chose to appear at that hearing over the immigration hearing in my court. Similarly, when I asked a DHS attorney why she had failed to engage in the Court mandated pre-trial conference or file the government’s position brief in advance of the hearing, she defiantly responded that she felt that she had too many other work obligations to prioritize the Court’s order. These examples represent just a small fraction of the problems faced by Immigration Courts, due to the failure of the DOJ, in over 20 years, to implement the Congress approved even-handed contempt authority..

Similarly, Immigration Judges are subject to regulations that provide a one-sided veto of a judge’s decision by DHS. Title 8 C.F.R. section 1003.19 provides that the DHS, who appears as a party before the Immigration Court, can effectively vacate an Immigration Judge’s bond decision through automatic stay powers that override an Immigration Judge’s decision to set or reduce bond for certain individuals.

In a separate failure to safeguard the Immigration Courts, the DOJ has consistently proven to be ineffective in the timely appointment of judges. Historically, this was due, in part, to the Court’s placement in a law enforcement agency where for years, the Court was treated as an afterthought in DOJ, receiving scraps instead of full allotments of needed resources. However, even after the 9/11 tragedy, the DOJ has still visibly struggled with filing Immigration Judge positions, many 5

of which have taken almost two years to fill. Hiring practices by the Agency have a demonstrated history of politically motivated appointment practices, as evidenced by the Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility reports exposing political concerns and nepotism that have crept into the hiring process.2 And now, the DOJ surreptitiously has made substantive changes to the qualification requirements for judges, over-emphasizing litigation experience to the exclusion of other relevant immigration law experience. This has created even more skewed appointment practices that largely have favored individuals with law enforcement experience over individuals with more varied and diverse backgrounds, such as academics and United States Citizenship and Immigration Service attorneys, who are perceived as not sufficiently law enforcement oriented.

2 An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General, DOJ OIG and OPR, July 28, 2008; Report Regarding Investigation of Improper Hiring Practices by Senior Officials of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, DOJ OIG, November 2014.

Another example of the structural problem of placing a Court in the DOJ has been the application of federal employee performance evaluations on Immigration Judges. Many courts have performance reviews for Judges, but the overwhelming majority of these reviews follow a judicial model – a transparent, public process where performance is evaluated by input from the stakeholders (attorneys, witnesses, and court staff) based on quality and temperament, not quantity, and is not tied to discipline. However, despite strenuous objections and warnings of conflicts of interest from the NAIJ, the EOIR has chosen to use a traditional federal employee performance review system. These evaluations are not public and are conducted by a management official who is often not located in the same court and does not consider input from the public, and can result in career-ending discipline to a Judge who makes a good faith legal decision that his or her supervisor considers to be insubordinate. This is the flawed current performance evaluation model for Immigration Judges, without the added, soon to be implemented, disastrous production quotas and time-based deadlines that were recently announced by the Department, which I will discuss shortly.

⦁ EOIR’s Decision to Halt the LOP Program

Another stark example of the mismanagement of the Immigration Court due to its placement in an agency with a competing mission is the recently announced EOIR decision to halt the Legal Orientation Program (LOP), despite its proven track record of increased efficiency and enhanced fundamental fairness for pro se respondents in detention facilities. This population of respondents, who are being held in custody, are frequently in extremely remote locations, and often lack the resources or the means to secure counsel or even to properly represent themselves due to language access issues. The lack of assistance in these areas delays their proceedings, often needlessly for those who seek merely a brief legal consultation before making an informed and timely decision to accept an order of removal. Thus in cases where the respondents lack 6

viable relief, the LOP can be instrumental in helping respondents make an informed decision to accept a final order of removal, dramatically minimizing costly detention time and expense.

Competent counsel, when available, can assist the Court in efficiently adjudicating cases before it. In the absence of competent counsel, the LOP provides the necessary bridge to ensure a minimum standard of due process is quickly and efficiently provided. The LOP helps respondents better understand the nature of these proceedings and the steps they need to take to present their cases when in court, understand and complete their applications for relief, and obtain evidence in their case. Without such assistance, judges are required by regulation to spend time and resources explaining these proceedings, soliciting the necessary information for the case, and providing respondents the opportunity to obtain evidence once they become aware it is needed.

Ironically, even the DOJ website has publicly supported the LOP program, citing the positive effects on the Immigration Court process, and the fact that cases are more likely to be completed faster, resulting in fewer court hearings and less time spent in detention. However, once again without consultation with NAIJ, EOIR has made a decision seemingly ignoring the ramifications of how this will likely play out in the remote court locations, further undermining the structural integrity and the smooth functioning of the Court.

