"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Category: Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“OCAHO”)
This fall, I am launching a new online certificate program at Villanova University to train immigrant advocates. The program is aimed at people who are passionate about immigrant justice but are not interested in pursuing a law degree at the moment, such as recent college grads, people seeking an encore career, retirees, and the many who currently work with migrants and want to understand more about the immigration laws that impact them. It is also attractive to students seeking to take a gap year or two between college and law school or high school and college.
The program is offered entirely online and is asynchronous, allowing students to work at their own pace and at times that are most convenient for them. I piloted the curriculum during last academic year and the students loved it. It launches full time in August, and will subsequently be offered each semester, so students can start in August, January, and May.
I reach out to you because I am now seeking adjunct professors to help teach the course. Adjunct Professors will work with me to teach cohorts of students as they move through the 3-Module curriculum. Module 1 focuses on how to work effectively with immigrants. Module 2 is designed to teach the immigration law and policy needed for graduates to apply to become partially accredited representatives. Module 3 has more law, and a lot of trial advocacy for those who want to apply for full DOJ accreditation. Each Module is comprised of 2×7-week sessions and students report that they have worked between 10-15 hours/week on the course materials. As an adjunct professor, you will provide feedback weekly on student work product, conduct live office hours with students and work to build engagement and community among the students in your cohort. Tuition for each Module is $1270, it is $3810 for the entire 3-Module certificate program.
Also, please note that scholarships are being offered through the Augustinian Defenders of the Rights of the Poor to select students who are sponsored to take VIISTA by DOJ recognized organizations. For more information on the scholarships, visit this page, https://www.rightsofthepoor.org/viista-scholarship-program
My best,
Michele Pistone
Michele
Michele R. Pistone
Professor of Law
Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law
Director, Clinic for Asylum, Refugee & Emigrant Services (CARES)
Adjunct Fellow, Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation
610-519-5286
@profpistone
*************************
What an fantastic opportunity to get teaching experience, work on a “cutting edge” program with my good friend and colleague Michele, one of the best legal minds in America, and to make a difference by improving the delivery of justice in America, while being paid a stipend!
A “perfect fit” for members of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”).
WASHINGTON, DC — The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) condemns the Trump administration’s recent ramp-up of efforts to turn the immigration court system into an enforcement tool rather than an independent arbiter for justice. The immigration courts are formally known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and are overseen by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
AILA President Jennifer Minear, noted, “AILA has long advocated for an independent immigration court, one that ensures judges serve as neutral arbiters of justice. This administration has instead subjected the courts to political influence and exploited the inherent structural flaws of the DOJ-controlled immigration courts, which also prosecutes immigration cases at the federal level. The nail in the coffin of judicial neutrality is the fact that the administration has put the courts in the control of a new Chief Immigration Judge who has no judicial experience but served as ICE’s chief immigration prosecutor. No less concerning is DOJ’s recent choice for Chief Appellate Immigration Judge – an individual who also prosecuted immigration cases and advised the Trump White House on immigration policy. This administration continues to weaponize the immigration courts for the sole purpose of accelerating deportations rather than dispensing neutral justice. Congress must investigate these politically motivated appointments and pass legislation to create an independent, Article I immigration court.”
Among the recent actions taken by this administration to bias the immigration courts:
As a friend and former colleague said recently “I would have thought that the one thing everyone could get behind, regardless of political philosophy, would be a neutral court system.” Sadly, not so in today’s crumbling America.
There are three groups blocking the way:
The Trump Administration, where due process only applies to Trump and his corrupt cronies;
GOP legislators whose acquittal of Trump against the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows exactly what due process means to them;
Five GOP-appointed Justices on the Supremes who don’t believe that due process applies to all persons in the US, notwithstanding the “plain language” of Article 5 of our Constitution — particularly if those persons have the misfortune to be asylum seekers of color.
The end result is “Dred Scottification” — that is, dehumanization or “de-personification” of “the other.” The GOP has made it a centerpiece of their failed attempt to govern, from voter suppression, to looting the Treasury for the benefit of the rich and powerful, to immunity for law enforcement officers who kill minorities, to greenlighting cruel, inhuman,and counterproductive treatment of lawful asylum seekers and immigrants. Not surprisingly, this essentially “Whites Only” view of social justice is ripping our nation apart on many levels.
I find it highly ironic that at the same time we are rightfully removing statutes of Chief Justice Roger Taney, a racist who authored the infamous Dred Scott Decision, Chief Justice Roberts and four of his colleagues continue to “Dred Scottify” asylum seekers and other immigrants, primarily those of color, by denying them the due process, fundamental fairness, fair and impartial judges, and, perhaps most of all, racist-free policies that our Constitution demands!
Compare the “due process” afforded Trump by the GOP Senate and the pardon of a convicted civil and human rights abuser like “Racist Sheriff Joe” with the ugly and dishonest parody of due process afforded Sister Norma’s lawful asylum seekers whose “crime” was seeking fair treatment, justice, and an acknowledgement of their humanity from a nation that has turned it’s back on those values.
What Sister Norma’s article did not mention is that those who survive in Mexico long enough to get to “court” have their asylum claims denied at a rate of about 99% by an unfair system intentionally skewed and biased against them. Most experts believe that many, probably a majority, of those being denied actually merit protection under a fair and impartial application of our laws.
But, as pointed out by AILA, that’s not why Billy the Bigot has appointed prosecutors as top “judges” and notorious asylum deniers as “appellate judges.” He intends to perpetuate a highly unfair “deportation railroad” designed by infamous White Nationalist racist Stephen Miller. In other words, our justice system is being weaponized in support of an overtly racist agenda formulated by a racist regime that has made racism the centerpiece of its pitch for remaining in office. Incredible! Yet true!
The Supremes have life tenure. But, the other two branches of our failing Government don’t. And, a better Executive and a better Legislature that believe in our Constitution and equal justice for all is a necessary start on a better Federal Judiciary — one where commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all is a threshold requirement for future judicial appointments.Time to throw the “non-believers” and their enablers out of office.
This November, vote like your life and our country’s existence depend on it! Because they do!
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Michelle Mendez responds for CLINIC to McHenry’s latest decision in an e-mail to Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Subject: [immprof] RE: Matter of BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC., 28 I&N Dec. 16 (DIR 2020)
Dan, thank you for sharing this new decision from EOIR Director McHenry.
This second decision in Matter of BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. from EOIR Director McHenry may seem to come out of nowhere so, since the decision is aimed at CLINIC, we would like to provide background.
CLINIC’s network is comprised of approximately 380 immigration legal services organizations many of which have successfully relied on Recognition and Accreditation program to expand their legal services capacity in serving low-income immigrant communities. In support of our network, CLINIC has specifically catered to the needs of Accredited Representatives by, as examples, designing trial skills and legal writing trainings just for them and supporting them on their accreditation applications to EOIR. Given our expertise and interest in the Recognition and Accreditation program, when EOIR Director McHenry issued a call for amicus briefs on Recognition and Accreditation issues, CLINIC submitted a brief and we later learned, via the (first) decision in Matter of BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, 27 I&N Dec. 837 (DIR 2020), that we were the sole org to appear as amicus.
Unfortunately, in Matter of BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, 27 I&N Dec. 837 (DIR 2020), EOIR Director McHenry’s discussion of the skills needed to attain full accreditations was vague, unclear, and therefore confusing. Footnotes 13 and 14 in the decision appear to fault the applicant for full accreditation status for not practicing before EOIR before being granted full accreditation. At worst, the decision could lead one to infer that accredited representatives had to engage in unauthorized practice of immigration law to get the skills needed for full accreditation. We brought this issue to EOIR Director McHenry’s attention and he entertained our feedback during a phone conversation while disagreeing with our concerns. While the phone call was ultimately unhelpful as to this issue, we were able to discern just how unfamiliar he is with the Recognition and Accreditation program. At one point he stated that it was “totally conceivable that [accredited representatives] have some litigation experience.” It is not totally conceivable and we informed him of this too. After our call we sent EOIR Director McHenry the attached letter. We followed up with EOIR Director McHenry on Tuesday. On Wednesday he responded that “a type of formal response is forthcoming.” On Thursday he issued this second, published decision in which he chastises us for challenging him when we, as mere amicus curiae, have “no authority” to do so. However, you will notice that he also took the opportunity to clarify the very points we told him were vague and problematic. Of course, EOIR Director McHenry did not have to go the published decision route to deal with our concerns, but he preferred to project his power above being collaborative. And we have some concerns that EOIR will use this decision to prevent amici from following up to clear errors in other decisions where the respondent was pro se or the decision addresses in absentia orders. While I am surprised that CLINIC seemingly made him feel threatened, as a respected retired IJ said, it is an “honor to be called out in something like this.”
I am not on the ICLINIC@LIST.MSU.EDU listserv so if someone could forward this email to them, I would be grateful. Thank you.
Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)
Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
Here’s a link to McHenry’s decision inBay Area II:
So, CLINIC, the sole Amicus, with much more experience in the Recognition & Accreditation Program than McHenry, offers McHenry some helpful suggestions for clarifying his decision. He should have thanked them and issued an amended decision on his own, as “real courts” sometimes do.
Instead, McHenry threw a hissy fit, imagining that his “authority” was being challenged. While making the suggested clarification, he took the occasion unnecessarily and inappropriately to publicly dump on the Amicus who helped him.
Clearly, the act of an arrogant, yet insecure, person who knows he’s “way over his head” in his job. Sound familiar? But, hardly anything we didn’t already know about the awful legal and management mess at EOIR. And, in many ways a microcosm of the multiple disasters and institutional breakdowns sweeping our nation in the Age of the (Not So) Great Imposter.
I was gratified yesterday to hear former Ambassador Susan Rice on Meet the Press“channel Courtside” by referring to Trump’s so-called intelligence advisors as a “Clown Show” 🤡 in connection with the “Putin’s bounty fiasco.” On the other hand, that our national intelligence is in the hands of sycophantic clowns advising the “Chief Clown” is a cause for grave concern.
Suffice it to say that McHenry’s performance is powerful evidence of the reasons why the Director of EOIR should be abolished, hopefully as part of Article I legislation, and replaced with an “Executive Director,” a purely administrative position with no judicial or “legal policy” functions, and subordinate to and reporting to the Chief Appellate Judgewho would replace the BIA Chair. The recent attempts to “reinsert” an improper adjudicative and “policy” role for the Director is yet another example of the gross legal, ethical, and management failures of EOIR under Trump’s DOJ kakistocracy.
