❤️⚔️BRAVE NEW WORLD: CIVIL RIGHTS ICONS TO HOLD KEY POLICY POSITIONS @ JUSTICE UNDER GARLAND:  Will Vanita Gupta & Kristen Clarke Finally “Connect The Dots” Between Immigrants’ Rights & Civil Rights, Or Will DOJ Pursue Flawed “Two-Headed” Policy Of Past Dems?

Vanita Gupta
Vanita Gupta
Nominee for Associate AG
Photo: Brookings Institution, Paul Morigi, Creative Commons License
Kristin Clarke
Nominee for Assistant AG, Civil Rights
Photo: NAACP, Creative Commons License

Meet the courageous, dynamic , outspoken, new human-rights-oriented leaders looking to fulfill the Constitution and make “equal justice for all” a reality @ the DOJ and for America. Sam Levine reports for The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/03/kristen-clarke-vanita-gupta-biden-justice-department?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

On her last day at the justice department in 2017, Vanita Gupta considered taking a picture as she left the agency’s headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue. But she decided against it. Gupta, the outgoing head of the department’s civil rights division, once described as the “crown jewel” of the agency, didn’t really want to remember the moment, she told a reporter who was shadowing her for the day.

Jeff Sessions, then the incoming attorney general, was poised to unwind much of the painstaking progress Gupta, 46, and her colleagues had spent the last four years building. It was no secret that Sessions opposed the kind of court agreements the justice department used to fix unconstitutional policing policies across the country (“dangerous” and an “exercise of raw power” in Sessions’ eyes). Nor were there any illusions that Sessions would try very hard to enforce the Voting Rights Act, already on its last legs after the supreme court gutted a key provision in 2013 (Sessions described the landmark civil rights law as “intrusive”).

Many of those concerns came to pass. Trump’s justice department not only did little to enforce some of the country’s most powerful civil rights protections for minority groups, but in several cases it opposed them. It filed almost no voting rights cases and defended restrictive voting laws, tried to undermine the census, challenged affirmative action policies, sought to roll back protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and limited the use of consent decrees to curb illegal policing practices. Gupta took a job as the head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of civil rights groups across the country, where she became one of the leading figures pushing back on the Trump administration.

Joining Gupta in that effort was Kristen Clarke, a 47-year-old former justice department lawyer who leads the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, founded in 1963 to help attorneys in private practice enforce civil rights. As her group filed voting rights and anti-discrimination lawsuits across the country over the last few years, Clarke spent hours nearly every election day briefing journalists on reports of incoming voting problems. Reports of long lines, voting machine malfunctions, translator issues – no problem was too small. The monitoring sent a message that civil rights groups would move swiftly against any whiff of voter suppression.

Now, after years of leading the fight for civil rights from outside the justice department, both women are poised to return to its top levels, where they can deploy the unmatchable resources of the federal government. Last month, Joe Biden tapped Gupta to serve as his associate attorney general, the No 3 official at the department, and Clarke to lead the civil rights division. If confirmed by the Senate, Gupta would be the first woman of color to be the associate attorney general; Clarke would be the first Black woman in her role.

“They are both independently legit civil rights champions with a long deep history,” said Justin Levitt, who worked with Gupta at the justice department and knows both women well. “They’re going to make a really spectacular, really powerful team.”

Picking two career civil rights lawyers for two of the top positions at the justice department sends an unmistakable signal that civil rights enforcement will be a top priority for the agency over the next four years. Civil rights leaders said they could not remember a prior administration in which two of the department’s highest positions were filled by civil rights attorneys, especially two such as Clarke and Gupta.

“It’s going to be really important and energizing and exciting to be able to be in conversation and discussion with people who understand the department’s role in civil rights enforcement,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), who has worked closely with both women. “But it’s also going to be exciting, and as a matter of resources, to have the department actually do civil rights enforcement.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of these inspiring American profiles 🇺🇸🌟at the link. Don’t you think we need the “Vanita & Kristen” of immigration and human rights to lead the restoration effort at EOIR and the BIA?

Here are the “keys to success:”

  • Immigrants’ rights are human rights;
  • Human rights are civil rights;  
  • There can be neither racial justice nor equal justice in America until migrants are not only fully recognized as “persons” under our Constitution, but actually treated as such (as opposed to the active “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of migrants and persons of color by the Trump regime and the GOP majority on the Roberts’ Court);
  • You can’t possibly “win the game” with the same players who “batted for the White Nationalists” over the past four years.

And, speaking of “Jewel in the Crown.”👑 That’s exactly how many of us in the “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges” 🛡⚔️ once viewed EOIR. The “EOIR Vision” was: “Through teamwork and innovation be the worlds’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” 

So, Vanita, and I hope Kristen also, can imagine the anger and determination to fight with which our Round Table viewed the dismemberment of due process and weaponization of the Immigration Courts under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr. From aspiring to be the “world’s best tribunals” to “Star Chambers” and a grotesque, dysfunctional national disgrace!

On the plus side: Both Gupta and Clarke are the daughters of immigrants. Both have written and advocated for immigrants’ rights as part of their civil rights leadership.

Caution. Obama Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were “facially aggressive” on protecting voting rights and police reforms. Yet, at the same time they: helped DHS set deportation records; allowed EOIR to spiral toward dysfunction (to a large extent through failure to procure and properly manage resources and an indolent judicial hiring program that was both “closed and non-diverse in nature” and glacial in operation (2 years to fill an average judicial vacancy!)); supported “baby jails,” the “family gulag,” and toddlers representing themselves on asylum cases in Immigration Court; looked the other way as private prisons treated asylum seekers and migrants worse than convicted criminals; and “went along to get along” with the Administration’s misuse of the Immigration Courts as (a highly ineffective) deterrent to applications for asylum.   

Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr might have been the “Kings of Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR that helped produce an astounding 1.3 million case plus “backlog.” But, it started in earnest under the Obama Administration.