⦁ EOIR’s Recent Severe Restriction of Immigration Judge Speaking Engagements

In September 2017, the Agency issued a new memorandum almost eliminating personal capacity speaking engagements for Immigration Judges on any matters relating to the Court or immigration law.

The primary role of a court is to be a neutral and transparent arbiter, and this perception is reinforced when the court is accessible to the community it serves. Public access and understanding of what courts do is essential to build the understanding and trust needed for the judicial system to function smoothly. Judges are the face of that system and serve as role models who should be encouraged to engage with the community to inspire, educate and support civic engagements. Many of our Immigration Judges are active members of the legal and civil community who are sought out to speak in schools, universities, and bar associations as role models and mentors. They help the community better understand our Immigration Courts and their function in the community, helping to demystify the system and bring transparency about our operations to the public. In the past, the DOJ had permitted Immigration Judges to publicly speak in their personal capacity on issues related to the Court and their Immigration Judge roles, (with the use of their title and a disclaimer that they are not speaking on behalf of the Agency).

This new policy brought a 180-degree reversal on many existing programs that included participation of Immigration Judges, from the Model Hearing Program, the Stakeholder 7

Meetings, to appearing as guest lecturer at one’s Alma Mater, etc. Judges who have been engaged in the community are now being deprived of the opportunity to fulfil those roles. This ill-advised move is yet another example of the misguided instincts of a law enforcement agency, which endeavors to keep its operations opaque, leading to an absolutely wrong result for a court system where transparency is essential to build public trust and confidence. This is yet another example which underscores the structural flaw that plagues our courts.

MISGUIDED SOLUTIONS TO THE BACKLOG

⦁ IJ Production Quotas and Deadlines

Based on a completely unsupported assertion that this action will help solve the Court’s backlog, DOJ has taken an unprecedented move that violates every tenet of an independent court and judges, and has announced that it will subject all Immigration Judges to individual production quotas and time-based deadlines as a basis for their performance reviews. A negative performance review due to failure to meet quotas and deadlines may result in termination of employment. This is despite the legal duty of Immigration Judges, codified by regulation, to exercise independent judgement and discretion in each of the matters before them. The havoc this decision will wreak cannot be understated or underestimated.

To fully understand the import of this approach, one must make the critical distinction between court-wide “case completion goals” or “benchmarks” versus individual production quotas and time-based deadlines for judges. The Immigration Court system has had “case completion goals” of some sort for over two decades. These are tools used as resource allocation metrics to help assess resource needs and distribute them nationally so that case backlogs are within acceptable limits and relatively uniform across the country. In fact, when individual performance evaluations were first applied to Immigration Judges over a decade ago, the EOIR agreed to a provision that prevented any rating of the judges based on number or time based production standards, in recognition of the fact that quotas or deadlines placed on an individual Immigration Judge are inconsistent with his or her independent judicial role. The public comments at that time made clear that otherwise quantitative priorities or time frames could abrogate the party’s right to a full and fair hearing. At that time, the DOJ assured the public that case completion goals would not be used this way and that judges would maintain the discretion to set hearing calendars and prioritize cases in order to assure they had the time needed to complete the case.

This tool of court-based evaluation metrics stands in stark contrast to the individual production quotas and completion deadlines which are now being proposed by EOIR. Introduction of individual Immigration Judge production quotas is tantamount to transforming a judge into an interested party in the proceedings. It is difficult to imagine a more profound financial interest than one’s very livelihood being at stake with each and every ruling on a continuance or need for additional witness testimony which would delay a completion. Yet production quotas and time- based deadlines violate a fundamental canon of judicial ethics which requires a judge to recuse 8

herself in any matter in which she has a financial interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.

This basic principle is so widely accepted that the NAIJ is not aware of a single state or federal court across the country that imposes the type of production quotas and deadlines on judges like those that EOIR has now announced. A numeric quota or time-based deadline pits the judge’s personal livelihood against the interests both the DHS and the respondent. Every decision will be tainted with the suspicion of either an actual or subconscious consideration by the judge of the impact his or her decision would have regarding whether or not he or she is able to fulfill a personal quota or a deadline.

In addition to putting the judges in the position of violating a judicial ethical canon, such quotas pits their personal interest against due process considerations. Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a case addressing imposition of case completion goals – not quotas – that there may be situations that such goals, even though they are not tied to a judge’s performance evaluation, could so undermine decisional independence as to create a serious issue of due process.