As many of you know, Cristian is a contributor to Courtside and a tireless advocate for free speech and Constitutional rights for everyone in America.
Thanks, Cristian, for all you do for America!
🇺🇸Celebrate America’s birthday by standing up for our Constitution and human dignity against the racism, ignorance, hate, & tyranny of the Trump regime!🗽
A Top Immigration Court Official Called For Impartiality In A Memo He Sent As He Resigned
The judge was replaced by the Trump administration with the former top Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor.
Posted on July 3, 2020, at 1:52 p.m. ET
Hamed Aleaziz
BuzzFeed News Reporter
A leading immigration court official stepped down Thursday after sending a pointed email to court employees emphasizing the importance of the appearance of impartiality and the benefits of providing protections for people fleeing to the US. The message came on the same day the Trump administration tapped the former top Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor to take his position, a move that outraged immigrant advocates.
The Trump administration selected Tracy Short, previously the lead ICE prosecutor, for the chief immigration judge role. ICE prosecutors often take up roles as immigration judges, but the selection of Short, formerly ICE’s principal legal adviser, left some claiming the move would undercut the appearance of neutrality at the court.
Christopher Santoro, the acting chief immigration judge, appeared to signal that in his message to court employees announcing his resignation.
His resignation and Short’s hiring comes as the Trump administration has undertaken a monumental overhaul of the way immigration judges work: placing quotas on the number of cases they should complete every year, restricting when asylum can be granted, and pouring thousands of previously closed cases back into court dockets. In the meantime, the case backlog has increased and wait times have continued to skyrocket to hundreds of days.
“There will always be those who disagree with a judge’s (or jury’s) decision and our court system is no different,” he wrote in the email on Thursday, which was obtained by BuzzFeed News. “But for the public to trust a court system, for the public to believe that a court is providing fair and equitable treatment under the law, that court system must not only dispense justice impartially but also appear to be impartial. Maintaining the appearance of impartiality and fairness can often be more difficult than being impartial and is a goal each of us – regardless of our role – must strive for every day.”
Santoro, who had himself served as a senior ICE advisor during the Obama administration, said he delivers this message in training to immigration judges and it applied to everyone involved with the court.
“Santoro’s emphasis on impartiality and protecting vulnerable populations is a sharp departure from this administration’s priorities, which have focused around speedy adjudications and reducing the backlog,” said Sarah Pierce, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. “Someone who recognizes the dire need for impartiality in this system has to watch a prosecutor lead the charge in his wake.”
Two Department of Justice employees said the decision to tap Short was misguided. The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge “provides overall program direction, articulates policies and procedures, and establishes priorities” for the court.
“His hiring is further confirmation that the Executive Office for Immigration Review leadership wishes EOIR to be a tool for enforcement agencies, focused on removal orders and nothing else,” said one employee, who could not speak publicly on the matter. The employee said that Santoro is “incredibly respected, and, in normal times, he would have been the chief immigration judge.”
Another DOJ employee said that Short’s appointment was “one step closer to the death knell for impartiality at the Immigration Court and more persuasive evidence that our code of American justice and fairness is not being followed at the Department of Justice.”
Ashley Tabaddor, who heads the union that represents immigration judges, said they were sad to hear of Santoro’s departure, adding that he is “a well-respected judge and will be tremendously missed.”
In his email, Santoro praised the immigration court for its work in recent years.
“Despite the many challenges thrown our way – ranging from changing priorities to lapses in appropriations to the temporary loss of our case management system to our million-plus pending caseload – you have risen to meet and exceed expectations each and every time. I have never worked with a finer group of professionals,” Santoro wrote.
He later said that the “nation benefits when we welcome those who bring different skills, perspectives, and experiences, and when we protect those who would be persecuted or tortured in their home country. We also benefit when we ensure that our laws are enforced fairly and consistently.”
Observers of the court — including current and former officials — said the email was eye opening.
“I’m heartened, but not surprised, to see Judge Santoro join the dozens of judges who have resigned from this administration and expressed a deep concern for the due process rights of vulnerable asylum seekers in our immigration court system,” said Rebecca Jamil, a former immigration judge who stepped down due to the administration’s immigration policies. “For a court system to mean anything, the public has to trust that it is fair and unbiased, and the Immigration Court simply does not have that important contract with the current Attorney General. I’m grateful that Judge Santoro reached the same conclusion that I did.”
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of Hamed’s article at the link.
This is yet another disgraceful incident in three years of unconstitutional bias and failure of due process at EOIR. The competent, scholarly, fair, and impartial are driven out and replaced by unqualified politicos.
Just heard this statement on TV in connection with yet another racially motivated killing: “We have a morality problem in America!” EOIR has both a competency and a morality problems. When will someone put an end to this unconscionable and deadly nonsense?
As I have said before, Judge Santoro was our Assistant Chief Immigration Judge during some of my time in Arlington. A “straight-up” professional who cared about both public service and the health and welfare of Court employees in very stressful situations.
What a squandering of public funds and goodwill when the competent are pushed out and replaced by those stunningly unqualified to serve in any type of judicial position, let alone one calling for ethical and moral leadership.
Thanks for your service, Chris.😎
Also, proud to be a member of the Round Table along with our courageous colleague, Judge Rebecca Jamil!
July 2, 2020
EOIR Announces New Chief Immigration Judge
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Tracy Short as the Chief Immigration Judge of EOIR’s Office of the Chief Immigration Judge.
Biographical information follows:
Tracy Short, Chief Immigration Judge
Attorney General William Barr appointed Tracy Short as the Chief Immigration Judge in June 2020. Chief Judge Short received a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from Texas Christian University and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the Louisiana State University Law Center. Chief Judge Short began his legal career in 1995 as a judicial law clerk for Judge James M. Dozier, Jr., of the Third Judicial District Court of Louisiana. From 1997 to 1998, he served as a public defender, representing indigent criminal defendants in Louisiana state courts, while also practicing civil law. From 1998 to 1999, Chief Judge Short was an assistant attorney general for the Louisiana Department of Justice where he represented the State of Louisiana in civil litigation. From 1999 to 2000, he also served as a judicial law clerk for Justice Chet D. Traylor of the Louisiana Supreme Court. From 2000 to 2001, Chief Judge Short was a judicial law clerk for Judge Robert B. Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. From 2001 to 2003, Chief Judge Short litigated removal cases on behalf of the Department of Justice as trial attorney with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in Dallas. From 2003 to 2005, Chief Judge Short served as Assistant Chief Counsel in the Dallas office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). In 2005, he was appointed as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney (SAUSA) in the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the Northern District of Texas, where he handled complex civil litigation involving ICE. In 2007, Chief Judge Short was appointed as a SAUSA in the USAO for the Eastern District of Texas, where he litigated criminal cases. From 2007 to 2009, he served as the Acting Deputy Chief Counsel and Senior Attorney in OPLA’s Dallas office. As a Senior Attorney, he litigated significant and complex immigration cases and served as the lead attorney for matters involving customs law and criminal investigations. From 2009 to 2015, he served as Deputy Chief Counsel in OPLA’s Atlanta office, where he managed litigation operations and client services in a multi- state field office. From 2015 to 2017, Chief Judge Short served as Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
Page 2
Security. From January 2017 to June 2020, he served as the ICE Principal Legal Advisor and, later, as a Senior Advisor to the ICE Acting Director. He is a member of the Louisiana State Bar Association and the State Bar of Texas.
— EOIR —
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all the cases it adjudicates.
************************
The final paragraph above is, of course, a sick joke.
I predict that we will hear more from the legal and the human rights communities about this latest abuse of authority by a corrupt White Nationalist regime committed to a program of crimes against humanity.
Due Process Forever!
This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!
A union of immigration judges is suing the Department of Justice over a policy allegedly restricting them from speaking publicly about immigration and other issues in violation of their constitutional rights, the latest escalation of tensions between the union and the federal department where they work.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of the National Association of Immigration Judges by attorneys with the Knight First Amendment Institute and Virginia attorney Victor Glasberg, says DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review in 2017 began requiring the judges to seek preapproval to speak in their own capacity, and not on behalf of the office.
That was replaced earlier this year with a “more restrictive policy,” which mandates the judges cannot speak publicly about immigration or DOJ policies, and must obtain approval to speak, write or talk with members of the media about any other topic.
The lawsuit notes the policy was implemented during a series of changes in the immigration system and that the immigration judges are “uniquely positioned to inform the public on these issues, but the 2020 policy prevents them from doing so.”
. . .
**********************
Those with NLJ access (or who haven’t exhausted their three free articles for the month) can read the rest of Jacqueline’s article at the link.
The “DOJ/EOIR Clown Show” 🤡rolls, on leaving the public interest in the dust and the road littered with the broken bodies and crushed souls of bona fide asylum seekers and other mistreated migrants.
Really, isn’t this continuing circus and parody of justice supposed to be under “adult supervision?” Obviously, both Congress and the Article III Courts have taken a pass on the role. So, what, in fact, are they good for?
I do understand why those responsible for this mess don’t want to be publicly “outed” for the fraud, waste, and abuse that they have created. The desire to escape accountability runs deep in bureaucracies, particularly in an Administration that lies about almost everything and consistently refuses to take responsibility for its own innumerable screw-ups. Dishonesty and lack of accountability starts at the top of this rubbish heap.
Just eight miles from the White House, the Trump administration has quietly opened a new front in its war against immigrants. Inside a 26-story office tower next to a Target in Falls Church, Virginia, the Board of Immigration Appeals has broken with any pretense of impartiality and appears to be working in lockstep with the administration to close the door on immigrants’ ability to remain in the country.
Created in 1940, when the immigration system was moved from the Department of Labor to the Justice Department, BIA serves as the appellate court within the immigration system, where both ICE prosecutors and noncitizen respondents can appeal decisions by individual immigration court judges around the country. It not only decides the fate of the migrants whose cases it reviews; if it chooses to publish a decision, it sets precedent for immigration courts across the country.
Under previous administrations, the BIA was ostensibly impartial and bipartisan, though mainly out of a long-standing tradition of promoting judicial objectivity. Since the entire immigration court system is contained in the Department of Justice—within an administrative agency known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—immigration judges, including those serving as board members on the BIA, are employees of the DOJ, and, by extension, are part of the executive branch. Unlike their counterparts in the federal judiciary, immigration judges are not independent.