That’s what I mean by the “two headed policy:” arguing for voting rights for minorities in one courtroom while simultaneously ignoring the human and civil rights of migrants in the next courtroom. Arguing for the right to vote in one case, while arguing (apparently with a straight face) that toddlers who can’t speak English have no right to legal representation in the next case.

Not only that, but with the Biden Administration apparently looking to rapidly fill upcoming Article III vacancies, the Obama DOJ’s mishandling of the Immigration Courts has deprived President Biden of the chance to draw from a diverse group of younger, progressive Immigration Judges whose practical scholarship, commitment to human rights and due process, courage, and proven ability to function in a “high stress” judicial setting would make them strong candidates for the now-reeling Article III Judiciary.

That’s certainly not to say that there aren’t some potential progressive candidates for the Article III Judiciary among today’s present, and particularly recently “retired,” (some essentially “forced out” at relatively young ages as a “matter of conscience”) Immigration Judges. There are! But, only a fraction of the number there would have been if the Obama Administration had taken the Immigration Courts with proper seriousness. 

And, that’s leaving aside the lives that could have been saved and better jurisprudence that could have been “institutionalized” with better, merit-based, judicial selections at EOIR during the Obama Administration!

I sincerely hope that Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke can help Judge Garland get the job done at Justice. The “human rights/immigration world” will be cheering for you. Getting some of the folks from the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) into key positions at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ will be an “early signal” of whether or not “Team Garland gets it.” 

Removing McHenry at EOIR was a good start! But, it’s only a small step in what has to be done to make racial justice and immigrant justice a reality at the DOJ. The “brooms and plungers” 🧹🚽 need to come out, and the sweeping and plunging has to be quick and widespread.    

On the other hand, there is “no patience for another Obama Administration” out here in the real world. Every day, EOIR and DOJ are killing folks, ruining lives, and abusing the brave and dedicated attorneys of the NDPA! If the rhetoric doesn’t produce short term results and drastic improvements, you can expect the same type of aggressive litigation from the NDPA that stopped the defeated regime from completely destroying the U.S. justice system.  

⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-03-21

🌞😎DAWNING OF A NEW ERA — First Gibson Report of The Biden Presidency (01-25-21) Shows Potential For Returning Sanity, Humanity, Focus On Human Rights, Good Government To America While Highlighting Continuing Problems @ EOIR & Deficiencies @ Supremes! — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group! — Judge Garland Must Take Notice & Fix This Outrageous Mess If He Doesn’t Want to Become Part of It! — There Will Be No “Grace Period” For The Continuing Abuses Of Justice @ Justice! — We Have A “Supreme Problem” In Our Failing Justice System!

Elizabeth Gibson
Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

COVID-19 & Closures

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.

 

EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, February 19, 2021. NYC non-detained remains closed for hearings.

 

TOP NEWS

 

AILA: First 100 Days of the Biden Administration: Tracking executive actions and proposals.

 

Biden Took Eight Administrative Actions on Immigration. Here’s What You Need to Know

IAC: Here is a summary of eight immigration-related changes the new administration just implemented:

1. Scaling back Trump’s unchecked immigration enforcement.

2. 100-Day moratorium on most deportations.

3. The end of the Muslim and African travel bans.

4. Protecting people with DACA.

5. Expedited and extended access to green card processing for Liberians.

6. Pausing construction on the border wall.

7. Ending Trump’s unconstitutional census executive order.

8. Suspending new enrollments in the so-called “Migrant Protection Protocols.”

 

Biden EO: Early Calendar of Themed Days

White House: January 29: Immigration

1. Regional Migration/Border Processing EO : Directs creation of strategies to address root causes

of migration from Central America and expand opportunities for legal migration, while taking

steps to restore the U.S. asylum system by rescinding numerous Trump Administration policies

2. Refugee Policy EO (tent.) : Establishes the principles that will guide the Administration’s

implementation of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program (USRAP) and directs a series of actions

to enhance USRAP’s capacity to fairly, efficiently, and security process refugee applications

3. Family Reunification Task Force EO : Creates task force to reunify families separated by the

Trump Administration’s Immigration policies

4. Legal Immigration EO : Directs immediate review of the Public Charge Rule and other actions

to remove barriers and restore trust in the legal immigration system, including improving the

naturalization process

 

Texas sues Biden administration over 100-day deportation ‘pause’

WaPo: Paxton’s lawsuit claims the deportation freeze defies an agreement between Texas and DHS finalized Jan. 8 — less than two weeks before Trump left office — requiring the department to provide 180 days notice before making changes to immigration policy and enforcement practices. See also Bronx man set to be deported despite 100-day moratorium, attorney says (flight canceled following advocacy) .

 

Biden is starting to roll back Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program

Vox: The Biden administration announced that, starting Thursday, it will no longer enroll asylum seekers newly arriving on the southern border in a Trump-era program that has forced tens of thousands to wait in Mexico for a chance to obtain protection in the United States. The Homeland Security Department urged anyone currently enrolled in the program, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) or colloquially as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, to “remain where they are, pending further official information from U.S. government officials.”

 

Trump blocks Venezuelans’ deportation in last political gift

AP: With the clock winding down on his term, U.S. President Donald Trump shielded tens of thousands of Venezuelan migrants from deportation Tuesday night, rewarding Venezuelan exiles who have been among his most loyal supporters and who fear losing the same privileged access to the White House during the Biden administration.

 

The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021: Help for Asylum Seekers, U Visas, Military Aides

ImmProf: There’s a lot to unpack there. First: eliminating one-year deadline for filing asylum claims. Second: increasing “protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants.” Third: raising the cap on U visas for 10,000 to 30,000. Fourth: expanding protections for foreign nationals assisting U.S. troops. But see GOP Lawmakers Propose Major Immigration Restrictions.

 

Biden wants to remove this controversial word from US laws

CNN: Biden’s proposed bill, if passed, would remove the word “alien” from US immigration laws, replacing it with the term “noncitizen.”