If allowed to be implemented, these measures will take the Immigration Courts out of the American judicial model and place it squarely within the model used by autocratic and dictatorial countries, such as China, which began instituting pilot quota programs for their judges in 2016.3 NAIJ does not believe that such courts should serve as a good blueprint for EOIR or for any court in a democratic society.

3See www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-02/27/content_28361584_6.htm.

⦁ Unintended Consequences of Misguided Solutions

The DOJ has touted the imposition of a quota system on judges as a solution to the crushing backlogs facing the Immigration Courts. It is critical to recognize that the current backlog of cases is not due to lack of productivity of Immigration Judges; it is due, in part, to the Department’s consistent failure, spanning more than a decade to hire enough judges to keep up with the caseload. In 2006, after a comprehensive review of the Immigration Courts by Attorney General Gonzales, it was determined that a judge corps of 230 Immigration Judges was inadequate for the caseload at that time (approximately 168,853 pending cases) and should be increased to 270. Despite this finding, there were less than 235 active field Immigration Judges at the beginning of FY 2015. Even with a recent renewed emphasis on hiring, the number of Immigration Judges nationwide as of April 2018 stood at approximately 330 sitting judges, well below authorized hiring levels of 384. From 2006 to 2018, while the caseload has quadrupled (from 168,853 to 684,583 as of March 1, 2018), the number of Immigration Judges has not even doubled! Additionally, up to 40 percent of the Immigration Judge Corps are retirement eligible 9

and are exercising that right at a much higher rate than previously seen. Thus, hiring by the Agency has also failed to keep pace with the loss of judges by retirement or attrition.

Moreover, the 2017 GAO report on Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Changes (GAO-17-438) shows that Immigration Judge related continuances have decreased (down 2 percent) in the last ten years. GAO Report at 124. The same report shows that continuances due to “operational factors” and details of Immigration Judges were up 149% and 112%, respectively. GAO Report at 131, 133. These continuances which occurred primarily due to politically motivated changing court priorities, forced Judges to reset cases that were near completion in order to address the cases which were the priority “du jour,” and have had a tremendous deleterious effect on case completion rates. The same report shows that continuances attributed to the needs of the judge was responsible for only 11% of the continuances granted, clearly debunking the myth that Immigration Judges are significantly contributing to the backlog.

The cause of the increasing backlog is obvious: the ever-ballooning budget for immigration law enforcement which has not been accompanied by concomitant resources to the Immigration Courts. In the period that the budget for DHS saw an increase of 300 percent, the Immigration Court’s budget was only modestly increased by 70 percent. This is tantamount to increasing the lanes in a highway from one to three but failing to increase the number of exit ramps for everyone, then claiming that the exit ramps are the cause of the increased congestion and traffic. Simple common sense tells us otherwise.

Finally, the imposition of numeric quotas and time-based deadlines will have the unintended consequence of further adding to the backlog. A similar measure proposing to “streamline” the adjudications of immigration removal cases was introduced post 9/11 during the Attorney General John Ashcroft era. In the face of a ballooning backlog (which pales in comparison to the current one), the DOJ implemented streamlining measures at the Board of Immigration Appeals that significantly increased the number of case completions at the expense of reasoned decisions. This action caused a flood of appeals to the circuit courts, to a five-fold increase, from 1764 filings in 2002, when the program was announced, to 8446 in 2003 and onwards. Many of these cases were ultimately reversed or remanded all the way back to the trial court level, due to actual or perceived insufficiencies of the process or paucity of reasoning in the decisions. The “streamlining” program was quietly put to rest many years later when its failure was no longer deniable. If Immigration Judges are subjected to production quotas and time-based deadlines, the result will be the same: appeals will abound, repeating a history which was proven to be disastrous. Rather than making the overall process more efficient, this change will encourage individual and class action litigation, creating even longer adjudication times and greater backlogs. 10

Another unintended consequence if these quotas and deadlines are applied, is that judicial time and energy will be diverted to documenting performance rather than deciding cases. Immigration Judges will become bean-counting employees instead of fair and impartial judges, and their supervisors will become traffic cops monitoring whether the cases are completed at the correct speed. What a waste of skilled professional expertise! Judges’ job security will be based on whether or not they meet these unrealistic quotas and their decisions will be subjected to increased appeals based on suspicion regarding whether any actions they take, such as denying a continuance or excluding a witness, are legally sound or motivated to meet a quota. It is difficult to find a shred of practical justification in this approach.

SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS

⦁ Clarify the Definition of the Immigration Judge Position

The most pressing matter threatening the integrity and efficiency of the Immigration Court system which can quickly and easily be remedied is the DOJ’s decision to impose Immigration Judge production quotas and deadlines. If permitted to be implemented, as planned, on October 1, 2018, the Immigration Courts as we know them will cease to exist. Immigration Judges will no longer be able to serve as impartial and independent decision-makers over the life-altering cases before them.

To preserve the judicial independence of Immigration Courts Congress can:

(1) Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the definition of an Immigration Judge as follows:

“The term “immigration judge” means an attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as an administrative judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, qualified to conduct specified classes of proceedings, including a hearing under section 1229a of this title, whose position shall be deemed to be judicial in nature and whose actions shall be reviewed only under rules and standards pertaining to judicial conduct.”

This definitional change was offered by Senators Gardner and Bennet as part of their bipartisan immigration amendment earlier this year. Senator Hirono’s recent immigration amendment also included this language;

(2) Alternatively, Congress can add Immigration Judges to the short list of federal government employees whose positions are exempt from performance evaluation due to the nature of their duties, as are Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D). Recognizing that federal employee performance evaluations are antithetical to judicial independence, Congress exempted ALJs from performance appraisals and ratings by including them in the list of 11

occupations exempt from performance reviews. To provide that same exemption to Immigration Judges, all that would be needed is an amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2) to add a new paragraph (I) including Immigration Judges as an additional category in the list of exempt employees.

Extension of 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D) to Immigration Judges is not an indication that NAIJ is opposed to performance evaluation of Immigration Judges. To the contrary, NAIJ fully supports performance evaluations that are based on judicial models, such as those recommended by the American Bar Association. These models stress judicial improvement as the primary goal, emphasizes process over outcomes, and places a high priority on maintaining judicial integrity and independence. Moreover, to the extent that any numeric metrics are included in such models, they would not and “should not be used for judicial discipline.”4 We encourage EOIR to abandon its myopic focus on numerical metrics and instead institute a judicial performance evaluation based on these models.

4https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/judicial_division/aba_blackletterguidelines_jpe.authcheckdam.pdf.

Continued enhancement of resources will be an exercise in futility and will fail to reduce the crippling backlogs plaguing the Immigration Courts if the integrity and independence of the Immigration Judge decision-making authority is not protected. Without much needed protection, the inevitable increase in individual and class action litigation and the circuit court backlash (similar to the “streamlining” era) is virtually certain to ensue.

⦁ Additional Resources

NAIJ appreciates the additional judges and staff that Congress has provided and the recent allocation of an additional 100 Immigration Judge teams in the appropriations bill. This is a welcome move in the right direction. However we would be remiss if we failed to point out that even if all the appropriated judge positions are filled promptly (which is a task the DOJ has been unable to accomplish for decades), the pressing crisis of the backlog will not be resolved. The backlog of pending cases has almost quadrupled in the last twelve years. Yet, the number of judges has not even doubled (even with the inclusion of the recently allocated 100 judges). Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that with the continued flood of cases being filed with the Court due to increased law enforcement action, the need to match that rate of increased resources with the Courts is a necessary condition of addressing the challenge of the backlog.

Moreover, the Courts are woefully behind the times in technology. The Courts’ computer systems and printers are outdated. The software programs are several generations behind and lag in processing speed. Also, we depend on digital audio recording to capture our hearing audio in lieu of in-person transcribers, and in many locations we function with heavy reliance on tele video equipment. Yet these technologies are no longer state of the art, causing not infrequent 12

delay and malfunctions. We have yet to arrive in the 21st century in technology at EOIR. Unlike other courts who have embraced electronic filings and records, we are still under the weight of hardcopy files, some of which can weigh up to 10 to 15 pounds per case. Increasingly adequate space for Court locations has become an issue, leaving many Courts bursting at the seams due to thousands of files, with staff having to share cubicles, and cramped, unhealthy and unsafe spaces that were never intended to be used as work space.

ENDURING SOLUTION

⦁ An Article I Immigration Court is the Clear Consensus Solution that is Urgently Needed

While it cannot be denied that the short term solutions cited above are needed immediately, Band-Aid solutions alone cannot solve the persistent problems facing our Immigration Courts. The problems compromising the integrity and proper administration of a court highlighted above underscore the need to remove the Immigration Court from the political sphere of a law enforcement agency and assure its judicial independence. Structural reform can no longer be put on the back burner. The DOJ has been provided years of opportunity to forestall the impending implosion at the Immigration Courts. Instead of finding long term solutions to our problems, DOJ’s political priorities and law enforcement instincts have led our Courts to the brink of collapse. With the latest misguided initiative to impose Immigration Judge production quotas and deadlines, DOJ has put accelerant on the fire; if these changes are implemented the integrity of the Immigration Court will be all but destroyed and paralyzing dysfunction will ensue.