TOP ARTICLES2/5READ MOREPence Masks Up While Trump Keeps Dog-Whistling
Since 2018, the Trump administration has exploited its powers over the BIA by expanding the board from 17 to 23 members to accommodate additional anti-immigrant hardliners. Justice Department memos obtained by the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) show that EOIR pushed shorter hiring timelines, which were used to bring on judges with more restrictionist records.
Now the court is stacked with members who have consistently ruled against immigrants, such as one judge who threatened to unleash a dog on a two-year-old boy during a hearing. Numbers obtained by a law firm through a Freedom of Information Request show that the six BIA judges appointed by Attorney General William Barr all had granted asylum in less than 10 percent of cases in fiscal year 2019. (One never granted asylum, despite hearing 40 cases.) An EOIR spokesperson told The Nation in an e-mail that“EOIR does not choose Board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics” and that “Board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.”
The most notable example of the administration’s preference for ultraconservative judges came in late May, when Barr appointed David H. Wetmore as BIA chairman. Wetmore, a former immigration adviser to the White House Domestic Policy Council, was around for some of the Trump administration’s most egregious policies, including the travel ban and family separation policy.
Although only two decisions have been issued since Wetmore was appointed chair, he seems set to pick up where his predecessor, former Acting Chair Garry G. Malphrus, left off. Malphrus, a George W. Bush holdover, became the face of the court’s lurch to curtail immigrants’ legal protections since Trump took office. He had the hawkish bona fides that made him an ideal chairman under the Trump DOJ: From 1997 to 2001, he served as chief counsel to one-time segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he was made associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council after his roleas a Brooks Brothers rioter during the 2000 Bush v. Gore recount in Florida—during which GOP operatives staged a protest that disrupted a recount and may have handed Bush the presidency.
Malphrus was made acting chair in 2019, and authored 24 of the 78 BIA precedential decisions issued under the current administration. Almost all of these precedential decisions have made it more difficult for immigrants to win their cases. The board made it harder for victims of terrorism to win asylum and raised the bar of evidence needed for several types of protections.
“It’s not a court anymore, it’s an enforcement mechanism,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, who was himself chair of the BIA between 1995 and 2001 and now writes a popular immigration blog called Immigration Courtside. “They’re taking predetermined policy and just disguising it as judicial opinions, when the results have all been predetermined and it has nothing to do or little to do with the merits of the cases.”
Consider this: In a case decided in January, the BIA was considering whether an immigration judge had erred in refusing to postpone a removal decision for a person awaiting a decision on a U visa application—a visa type reserved for victims of certain crimes or those cooperating with authorities investigating a crime—to be resolved. (ICE had recently changed their policies to make it easier to deport people in this situation.) The BIA sided with the judge, acknowledging that the crime victim was “eligible for a U visa” but was not entitled to wait to receive it, in part due to his “lack of diligence in pursuing” one. The decision signals that immigrants eligible for crime victim visas, and who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement, can still be ordered deported.
While federal courts hear public oral arguments and largely deliberate openly, the BIA typically uses a paper review method, which means they receive briefs from opposing parties and hand down a decision some time later with the whole intervening process shrouded in secrecy. “Unlike federal courts, where unpublished decisions are still accessible by the public, and so you can track what judges are saying in decisions that do not make precedent, the [BIA] only sporadically releases those decisions,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council.
. . . .
*****************************
Read the rest of Filipe’s article at the link.
Filipe’s final point in the article is one we should all keep in mind:
For hundreds of thousands of immigrants, it doesn’t matter if the anti-immigrant paper pushers in this obscure administrative body are tossed out and all of the policy is slowly reversed by another administration; for most, one shot is all they get. Whether a case was winnable before or even after the Trump BIA is irrelevant. The chance to stay in the United States will be lost forever.
The damage to our humanity and our national conscience inflicted by Trump’s White Nationalist regime, wrongfully enabled by complicit Supremes, and aided and abetted by a GOP Senate will not be “cured” by inevitable later “reforms,” be they next year under a better Administration or decades from now, as is happening with other racial justice issues. Undoubtedly, as eventually will be established, the current anti-immigrant and particularly the anti-asylum policies of the Trump regime are deeply rooted in racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. One need only look at the well-documented careers of “hate architects” like Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, and Jeff Sessions to see the intentional ignorance and ugliness at work here.
I frankly don’t see how we as a nation ever can come to grips with the racial tensions and demands for equal justice now tearing at our society without recognizing the unconscionable racism and immorality driving our current immigration and refugee policies and the failure and untenability of too many leaders in all three branches who have either helped promote racial injustice or have lacked the moral and intellectual courage consistently to stand up against it. They are the problem, and their departure or disempowerment, no matter how long it takes, will be necessary for us eventually to move forward as one nation.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”Susan B. Long Co-Director TRACDavid Burnham Co-Director TRAC
EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency’s Data Troubles
Despite TRAC’s appeals to the EOIR, Immigration Court records continue to disappear each month. This is unfortunately still the case with EOIR’s latest data release. Yesterday, June 15, we finally received a letter from EOIR Director James McHenry in response. But instead of addressing the obvious serious data management problems at EOIR, Director McHenry denied there were any problems and attacked TRAC’s motives for spreading what he claims are falsehoods about the agency.
Background
TRAC initially reported 1,507 missing applications for relief in our October 2019 report, which grew to 3,799 missing applications the following month. We wrote EOIR Director James McHenry providing a copy of the 1,507 missing applications asking for answers on why these records were missing from their files. We wrote again when the number of missing applications more than doubled the following month. Not only did we provide substantive evidence of the issues, we also repeatedly reassured the administration that we stood ready to work with them to fully resolve the underlying issues. These letters were met with silence. Not only have these particular cases disappeared entirely, they have not been restored in any subsequent data releases including the latest data TRAC received last week.
Alarmingly, the data from EOIR for April 2020 on asylum and other applications for relief to the Immigration Courts was missing an even larger
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/614/ Page 1 of 4
EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency Data Troubles 6/16/20, 4:29 PM
number of records—so large, in fact, that TRAC ceased publishing this information on our website and recommended the public be cautious in relying on EOIR asylum statistics until these problems were corrected. TRAC published those findings on June 3, 2020.
The Good and The Bad: EOIR’s Latest Data Release
Late on Friday, June 5, after normal business hours, EOIR sent a brief email acknowledging that data the agency had provided TRAC was, as TRAC had reported two days earlier, not usable. The problem was attributed to a “scripting error”—that is, problems made in the computer code that the EOIR’s Office of Information Technology had developed. A “corrected” version of the data was posted, shortly followed by EOIR’s regular monthly release with updated data through May 2020.
The good news is that TRAC has confirmed that the large number of asylum and other applications that had disappeared from the April shipment were now included in the May release. The bad news is that EOIR did not fix the underlying problem. Yet again, thousands of records that had been present in the April shipment were now missing. And the disappearing records from prior months, including the 1,507 missing asylum and other application for relief that TRAC first wrote about back last fall, continued to be missing from this latest release.
Even setting aside the issue of missing records, the persisting problem of computer processing malfunctions remains very troubling. Fixing one computer processing glitch after another does not address this larger systemic problem. Why do basic programming errors that lead to countless additional data errors keep reoccurring month after month in data and reports the agency publishes? Why aren’t these caught earlier and corrected before any data and statistics are released? The agency has yet
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/614/ Page 2 of 4
EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency Data Troubles 6/16/20, 4:29 PM
to address these questions.
EOIR Director McHenry Responds
At the same time we published our June 3 report, we wrote a third letter to EOIR Director McHenry expressing our concern and seeking a commitment from him to take the steps needed to address these problems. We assured Director McHenry again that we would be more than happy to work cooperatively with the agency to help them better ensure that going forward the public is provided with more accurate and reliable data about the Immigration Court’s operations.
This Monday we received a response from Director McHenry. His response is available here. Rather than addressing the real issues concerning the agency’s continuing data management problems, Director McHenry attacked our motives for alleging that the agency had any problems and further claimed that TRAC knew our statements to be untrue but had made them anyway.
Director McHenry also falsely alleged that TRAC wanted “to obtain all sensitive, identifying information” in EOIR data about particular immigrants in court proceedings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our requests have been limited to anonymized data. Indeed, EOIR publicly posts the monthly data TRAC receives on its own website.
In fact, due to the agency’s computer management problems, in March 2020 the agency posted data online which the agency itself intended to withhold. It was TRAC—not the EOIR—who uncovered this mistake and alerted agency officials.
Why did the EOIR post data online that it intended to withhold? Again it was the same underlying problem: deficiencies in EOIR data management
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/614/ Page 3 of 4
EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency Data Troubles 6/16/20, 4:29 PM
processes mistakenly allowed the public posting of information on tens of thousands of immigrants the agency had sought to redact. Once again basic checks were not in place to verify that their programs had functioned properly so no one at the agency had caught these mistakes before the data was distributed.
What Comes Next?
TRAC has been asked to refer any future issues to EOIR Chief Management Officer Kate Sheehey. TRAC’s co-director had an initial phone conversation with her last Friday, June 12. TRAC asked Director Sheehey to find out why month after month more records keep permanently disappearing from EOIR’s data. She has promised to look into this and provide answers. TRAC will continue to keep the public informed on any future developments.
*********
Director
Susan B. Long
Co-Director, TRAC and
Associate Professor
Martin J. Whitman School of Management Syracuse University
721 University Avenue
Syracuse, New York 13244
David Burnham
Co-Director, TRAC and
Associate Research Professor
S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications Syracuse University
215 University Place
Syracuse, New York 13244
Dear Professors Long and Burnham:
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Director
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600 Falls Church, Virginia 22041
June 12, 2020
This letter responds to your letter dated June 3, 2020, and to your previous letters dated November 4, 2019, and December 18, 2019, respectively.
As you are aware, EOIR has committed to an unprecedented data transparency initiative over the past two years, including the monthly posting of data from its Case Access System for EOIR (CASE) database pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As you are also aware, EOIR does not delete data from CASE in the sense that you have repeatedly alleged. As EOIR has explained to you previously, data that you allege has been “deleted” actually reflects either real-time updates to information in CASE, technological errors in the extraction and posting of the data which have been corrected, or data that was appropriately withheld from disclosure pursuant to FOIA.
Because you know that EOIR does not delete data, I can only speculate as to your motives for continuing to publicly accuse EOIR’s hardworking and conscientious career personnel in the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ), the Office of Information Technology (OIT), and the FOIA Unit of malfeasance. Moreover, your apparent desire to obtain all sensitive, identifying information in CASE related to specific cases of aliens in immigration proceedings—including aliens with particular types of
Letter to Professors Susan B. Long and David Burnham Page 2
claims subject to protection from disclosure under FOIA—is perplexing. Nevertheless, regardless of your motivation, your inflammatory and inaccurate accusations do nothing to advance our mutual goals of improving the availability of reliable data to inform decision-making in the immigration sphere.
In light of your continued disparagement of the employees within OCIJ, OIT, and the FOIA Unit, I have asked Chief Management Officer Kate Sheehey to address any future issues that you raise with the monthly data release under FOIA. Please direct any future comments or inquiries to her.
cc: Kate Sheehey, Chief Management Officer
Sincerely,
JAMES MCHENRY
Digitally signed by JAMES MCHENRY
Date: 2020.06.12 16:43:24 -04’00’
James R. McHenry III Director
****************
While nobody is infallible, TRAC is a well-respected independent source of statistics and nonpartisan analysis.
EOIR, on the other hand, is a highly partisan mismanaged charade of a court system dedicated to carrying out the DOJ’s anti-asylum, anti-immigrant agenda.
This also provides insights into why, after two decades of failed efforts and squandered taxpayer funds, EOIR failed to deliver on a functional nationwide e-filing system. It also helps explain how the already overwhelming docket backlog has more than doubled even with nearly twice as many judges under the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump DOJ.
But, this “gang that can’t shoot straight” had time to develop ridiculously unneeded and counterproductive “Immigration Judge Dashboards” that nobody except politicos wanted, to keep the pressure on judges to deny due process and deny asylum. They also had time to set up a totally unneeded “Office of Policy” under the Director and to disembowel the Office of Legal Assistance Programs, one of the few functional parts of EOIR “management” whose projects once long ago actually helped to reduce backlogs while promoting due process. The Office of Policy duplicates functions that formerly were adequately performed by the Office of General Counsel.
EOIR has always had a problem of too many positions and too much funding devoted to Headquarters in Falls Church rather than to the courts in the field. But, under the Trump kakistocracy the problem has become an epidemic. EOIR management has been used to exert improper political control over the quasi-judicial process and to interfere in independent decision making and due process. But, it’s been totally “MIA” in providing the basic apolitical professional administrative services needed by the judges and the public they are supposed to be serving (but aren’t right now under an Administration that has open contempt for due process, service to the public, and the immigrant community).
An independent Article I Court is the only solution! Competent administrative services dedicated to promoting full due process with efficiency and top notch public service is a prerequisite for any type of meaningful backlog reduction. As long as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and mismanagement rule, the backlog will continue to grow by leaps and bounds. But, because of chronically unreliable EOIR statistics and record keeping, we might never know the true extent of the court backlog. You can bet, however, that’s it’s now considerably more than the previously reported 1.4 million “on docket plus waiting to be recalendared” mess.
Maybe, rather than “shooting the messengers,” EOIR should enlist the assistance of true experts and statisticians to help fix the current broken system!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)
Statement on DOJ OIG Report on Executive Office for Immigration Review Fiscal Year 2019 Financial Management Practices
DOJ OIG Report Highlights the Structural Flaw of Entrusting a Law Enforcement Agency with Administering the Immigration Court
WASHINGTON- The United State Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) June 9, 2020 report, assessing the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s (EOIR) financial management practices, revealed significant leadership and structural failures at EOIR. Although Congress fully funded EOIR’s 2019 budget request, EOIR nevertheless announced on March 6, 2019 that it was “considerably short of being able to fulfill all of [EOIR’s] current operational needs.” In its audit, OIG determined that EOIR’s statement was not accurate. Nor was a subsequent EOIR claim that its interpreter costs would spike to approximately 150% of its budgeted amount. OIG also found that the EOIR director knowingly failed to correct his inaccurate statements because of concerns of “backlash.”
“EOIR failed court administration 101” said NAIJ President, Ashley Tabaddor in response to the OIG report: “The mismanagement uncovered by OIG in yesterday’s report is only the tip of the iceberg of persistent systemic and structural failures at EOIR. EOIR has failed to implement an electronic filing system, failed to properly hire judge teams as instructed by Congress, failed to secure adequate space to properly run the court and has persistently shuffled immigration judge dockets resulting in the unprecedented backlog of over 1 million immigration court cases.” The prestigious Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Clearinghouse (TRAC) recently announced that EOIR’s data releases are so deficient that the public should not rely on the accuracy of those records, and despite calls for correction, EOIR’s data irregularities are approaching the point of no return.
These problems all stem from the structural flaw of having the immigration court housed in the Department of Justice, a law enforcement agency. The OIG report findings are just another example of systemic flaws plaguing the immigration court and bolster the widespread call on Congress to establish an independent immigration court.
The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), founded in 1971, is a voluntary organization formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Court.
###
2
**********
“Malicious incompetence” unchecked! Truly a corrupt regime and a broken justice system in a downward spiral.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration grossly miscalculated budget projections before it cited funding problems to replace many immigration court interpreters in San Francisco and elsewhere with recorded videos, according to a new watchdog report.
The Justice Department began requiring immigration judges to use videos last year to explain the court system at immigrants’ initial appearances instead of in-person interpreters, a move first reported by The Chronicle. The department said the move was necessary to save money.
But an analysis by the department’s inspector general released Tuesday found that Justice Department officials were working off faulty numbers, part of an inaccurate portrayal of the agency’s larger budget situation.
The department “erroneously estimated its yearly interpreter costs by extrapolating a single, unusually high monthly interpreter expense, which was not supported by invoices or other contemporaneous evidence,” the watchdog wrote. “This erroneous estimate adversely affected (the agency’s) leadership’s communication of accurate budget needs to department and congressional decision makers.”
Career members at the Board of Immigration Appeals appointed prior to the Trump administration have been “reassigned” to new roles after they rejected recent buyout offers by the Justice Department.
The step appears to be the latest administrative move that critics say dilutes the independence of an important appeals body by filling it with new hires more willing to carry out the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies.
The change was announced in an internal email viewed by CQ Roll Call.
“This is to inform you that effective June 8, 2020, you will be reassigned from your current position as Board Member (Senior Level) to the Appellate Immigration Judge position,” said an email that went out last week to nine career members.
The Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, is a 23-member body under the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency overseeing the immigration court system. Three-member BIA panels review immigration court decisions and issue precedent-setting rulings that shape national immigration law.
The difference between “board member” and “appellate immigration judge” roles goes beyond title, extending to pay ranges and leave policy. Appellate immigration judges also hear cases at both the trial and appellate levels, creating potential conflicts of interests, critics say. Sources familiar with the agency’s personnel matters, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, confirmed that all nine career members selected prior to the Trump administration received the email.
CQ Roll Call first reached out to EOIR for confirmation of the reassignments. Agency spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said via email that “board member roles and responsibilities are established by regulation and have not changed.”
Asked for additional comment this week once CQ Roll Call viewed the email, Mattingly said: “Adjudicator authorities are established by law and have not changed.”
The reassignment comes after DOJ offered, in an April 17 memo, “voluntary separation incentive payments” to the nine career board members, “individuals whose positions will help us strategically restructure EOIR in order to accommodate skills, technology, and labor markets.”
That memo, authored by EOIR Director James McHenry, noted the window for requesting these incentives closed on May 15. None of the nine career members accepted the offer, according to the sources at EOIR.
Under the Trump administration, the BIA has expanded from 17 members to 23. In addition, a flurry of career members have departed the agency, prompting EOIR to launch successive hiring sprees to fill new openings and vacant positions.
The nine most recent hires to the board include several immigration judges who denied over 90 percent of the asylum requests before them. Some also have a history of formal complaints of bias. The new hires have come on not as “board members” but as “appellate immigration judges.”
Ashley Tabaddor, who heads the immigration judges’ union, the National Association of Immigration Judges, said the “appellate immigration judge position” appeared to be a conflation of the BIA and the immigration judge roles. Adding more appellate immigration judges — who might review trial- and appellate-level cases at the same time — dilutes labor protections and undermines the independence of the immigration court system as a whole, she said.
“Over and over again, they’re just trying to conflate everything into one: ‘They’re all the same and no one should get protection from the union,'” Tabaddor said in an interview. “It’s so transparent that everything that they’re doing is to dismantle any semblance of a traditional court model.”
EOIR has repeatedly denied that accusation.
“Many board members have viewed themselves as appellate immigration judges for years, and EOIR first proposed such a designation in 2000,” the Justice Department said in a May 27 statement. “Elevating trial-level judges to appellate-level courts is common in every judicial system in the United States.”
Government officials also have said the agency has been trying to streamline a lengthy, inefficient hiring process. Recent changes to EOIR hiring procedures “have made the selection process of board members more formalized and neutral,” the department said in its May statement.
*************
A link to a complete copy of the IG Report is embedded in Tal’s report above.
Eyore’s Continuing Clown Show 🤡 rolls on, grinding up ☠️ and spitting out 🤮ruined human lives and mocking due process every day! When, oh when, will Congress and/or the Article IIIs do their jobs and put this grotesque spectacle of injustice out of its misery and end the unnecessary and clearly unconstitutional human pain and suffering that it inflicts? Is there no human decency and integrity left anywhere in our failing institutions beyond the regime’s direct control?
After dealing with the Trump Kakistocracy, Eyore probably never figured he’d be followed and exposed by tenacious folks like Tal & Tanvi who actually know more about what’s really happening at America’sStar Chambers than he does! Why don’t our legislators and judges have the same awareness, courage, and integrity as journalists like Tal and Tanvi? Why have those whose primary job it is to protect the Constitution and the general welfare by holding an overtly corrupt and maliciously incompetent Executive accountable gone “belly up?”
As usual, Judge Tabaddor is “right on.” Any resemblance between EOIR and a “court system” is purely coincidental. But, this mess is all too real for its victims — asylum seekers and other migrants asking for justice. The real question: How do the legislators and life-tenured Article III Judges who ignore and enable these deadly abuses get away with it? How do they sleep at night knowing that Eyore will trample more rights and destroy more lives ofvulnerable fellow humans tomorrow, on “their watch!”
Due Process Forever! Institutional Complicity Never!
Duties Help Help
Duties
Summary
If you are interested in a rewarding and challenging career, this is the position for you!
Learn more about this agency
Responsibilities
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals in becoming a part of our challenging and rewarding Agency. The primary mission of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the Immigration Courts where Immigration Judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of these Immigration Judge decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases.
This position is located in the Office of the Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U. S. Department of Justice. Incumbent serves as the Deputy Director. This position enjoys the full delegated authority of the Director to manage all aspects of EOIR operations. Thus, the incumbent is responsible for the supervision of the Chairman of BIA, the Chief of OCIJ, the Chief of OCAHO, and all agency personnel in the execution of their duties.
Typical work assignments will include:
Responsible for the formulation and administration of policies affecting the mission of EOIR.
Manages the development, evaluation, and implementation of policies for agency-wide programs.
Explores and plans long-range development goals, as well as short-term strategies.
Develops and implements funding and resource strategies to further the agency’s goals and oversees strategic planning for all agency components.
Exercises the authority delegated by the Attorney General and represents the position and policies of EOIR the the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, Members of Congress and other governmental bodies, the press, the bar, and private groups interested in immigration matter.
Travel Required
Occasional travel – You may be expected to travel for this position.Supervisory status
Yes
Requirements Help Help
Requirements
Conditions of Employment
You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.
You must complete a background investigation, credit check, and drug test.
Selective Service Registration is required, as applicable.
May be required to file a Financial Disclosure.
Salary payments must be by direct deposit to a financial institution.
Probationary period: For those entering the SES career service for the first time are subject to a one-year probationary period.
Managerial qualifications of those not a current or former SES employee must be approved by OPM before appointment.
Those who completed the Candidate Development Program (CDP) and have ECQ’s certified by OPM must provide a copy with the application.
Applicants must meet all qualifications and eligibility requirements by the closing date of the announcement.
Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Deputy Director position, you must meet the following minimum qualifications:
Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B. or a J.D. degree.
-AND-
Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of a U.S. state, territory, Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia (include the MM/YY date of your admission to the bar).
-AND-
Experience: Applicants must be U.S. citizens and must have practiced as an attorney, post-bar admission, for a minimum of seven (7) years at the time the application is submitted with at least 1 year of experience at a level equivalent to the GS-15 in the Federal service.(Your resume must CLEARLY demonstrate this experience)
Applicants must meet all qualifications and eligibility requirements by the closing date of the announcement.
IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE. If your resume does not support your questionnaire answers, we will not allow credit for your response(s).
For more information on the qualifications for this position, click here.
Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs):
ECQ 1- LEADING CHANGE. This core qualification involves the ability to bring about strategic change, both within and outside the organization, to meet organizational goals. Inherent to this ECQ is the ability to establish an organizational vision and to implement it in a continuously changing environment.
ECQ 2- LEADING PEOPLE. This core qualification involves the ability to lead people toward meeting the organization’s vision, mission, and goals. Inherent to this ECQ is the ability to provide an inclusive workplace that fosters the development of others, facilitates cooperation and teamwork, and supports constructive resolution of conflicts.
Leadership Competencies: Conflict Management, Leveraging Diversity, Developing Others, Team Building
ECQ 3 – RESULTS DRIVEN. This core qualification involves the ability to meet organizational goals and customer expectations. Inherent to this ECQ is the ability to make decisions that produce high-quality results by applying technical knowledge, analyzing problems, and calculating risks.
ECQ 4- BUSINESS ACUMEN. This core qualification involves the ability to manage human, financial, and information resources strategically.
Leadership Competencies: Financial Management, Human Capital Management, Technology Management
ECQ 5- BUILDING COALITIONS. This core qualification involves the ability to build coalitions internally and with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, nonprofit and private sector organizations, foreign governments, or international organizations to achieve common goals.
Leadership Competencies: Partnering, Political Savvy,Influencing/Negotiating
Mandatory Technical Qualification Requirements:
In addition to the ECQs above, qualified candidates must possess the following technical qualifications. Possession of these technical qualifications must be clearly documented in your application package and should be addressed separately.
1. Ability to interpret cases, statues and administrative regulations and apply them to an organizations mission.
2. Comprehensive knowledge of immigration law and procedure, with particular expertise in administrative and Judicial case law and regulations.
3. Ability to draft regulations to implement Department and agency policy and statutory requirements.
4. Ability to represent an organization in administration hearings and proceedings.
5. Demonstrated decision-making, problem- solving, and legal writing skills.
6. Ability to create a customer-service driven organization.EducationAdditional information
Conditions of Employment: Only U.S. Citizens or Nationals are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Dual citizens of the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ applicants, both U.S. citizens and non-citizens, whose job location is with the U.S., must meet the residency requirement. For a total of three (not necessarily consecutive years) of the five years immediately prior to applying for a position, the applicant must have: 1) resided in the U.S., 2) worked for the U.S. overseas in a Federal or military capacity; or 3) been a dependent of a Federal or military employee serving oversees.
NOTE: Veteran’s preference does not apply to this position. 5 USC 2108(3), which defines “preference eligible”, indicates this does not include applicants for, or members of, the Senior Executive Service.
If you are unable to apply online or need to fax a document you do not have in electronic form, view the following link for information regarding an Alternate Application.Read moreHow You Will Be Evaluated
You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above.
Once the application process is complete, a review of your resume and supporting documentation will be made and compared against your responses to the assessment questionnaire to determine if you are qualified for this job.
In order to be rated as meeting the minimum qualifications, we must be able to determine from your application package that you have the education and/or specialized or general experience that is required.
Applicants who have qualifying experience performed on less than a full-time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.Read more
Background checks and security clearance
Security clearance Top Secret Drug test required
Yes
Required Documents Help Help
Required Documents
To apply for this position, you must provide a complete Application Package by the closing date of this announcement, which includes:
1. Your Resume showing relevant experience; cover letter optional
2. A complete Assessment Questionnaire
3. For those attempting to enter the SES career service for the first time, you must submit mandatory statements to address the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQ).
4. All applicants are required to submit the Mandatory Technical Qualifications (MTQ).
5. Current or former SES must submit SF-50 and/or SES certificate to show current or prior service.
Note: Please ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, employment information such as: Employer name and location; From and to dates (or from date to present for current position), which include the month and year MM/YY for each description of experience, with grade level held, if applicable, education, training etc. Qualifying experience performed on less than a full-time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
If you are relying on your education to meet qualification requirements:
Education must be accredited by an accrediting institution recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in order for it to be credited towards qualifications. Therefore, provide only the attendance and/or degrees from schools accredited by accrediting institutions recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.
Failure to provide all of the required information as stated in this vacancy announcement may result in an ineligible rating or may affect the overall rating.
Benefits Help Help
Benefits
A career with the U.S. Government provides employees with a comprehensive benefits package. As a federal employee, you and your family will have access to a range of benefits that are designed to make your federal career very rewarding. Learn more about federal benefits.Review our benefits
Eligibility for benefits depends on the type of position you hold and whether your position is full-time, part-time, or intermittent. Contact the hiring agency for more information on the specific benefits offered.
How to Apply Help Help
How to Apply
You must submit a complete application package by 11:59 PM (EST) on the closing date of the announcement.
* To begin, click Apply Online to create a USAJOBS account or log in to your existing account. Follow the prompts to select your USAJOBS resume and/or other supporting documents and complete the occupational questionnaire, which can be previewed here: https://apply.usastaffing.gov/ViewQuestionnaire/10830644.
* Click the Submit My Answers button to submit your application package.
* It is your responsibility to ensure your responses and appropriate documentation is submitted prior to the closing date.
* To verify your application is complete, log into your USAJOBS account, select the Application Status link and then select the more information link for this position. The Details page will display the status of your application, the documentation received and processed, and any correspondence the agency has sent related to this application. Your uploaded documents may take several hours to clear the virus scan process.
* To return to an incomplete application, log into your USAJOBS account and click Update Application in the vacancy announcement. You must re-select your resume and/or other documents from your USAJOBS account or your application will be incomplete.Read more
Agency contact information
Allison Smith Allison Smith
Phone
(816) 426-5706
Email allison.smith@opm.govAddress
Office of the Director
5107 Leesburg Pike, Ste. 2300
Falls Church, VA 22041
USLearn more about this agencyNext steps
You will be notified of your application status during the hiring process, as applicable. You may check your application status by accessing the USAJOBS website and clicking “Application Status”. The process may take up to 6 weeks.
The four points of notification are:
Application Received or Application Incomplete
Minimum Qualification Requirement Met/Not Met
Eligible (Application Referred) or Eligible (Application Not referred)
Selected or Not Selected
If your name is referred to the hiring official, you may be contacted directly by that office for a possible interview.Read more
Fair & Transparent
Fair & Transparent
The Federal hiring process is setup to be fair and transparent. Please read the following guidance.
Equal Employment Opportunity Policy
The United States Government does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, retaliation, parental status, military service, or other non-merit factor.
Read more
Reasonable Accommodation Policy
Federal agencies must provide reasonable accommodation to applicants with disabilities where appropriate. Applicants requiring reasonable accommodation for any part of the application process should follow the instructions in the job opportunity announcement. For any part of the remaining hiring process, applicants should contact the hiring agency directly. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
A reasonable accommodation is any change to a job, the work environment, or the way things are usually done that enables an individual with a disability to apply for a job, perform job duties or receive equal access to job benefits.
Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, federal agencies must provide reasonable accommodations when:
An applicant with a disability needs an accommodation to have an equal opportunity to apply for a job.
An employee with a disability needs an accommodation to perform the essential job duties or to gain access to the workplace.
An employee with a disability needs an accommodation to receive equal access to benefits, such as details, training, and office-sponsored events.
According to insiders, this is the fourth or fifth attempt by the current regime to fill what normally would be a “highly desirable” career Senior Executive position. But, in the kakistocracy, it’s likely to be a “career ender.”
My advice: make sure you have paid up liability insurance and “alternate career plans” if you apply. A good “White Collar Crime” lawyer on retainer wouldn’tbe a bad idea either.
EOIR’s Data Release on Asylum So Deficient Public Should Not Rely on Accuracy of Court Records
TRAC has concluded that the data updated through April 2020 it has just received on asylum and other applications for relief to the Immigration Courts are too unreliable to be meaningful or to warrant publication. We are therefore discontinuing updating our popular Immigration Court Asylum Decisions app, and will take other steps to highlight this problem[1]. We also wish to alert the public that any statistics EOIR has recently published on this topic may be equally suspect, as will be any future reports the agency publishes until these major data deficiencies are explained and rectified[2].
The EOIR’s apparent reckless deletion of potentially irretrievable court records raises urgent concerns that without immediate intervention the agency’s sloppy data management practices could undermine its ability to manage itself, thwart external efforts at oversight, and leave the public in the dark about essential government activities. Left unaddressed, the number of deleted records will compound each month and could trigger an expensive data crisis at the agency. And here the missing records are the actual applications for asylum, and how the court is handling them. This is a subject on which there is widespread public interest and concern.
EOIR Data Irregularities Approaching Point of No Return
Despite TRAC’s appeals to the EOIR, Immigration Court records continue to disappear each month. TRAC initially reported 1,507 missing applications for relief in our October 2019 report, which grew to 3,799 missing applications the following month. We wrote EOIR Director James McHenry providing a copy of the 1,507 missing applications asking for answers on why these records were missing from their files. We wrote again when the number of missing applications more than doubled the following month. These letters were met with silence. Not only have these cases disappeared entirely, they have not been restored in any subsequent data releases and the number of missing relief applications continue to grow. (See the final section for a short explanation of TRAC’s methodology.)
Alarmingly, the number of relief applications that were present in the March 2020 data release but were missing in the April release jumped to 68,282. This is just the number of records that disappeared over a single month. It does not include the ever growing number of applications that had previously disappeared month-by-month. As was true in past months, roughly four out of five of the records in the March 2020 release that disappeared from April’s release concerned applications on which the court had rendered its decision, including many cases in which the immigration judge had granted asylum as well as other forms of relief.
To put that into perspective, the number of missing cases just last month is more than the 63,734 asylum applications received by the Immigration Courts during all of FY 2015. If these applications are missing because they have been deleted from the Court’s own master files, the magnitude of the task of restoring just this single month’s destruction—assuming this is even possible—is enormous. To go back and restore the cumulative number of relief applications that went missing during previous months will obviously be even greater.
In fact, so many asylum decisions were dropped from EOIR’s April release that the cumulative number of asylum decisions went down, not up, despite asylum decisions continuing to be made. The volume of disappearing records has reached a scale that little faith can be placed in the factual accuracy of reports published by the EOIR based on its data.
The EOIR’s escalating data problems should raise dire concerns for Congress, policymakers and the public who routinely put their faith in federal agencies to provide complete and accurate information about their work. Indeed, the management of the court system itself, including the quota system recently imposed on immigration judges, presupposes the accuracy of the court’s own records. It is deeply worrisome that the EOIR and the Department of Justice appear unconcerned with ensuring that their own records are accurate and uncommitted to providing the public with accurate and reliable data about the Court’s operations.
TRAC Urges EOIR to Take Immediate Action
To date, the EOIR has not responded to TRAC’s requests for an explanation of these disappearances, nor has the EOIR responded to TRAC’s FOIA requests for records that would shed light on this matter.
Therefore, TRAC has written a third letter to Director McHenry reporting our findings of 68,282 new disappearances and we are again seeking a commitment from him to take the steps needed to address the problem. More urgently, we are asking that the EOIR immediately preserve—rather than destroy—all back-up tapes or other media in the hopes that records apparently improperly deleted from the Court’s master files might be restored. We assured Director McHenry that we would be more than happy to work cooperatively with the agency to help them better ensure that going forward the public is provided with more accurate and reliable data about the Immigration Court’s operations.
How EOIR’s Data Mismanagement Impacts TRAC’s Immigration Court Tools
TRAC’s mission is to provide the public with accurate, reliable, unbiased, and timely data on the operations of the federal government, and to ensure that the public is informed about changes that impact our data.
The EOIR’s disappearing records fall under the data related to applications for relief. The record on the existence of the court case itself is present, but for a growing number of these cases there now is no record that the immigrant ever applied for relief, or the court’s decision on that application. One of the key moments in the life of the case—including applications for asylum—is missing entirely. As a direct consequence TRAC does not have the information needed to provide reliable or meaningful updates on the court’s handling of applications for asylum and must therefore discontinue updating its asylum decision app.
While each of the other files in EOIR’s monthly data releases also have the same problem of records disappearing, the magnitude of these disappearances has not reached the levels seen with applications for relief. While still worrisome, these levels have not yet climbed to where we believe we can no longer use the information we receive. Thus, we are continuing to update the rest of our other Immigration Court apps. We continue to closely monitor the situation, while we urge EOIR to explain why records keep disappearing. We further continue to ask the agency to take the steps needed to rectify the situation.
TRAC will continue to retain all previous and future EOIR data shipments for research purposes.
How did TRAC Identify the EOIR’s Data Irregularities?
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) oversees the nationwide Immigration Court system, including more than 60 physical Immigration Court locations (as well as many more remote hearing locations including teleconference sites and ad hoc “tent” courts), hundreds of Immigration Judges, and millions of immigration cases that pass through the court system. The EOIR records information on each case and tracks various proceedings, filings, hearings and other aspects of each case in a large database. This database is central to the Court’s ability to manage its workload, prepare and publish reports for the public, and respond to queries from Congress about its operations. It is also used in implementing new practices, including the recent decision to impose new evaluation criteria for Immigration Judges.
As a result of TRAC’s ongoing FOIA requests, the EOIR releases a large batch of anonymized Immigration Court data each month that provides a snapshot of a great deal of the information recorded in this database on the handling of each case. In short, TRAC does not create data on the EOIR; rather, TRAC’s uses the EOIR’s own data. This data is the foundation for TRAC’s Immigration Court data tools which help ensure transparency and accountability for the American public.
TRAC used this data to precisely identify deleted records. While the information TRAC receives does not identify individuals, EOIR’s computer system assigns a unique computer sequence number to each case that identifies it. Because TRAC receives comprehensive data shipments from the EOIR each month that include these unique computer-assigned tracking numbers, TRAC can match each record received in the previous month with the same corresponding record in the following month’s release. Each release is also cumulative. That means it should include every record from the previous month plus every new record that has been added to the database over the course of the current month. As a rule, records should therefore never disappear[3].
When a record that was present is not included in the next month’s release, TRAC refers to these as missing or disappearing records. Because humans maintain most databases including EOIR’s, mistakes will occur. Therefore no database is ever perfect. So a few disappearing records might be expected. However, as is the situation here, concern is warranted whenever significant numbers of records disappear. Indeed, alarm bells should ring as the number of disappearing records grow. This situation means the data can no longer be trusted to reliably track the court’s proceedings.
Footnotes
[1] EOIR monthly releases consist of a series of tables covering different aspects of its workload. While each of these tables continue to have disappearing records each month, the magnitude of these missing records varies by table. For example, in the table that tracks each case before the court there were 228 cases present in March that disappeared from the April release, compared with 41,233 new cases that were added. While the problem of disappearing case records remains very troubling for the case table along with each of the other EOIR tables, TRAC believes that their magnitudes do not rise to the same level as the problem for applications for relief where the data now are so unreliable and misleading that they do not warrant the public placing any trust in them. At this time, we therefore are continuing to update our other Immigration Court apps while alerting the public to this continuing serious problem that affects the reliability of EOIR data releases more generally.
[2] For an example of a recent EOIR publication that may contain significant data errors, see the graph and table reporting total asylum applications through March 2020, which was generated using data from April 2020: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1106366/download.
[3] Even when a data entry error is made, the database has special codes to indicate that a record should be disregarded because it was a data entry error so that rarely is it necessary to actually delete records.
EOIR isn’t willing and able to do its only function: provide fair, impartial, and timely adjudications to asylum seekers and other migrants while following best judicial practices.
But they do have time to waste taxpayers’ money on nonsense like the chart at this link:https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1217001/download. This was obviously designed to further the Trump regime’s false narrative regarding the merits of asylum claims. While the chart is largely incomprehensible, misleading nonsense, what stands out is this:
At the end of an abusive process during which the law has been illegally skewed against asylum seekers and “judges,” most of whom are not experts in asylum law and who have never even represented an asylum seeker, are encouraged to deny meritorious claims for protection, against the odds, over 25% (12 of 47) of those who actually get through this biased dysfunctional mess still get asylum!
It’s reasonable to believe that under a fair system, with impartial decision makers who have expertise in asylum law, and without the interference of biased, overtly anti-asylum politicos like Sessions and Barr, asylum seekers would succeed the majority of the time, as they did before efforts by both the Obama and Trump Administrations to “ratchet down” asylum grants so that the EOIR system would serve DHS Enforcement as a “deterrent” to those seeking protection.
Obviously, the DOJ is afraid that under a fair, independent judicial system that actually employed judges who were experts in asylum law and who had real life experience representing asylum applicants, the majority of claims would be granted, thereby exposing the fraud, dishonesty, and misconduct involved in the present anti-asylum system.
It’s a national disgrace that is actually harming and sometimes killing those deserving of protection under our law.
Due Process Forever! Dishonest, Unethical, Incompetent, and Intentionally Biased “Courts” Never!
DOJ memo offered to buy out immigration board members
The buyouts were only offered to Board of Immigration Appeals members hired before Trump took office
The Justice Department memo came from the director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, a Justice Department agency. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)
The Justice Department offered buyouts to pre-Trump administration career members on its influential immigration appeals board as part of an ongoing effort to restructure the immigration court system with new hires who may be likely to render decisions restricting asylum.
An internal memo viewed by CQ Roll Call shows that James McHenry, the director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, offered financial incentives to longtime members of the Board of Immigration Appeals to encourage them to retire or resign. The buyouts and “voluntary separation incentive payments” were offered to “individuals whose positions will help us strategically restructure EOIR in order to accommodate skills, technology, and labor markets,” according to the April 17 memo.
EOIR is the Justice Department agency that oversees the Board of Immigration Appeals, a 23-member body that reviews appealed decisions by immigration judges and sets precedent.
According to two knowledgeable sources at EOIR who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, the memo was sent to the nine board members appointed under previous Republican and Democratic administrations, before Trump took office. No one accepted the buyout offers, according to both sources.
CQ Roll Call reached out for comment on the memo to McHenry, EOIR and the Justice Department and received a statement Wednesday saying that “the Department does not comment on personnel matters.”
“Any insinuation that politicized hiring has become ramped up is inconsistent with the facts,” the statement said.
The memo sheds light on an ongoing debate over BIA hiring. Immigration judges, lawyers and former EOIR employees say the Trump administration has used the board to help meet its goal of reducing immigration, while government officials say they have simply streamlined a lengthy hiring process that was always subject to political judgments.
In October, CQ Roll Call reported on documents showing the Justice Department had tweaked the hiring process to fill six new vacancies on the board with immigration judges with high asylum denial rates and a track record of complaints. Additional memos that CQ Roll Call wrote about earlier this month shed further light on these rule changes that enabled fast-tracking of those and more recent hires.
The three most recent hires to the board include an immigration judge who denied 96 percent of the asylum requests before him and had a history of formal complaints about “bias and prejudice.” The vacancies were created after a flurry of career board members left the BIA.
“EOIR does not select board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics, and it does not discriminate against applicants based on any prohibited characteristics,” the Justice Department said in its statement. “All board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process that begins with a public advertisement on the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) federal employment website.”
Recent changes to EOIR hiring procedures “have made the selection process of board members more formalized and neutral,” the department said.
While buyouts are typically offered to soften the blow of workforce reductions, the two sources at EOIR said the agency’s offers were made so that the BIA could be reconfigured entirely, with the positions of “board members” replaced by those of “appellate immigration judges.” The differences go beyond title, extending to pay ranges and leave policy. Appellate immigration judges also hear cases at both the trial and appellate levels, creating potential conflicts of interests.
“Many board members have viewed themselves as appellate immigration judges for years, and EOIR first proposed such a designation in 2000,” according to the Justice Department statement. “Elevating trial-level judges to appellate-level courts is common in every judicial system in the United States.”
The American Immigration Lawyers Association and other critics said the buyout offer is the latest example in a series of moves that have undermined the neutrality of the immigration court system. They point out that BIA is already housed under a law enforcement agency, the Justice Department, whose leadership may have a stake in the outcome of the court process.
“The administration is trying to further politicize the immigration court system by packing the appellate bench and is seeking to make room for more handpicked judges with this buyout,” Benjamin Johnson, AILA’s executive director, told CQ Roll Call.
“These latest actions reveal the severe impact of our nation’s immigration system being housed under the Attorney General and only underscore the real need to create an independent immigration court,” he said.
**************
The refusal of the “holdovers” to take the “buyout” just forced the DOJ politicos to use a different “strategy:” creating additional “appellate judgeships” and “packing” them with appointees with established records of hostility to asylum seekers and the due process rights of respondents.
This presents an interesting historical comparison with an earlier GOP Administration’s program for promoting an anti-immigrant agenda at the BIA. Under Bush II, Ashcroft arbitrarily “cut” the size of the BIA to get rid of the vocal minority of judges who dared to speak up (usually in dissent) for the rights of asylum seekers and other migrants to due process, fundamental fairness, and humane treatment. I was one of those judges “exiled” from the BIA during the “Ashcroft Purge of ‘03.”
Fortunately, I got a “soft landing” just down the hill from the “EOIR Tower” at the Arlington Immigration Court where I remained on the bench and (mostly) “below the radar screen” for the following 13 years. And, yes, I was offered a “buyout” in the form of “early retirement,” which would have been a rather bad financial deal for me at the time.So, I rejected it, and eventually got a much better “deal.”
The DOJ’s claim that the current farce is a “merit selection system” is beyond preposterous. But, as long as Congress and the Article IIIs won’t stand up to Trump’s blatant abuses of due process, the “de-professionalization” of the career Civil Service, and the dehumanization of the “other” before the law (“Dred Scottificfation”), the charade will continue.
Of course the problem isn’t, as EOIR would lead you to believe, that some “trial judges” are elevated to the appellate bench. It’s which “trial judges” are being “rewarded” for their records of hostility to asylum seekers, respondents, and their attorneys.
Also, in what has become essentially a “closed system” of Immigration Judges, staffed almost exclusively by government attorneys overwhelmingly with prosecutorial backgrounds, the “elevation” of existing trial judges, basically tilts the system heavily in favor of DHS and against respondents. Indeed, some fine Immigration Judges with broader experience including private practice, who would have made superior Appellate Immigration Judges in a true merit-based system, were instead forced off the bench by the demeaning, biased, restrictionist policies implemented at EOIR.
Also, having served as both a trial and appellate judge, I know that the “skill sets” are related, but by no means identical. Not all good trial judges make good appellate judges and vice versa. While it’s certainly to be expected that some trial judges will be elevated to the appellate bench, that should not be the sole source of appellate judges.
Appellate judging requires scholarship, collegiality, creativity, writing, and a broad perspective that many talented private advocates, academics, and NGO lawyers possess in abundance. The same holds true of the Article III Appellate Bench. From the Supremes on down, it’s basically in various degrees of failure to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution against the attacks by the Trump regime.
It’s a case of far too many former District Court Judges, former prosecutors, and right-wing “think tankers,” and far too few individuals who have litigation, legal, and life experience gained from representing those who actually come before the courts. The Supremes in particular are badly in need of folks with a broader, more practical, more humane perspective on the law.
The institutional failure of today’s Supremes in the face of concerted Executive tyranny threatens to collapse our entire justice system and take our democratic republic down with it. The whole Article III judicial selection system needs careful reexamination and reforms lest it fall into the same type of institutional dysfunction and disrepute as today’s Immigration “Courts” (which aren’t “courts” at all in any normal sense of the word).
Of course, Trump, Barr, and the rest of their anti-democracy gang would love to make the captive, biased, Executive-controlled Immigration “Courts” the “model” for the Article III Judiciary. And, John Roberts and the rest of the “JR Five” seem all too eager to accommodate them. The perception already is out here that Roberts & Co. “work for” Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco in somewhat the same way as Immigration “Judges” work for Billy Barr. Until Roberts and his gang show the courage to stand up to Trump and enforce the legal, constitutional, and human rights of “the other” in our society, that perception will only deepen.
As generations of African-Americans discovered following the end of Reconstruction, Constitutional and legal rights are meaningless in the face of biased and cowardly legislators, judges, and other public officials who simply look the other way, join the abuses, or “go along to get along” with treating “the other” unfairly under the law.
Due Process Forever, Captive & Complicit Courts, Never!
Washington, DC – According to the Roll Call story published May 27, 2020, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Director McHenry sent the remaining members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) a buy-out memo offering them financial compensation in exchange for early retirement or resignation. This memo was sent on April 17, 2020, during the global public health crisis, and highlights the continuing push by this administration to manipulate the functions of the BIA, the appeals court located within EOIR.
AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson stated, “This administration has taken numerous steps to alter the composition and role of the BIA, all in an effort to gain more control over the immigration courts and influence court decisions. In recent months, it came to light that the EOIR Director was attempting to pack the immigration bench with more appointees who have among the lowest asylum grant rates in the country. Now, he is attempting to winnow existing members from the BIA and replace them with a roster of Appellate Immigration Judges, despite congressional and stakeholder concerns about politicization of the BIA. Last year, these new appellate judge positions were created out of thin air. They appear to have nearly identical job functions as the BIA members but the Appellate Immigration Judges can adjudicate both trial and appellate level cases at the same time and can be reassigned away from the BIA at the whim of the EOIR Director.”
“This effort shows a complete disregard, or at the very least a failure to appreciate how our judicial system is supposed to work to provide a fair day in court. In 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft purged several members of the BIA, a political move that was severely criticized and ultimately undermined the credibility of our court system. These recent efforts by this administration make it even clearer that our nation urgently needs an immigration court system that is independent, fair and impartial.”
###
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.
**************************
The BIA is a travesty, to be sure. But, an even bigger travesty is the continued “deference” given to a biased, unqualified, non-expert tribunal and its political handlers by the Article III Courts! Under Marbury v. Madison, it’s the job of the Article III Courts to say what the law is. To “defer” to the BIA, a body that currently functions not like a independent, expert tribunal, but has become a “shill” for DHS Enforcement and an adjunct of White Nationalist White House Policy Advisor Stephen Miller, is a disgraceful case of judicial task avoidance and dereliction of duty.
If nothing else, the ongoing disaster at the BIA points to an “inconvenient truth” in America’s justice system: We need better, more informed (particularly in the areas of immigrants’ rights and human rights), more courageous judges at all levels of the Federal Judiciary if we are to survive as a democratic republic where the rule of law and equal justice under law have meaning!
Immigration courts in ‘chaos,’ with coronavirus effects to last years
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — Raquel and her sons fled gang threats in El Salvador, survived the weeks-long journey to the U.S., and then endured the Trump administration’s 2018 separations at the southern border.
This month, she was finally going to get her chance to convince an immigration judge in San Francisco that she should be granted permanent asylum in the U.S., ending the agony of having to prepare for her court date by reliving the danger in her native country and her weeks of detention at the border.
Thanks to the coronavirus, she will have to endure the wait for three more years.
“It’s really traumatizing, because I have to keep telling them the same thing,” Raquel said. “I thought I had gotten over everything that had happened to me … but every time I remember, I can’t help crying.”
Raquel’s case is one of hundreds of thousands in the immigration courts that are being delayed by the pandemic. The courts, run by the Justice Department, have been closed for health reasons in the same way that much of U.S. public life has been on hold. But many of those who work in the system say the Trump administration has handled the shutdown in an especially haphazard manner, increasing the stress on judges and attorneys in addition to immigrants and making it harder for the courts to bounce back.
“There isn’t a day that goes by that there isn’t mass chaos behind this veil of business as usual,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
The Justice Department began postponing hearings for immigrants who are not in detention on March 18, and the delays have been extended every few weeks. Hearings are now set to resume June 15. But many courts technically remain open, including the one in San Francisco, with frequently changing statuses announced on social media and a website. It also took weeks for all judges to get laptops that would allow them to work remotely, said Tabaddor, who hears immigration cases in Los Angeles.
The scattershot communications make it difficult to prepare for if and when the hearings are held, immigrants say. And it’s worse for those who have no lawyer who can help navigate the changes. About one-third of immigrants with pending cases have no representation, according to Justice Department statistics, and missing a hearing is grounds for deportation.
The Justice Department says it is being proactive in balancing safety with immigrants’ rights. A spokeswoman said the agency is “deeply concerned” for the health of its staff and the public.
In a recent legal filing, the director of the immigration courts, James McHenry, said a “one size fits all” approach to court closures and procedures wouldn’t work, given varying situations at different locations.
With postponements happening on short notice, most immigrants fighting deportation feel they must prepare for court even if pandemic-caused delays seem likely. But doing so can force them to revisit the terrifying situations they say they came to the U.S. to escape.
None who spoke with The Chronicle said they wanted to risk their health by keeping the courts open. But they and their attorneys said they wished the administration was doing more to take immigrants’ and staffers’ needs into account.
Because the immigration courts already have a backlog of more than 1 million cases, it can take years for an asylum applicant such as Raquel to go before a judge. In the meantime, they build lives here, knowing that can be yanked away if they’re ordered deported.
Raquel and others whose hearings have been postponed won’t go first when the courts reopen — they go to the back of the line. The alternative for the immigration courts would be a logistical nightmare of rescheduling everyone else’s hearings, which are now booked years in advance.
The Trump administration ended the practice of prioritizing cases of criminal immigrants or recent arrivals, and has curtailed judges’ ability to simply close the case of a low-risk migrant less deserving of deportation, which would clear court schedules for more serious cases.
The Justice Department declined to say how many hearings have been postponed because of the pandemic. But a nonprofit statistics clearinghouse estimated that the government shutdown of 2018-19 resulted in the cancellation of 15,000 to 20,000 cases per week.
Raquel’s case is emblematic of the thousands that are now in limbo. The Chronicle has agreed not to use her real name out of her concern for her safety, in accordance with its anonymous sourcing policy.
Raquel says she came to the U.S. in 2018 because a gang in the area of El Salvador where she lived threatened her family after her two sons refused to join.
She was among the immigrant families that were forcibly separated at the border. She spent a month and a half apart from her teenage son as she was shuffled between detention centers and jails. She says she endured numerous indignities, including having to shower in front of guards and being shackled by her wrists and ankles.
“It was the most bitter experience I’ve ever had,” she said in Spanish.
After finally being reunited with her son and released, Raquel rejoined her husband and other son who had come here previously, settling in San Francisco. She was ordered to wear an ankle monitor, which again made her feel like “a prisoner.”
“I had never felt so hurt like I did in this country, which hurt me so much just for crossing a border illegally,” Raquel said. “That was the sin and the crime that we committed, and we paid a high price.”
Raquel spoke with The Chronicle before receiving word that her May hearing was canceled. She and her attorney had felt forced to prepare despite a high likelihood of postponement, just in case the Justice Department forged ahead.
San Francisco attorneys who are working with immigrants during the pandemic say it is an acute challenge. Stay-at-home orders complicate preparing for cases that could have life-and-death consequences for those who fled violence back home.
Difficulties include trying to submit 1,000-page filings from home, needing to discuss traumatic stories of domestic and sexual violence with immigrants who are sharing one-bedroom apartments with 10 other people, and navigating courts’ changing status on Twitter.
“It’s taking an already not-user-friendly system and spinning it into chaos to the extent that even savvy practitioners don’t know how to get information, let alone the applicant,” said Erin Quinn, an attorney in San Francisco with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
She added, “The stakes are high, and at the same time, a comment I got yesterday from a practitioner was, ‘I’m tired of trying to figure out what to do with my practice based on tweets.’”
Judges and court staffers are also frustrated. On March 22, an unprecedented partnership was formed among the unions representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys who serve as prosecutors in the courts, judges and the association for attorneys who represent immigrants. They wrote a letter to the Justice Department demanding it close all the courts, not just postpone hearings for immigrants who are not in detention. The agency later expanded the ability of attorneys to appear by telephone and for some judges to work from home.
Even now, however, the Justice Department is requiring some judges and staff to come in to court to handle cases of immigrants who are being detained — those hearings have not been canceled — or to process filings.
“It is very, very upsetting. Employees do not feel like they are, No. 1, being protected and, No. 2, you don’t feel respected and valued,” said Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president emerita of the judges’ union.
Marks and Tabaddor say it’s part of a Trump administration pattern of stripping immigration judges of their independence at the expense of fair proceedings— an example of “haste makes waste,” Marks said. The Justice Department has set performance metrics to push judges to complete more cases, and Trump’s attorneys general have issued rulings that made it more difficult for judges to prioritize their caseloads.
The Justice Department, for its part, says it is making the courts more efficient. In November, McHenry testified before Congress that his agency had “made considerable progress in restoring (the courts’) reputation as a fully functioning, efficient and impartial administrative court system fully capable of rendering timely decisions consistent with due process.”
Quinn, the San Francisco attorney, said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.
“Everything this administration has done to speed up or deal with the backlog are actually actions that limit the meting out of justice in the courts, which even before this crisis have been gumming up the system further,” Quinn said. “We will see the impact of that now as we try to come out of this crisis.”
Meanwhile, for immigrants like Raquel, the wait will continue. Even with the hardship, she says coming to the U.S. was worth the risks.
“It’s about protecting my children,” she said. “I’ve always told my sons, if God let us get here, they have to take advantage of it. … In my country, someone walks down the block and they get assaulted or kidnapped and nobody ever finds them. But not here. Here you feel safe.”
San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Alexei Koseff contributed to this report.
It’s great to have you back, Tal! We’ve missed you!
It’s well worth going to the link to read Tal’s full article! Also, you’ll see some great pictures from the “home chambers” of my good friend and colleague Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court, a Past President of the NAIJ.
What also would be great is if the dire situation in the U.S. Immigration Courts had actually improved over the past few months. But, predictably, the “downward spiral” has only accelerated.
Tal’s article brings to life the “human trauma” inflicted not only on those poor souls whose constitutional due process rights have been “sold down the river” by this “maliciously incompetent” regime, but also the unnecessary trauma inflicted on everyone touched by this disgraceful system: private and pro bono counsel, judges, interpreters, clerical staff, government counsel, and their families all get to partake of the unnecessary pain and suffering.
While it undoubtedly would take years to restore due process, fundamental fairness, and some measure of efficiency to this dysfunctional mess, the starting points aren’t “rocket science” – they are deceptively simple. One was eloquently stated by Erin Quinn, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco who “said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.” That’s actually how it used to be done in places like Arlington.
As Judge Marks points out, a host of “haste makes waste” gimmicks and enforcement schemes by this Administration (and to a lesser extent by the Obama Administration) have resulted in massive “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and total chaos as politicos in at the DOJ and bureaucrats in EOIR HQ “redesign and reshuffle” dockets to achieve political objectives and “send messages” without any meaningful input from the Immigration Judges and attorneys (on both sides) who actually do the work and understand the dynamics of a particular docket.
In particular, under a fair and unbiased application of legal standards there are thousands of well-documented meritorious asylum and cancellation of removal cases that could be handled in “short hearings.”Other individuals could be removed from the docket to pursue U and T nonimmigrant visas or “stateside processing” permanent immigration with USCIS. Still others have documentation establishing that they are productive, law-abiding tax-paying members of their communities, often with U.S.citizen family, who should be removed from the dockets through the type of sensible, mutually beneficial “prosecutorial discretion” (“PD”) programs that were beginning to show meaningful results before being arbitrarily terminated by this Administration.
This is just the “tip of the iceberg.” There are many more improvements in efficiency, without sacrificing due process, and “best practices” that could be made if this were operated as a fair and impartial court system, rather than an appendage of DHS Enforcement committed to Stephen Miller’s nativist agenda.
The other necessary piece is the one promoted by Judge Tabaddor and the NAIJ and endorsed by nearly all “non-restrictionist” experts in the field: establishing an independent Immigration Court outside of the Executive Branch. That’s not likely to happen without “regime change.”
Moreover, it’s clear from his recent actions that Billy Barr, who is currently running the Immigration Courts into the ground, actually aspires to “kneecap” the Article III Judiciary in behalf of his lord and master, Trump. Barr would be delighted if all Federal,Courts, including the Article IIIs, were functionaries of the all powerful “Unitary Executive.” Given the Supremes’ failure to stand up for immigrants’ and asylum seekers’ legal rights as they are systematically dismantled by the regime, Barr is already a ways down that road!
Tal’s article also highlights another glaring deficiency: the lack of a diverse, merit-based Immigration Judiciary committed solely to “due process with efficiency” and fair and impartial adjudications under the law, particularly the asylum laws. Experts like Erin Quinn, folks with a deep scholarly understanding of immigration and asylum laws and experience representing the individuals whose lives are caught up in this system, should be on the Immigration Bench. They are the ones with the knowledge and experience in making “hard but fair” choices and how to achieve “practical efficiency” without sacrificing due process.
Rather than actively recruiting those outstanding candidates from the private, academic, and NGO sectors with asylum experience and knowledge, so that they could interact and share their expertise and practical experiences with other judicial colleagues, the current system draws almost exclusively from the ranks of “insiders” and government prosecutors. They apparently are hired with the expectation that they will churn out orders of removals in support of DHS Enforcement without “rocking the boat.” To some extent this was also true under the Obama Administration, which also hired lopsidedly from among government attorneys.
Indeed, prior immigration experience is not even a job requirement right now. The hiring tends to favor those with high volume litigation skills, primarily gained through prosecution. That doesn’t necessarily translate into fair and scholarly judging, although it might and has in some instances.
Of course, a few do defy expectations and stand up for the legal and due process rights of respondents. But, that’s not the expectation of the politicos and bureaucrats who do the hiring. And the two-year probation period for newly hired Immigration Judges gives Administration politicos and their EOIR subordinates “leverage” on the new judges that they might not have on those who are more established in the system, particularly those who are “retirement eligible.”
Moreover, the BIA has now been “stocked” with judges with reputations for favoring enforcement and ruling against asylum seekers in an unusually high percentage of cases.The design appears to be to insure that even those who “beat the odds” and are granted asylum by an Immigration Judge get “zapped” when the DHS appeals. Even if the BIA dared not to enforce the “restrictionist party line,” the Attorney General can and does intervene in individual cases to change the result to favor DHS and then to make it a “precedent” for future cases.Could there be a clearer violation of due process and judicial ethics? I doubt it. But, the Courts of Appeals largely pretend not to see or understand the reality of what’s happening in the Immigration Courts.
Beyond that, the Immigration Judge job, intentionally in my view, has been made so unattractive for those who believe in due process for individuals and a fair application of asylum laws, that few would want to serve in the current environment. Indeed, a number of fine Immigration Judges have resigned or retired as matters of conscience because they felt unable to square “system expectations” with their oaths of office.
To state the obvious, the current version of Congress has become a feckless bystander to this ongoing human rights, constitutional, ethical, and fiscal disaster. But, the real question is whatever happened to the existing independent Article III Judiciary? They continue to remain largely above the fray and look the other way as the Constitution they are sworn to uphold is further ground into the turf every day and the screams of the abused and dehumanized (“Dred-Scottified”) emanating from this charade of a “court system” get louder and louder.Will they ever get loud enough to reach the refined ears of those ensconced in the “ivory tower” of the Article III Judiciary?
Someday! But, the impetus for the necessary changes to make Due Process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all a reality rather than a cruel, intellectually dishonest, and unfulfilled promise is going to have to come from outside the current broken and intentionally unfair system and those complicit in its continuing and worsening abuses of the law and humanity!