 

Sen. Hawley moves to block swift confirmation for Biden’s homeland security pick

WaPo: Homeland security nominee Alejandro Mayorkas told senators he would carry out President-elect Joe Biden’s immigration overhaul while intensifying efforts to combat domestic extremism, during a hearing Tuesday that highlighted Republican opposition to his confirmation.

 

The State of the Immigration Courts: Trump Leaves Biden 1.3 Million Case Backlog in Immigration Courts

TRAC: While the Trump administration hired many new immigration judges and implemented a range of different strategies aimed in part at reducing the Immigration Court backlog, the backlog grew each month. Some of Trump’s changes in court operations arguably slowed case processing. However, the primary driver of the exploding backlog was not only the lack of immigration judges but the tsunami of new cases filed in court by the Department of Homeland Security.

 

Bad conduct, leering ‘jokes’ — immigration judges stay on bench

SFChron: Interviews with dozens of attorneys across the country and current and former government officials, as well as internal documents obtained by The Chronicle, show the problems have festered for years. The Justice Department has long lacked a strong system for reporting and responding to sexual harassment and misconduct.

 

Vera Statement on Governor Cuomo’s 2021 State of the State Address

Vera: Gov. Cuomo reaffirmed his commitment to funding the Liberty Defense Project, which provides essential legal services for immigrants across New York State. This is excellent news for families facing separation, deportation and other horrors caused by the federal government’s actions.

 

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

 

District Court Halts Most of EOIR Filing Fee Rule from Going into Effect

A district court judge issued a nationwide stay of the effective date of the 12/18/20 EOIR final fee review rule and a preliminary injunction to enjoin most of its implementation. The rule was set to go into effect on 1/19/21. (CLINIC, et al., v. EOIR, et al., 1/18/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011933

 

White House Issues Memo on Regulatory Freeze Pending Review

White House Chief of Staff Ronald A. Klain issued a memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies instituting a regulatory freeze pending review. AILA Doc. No. 21012090

 

DHS and DOJ Delay Effective Date of Final Rule on Pandemic-Related Security Bars to Asylum and Withholding of Removal

Advance copy of a document that will be published in the Federal Register on 1/25/21, delaying the effective date of the final rule “Security Bars and Processing,” which was scheduled to become effective on 1/22/21. The effective date is delayed until 3/21/21. AILA Doc. No. 21012143

 

DHS Acting Secretary Issues Memorandum on Immigration Enforcement Policies

Acting DHS Secretary Pekoske issued a memorandum directing DHS components to conduct a review of immigration enforcement policies, and setting interim policies for civil enforcement during that review. Beginning 1/22/21, DHS will pause removals of certain noncitizens ordered deported for 100 days. AILA Doc. No. 21012136

 

President Biden Issues Executive Order Revising Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities

President Biden issued an Executive Order revoking EO 13768 of 1/25/17, and directing the DOS Secretary, the Attorney General, the DHS Secretary, and other officials to review any agency actions developed pursuant to EO 13768 and to take action, including issuing revised guidance, as appropriate. AILA Doc. No. 21012135

 

Presidential Proclamation on Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to the United States

President Biden issued a proclamation revoking EO 13780, PP 9645, PP 9723, and PP 9983. The proclamation directs the DOS secretary to direct embassies/consulates, consistent with visa processing procedures, including any related to COVID-19, to resume visa processing consistent with the revocations. AILA Doc. No. 21012002

 

President Biden Issues Executive Order on Promoting COVID-19 Safety in Domestic and International Travel

President Biden issued an EO, which, among other things, directs government officials to assess CDC’s order requiring a negative COVID test from airline passengers traveling to the U.S., and to take “further appropriate regulatory action” to implement public health measures for international travel. AILA Doc. No. 21012300

 

Presidential Proclamation Terminating Restrictions on Entry of Certain Travelers from the Schengen Area, the U.K., Ireland, and Brazil

In light of a CDC order issued on 1/12/21, President Trump issued a proclamation on 1/18/21, effective 1/26/21, removing travel restrictions from the Schengen Area, the U.K., Ireland, and Brazil. (86 FR 6799, 1/22/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011930

 

DHS Suspends New Enrollments in the MPP Program

DHS announced that it is suspending new enrollments in the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) Program and will cease adding individuals into the program effective 1/21/21. DHS advised current MPP participants to remain where they are, pending further information. AILA Doc. No. 21012001

 

President Biden Issues Memorandum on Preserving and Fortifying DACA

On 1/20/21, President Biden issued a memorandum directing the DHS Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, to take all actions he deems appropriate, consistent with applicable law, to preserve and fortify DACA. (86 FR 7053, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012130

 

President Biden Issues Memorandum Reinstating Deferred Enforced Departure for Liberians

On 1/20/21, President Biden issued a memo deferring through 6/30/22, the removal of any Liberian national, or person without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia, who is present in the U.S. and who was under a grant of DED as of 1/10/21. (86 FR 7055, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012131

 

President Biden Issues Executive Order Revoking Prior Presidential Actions Excluding Undocumented Immigrants from the Apportionment Base Following the Decennial Census

On 1/20/21, President Biden issued an executive order revoking prior presidential actions that sought to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base following the 2020 census. (86 FR 7015, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012134

 

Presidential Proclamation Terminating Emergency with Respect to the U.S. Southern Border and Redirecting Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction

President Biden issued a proclamation terminating the national emergency declared by Proclamation 9844, and continued on 2/13/20 and 1/15/21. The proclamation directs officials to pause work on construction on the southern border wall and to develop a plan to redirect funds and repurpose contracts. AILA Doc. No. 21012132

 

President Trump Issues Memorandum on Deferred Enforced Departure for Certain Venezuelans

On 1/19/21, President Trump issued a memo directing DHS and DOS to defer, with certain exceptions, for 18 months the removal of any Venezuelan national, or individual without nationality who last habitually resided in Venezuela, who is present in the U.S. as of 1/20/21. (86 FR 6845, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012030

 

Supreme Court Vacates Decision of Ninth Circuit in ICE v. Padilla

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded for further consideration in light of DHS v. Thuraissigiam. (ICE, et al. v. Padilla, et al., 1/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011934

 

BIA Rules §58-37-8(2)(a)(i) of the Utah Code Is Divisible with Respect to the Specific Controlled Substance Involved in Statue Violation

The BIA ruled that §58-37-8(2)(a)(i) of the Utah Code, which criminalizes possession or use of a controlled substance, is divisible with respect to the specific “controlled substance” involved in a violation of that statute. Matter of Dikhtyar, 28 I&N Dec. 214 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21012237

 

CA1 Remands Asylum and Withholding Claims of Iraqi National Who Worked for U.S. Army During War

The court vacated and remanded the BIA’s denial of the asylum and withholding of removal claims of the petitioner, who feared that he would be subjected to harm on account of his work as a paid contractor for the U.S. Army during the war in Iraq. (Al Amiri v. Rosen, 1/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012039

 

CA4 Remands Plaintiffs’ Claim That DHS Unreasonably Delayed Adjudication of Their U Visa Petitions

Vacating in part the district court’s decision, the court held that the plaintiffs had pled sufficient facts to allege a plausible claim that DHS unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed adjudication of their U visa petitions. (Fernandez Gonzalez, et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al., 1/14/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012048

 

CA5 Finds Petitioner Failed to Show Due Diligence Where He Waited Eight Months After Lugo-Resendez to File Motion to Reopen

The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate due diligence because he had waited approximately eight months after the court’s decision in Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch to file his current motion to reopen under INA §240(c)(7). (Ovalles v. Rosen, 1/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011943

 

CA5 Dismisses for Mootness After Finding Inadmissibility Was Not a Collateral Consequence of BIA’s Withholding-Only Decision

The court held that even if the BIA had erred in denying withholding of removal to the petitioner, inadmissibility was not a collateral consequence of the BIA’s decision, because the petitioner would still be subject to his February 2012 removal order. (Mendoza-Flores v. Rosen, 12/29/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011942

 

CA6 Says BIA Abused Its Discretion by Finding That No Exceptional Circumstances Justified Minor Petitioner’s Failure to Appear

The court held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, including petitioner’s young age and her inability to travel from New York to Memphis for the hearing, the petitioner had established exceptional circumstances justifying her failure to appear. (E. A. C. A. v. Rosen, 1/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012040

 

CA6 Says It Has Jurisdiction to Review BIA’s Ultimate Hardship Conclusion for Cancellation of Removal After Guerrero-Lasprilla

The court held that the BIA’s ultimate hardship conclusion is the type of mixed question over which it has jurisdiction to review after the Supreme Court’s decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, but found that petitioner failed to show the requisite hardship. (Singh v. Rosen, 1/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011944

 

CA7 Finds BIA Did Not Err in Denying Asylum to Mexican Petitioner Whose Family Was Targeted by Sinaloa Cartel

The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the petitioner had failed to establish the requisite nexus between his fear of persecution from the Sinaloa Cartel upon return to Mexico and his family membership. (Meraz-Saucedo v. Rosen, 1/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012044

 

CA7 Remands Petitioner’s Request for Administrative Closure After Finding BIA Did Not Exercise Its Discretion According to Law

The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his request for administrative closure considered as a proper exercise of discretion under law, including BIA precedents and the factors set forth in Matter of Avetisyan and Matter of W-Y-U. (Zelaya Diaz v. Rosen, 1/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012041

 

CA8 Affirms BIA’s Denial of Deferral of Removal to Somali Petitioner Who Feared Torture by Al-Shabaab for Minority-Clan Membership

The court affirmed the BIA’s decision denying petitioner’s request for deferral of removal to Somalia, finding that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusions that he was unlikely to be tortured by Al-Shabaab due to his minority-clan membership. (Hassan v. Rosen, 1/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012045

 

CA8 Holds That DHS Was Permitted to Substitute CIMTs Charge for Immigration Fraud Charge as Basis for Petitioner’s Removal

The court held that, in seeking the petitioner’s removal, DHS could choose to rely on a claim that the petitioner had committed crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), rather than on the alternative claim that she had committed immigration fraud. (Herrera Gonzalez v. Rosen, 1/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011945

 

CA9 to Rehear En Banc Case Involving Derivative Citizenship

The court ordered rehearing en banc and vacated its prior decision in Cheneau v. Barr, which held that the petitioner did not derive citizenship from his mother’s naturalization because his claim was foreclosed by the court’s precedent. (Cheneau v. Rosen, 1/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011948

 

CA9 Affirms District Court’s Denial of Government’s Motion to Terminate Flores Settlement Agreement

The court held that the district court had correctly concluded that the Flores Settlement Agreement was not terminated by new regulations adopted by HHS and DHS in 2019, and that the government did not show that changed circumstances justified termination. (Flores v. Rosen, 12/29/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011946

 

CA9 Holds That Petitioner Who Adjusted to Permanent Resident Under SAW May Be Removed at Present Time

The court held that, under the Special Agricultural Worker program (SAW), a noncitizen who was inadmissible at the time of his adjustment to temporary resident status may be removed after his automatic adjustment to permanent resident status. (Hernandez Flores v. Rosen, 12/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011947

 

CA9 Reverses and Remands Habeas Petition Denial Where Petitioner Claimed His ICE Arrest Was Retaliation for Protected Speech

Where the petitioner had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 8 USC §2241 arguing that his immigration arrest and re-detention was retaliation for his protected speech, the court reversed the district court’s denial of the petition and remanded. (Bello-Reyes v. Gaynor, 1/14/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012047

 

CA9 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Pakistani National Who Claimed He Feared Persecution from Taliban

The court held that the IJ had provided the pro se petitioner with a full opportunity to present testimony, and found the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioner’s description of generalized violence failed to meet his burden to show targeted persecution. (Hussain v. Rosen, 1/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012046

 

CA11 Says Substantial Evidence Supported BIA’s Finding That Petitioner Committed Fraud with Loss Amount over $10,000

The court upheld the BIA’s finding that petitioner’s Florida convictions for money laundering and workers’ compensation fraud were aggravated felonies because each conviction involved fraud in which the amount of loss to the victim exceeded $10,000. (Garcia-Simisterra v. Att’y Gen., 12/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 21012038

 

Notice of Proposed Settlement Regarding Asylum Applicants with Employment Authorization Who Were Denied Safety Net Assistance in New York

The NY County Supreme Court approved a proposed settlement in Colaj v. Roberts benefiting a class of asylum applicants with work authorization who were denied Safety Net Assistance between 8/7/14 and 11/21/17. Under the agreement, the applicants will get a certain amount of back benefits.AILA Doc. No. 21011935

 

DOS Notice Designating Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism

On 1/12/21, DOS issued a notice designating Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. (86 FR 6731, 1/22/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012233

 

ICYMI: EOIR Issues Guidance on “Enhanced Case Flow Processing” in Removal Proceedings

EOIR issued guidance on the implementation of an enhanced case flow processing model for non-status, non-detained cases with representation in removal proceedings. Memo is effective 12/1/20. AILA Doc. No. 20120130

 

DOS Provides Annual Immigrant Visa Waiting List Report as of November 1, 2020

DOS provided a report from the NVC showing the total number of immigrant visa applicants on the waiting list in the various family- and employment-based preference categories and subcategories subject to the numerical limit as of 11/1/20. The figures only reflect petitions received by DOS. AILA Doc. No. 21012232

 

EOIR Releases Policy Memo on Adjudicator Independence and Impartiality

EOIR issued a policy memo (PM 21-15) reiterating and memorializing EOIR’s policy regarding adjudicator independence and impartiality. The memo notes that it remains EOIR policy that adjudicator decisions should be based solely on the record before the adjudicator and the applicable law. AILA Doc. No. 21012033

 

Duckworth Asks President Biden To Prohibit Deportation Of Veterans And Strengthen Naturalization Process For Servicemembers

Duckworth:  Combat Veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) is urging President Joe Biden to take immediate action to prevent the deportation of Veterans, repatriate deported Veterans, strengthen the military naturalization process and remove barriers to accessing VA care faced by Veterans living broad.

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

 

 

ImmProf

 

Monday, January 25, 2021

Sunday, January 24, 2021

Saturday, January 23, 2021

Friday, January 22, 2021

Thursday, January 21, 2021

Wednesday, January 20, 2021

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Monday, January 18, 2021

 

 

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

A better Monday right off the bat, as I had predicted and hoped! But, the work has just begun! 

However welcome the Biden Administration’s immediate actions are, they have barely “touched the tip of the iceberg” on the human rights, civil rights, and human dignity abuses left behind by the just-departed kakistocracy.

There is a mess in the Federal Judiciary, from the lowest levels (EOIR) to the highest levels (Supremes). For example, the Supremes’ totally wrong-headed remand of ICE v. Padilla (described in Elizabeth’s report) shows a deficient Court that overtly fails to uphold the Constitution for asylum seekers and whose false and stilted jurisprudence continues to advance Jim Crow, White Nationalism, and Dred Scottification well into the 21st Century. Totally outrageous!

Let’s think about the Supremes in “real life” terms! The most vulnerable among us — asylum seekers who  are being openly abused by our Government while their lives are being trashed by our legal “system” get the shaft from El Supremos. But, yesterday the same Supremos issued corrupt traitor Prez Trump a “free pass” by going along with a corrupt scheme to “run out the clock” on “emoluments clause cases” that those seeking to uphold the rule of law had won below!

Suffering, death, and unfairness to the most vulnerable; free passes to the powerful and overtly corrupt! The problems with our failing justice system begin at the top and obviously have filtered down to places like EOIR where nobody expects any accountability for “going along to get along” with the Trump-Miller White Nationalist, racist, degradations of humanity!

Quoting Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “This is not justice!” Not even close!

Judge Garland must end the White Nationalist mess at EOIR by replacing (what passes for) administration and the BIA immediately, while quickly developing due process-expert-equal justice-human rights-diversity criteria and meaningful public participation in the judicial appointment process for the Immigration Courts. Then apply those criteria not only to new appointments, but also to retention decisions for the existing judiciary which is the product of a skewed “insider only,” “prosecutor and hard liner biased” defective system. 

Some Immigration Judges are well qualified, fair, and well respected; some are not. Judge Garland needs to figure out quickly who should serve, who shouldn’t, and who the best-qualified, fairest, and most universally respected “experts” are to create “the world’s best administrative judiciary” that will serve as a model for a better Article III Judiciary!

This is also the first step to reform throughout the Federal Judiciary all the way up to the failed Supremes. A functioning due-process-oriented, practical, progressive, independent Immigration Judiciary should become a source of better Article III Judges who handle high volume and promote best practices while actually improving due process and efficiency. A big winner for America!

A “model Immigration judiciary” (in place of the “Star Chambers”) will also be the centerpiece of a new independent legislative Article I Immigration Court that Judge Garland must push aggressively to insure that his reform work is institutionalized and is not destroyed by a future DOJ kakistocracy. 

As one of my esteemed judicial colleagues in the NAIJ said, immediately and radically reforming the current EOIR while pushing forward with Article 1 legislation requires the “ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.” 

Surely, Judge Garland, Vanita Gupta, Lisa Monaco and the rest of the incoming team at Justice have the demonstrated ability to do just that!

It’s up to all of us in the NDPA, the human rights and immigration advocacy community, the civil rights community, and the “good government movement” to keep pressure on Judge Garland and his team to fix EOIR and get the Federal Judicial reform movement moving at full speed. Raise hell if you have to, but don’t let this issue be delayed or “back burnered!”

This is not a “tomorrow” issue! Folks are suffering, dying, and the justice system is deteriorating — from the Supremes to  “America’s Star Chambers” every day that the current EOIR due process and fundamental fairness disaster remains unaddressed. Courageous lawyers who have fought to save our democracy from the “creeping and creepy kakistocracy” are being outrageously abused in “Star Chamber Courts” every day that the Biden Administration fails to take bold corrective action @ EOIR!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Justice @ Justice Can’t Wait! Fix The EOIR Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ Now! Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-26-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: UNETHICAL, 🏴‍☠️WHITE NATIONALIST,⚰️ MISOGYNIST 🤮“WAR CRIMINAL” ☠️JEFFREY ROSEN TAKES COWARDLY🐓 PARTING SHOT AT REFUGEE🦸🏻 WOMEN! — DOJ Clean-Out, 🧹🪠🧻Fumigation, & Restaffing With Ethical Attorneys Can’t Begin Soon Enough!

Four Horsemen
BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Woman Tortured
“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

A Parting Shot At Women

As the Trump Administration comes to an end, let’s remember how it began.  On the day following the inauguration, millions participated in Women’s Marches around the world.  There is sadly no need to list the reasons why women in particular would feel the need to respond in such a way to a Trump presidency.

It was therefore no surprise that Trump’s first Attorney General issued a decision intended to strip protection under our asylum laws from women who are victims of domestic violence.  That decision, Matter of A-B-, was so soundly rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit relied on his reasoning to conclude that Sessions’s decision had been abrogated.  The First and Ninth Circuits further rejected Sessions’s view that the particular social group relied upon in A-B- was legally unsound.  The Eighth Circuit rejected Sessions’s description of the standard for proving a government’s inability or unwillingness to control an abusive spouse, for example, as requiring evidence that the government condones his actions, or is completely helpless to prevent them.

The administration tried to codify the views expressed in A-B- and in another case, Matter of L-E-A-, by issuing proposed regulation designed to completely rewrite our asylum laws, with the purpose of making it virtually impossible for domestic violence and gang violence victims to qualify for asylum protection.  Those rules, which were rushed out with very little time for public comment, were blocked on January 8 by a U.S. District Court judge.

There are at least two important cases presently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit involving the issues raised in both A-B- and L-E-A-.  Had these decisions been issued by, e.g., U.S. District Court judges, the Department of Justice would be representing the government (in the form of the Attorney General), but not the judge who issued the decision below.  But as to A-B-, the government attorneys represent an Attorney General acting as judge, and a judge with extraordinary powers.  As a result of those powers, the official presently filling the position on an acting basis (who had come to the job a few weeks earlier from the Department of Transportation with absolutely no background in immigration law) was able to unilaterally issue a new decision in the case, in an attempt to shore up issues of concern before the circuits.

So what does the new decision of the recent Deputy Transportation Secretary say?  It addresses two issues: the “condone or complete helplessness” language used by Sessions, and the proper test for when persecution can be said to be “on account of” an asylum seeker’s gender, familial relationship, or other group membership.

As to the first issue, the Acting AG now states that Sessions did not change the preexisting legal standard for determining whether a government is unwilling or unable to provide protection.  The Acting AG accomplishes this by explaining that “condone” doesn’t actually mean condone, and that “complete helplessness” doesn’t mean complete helplessness.

I’m not sure of the need for what follows on the topic.  Perhaps there is an Attorney General Style Guide which advises to never be succinct when there are so many more exciting options available.  Besides from sounding overly defensive in explaining why Sessions chose to use terms that sure sounded like they raised the standard in order to supposedly signal that he was doing no such thing, the decision also feels the need to remind us of what that preexisting standard is, in spite of the fact that no one other than perhaps a Deputy Transportation Secretary pretending to be an asylum law scholar is in need of such a recap.  Yes, we understand there are no crime-free societies, and the failure to prevent every single crime from occurring is not “unwilling or unable.”  No court has ever said that it was.  Let’s move on.

The second part of this new A-B- decision addresses a conflict between the views of the Fourth Circuit and the BIA in regard to when a nexus is established.  This issue arises in all asylum claims, but the BIA addressed it in a case, Matter of L-E-A-, in which an asylum applicant was threatened by a violent gang because it wished to sell drugs in a store owned by his father.  The question was whether the asylum seeker’s fear of harm from the gang was “on account of” his familial relationship to his father.

Our laws recognize that persecution can arise for multiple reasons.  A 2005 statute requires a showing that one of the five specific bases for a grant of asylum (i.e. race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion) must form “one central reason” for the harm.  The BIA itself has defined this to mean that the reason was more than “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason.”

In the context of family membership, the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly held that this “one central reason” test is satisfied where the family membership formed the reason why the asylum seeker, and not someone else, was targeted for harm.  Using the L-E-A- example, the gang members were obviously motivated most of all by their desire for financial gain from the selling of the drugs in the store.  But under the Fourth Circuit’s test, the family relationship would also be “one central reason” for the harm, because had the asylum seeker not been the son of the store owner, he wouldn’t have been the one targeted.  This is known as a “but for” test, as in “but for” the familial relationship, the asylum seeker wouldn’t have been the one harmed

In L-E-A-, the BIA recognized the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation in a footnote, but added that the case it was deciding didn’t arise under that court’s jurisdiction.  The BIA thus went on to create its own test, requiring evidence of an actual animus towards the family.  The BIA provided as an example of its new test the assassination of the Romanov family in 1917 Russia, stating that while there were political reasons for the murders, it would be difficult to say that family membership was not one central reason for their persecution.

I’m going to create my own rule here: when you are proposing a particular legal standard, and the judge asks for an example, and all you can come up with is the Romanov family in 1917 Russia, you’re skating on thin ice.  The other thing about legal standards is in order for judges to apply them and appeals courts to review them, they have to be understandable.  I’m not a student of Russian history, but it would seem to me that (as the BIA acknowledged), the main motive in assassinating the Romanovs was political.  I’m not sure what jumps out in that example as evidence of animus towards the family itself.  How would one apply the Romanov test to anyone ever appearing in Immigration Court?  By comparison, the Fourth Circuit’s test is a very clear one that is easy to apply and review on appeal.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion.  The assistant Transportation czar feels differently.  Drawing on his extensive minutes of experience in the complex field of asylum, he concluded: “I believe that the Fourth Circuit’s recent interpretation of ‘one central reason’ is not the best reading of the statutory language.”

I am guessing that by saying this in a precedent decision in the final days of this Administration, Transportation guy is hoping that the Fourth Circuit will feel compelled to accord his opinion Brand X deference.  Legal scholar Geoffrey Hoffman has pointed out that no such deference is due, as the requirement that the statute be ambiguous is not satisfied.  (Geoffrey’s excellent takedown of this same decision can be found here, and is well worth reading).

But the term in question, “on account of,” is also not one requiring agency expertise, which is of course a main justification for judicial deference.  It is instead a legal standard not specific to asylum or immigration law.

For example, last June, the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County, a case involving employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity.  In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court explained that the statutory term in question, “because of,” carries the same legal meaning as “on account of,” the relevant phrase for asylum purposes.  In determining nexus, the Court stated:

It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn’t matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred.

That last sentence – “if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer” – is essentially the same “but for” standard applied by the Fourth Circuit in the asylum context.  What would give an Acting Attorney General the authority to hold otherwise?

A conservative commentator observed a difference between the discrimination required in Bostock and the persecution required in L-E-A-, stating that discrimination can involve favoring one group without necessarily hating the group being passed over, whereas persecuting someone requires an animus towards them.

However, the BIA recognized nearly 25 years ago that persecution can be found in harm resulting from actions intended to overcome a characteristic of the victim, and that no subjective punitive or malignant intent is required.  The BIA acknowledged this in L-E-A-, noting that a punitive intent is not required.

Furthermore, the legislative history of the REAL ID Act (which created the requirement in question) shows that Congress amended the original proposed requirement that the protected ground be “the central motive” for the harm, to the final language requiring that it be “one central reason.”1  While animus would fall under “motive,” “reason” covers the type of causation central to the Fourth Circuit’s “but for” test.  The history seems to undermine the former Transportation official’s claim that under the Fourth Circuit’s test, the “one central reason” language would be “mere surplusage.”  This is untrue, as that additional language serves to clarify that the reason can be one of many (as opposed to “the” reason), and that the relevant issue is reason and not motive.  Perhaps the author required more than three weeks at the Department of Justice to understand this.

I write this on the last full day of the Trump presidency.  Let’s hope that all of the decisions issued by this administration will be vacated shortly; that the BIA will soon be comprised of fair and independent immigration law scholars (preferably as part of an independent Article I Immigration Court), and that future posts will document a much more enlightened era of asylum adjudication.

Note:

1. See Deborah Anker, The Law of Asylum in the United States (Thomson Reuters) at § 5:12.  See also Ndayshimiye v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 557 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2009) (recounting the legislative history and rejecting a dominance test for determining “one central reason”).

Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

Republished by permission.

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

Judge Garland and his team must address systemic failures at the dysfunctional DOJ well beyond the festering, unconstitutional mess @ EOIR (“The Clown Show” 🤡) that requires an immediate “remove and replace.” The ethical failings, bad lawyering, dilatory litigating tactics, anti-American attitudes, racism, misogyny, intellectual dishonesty, coddling of authoritarianism, and complicity in the face of tyranny are in every corner of the disgraced Department.

Withdrawal of every bogus, biased, unconstitutional, racist- motivated “precedent” issued during the Trump regime and turning the proper development and fair interpretation of immigration and asylum laws over to a “new BIA” — consisting of real judges who are widely recognized and respected experts in immigration, human rights, and due process — must be a “day one” priority for Judge Garland and his team. 

The Clown Show🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ that has made mincemeat out of American justice — not to mention legal ethics and human morality — must go! And, the problem goes far beyond the “Falls Church Circus!”🎪🤹

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Institutionalized misogyny, 🤮☠️never! No more Jeffrey Rosens @ DOJ —ever!

And, firms like Kirkland & Ellis need to think twice about re-employing a sleazy “empty suit” like Rosen who represents everything that is wrong with American law in the 21st century! Public disgrace should not be mistaken for “public service.”

“Normalizing” political toadies, “senior executives,” government “lawyers,” and other “public officials” who carried the water and willingly (often, as in Rosen’s case, enthusiastically, gratuitously, and totally unnecessarily) advanced the objectives of a White Nationalist, anti-American regime whose disgraceful and toxic rule ended in a violent, unhinged, failed insurrection against our democracy encouraged by a Traitor-President, his supporters, and members of the GOP would be a HUGE, perhaps fatal, mistake!

Make no mistake about it! Brave, determined refugee women like Ms. A-B- and her lawyers (superstars like Professor Karen Musalo and Blaine Bookey of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies) are the true American heroes 🦸🏻 of the resistance to White Nationalist, racist, xenophobic policies of cruelty, hate, and disparaging of the rule of law. Toadies and traitors like Rosen are the eternal villains!🦹🏿‍♂️ Picking on refugees on the way out the door is an act of supreme cowardice that will live in infamy!🐓🤮

PWS

01-20-20

⚖️🗽TRANSITION: Biden Names Other Top Justice Officials!

Geoff Bennett (NBC News)
@GeoffRBennett

The Biden transition has officially announced: Merrick Garland, nominee for Attorney General; Lisa Monaco, nominee for Deputy Attorney General; Vanita Gupta, nominee for Assoc. Attorney General; and Kristen Clarke, nominee for Asst. Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.
*********************
Gupta and Clarke have strong social justice backgrounds.

Monaco
, on the other hand, served as a Homeland Security Assistant to President Obama, and has a primarily prosecutorial/national security background. That could be troubling, given the marked tendency of Administrations of both parties to use bogus or exaggerated “national security myths” and overwrought “get tough prosecutorial stances” to violate both the civil and human rights of asylum seekers and other migrants.
I frankly had hoped for someone with a better demonstrated understanding of, and commitment to,  human rights, social justice, and the essential prerequisites they both are for achieving true national security. Unlike Judge Garland, I see little if anything in Monaco’s background that would qualify her to have a role in administering one of the nation’s largest, and perhaps most important, “court” systems: the U.S. Immigration Courts, now in total disarray and complete meltdown.
But, in the end, she’s President Biden’s choice and will be confirmed. Hopefully, we can work with her. At the same time, the NDPA should be prepared to “raise holy hell” if she performs like the Obama DOJ officials who abused, mismanaged, and helped destroy due process in the Immigration Courts.

 

The assignment of supervision of the Immigration Court function under the AG varies from Administration to Administration. In this case, incoming Associate AG Vanita Gupta, a strong supporter of immigrants’ rights who understands their connection to civil rights, human rights, and racial justice, currently President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, would be a far better choice than Monaco to work on rebuilding EOIR into the due-process focused court system it was supposed to be.

Here are bios:

Biography

Lisa Monaco assumed her duties as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism on March 8, 2013. As President Barack Obama’s Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor, she was responsible for advising the President on all aspects of counterterrorism policy and strategy and coordinating homeland security-related activities throughout the Executive Branch. She chaired meetings of the Cabinet-level Homeland Security Principals Committee, which advised the President on homeland security policy issues and crises. Ms. Monaco was responsible for policy coordination and crisis management on issues ranging from terrorist attacks at home and abroad to cybersecurity and natural disasters.

Prior to the White House, Ms. Monaco spent 15 years at the Department of Justice, the majority of that time serving as a career federal prosecutor, and in senior management positions in the Justice Department and the FBI. She has extensive experience at the senior most levels of law enforcement and the Justice Department. She served for three years as counsel to and then Chief of Staff at the FBI, helping then Director Robert S. Mueller, III, transform the FBI after 9/11 into a national security organization focused on preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. In 2009, she returned to the Department of Justice to serve in the senior leadership of the Deputy Attorney General’s office, responsible for management of the Justice Department and its more than 100,000 employees. She served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General’s primary advisor on criminal policy, law enforcement, national security and civil litigation matters. In that role she was responsible for assisting the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General in overall management and supervision of the Department and its components, including the nation’s 94 United States Attorney Offices. In 2011, she was nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as Assistant Attorney General for National Security, the first woman to serve in that position. In this role, she led the Justice Department’s National Security Division (NSD) which was created after the attacks of September 11, 2001, in order to integrate intelligence and law enforcement functions across the Justice Department. At NSD, she oversaw all federal terrorism and national security prosecutions nationwide and led a division of more than 350 lawyers and professional staff. Ms. Monaco made investigating and prosecuting national security cyber threats a top priority during her tenure and under her leadership, a nationwide network of national security cyber prosecutors was created.

Ms. Monaco began her legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Jane R. Roth on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She later served as Counsel to the Attorney General and then as a Federal prosecutor. She served for six years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia prosecuting a range of crimes from violent crime to fraud and public corruption cases. Her career as a Federal prosecutor includes service on the Enron Task Force, a group of federal prosecutors drawn from around the country to investigate and prosecute the fraud at the Enron Corporation.

Ms. Monaco is a recipient of the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service, the Justice Department’s highest award, for her work on the Enron Task Force, as well as the Edmund J. Randolph Award, which is awarded by the Attorney General in recognition of outstanding contributions to the accomplishment of the Department of Justice’s mission. She is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Chicago Law School.

SOURCE: NYU Law School

https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.biography&personid=46333

Vanita Gupta is an experienced leader and litigator who has devoted her entire career to civil rights work. Most recently, from October 15, 2014, to January 20, 2017, she served as Acting Assistant Attorney General and Head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Appointed by President Barack Obama as the chief civil rights prosecutor for the United States, Gupta oversaw a wide range of criminal and civil enforcement efforts to ensure equal justice and protect equal opportunity for all during one of the most consequential periods for the division.

Under Gupta’s leadership, the division did critical work in a number of areas, including advancing constitutional policing and criminal justice reform; prosecuting hate crimes and human trafficking; promoting disability rights; protecting the rights of LGBTQ individuals; ensuring voting rights for all; and combating discrimination in education, housing, employment, lending, and religious exercise. She regularly engaged with a broad range of stakeholders in the course of this work.

Selected high profile matters during her tenure included the investigations of the Ferguson, Baltimore, and Chicago police departments; the appeals of the Texas and North Carolina voter ID cases; the challenge to North Carolina’s HB2 law and other transgender rights litigation; enforcement of education, land use, hate crimes, and other statutes to combat Islamophobia and other forms of religious discrimination; the issuance of statements of interest on bail and indigent defense reform, and letters to state and local court judges and administrators on the unlawful imposition of fines and fees in criminal justice system; and the Administration’s report on solitary confinement.

Prior to joining the Justice Department, Gupta served as Deputy Legal Director and the Director of the Center for Justice at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). She joined the ACLU in 2006 as a staff attorney, where she subsequently secured a landmark settlement on behalf of immigrant children from around the world detained in a privately-run prison in Texas that ultimately led to the end of “family detention” at the facility. In addition to managing a robust litigation docket at the ACLU, Gupta created and led the organization’s Smart Justice Campaign aimed at ending mass incarceration while keeping communities safe. She worked with law enforcement agencies, corrections officials, advocates, stakeholders, and elected officials across the political spectrum to build collaborative support for pretrial, drug, and sentencing policies that make our federal, state, and local criminal justice systems more effective and more just.

Gupta began her legal career as an attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, where she successfully led the effort to overturn the wrongful drug convictions of 38 individuals in Tulia, Texas, who were ultimately pardoned by Governor Rick Perry. She then helped negotiate a $6 million settlement on behalf of her clients. She also consulted with European civil society organizations working to advance the rights of the Roma.

Gupta graduated magna cum laude from Yale University and received her law degree from New York University School of Law, where later she taught a civil rights litigation clinic for several years.

She is married to Chinh Q. Le, legal director of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, and has two young sons.

SOURCE: Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

https://civilrights.org/about/our-staff/vanita-gupta/

⚖️🗽👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-07-21