Since the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, the idea of creating an Article I court, similar to the U.S. Tax Court, has been advanced. Such a structure solves a myriad of problems which now plague our Court: removing a politically accountable Cabinet level policy maker from the helm; separating the decision makers from the parties who appear before them; protecting judges from the cronyism of a too close association with DHS; assuring a transparent funding stream instead of items buried in the budget of a larger Agency with competing needs; and eliminating top-heavy Agency bureaucracy. In the last 35 years, a strong consensus has formed supporting this structural change. For years experts debated the wisdom of far-reaching restructuring of the Immigration Court system. Now most immigration judges and attorneys agree the long-term solution to the problem is to restructure the immigration court system. Examples of those in support include the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of Women Judges, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. These are the recognized legal experts and representatives of the public who appear before us. Their voices deserve to be heeded.

To that end, the Federal Bar Association has prepared proposed legislation setting forth the blueprint for the creation of an “Article 1” or independent Immigration Court. This proposal will remove the Immigration Court from the purview of the DOJ to form an independent Court. The legislation would establish a “United States Immigration Court” with responsibility for functions 13

of an adjudicative nature that are currently being performed by the judges and Board members in the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The new court would consist of appellate and trial level judges. The appellate judges would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the immigration trial judges would be appointed by the appellate judges. The substantive law of immigration and corresponding enforcement and policy-determining responsibilities of the DHS and DOJ under the INA would be unchanged. Final decisions of the new court would be subject to review in the circuit court of appeals similar to the current model. However, in the new court, the Department of Homeland Security would be able to seek review of the court’s decisions to the same extent as the individuals against whom charges were filed. Practically, the transition to the new “United States Immigration Court” would involve minimal transitional or financial challenges as much of the physical structures and personnel would already be in place.

NAIJ has endorsed this bill5 and urges you to take immediate steps to protect judicial independence and efficient resolution of cases at the Immigration Courts by enacting legislation as described above. Failure to act will result in irreparable harm to the immigration law community as we know it. Action is needed now!

5 https://www.naij-usa.org/images/uploads/publications/NAIJ_endorses_FBA_Article_I_proposal_3-15-18.pdf

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

Here are links to the other statements submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, all well worth a read:

Other Statements:

Law Professor Statement: Immigration Law Professors Issue Statement on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System
AILA National Statement: AILA Statement on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System Hearing

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

It’s no secret that White Nationalist and “21st Century Jim Crow” Sessions was totally unqualified to be the Attorney General of the United States. Yet, the GOP Senate put in him that position knowing full his extremist views, lack of executive qualifications, and history of racially insensitive words and actions.

The Obama Administration’s indolent, sometimes disingenuous, and often highly politicized mis-handling of the Immigration Court System also contributed to the current sad state of justice for immigrants. To paraphrase the words of one of my colleagues, the Obama Administration’s poor handling of the Immigration Courts didn’t cause Jeff Sessions and his toxic policies, but it certainly did nothing to dissuade or prevent them and in many ways set the stage for the current due process disaster.

Congress also stood by and watched this unfolding disaster in a court system they created without providing any effective assistance (except for too few additional positions too late to help) and in many cases making things worse by ramping up enforcement without thinking about the consequences for the judicial system.

We need to elect legislators pledged to due process, fairness to all including immigrants, strong effective oversight of the DOJ, investigation of Sessions’s blatant attempt to “deconstruct” the U.S. justice system (particularly as it applies to immigrants and vulnerable minorities) which should eventually lead to his removal from office, and the transfer of the U.S. Immigration Courts out of the DOJ into an independent structure where they never again can be compromised by the likes of Jeff Sessions.

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to give real meaning to the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process for all in America.

PWS

04-19-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Marching orders, not friendly advice

Immigration court backlog hits all-time high, days before Sessions speech to immigration judges

Related posts:

May 27 EOIR’s Knee-Jerk Redaction?

Related posts:

May 27 EOIR’s Hiring Practices Raise Concerns

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Featured Panelists:

(Ret.) Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law

Center Heidi Altman, Policy Director, National Immigration Justice Center James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

Karen Grisez, Special Advisor to the ABA Commission on Immigration; Public Service Counsel, Fried Frank LLP

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to give real meaning to the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process for all in America.

PWS

Related posts: