⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

9th Thwarts Anti-Asylum Misogyny For Gang-Rape Victim:

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-asylum-india-persecution-kaur-v-wilkinson

CA9 on Asylum, India, Persecution: Kaur v. Wilkinson

Kaur v. Wilkinson

“The BIA erred in imposing evidentiary requirements of ongoing injury or treatment beyond the sexual assault itself in order to show persecution. Kaur’s credible testimony about the attempted gang rape is sufficient to show persecution. Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim. We grant Kaur’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Douglas Jalaie!]

1st Calls Out Violation Of Regs, Incredibly Stupid Denial Of Reopening For Approved U Visa Petition Beneficiary Waiting For “Number:”

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-u-visa-waitlist-granados-benitez-v-wilkinson

CA1 on U Visa Waitlist: Granados Benitez v. Wilkinson

Granados Benitez v. Wilkinson

“Petitioner Carlos Antonio Granados Benitez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and to remand to the immigration judge (“IJ”) for further consideration in light of the fact that he had been placed on a waiting list by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for a U-1 nonimmigrant visa (“U visa”) pursuant to the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“VTVPA”), Pub. L. No. 106-386, § 1513(a)(2)(A), (b), 114 Stat. 1464 (2000) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)). Because we find that the BIA abused its discretion, in that it failed to render a reasoned decision that accords with its own precedent and policies, and it further failed to consider the position of its sister agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), we grant the petition. In so holding we join the views of the Seventh Circuit in Guerra Rocha v. Barr, 951 F.3d 848, 852- 54 (7th Cir. 2020).”

[Hats off to Paige Austin, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Make the Road New York, and the Harvard Law School Crimmigration Clinic were on brief, for petitioner, and Brian D. Straw, Gregory E. Ostfeld, and Greenberg Traurig, LLP on brief for ASISTA Immigration Assistance, Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Safe Horizon, and Tahirih Justice Center, amici curiae!]

3rd “Perplexed” By BIA’s Ignorance Of “Equitable Tolling,” Own Authority:

Kangaroos — “Hey, guys, ever hear of something called “equitable tolling?” “Nah, is it spelled D-E-N-I-E-D?” “Equitable TROLLING,” I’ve heard of that?”https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-equitable-tolling-nkomo-v-atty-gen

CA3 on Equitable Tolling: Nkomo v. Atty. Gen.

Nkomo v. Atty. Gen.

“Because Nkomo properly raised equitable tolling before the BIA, the BIA erred in failing to consider her request for equitable tolling on the merits. We remand for the Board to do so in the first instance.”

“The BIA’s suggestion that it does not have the authority to make decisions on equitable grounds is perplexing. The BIA has authority to equitably toll the deadline for motions to reopen the precise relief Nkomo sought.”

[Hats off to Jerard A. Gonzalez!]

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

Demeaning rape victims! ☠️🤮👎🏻 So, what else is new @ EOIR? “Gonzo” Sessions 🦹🏿‍♂️ set the tone for anti-asylum, racially motivated misogyny in Matter of A-B- and “his judges” have taken it from there! (I repeat my oft-made observation: What kind of “due process” system lets a characters like Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr “own” judges? How would you like to be a woman on trial for her life before a “judge” selected, directed, and “owned” by the likes of these men with clear records of “applied contempt” for equal justice? Sessions, Whitaker, Barr, & Jeffrey Rosen are gone — but their legacy of bias and injustice lives on @ EOIR!)

One of my esteemed Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleagues summed up the latest set of outrageous miscarriages of justice from Falls Church:

All of these decisions demonstrate the degree of careful and detailed analysis that these cases require.And yet the BIA couldn’t keep staff attorneys after McHenry capped them at GS-13 (entry level), and keeps increasing the monthly quotas for BIA staff attorneys.Plus of course the Board Members themselves are now all these types who only review the decisions to make sure they end in the word “dismissed.”

If you were trying to create a recipe for disaster, you couldn’t have planned it better.

I heard the latter comment twice yesterday from immigration/human rights/due process experts on opposite sides of our country who observe and participate in the system at various levels.

To quote Justice Sotomayor’s recent dissent: “This is not justice.”

Historical Footnote: One of my first actions as BIA Chair in 1995 was to establish a “GS-15 Career Ladder” for all Attorney Advisors at the BIA. This made the BIA competitive with the rest of the DOJ.

It allowed us to attract and retain not only “top talent” coming from the “DOJ Honors Program” (how I got my first job at the BIA in 1973), but also outstanding career attorneys who wanted an opportunity to do research, writing, and “applied scholarship” that made a difference in individuals’ lives. Indeed, at various times the BIA has had on its staff former Senior Executives seeking a “change of focus” to a career that allowed them to do the things they liked best about the law.

One of them was a former SES colleague at the “Legacy INS” who found in transferring to a GS-15 BIA Attorney Advisor position a career satisfaction, fulfillment, and sense of meaningful contribution that person had been missing in INS management at that time.

Reducing the top grade for Attorney Advisors is not only professionally and personally demeaning, it also marks the entire organization as “second class” and shows just how stupid and incompetent (and, in recent history, overpaid) EOIR “management” has become! And, as pointed out in my colleague’s comments above, it has not only adversely affected careers but the human lives in the balance on the BIA’s docket.

As I understood my “mission” from then Attorney General Janet Reno in 1995, the BIA was supposed to be about “attracting the best and the brightest judges and supporting them with the best and brightest staff.” Essentially getting it to function like the “12th Circuit” was a description mentioned during my interview process for the Chair job.

Sadly, now, it has become an assembly line of expediency, injustice, shoddy legal work, mindless “corner cutting,” unprofessional behavior, and human misery.

To repeat my colleague’s comment: “If you were trying to create a recipe for disaster, you couldn’t have planned it better.”

All of these cases should have been resolved in the foreign national’s favor without ever getting to the Courts of Appeals! Bad judging, grossly incompetent administration, and lack of qualified, dynamic, judicial leadership from respected “practical scholars” costs lives, produces unacceptable and unfair inconsistencies, and clogs the Article III Courts with unnecessary litigation.

Indeed, the First Circuit’s decision in Granados basically reveals OIL’s “smorgasbord” of bogus arguments to uphold the BIA’s incorrect decision as “without merit” — actually frivolous! There are deep problems @ DOJ resulting from the ongoing corruption and disregard for ethics and professional leadership from the now-departed kakistocracy! They go far beyond the mess at EOIR!

Sure hope that Judge Garland, Vanita Gupta, and their incoming team @ DOJ have a comprehensive plan for replacing the BIA and reforming EOIR! The human beings suffering in this disgracefully inept and abusive “court system” and their courageous, long suffering attorneys are counting on you! Think of it this way: What if YOUR daughter were the rape victim demeaned, dehumanized, and denied justice by EOIR?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼👨🏻‍⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-30-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽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

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”).

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

🇺🇸🗽⚖️👍🏼NDPA TRIUMPH: CLINIC SMASHES EOIR KAKISTOCRACY’S 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ LAST-DITCH ASSAULT ON DUE PROCESS THROUGH UNWARRANTED, INVIDIOUSLY-MOTIVATED FEE INCREASES — NOTE TO JUDGE GARLAND: Not Only Must This Illegal Proposal Be Withdrawn, But Those Responsible In The EOIR Kakistocracy 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ Must Be Removed From Their Current Positions Before They Cause Any More Damage To American Justice!🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🏻

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Order on Stay-PI (01.18.2020)

CLINIC v. EOIR, USDC D DC, 01-18-21 (Judge Amit P. Mehta)

KEY QUOTE:

The court holds that EOIR acted arbitrarily and capriciously by disregarding the Final Rule’s impact on legal service providers and their capacity to provide legal services to persons subject to removal proceedings. EOIR was obligated to address these concerns as part of the notice-and-comment process but it failed to do so. In short, EOIR “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. (State Farm), 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). The court also finds that, absent equitable relief, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor staying the effective date of a portion of the Final Rule.

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

Kind of says it all!

Congrats to the heroes at CLINIC and their NDPA colleagues!

Michelle Mendez
Defending Vulnerable Populations Director
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)

And, while you’re at it, Judge Garland, you must examine the role of the sleazy DOJ lawyers who mounted an essentially frivolous defense for this nonsense in Federal Court. Sadly, you’re looking at systemic failure here, as well as a totally disrespectful and unwarranted effort to “beat the clock” in implementing the Miller/Hamilton White Nationalist, racist, anti-due-process, xenophobic agenda!

Obviously, EOIR cut corners and tried to rush these bogus changes into effect before the well-established “end date” of the Trump kakistocracy on Jan. 20, 2020. EOIR also of acted in full knowledge that the incoming Biden Administration would go a “different direction” on immigration matters.

In plain terms, this was an illegal bad-faith effort to undermine the incoming Biden Administration and illegally punish legal service providers by making them use time and resources in undoing the illegal mischief EOIR intentionally inflicted. This is neither “normal” nor”acceptable.” It must be forcibly and swiftly addressed by “Team Garland.”

CLINIC and their allies should be devoting resources to representing individuals in Immigration Court, not to fending off a bad-faith racist agenda sponsored by no less than a Department of “Justice” that has completely lost its way and impedes the public good.

This is a very serious ongoing national disgrace and abuse of the legal process by the DOJ. It needs to stop! Now! And those responsible for this outrage must face accountability for their unwarranted and illegal actions!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! The EOIR Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️☠️ Never!

PWS

01-19-21

⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️COURTS OF APPEALS CONTINUE TO THROW ROTTEN TOMATOES 🍅 @ BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM BIAS — Basic Analytical, Legal Errors Continue From Weaponized, Non-Expert “Star Chamber” ☠️ Posing As ”Tribunal!” — Judge Garland Must Fix This Inexcusable, Unnecessary, Systemic Failure Now! — Justice For Persons Of Color & Migrants Can’t “Wait For Godot!”

Two most recent recent rebukes, courtesy of Dan Kowalski at Lexis-Nexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-exceptional-circumstances-e-a-c-a-v-rosen

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

12 Jan 2021

motion to reopen

exceptional circumstances

AAO asylum bia ca9 cimt COVID-19 DHS DOL eoir final rule H-1B H-2A H-2B I-9 ICE mehta Ninth Circuit ocaho State Department Supreme Court tps Trump unpublished USCIS visa bulletin

More

CA6 on Exceptional Circumstances:

E.A.C.A. v. Rosen

“[W]e conclude that the BIA abused its discretion by denying E.A.’s motion to reopen. E.A.’s mother’s recent childbirth is a serious medical event, which coupled with E.A.’s minor age, her difficulty obtaining transportation, and her difficulty navigating the immigration system without assistance, constitute “exceptional circumstances” necessitating rescission of the in absentia removal order. … The BIA’s decision was also contrary to law, and therefore an abuse of discretion. … First, the BIA improperly considered E.A.’s age separately, rather than considering age alongside other factors, when determining that she had not shown that exceptional circumstances justified her failure to appear. Second, the BIA erred when it dismissed without adequate explanation E.A.’s evidence that she is eligible for SIJS. Finally, the BIA improperly stated that E.A. was required to present prima facie evidence that she was eligible for immigration relief as part of her motion to reopen. … For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the removal order, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Rachel Naggar! Here is a link to the audio of the oral argument.]

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-asylum-u-s-army-contractor-al-amiri-v-rosen

CA1 on Asylum, U.S. Army Contractor: Al Amiri v. Rosen

Al Amiri v. Rosen

“Salim Al Amiri, an Iraqi citizen, seeks relief from removal on the grounds of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He premises his requests for such relief on the harm that he fears that he would be subjected to in Iraq at the hands of members of Iraq’s military or civilian insurgents operating in that country. Al Amiri contends that he has reason to fear he would be subjected to that harm on account of his work as a paid contractor for the United States Army during the war in Iraq, as in that role he educated U.S. soldiers about Iraqi customs and practices as they prepared for their deployment. We vacate and remand the ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal, but we deny his petition insofar as it challenges the BIA’s ruling rejecting his CAT claim.”

[Hats off to J. Christopher Llinas!]

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

Congrats to all involved!
Think how much better this system would function with expert judges who treated asylum applicants fairly from the “git go,” granted protection wherever possible in accordance with the the Refugee Act of 1980 and the (more “woke”) Supremes’ precedent in Cardoza-Fonseca, provided clear, positive guidance on how valid claims could be documented and granted, and promoted and consistently applied best practices to achieve efficiency with maximum due process.
At first glance, although the issue is reopening rather than a continuance, E.A.C.A. undercuts McHenry’s nativist, insanely wasteful, and totally dishonest attempt to “raise the bar” for routine continuances for asylum applicants who need time to properly document and prepare their cases.
The “Deny – Deny Program” — deny due process, deny relief — that infects EOIR’s “Star Chambers” (impersonating “courts”) is a huge backlog builder that kills people and screws up Court of Appeals dockets in the process.
Reopening cases that should be reopened, getting to the merits, and getting the many properly grantable asylum cases represented, documented, and prioritized would be a huge step in reducing EOIR’s largely self-created and unnecessary “bogus backlog.”
Ultimately, many of the clearly grantable asylum cases being mishandled and wrongly denied at EOIR, at great waste of time and resources, not to mention unnecessary human trauma, could, with real expert judges at EOIR setting and consistently enforcing the precedents, be granted more efficiently and expeditiously at the Asylum Office and ultimately shifted to a more robust and properly run Refugee Program.
In the longer run, once EOIR is redesigned and rebuilt as a proper court with real, independent, expert judges, it might be appropriate to place the Asylum Offices under judicial supervision, given the grotesque abuses and corrupt, perhaps criminal, mismanagement of the Asylum Offices by USCIS toadies carrying out the regime’s racist, White Nationalist, unconstitutional agenda of hate and waste.
NOTE TO JUDGE GARLAND👨🏻‍⚖️: Please fix the EOIR mess, Your Honor, before it brings you and the entire US justice system crashing down with it! This is a national emergency, and a damaging national disgrace, NOT a “back burner” issue!

Here’s some additional E.A.C.A. analysis by my good friend and NDPA “warrior queen” 👸🏽Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC!

Subject: CLINIC MTR In Absentia Win at the CA6 on behalf of SIJS-Seeking UC (E. A. C. A. v. Jeffrey Rosen)

Greetings,

Sharing this win, E. A. C. A. v. Jeffrey Rosen, out of the CA6 by my amazing colleague Rachel Naggar who manages our BIA Pro Bono Project. This was an appeal of an IJ (Memphis) denial of an in absentia motion to reopen for a 13-year old unaccompanied child.

Interestingly, after oral argument, OIL filed a motion to remand the case (which Rachel opposed) and the CA6 denied that motion. Seems the CA6 really wanted to issue a decision on the merits and we are grateful for the decision. Here are some highlights from the decision:

SIJS

·       “Notably, the IJ’s decision does not mention E.A.’s claims that she was eligible for SIJS.”

·       FN 1: “As of the December 2020 Visa Bulletin, visas are available for special immigrants (category EB4) from El Salvador to adjust their status if their priority date is prior to February 2018. If DHS removes E.A. prior to approving her visa, she will be unable to apply for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).”

Totality of the Circumstances

·       “Based on the totality of the circumstances, including E.A. mother’s recent childbirth, E.A.’s young age, E.A.’s mother’s failed attempts to obtain counsel to help change the address of E.A.’s hearing, and E.A.’s inability to travel from New York to Memphis for the hearing, we hold that E.A. established exceptional circumstances.”

·       “Under the totality of the circumstances, E.A.’s young age is an important factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.”

Exceptional Circumstances

·       “E.A.’s mother’s recent childbirth is a serious medical condition that supports reopening. The statute defining ‘exceptional circumstances’ that justify reopening an immigration proceeding lists the ‘serious illness of the alien, or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien’ as an example. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). Childbirth is a serious medical event that necessitates a recovery period.”

·       “Instead of recognizing that childbirth is a serious medical condition, the BIA minimized the seriousness of childbirth and its impact on E.A.’s mother’s ability to bring E.A. to Memphis. […] Recovery from childbirth is exactly the type of circumstance that § 1229a(e)(1) was intended to cover.”

Prima Facie Eligibility

·       “Finally, the BIA erred by stating that E.A. was required to prove prima facie eligibility for immigration relief. The BIA’s decision improperly states that E.A. is required to show at this stage prima facie eligibility for relief. The statute governing motions to reopen removal orders entered in absentia provides that the petitioner must ‘demonstrate[] that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances.’ 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). In general, we have stated that ‘[a] prima facie showing of eligibility for relief is required in motions to reopen.’ Alizoti, 477 F.3d at 451–52. In the case of a motion to rescind a removal order entered in absentia, however, the BIA has held that ‘an alien is not required to show prejudice in order to rescind an order of deportation” or removal. In re Grijalva-Barrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. 472, 473 n.2 (BIA 1996); see also In re Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. 599, 603 n.1 (BIA 1996). This is consistent with the statute governing motions to rescind removal orders entered in absentia, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), which does not list a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief from removal as a requirement to rescind in absentia removal orders. Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 603 n.1; see also Galvez-Vergara v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 798, 803 n.6 (5th Cir. 2007) (declining ‘to affirm the IJ’s decision on the grounds that [the petitioner] has not shown that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance’ because ‘In re Grijalva-Barrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 473 n.2, provides that an alien need not demonstrate prejudice for his counsel’s erroneous advice to constitute an ‘exceptional circumstance’ justifying rescission of an in absentia removal order’); Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 939 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘follow[ing] the BIA’s usual practice of not requiring a showing of prejudice’ to rescind an in absentia order of removal). We now join our sister circuits and hold that E.A. is not required to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief in order to obtain rescission under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) of the in absentia order of removal.”

Thanks to our entire Defending Vulnerable Populations team for supporting Rachel on the briefing, oral argument, and negotiations with OIL.

Gratefully,

Michelle N. Mendez | she/her/ella/elle

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

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

In addition to the “normal” overall White Nationalist, racist agenda that EOIR “management” has carried out under the defeated regime, there was a good deal of misogyny 🤮 involved in the BIA’s gross mishandling of the “pregnancy issue,” as described by the Sixth Circuit. This misogynistic trend can be traced back directly to the unconstitutional and unethical actions of mysogynist White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions 🤮 🦹🏿‍♂️🤡in the “Matter of A-B- Abomination.” ☠️⚰️🏴‍☠️👎🏻

Biased, anti-migrant decision-making in support of bogus enforcement gimmicks and White Nationalist anti-democracy agendas builds backlogs and kills, maims, and tortures “real” people! Migrants are people and persons, not “threats” and “bogus statistics.”

The “dehumanization” and “de-personification” of migrants, with the connivance of the tone-deaf and spineless GOP Supremes’ majority, is a serious, continuing threat to American democracy! It must stop! Justices who won’t treat migrants physically present in the U.S. or at our borders as “persons” under our Constitution — which they clearly are — do not belong on the Supremes! ⚖️🗽🇺🇸

I can also draw the lines connecting George Floyd, institutionalized racial injustice, voter suppression, riots at the Capitol, and the “Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants by EOIR!

HINT TO JUDGE GARLAND: Michelle Mendez would be an outstanding choice to lead the “clean up and rebuild” program at EOIR and the BIA once the “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ is removed!🪠🧹 Put experts with practical experience like Rachel Nagger and Christopher Linas onto the bench, on the BIA, the Immigration Courts, and the Article III Judiciary to get the American Justice system functioning again!

The “judicial selection system” for the Immigration Courts and the Article III Judiciary has failed American democracy — big time — over the past four years. Fixing it must be part of your legacy!

The folks who preserved due process and our Constitution in the face of tyranny are mostly “on the outside looking in.” You need to get them “inside Government” — on the bench and in other key policy positions — and empower them to start cleaning up the ungodly mess left by four years of regime kakistocracy🤮☠️🤡⚰️👎🏻. “Same old, same old” (sadly, a tradition of Dem Administrations) won’t get the job done, now any more than it has in the past! New faces for a new start!

And, it starts with better judges @ EOIR, which is entirely under YOUR control! An EOIR that actually fulfills its noble, one-time vision of “Through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” will be a model for fixing our failing Federal Courts — all the way up to the leaderless and complicit Supremes who failed, particularly in immigration, human rights, voting rights, and racial justice, to effectively and courageously stand up to the Trump-Miller White Nationalist agenda of hate and tyranny!

We are where we are today as a nation, to a large extent, because of the Supremes’ majority’s gross mishandling of the “Muslim Ban” cases which set a sorry standard for complicity and total lack of accountability for unconstitutional actions, racism, dishonesty, cowardly official bullying, and abandonment of ethics by the Executive that has brought our nation to the precipice! Life tenure was actually supposed to protect us from judges who wouldn’t protect our individual rights. In this case, it hasn’t gotten the job done! Better judges for a better America!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The EOIR Clown Show🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ ☠️⚰️Never!

PWS

01-13-21

🇺🇸⚖️ NDPA COALITION STOPS “KILL ASYLUM REGS” — EOIR/DHS CRIMINAL KAKISTOCRACY 🥷🏻🦹🏿‍♂️ THWARTED AGAIN — USD JUDGE DONATO (ND CA) ENJOINS FURTHER “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” ☠️🤮 — Will There Be Accountability For Regime’s Outgoing Scofflaw Officials & The String Of Unethical DOJ Lawyers Who Wrongfully Defended Their Indefensible Assaults On The Constitution & Humanity?

INJUNCTION

Pangea Legal Services v. DHS (“Pangea II”), N.D. CA (USD Judge James Donato), 01-08-21

KEY QUOTE:

Wolf has not spent his time idly at DHS. During his relatively brief tenure, he has attempted to suspend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and impose administrative fees for immigration services and eliminate fee waivers, among other actions. These efforts resulted in several lawsuits in federal courts across the United States, each of which challenged Wolf’s rulemaking authority on the same grounds presented by plaintiffs here. In all of these cases, the district courts have concluded that Wolf was not a duly authorized Acting Secretary, and that his actions were a legal nullity. See Batalla Vidal v. Wolf, No. 16-CV-4756 (NGG) (VMS), 2020 WL 6695076, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2020); Nw. Immigrant Rights Project v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. CV 19-3283 (RDM), 2020 WL 5995206, at *24 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020); Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf, No. 20-CV-05883-

United States District Court Northern District of California

Case 3:20-cv-09253-JD Document 66 Filed 01/08/21 Page 7 of 14

JSW, 2020 WL 5798269, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2020); Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Chad F. Wolf, Case No. 8:20-cv-02118-PX, 2020 WL 5500165, at *23 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020).3

This Court is now the fifth federal court to be asked to plow the same ground about Wolf’s authority vel non to change the immigration regulations. If the government had proffered new facts or law with respect to that question, or a hitherto unconsidered argument, this might have been a worthwhile exercise. It did not. The government has recycled exactly the same legal and factual claims made in the prior cases, as if they had not been soundly rejected in well-reasoned opinions by several courts. The government initially appealed two of these decisions, both of which it later voluntarily dismissed, and appears to have only one appeal pending. In the main, the government contents itself simply with saying the prior courts were wrong, with scant explanation. See, e.g., Pangea Dkt. No. 48 at ECF p. 11 (“the various courts that have embraced this argument are mistaken”); Immigration Equality Dkt. No. 37 at 14 (same).

This is a troubling litigation strategy. In effect, the government keeps crashing the same car into a gate, hoping that someday it might break through. To be sure, one court decision alone does not necessarily close the door to any further cases or arguments along similar lines. Our common law system contemplates that more than one judicial examination of facts and issues is often merited. But our system has no room for relitigating the same facts and law in successive district court cases ad infinitum. That is what the government is doing here. The Court took pains at oral argument to discuss this with counsel for the government, and specifically asked how their arguments here are in any way different from the ones made and rejected in the preceding cases.4 Counsel responded mainly with a disparaging comment to the effect that the other district courts had shirked from working their way through the record. That is untrue. Each of the prior decisions conducted a painstaking analysis of the facts with respect to the Acting Secretary

3 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also found that Wolf’s appointment was invalid under the Homeland Security Act. See Matter of Dep’t of Homeland Security, Gov’t Accountability Office (Aug. 14, 2020), https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/708830.pdf, at 2.

4 Attorney August Flentje at DOJ handled this portion of the government’s argument at the hearing.

United States District Court Northern District of California

Case 3:20-cv-09253-JD Document 66 Filed 01/08/21 Page 8 of 14

position at DHS, with full attention to the unprecedented efforts to validate Wolf’s claim to the job, irrespective of governing law and procedures.

A good argument might be made that, at this point in time, the government’s arguments lack a good-faith basis in law or fact. But the Court need not reach that conclusion to reject those arguments yet again. The Court’s independent review of the record indicates that Batalla Vidal, 2020 WL 6695076, which is the latest decision before this order, correctly identified and analyzed the salient points vitiating Wolf’s claim of rulemaking authority, and the Court agrees with it in full.

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

Wolf’s continuing impersonation of a Cabinet Officer and Barr’s knowingly illegal, ultra vires approval of clearly unlawfully promulgated regulations that actually threaten the lives of bona fide asylum seekers should be dealt with as criminal offenses after Jan. 20, 2021. Every Government official who participated in this travesty, as well as the unethical DOJ officials and their supervisors who were involved in the frivolous and unethical “defense” of this clearly unlawful, and invidiously motivated, action should be removed from Federal Service. Clearly, prosecutions should be explored against racist mastermind “human rights criminal” Stephen Miller.

As the regime of treason and insurrection comes to an end, those who knowingly helped further its gross illegalities should be held fully accountable under the law. Criminals have no right to government lawyers to defend their scofflaw behavior in civil actions like this!

The EOIR Clown Show 🦹🏿‍♂️🤡 must go! But, there also must be some accountability for those who abused their government positions and violated their oaths of office to illegally inflict harm and suffering on the most vulnerable among us.

We have seen a serious breakdown of legal ethics and bar policing responsibility at all levels of the Federal Government during the regime. That breakdown extends to Federal Judges all the way up to the indolent Supremes who have consistently failed to hold U.S. Government attorneys (including, specifically, the highly unethical former Solicitor General and his staff) accountable for their unethical behavior in engaging in frivolous civil litigation, advancing “bad faith” defenses for clearly illegal actions, seeking unjustified stays, manufacturing and arguing clear “pretexts” for unconstitutionally discriminatory Executive actions, failing to do even minimal “due diligence,” putting forth factually erroneous and misleading arguments, and allowing the government to abuse, harass, and waste the time of private counsel for improper purposes.

This case also reinforces the absolute necessity of nationwide injunctive relief against Government abuses like this. The “solicitation” of cases challenging and improperly narrowing this necessary form of relief, a corrupt project of the Federalist Society and the former Solicitor General, should raise serious questions of the judicial qualifications of the two “GOP Justices” who recently engaged in this form of rancid, immoral, and legally defective political pandering in their “separate opinion.” Better Justices for a Better America!

What really held the American legal system together for the last four perilous years was the tenacity of lawyers, many of them arguing Immigration or human rights cases pro bono, and the legal scholarship and courage of some U.S. District Judges who stood tall even in the face of a spineless and complicit Supremes’ majority that all too often failed to support them and could barely move fast enough to give a patently lawless, corrupt, racist, treasonous, and clearly unqualified President and his neo-Nazi minions carte blanch to abuse humanity and “Dred Scottify” persons of color. Leadership, moral courage, and integrity count. But for Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and the late RBG, the Supremes came up disastrously short of fulfilling their Constitutional rule in far, far too many cases, and innocent people suffered and died because of it. This is simply unacceptable in our highest level judges.

It’s high time for law schools to reexamine and beef up obviously inadequate ethical training, for a review of the failure of basic ethics throughout Government, and for review and reform of the scurrilous and unacceptable abdication of ethical norms and responsibilities by Federal Judges at every level of our floundering and failing Federal legal system. Criminals like Wolf and Miller and clowns like EOIR officials violate the laws and degrade humanity because they have every reason to believe they will get away with it. They must be held accountable if we want the abuses that came close to destroying our democracy this week to be stopped!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-08-21

“SIR JEFFREY” CHASE ⚔️🛡 KICKS OFF 2021: Misuse of CDC Authority🤮 Part Of The Scofflaw Regime’s White Nationalist Agenda☠️🏴‍☠️ — Why Have the Federal Courts Let Bogus Pretexts “Overrule” Truth & The Rule of Law?🤥

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/1/3/the-next-level-shamelessness-of-the-covid-security-regs

The Next-Level Shamelessness of the COVID Security Regs

On December 23, EOIR and USCIS published final rules designed to brand most people a “security risk,” and thus ineligible for asylum. The rules won’t become effective until January 22 (i.e. after the Biden Administration is in office), so will presumably be pulled back before they hurt anyone other than the reputations and careers of those responsible for their publication. Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to refute the present administration’s claimed justification for such a rule. First, there will certainly be other bad administrations in our future, and as we’ve seen with the present one, they might look to the past for inspiration.

Furthermore, even without the rule going into effect, individual immigration judges will still be faced with interpreting the clause it invokes on a case-by-case basis. I’m hoping the following analysis will prove useful, as I’m pretty sure it wasn’t covered in the judges’ training.

But most importantly, the assaults of the past four years on facts and reason have taught us the need to constantly reinforce what those presently in charge hope to make us forget: that there are laws passed by Congress; that the Judiciary has created strict rules governing their interpretation, and that executive agencies are not free to simply ignore or reinvent the meaning of those laws to their own liking.

The regulations in question seek to take advantage of the present pandemic to render any asylum seeker who either exhibits symptoms of the virus, has come in contact with it, or has traveled from or through a country or region where the disease is prevalent ineligible for asylum. The administration seeks to justify this by claiming that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the above a danger to the security of the United States.

The “danger to the security of the United States” bar to asylum1 which the new regulations reference derives from Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which serves as the international law basis for our asylum laws. That treaty (which is binding on the U.S.) states that the prohibition against returning refugees shall not apply to those “whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.”

However, Article 33(2) applies to those who have already been recognized as refugees, and have then committed crimes in the country of refuge, which is not the class to whom the new regulations would apply. The bases for excluding those seeking refugee status for reasons arising prior to their arrival are found under Article 1D through 1F of the 1951 Convention. The prohibitions found there cover three groups: those who are already receiving protection or assistance (Article 1D); those who are not considered to be in need of protection (Article 1E); and those “categories of persons who are not considered to be deserving of international protection (Article 1F).2 Individuals posing a danger to the community fall into the final category.

No ground contained in the 1951 Convention excludes those in need of protection for health-related purposes. To understand why, let’s look closer at the Convention’s use of the word “deserving” as it relates to refugee protection. In 1997, UNHCR published a note providing additional insight into the Article 1F “exclusion grounds.” Explaining that “the idea of an individual ‘not deserving’ protection as a refugee is related to the intrinsic links between ideas of humanity, equity, and the concept of refuge,” the note explains that the primary purpose of the clauses “are to deprive the perpetrators of heinous acts and serious common crimes, of such protection.” The note explains that to do otherwise “would be in direct conflict with national and international law, and would contradict the humanitarian and peaceful nature of the concept of asylum.”

The European Council on Refugees and Exiles covered this same issue in its 2004 position paper on Exclusion from Refugee Status. At page 8, the ECRE stated that the “main aim” of Article 1F was not “to protect the host community from serious criminals,” but rather to preserve the integrity of the international refugee system by preventing it from being used to “shelter serious criminals from justice.” These sources make it extremely clear that the intent was certainly not to exclude someone who might have been exposed to a virus.

In including six exceptions to eligibility in our asylum statute,3 Congress followed the lead of the 1951 Convention, as all six domestic clauses fall within the three categories listed in paragraph 140 of the UNHCR Handbook as listed above. Of the six grounds listed under U.S. law, the last one, regarding persons firmly resettled in another country prior to arrival in the U.S., is covered by the Convention categories of those already receiving assistance or not in need of assistance.

The remaining five exceptions under U.S. law fall within the category of those not considered to be deserving of protection (Article 1F). The statute lists those categories as: (i) persecutors of others; (ii) persons posing a danger to the community of the U.S. by virtue of having been convicted of a particularly serious crime; (iii) persons whom there are serious reasons to believe committed serious nonpolitical crimes prior to their arrival in the U.S.; (iv) persons whom “there are reasonable grounds for regarding…as a danger to the security of the United States,” and (v) persons engaged in terrorist activity.

Agencies may only apply their own interpretation to the term “as a danger to the security of the United States” to the extent such term is ambiguous. But the courts have instructed that in determining whether a statute is in fact ambiguous, traditional tools of construction must be employed, including canons.4 The Supreme Court has recently applied one such canon, ejusdem generis, for this purpose.5 In its decision, the Court explained that “where, as here, a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the general term is usually understood to ‘ “embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.”’”6

Former Attorney General Barr himself recently applied the ejusdem generis canon to the term “particular social group,” stating that pursuant to the canon, the term “must be read in conjunction with the terms preceding it, which cabin its reach…rather than as an “omnibus catch-all” for everyone who does not qualify under one of the other grounds for asylum.”7

A very similar canon to ejusdem generis is noscitur a sociis (the “associated words” canon). Whereas ejusdem generis requires a term to be interpreted similarly to more specific terms surrounding it in a list, noscitur a sociis applies the same concept to more specific terms across the same statute.8

In 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A), the more general term “danger to the security of the United States” is surrounded by the more specific terminology describing the accompanying grounds of asylum ineligibility. When thus “cabined” by the more specific classes of persecutors of others, those convicted of serious crimes, and those engaged in terrorist activities, it is clear that Congress intended a “risk to security” to relate to similar types of criminal activity, and not to health grounds. As the intent of Congress is clear, the term “threat to the security of the United States” is not open to any interpretation the agencies might wish to apply to it. Yet in its published rule, EOIR and USCIS here create the type of “omnibus catch-all” that the Attorney General himself has elsewhere declared to be impermissible.

The rule is further at odds with circuit case law in its application to those who simply “may” pose a risk. The Third Circuit has found the statutory language of the clause in question to unambiguously require that the asylum-seeker pose an actual, rather than merely a possible, threat to national security.9 Even if it were assumed that COVID could somehow fit into the category of security risk, simply having traveled from or through an area where the virus is prevalent doesn’t establish that the individual presents an actual risk.

There is also the issue of the transient nature of the risk. In the same decision referenced above, the Third Circuit relied on the Refugee Act’s legislative history to conclude “that Congress intended to protect refugees to the fullest extent of our Nation’s international obligations,” allowing for exceptions “only in a narrow set of circumstances.”10 This is obviously a correct reading where exclusion can lead to death, rape, or indefinite imprisonment. The other classes deemed undeserving of asylum are defined by more permanent characteristics. In other words, the attribute of being a terrorist, a persecutor, or a serious criminal will not wear off in two weeks time. To the contrary, any risk posed by one exposed to COVID-19 is likely to pass within that same time frame. Wouldn’t the “fullest extent” of our obligations call for simple quarantining for the brief period in question?

These issues were all raised in comments to the proposed regs. And of course, dubious reasons were employed to dismiss these arguments. For example, the agencies acknowledged the need for the danger posed be an actual rather than a merely possible one. But somehow, that requirement was dismissed by the inadequate excuse that the danger posed by a pandemic is “unique.”

The rule stands as one of the final examples of the extremes this administration will go to in order to circumvent our asylum laws and turn away those entitled to avail themselves of our immigration courts in order to determine if they are entitled to protection. As demonstrated here, the degree to which this administration veered from the actual intent of the statute in interpreting the security bar wouldn’t have been much greater if it attempted to deny asylum to those wearing white after Labor Day.11 The law must not be twisted or ignored by executive branch agencies when it conflicts with an administration’s policy objectives.

Notes:

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).

UNHCR Handbook at ❡ 140.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).

See, e.g., Arangure Jasso v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 333, 338-39 (6th Cir. 2018).

See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1625 (2018).

Ibid (citing Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 (2001); National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense,138 S.Ct. 617, 628–629 (2018)).

Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581, 592 (A.G. 2019).

Thanks to Prof. Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer for sharing her expertise on these terms. See Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and Hillary Rich, “A Step Too Far: Matter of A-B-, Particular Social Group, and Chevron,” 29 Cornell J. of Law and Public Policy 345, 373 (2019).

Yusupov v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 518 F.3d 185, 201 (3d Cir. 2008).

Id. at 203-204.

If it had done so, EOIR would undoubtedly have defended the move through the traditional, completely acceptable, totally normal method of issuing a “Myths vs. Facts” sheet. The document might contain the following entry: “Myth: EOIR issued a rule banning asylum to anyone wearing any color at any time. Fact: That’s completely absurd! Only those wearing white (which technically might not even be a color) are banned, and even then, only after Labor Day. As Pantone lists 1,867 colors, white consists of .05 percent of all colors one could wear. And that’s only if white is in fact a color. And, again, only after Labor Day.”

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Republished by permission.

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

Jeffrey’s article points out how deeply the corruption and racism of the regime have penetrated into the Federal Bureaucracy, even infecting supposedly “professional and apolitical” agencies like CDC. Fixing this will be a formidable task for the Biden-Harris Administration.

But, there is a larger issue here: Why has the Supremes’ GOP majority “lapped up” the transparent pretexts for unconstitutional actions presented by the regime’s ethics-challenged DOJ lawyers? While an impressive array of U.S. District Court Judges, from both parties, have generally courageously stood tall for the rule of law against White Nationalist abuses, not so the GOP majority of the Supremes!

Let’s go back to the beginning of the regime. After a string of lower Federal Court defeats, “ethics-free” DOJ lawyers massaged and slightly watered down Trump’s “Muslim Ban” and repackaged it as a bogus “national security” measure. But, even as these disingenuous lawyers were advancing this bogus pretext in court, Trump was reassuring his White Nationalist base that this was indeed the “Muslim Ban” he had promised to his supporters.

https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban

Nevertheless, the Supremes’ GOP majority “bought into” the patently (and demonstrably) bogus “national security” pretext, hook, line, and sinker:

Of the Supreme Court’s decision on Muslim ban 3.0, Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures. It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president’s own explanation for his action.”

“It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking actions to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”

https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban

In doing so, the GOP Supremes’ associated themselves with a long line of racially biased pretexts used by courts to uphold invidious discrimination that violated our Constitution

Internment of Japanese-Americans (but not German-Americans) is about national security.
- Truth: Dehumanize, punish, and dispossess Japanese Americans on the West Coast;
Poll taxes are about raising revenue.
- Truth: Preventing African-Americans from voting;
Literacy tests (“grandfathering” ignorant White guys) are about insuring an informed electorate.
- Truth: Excluding African-American voters;
Separate is equal.
- Truth: Insuring that African-Americans will be educationally disadvantaged;
Voter ID laws are about election integrity.
- Truth: Designed by a primarily White GOP ruling class to suppress African American, Latino, and other minority voters who tend to support Democrats;
Gerrymandering to favor the GOP can be solved through the political process.
- Truth: Gerrymandering is intended by the GOP to rig the political process so that voters of color will never achieve political representation proportional to their numbers.

These are just a few of the obvious examples of how the “legal power structure” has often been on the “wrong side of history.” Sadly, it continues with today’s GOP Supremes’ majority which often embraces obvious pretexts and bogus “right wing legal gobbledygook” to systematically dump on vulnerable minorities and others whose political power and humanity they refuse to recognize.

Finally, to reinforce what Jeffrey and others have said, we have a legal obligation to protect refugees. Article 33 of the Convention to which we are party, now incorporated into the INA, is mandatory, not “optional” or “discretionary.”

As I pointed out before, refugees more often than not arrive in times of international crisis and turmoil. “Tough times” or internal problems (in this case aggravated and magnified by a maliciously incompetent regime) are NOT a legal (not to mention moral) basis for us to jettison our legal obligation to offer them protection.

Had the Supremes courageously and unanimously stood up for the Constitution, rule of law, and simple human decency against the regime’s obvious lies, false narratives, overt racism, religious bigotry, and general disregard for the rule of law (now in full, foul bloom every day), the last four years might have been very different. Lives lost forever could have been saved.

Folks, here we are, two decades into the 21st Century. Yet, we have a highly “un-representative” Supremes’ GOP majority that has willingly promoted the anti-democracy antics of, and carried water for, a patently corrupt White Nationalist regime seeking to “Dred Scottify” tens of millions of persons of color, religious minorities, and those “suspected” of not supporting the GOP.

Even if many would like to, this is not something that can simply be swept under the table (again). Failure of the Supremes majority to stand up for the individual rights and human dignity of all persons in America is something that will haunt us until it is fixed or we disappear as a nation!

Lousy judging has a huge cost for humanity and democracy. We need and deserve better from the highest levels of our privileged, yet too often ineffective and feckless in the face of tyranny, life-tenured judges!

Better Judges for a Better, Fairer America.🇺🇸 Make Equal Justice Under Law ⚖️ A Reality Rather Than an Ongoing, Judicially-Enabled, Charade!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸

PWS

01-04-21

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮👎🏻IN NYT OP-ED, FORMER TRUMP DOJ ATTORNEY ERICA NEWLAND ADMITS COMPLICITY! — Having Undermined Democratic Institutions, Sold False Narratives To (Too Often Willing) Federal Judges, & Participated In Racist-Inspired “Dred Scottification” (“Dehumanization”) Of the Other Is Actually a BIG Deal! — So Is The Destruction Of Due Process & Fundamental Fairness In The Immigration Courts (Now, “Clown Courts”🤡, or “America’s Star Chambers”☠️)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/opinion/trump-justice-department-lawyer.html?referringSource=articleShare

. . . .

Watching the Trump campaign’s attacks on the election results, I now see what might have happened if, rather than nip and tuck the Trump agenda, responsible Justice Department attorneys had collectively — ethically, lawfully — refused to participate in President Trump’s systematic attacks on our democracy from the beginning. The attacks would have failed.

. . . .

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

Read the full op-ed at the link. That’s right Erica. Lack of ethics, morality, and failing to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law have consequences. Helping to “custom design” obvious pretexts for racist and hate inspired policies, for consumption by right-wing judges who only seek “cover” for going along to get along with fascism, is wrong. Duh!

It’s no surprise that the clearly unconstitutional and racially and religiously bigoted “Travel Ban,” willingly embraced by an intellectually dishonest and morally compromised Supremes majority, was first on the list in Erica’s “confession.”

But, don’t expect any apologies from the vast majority of Trumpist lawyer/enablers who violated their oaths of office or from the big time law firms (one where I was formerly a partner) who have granted them undeserved refuge at fat salaries! Nor should we expect large-scale redemption from the legions of Government lawyers in DOJ, DHS, and elsewhere who will assert the “Nuremberg defense” of “just following orders.” But, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us can’t demand some accountability for participation in what are essentially “crimes against humanity.”

Erica’s article largely echoes what my friend and colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase, many of our colleagues in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, ⚔️🛡 and numerous members of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) have been saying throughout this Administration. Indeed, I frequently have noted that the once-respected Solicitor General’s Office and EOIR operated as basically “ethics free zones” under the disgraced “leadership” of Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.

It’s also why the the Biden-Harris team that takes over at DOJ must:

immediately remove all the current “executives” (and I use that term lightly) at EOIR as well as all members of the BIA and transfer them to positions where they can do no further damage to asylum seekers, migrants, their (often pro bono or low bono) lawyers, or the rest of humanity;
replace them with qualified individuals from the NDPA; and
be circumspect in eventually making retention decisions for Immigration Judges, taking into account public input as to the the degree to which each such judge’s jurisprudence during the Trump kakistocracy continued to reflect adherence to constitutionally required due process and fundamental fairness to migrants, respect for migrants and their representatives, best practices, and interpretations that blunted wherever reasonably possible the impact of the kakistocracy’s xenophobic, racist, White Nationalist policies.

American justice has been ill-served by the DOJ and the Immigration Courts over the past four years. That’s something that must not be swept under the carpet (as is the habit with most incoming Administrations).

The career Civil Service overall, and particularly complicit and often ethics-free government lawyers, failed to put up the necessary resistance to an overtly anti-American regime with an illegal and immoral agenda. Lives were lost or irreparably ruined as a result. That’s a big-time problem that if not addressed and resolved will likely make continuance of our national democratic republic impossible.

⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Complicity Never☠️🤮🏴‍☠️👎🏻!

PWS

12-21-20

🤮👎🏻EOIR’S CONTEMPT FOR CIRCUITS, UNPROFESSIONAL ABUSE OF EXPERTS, PRO-DHS BIAS EARNS STRONG REBUKE FROM 9TH! — End The Star Chambers!☠️ — No More “Governmental Malpractice” From The New Administration!

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/11/18/19-72745.pdf

Castillo v.Barr, 9rh Cir., 11-18-20, published

Summary by court staff:

Granting Juan Mauricio Castillo’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for protective status pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in giving reduced weight to the testimony of Dr. Thomas Boerman, a specialist in gang activity in Central America and governmental responses to gangs.

Castillo is a former gang member with tattoos who fears torture by gangs and/or Salvadoran officials because of his former gang memberships, his criminal conviction, and his later cooperation with law enforcement against La Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13. In a prior petition, the same panel concluded that the immigration judge and the Board improperly discounted Dr. Boerman’s testimony.

The panel addressed two initial matters. First, the panel stated that the Board’s rejection on remand of the panel’s prior interpretation of the immigration judge’s decision was ill-advised, explaining that its prior disposition was not an advisory opinion, but a conclusive decision not subject to disapproval or revision by another branch of the federal government. Second, the panel rejected the Board’s reliance on Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2007), to support its conclusion that Dr. Boerman’s testimony should be given reduced weight, because Vatyan addressed an IJ’s

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

CASTILLO V. BARR 3

discretion to weigh the “credibility and probative force” of an authenticated document, whereas the issue in this case involved the testimony of an expert that the agency had ostensibly concluded was fully credible.

Even assuming the agency could accord reduced weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony and declaration, the panel disagreed with the Board’s new justifications. First, the panel rejected the Board’s reliance on alleged inconsistencies regarding Dr. Boerman’s familiarity with Castillo’s prison gang, where Dr. Boerman explicitly wrote in his declaration that his comments on Castillo’s prison gang were based on facts provided by Castillo, and the Board did not cite any reason to doubt Castillo’s testimony regarding rival gangs.

Second, the panel disagreed with the Board’s conclusion that Dr. Boerman’s testimony did not warrant full weight because he did not submit a copy of a video referenced in his testimony, where the video was neither the sole nor primary basis for his opinion, and the Board failed to explain why the absence of one video diminished the weight of Dr. Boerman’s expert opinion, when his opinion had an independent factual basis.

Finally, the panel concluded that the Board’s decision to give Dr. Boerman’s opinion reduced weight, because it was not corroborated by other evidence in the record, was erroneous. The panel observed that the country report did provide support for Castillo’s claim, and it noted that Dr. Boerman’s expert testimony was itself evidence that could support Castillo’s claim.

The panel remanded to the Board, directing it to give full weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony regarding the risk of

4 CASTILLO V. BARR

torture Castillo faces if removed to El Salvador. The panel explained that if the Board determines once again that Castillo is not entitled to relief, it must provide a reasoned explanation for why Dr. Boerman’s testimony is not dispositive on the issue of probability of torture. The panel further explained that once it gives full weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony, the remaining issue for the Board is to determine whether Castillo has established the government acquiescence element of his CAT claim.

***********

Essentially, EOIR has been unethically misusing their authority to harass Dr. Boerman and respondents’ advocates by systematically teaming up with ICE to devalue and defeat their efforts. Remarkably, this is even though Dr. Boerman and the advocacy community are “busting their tails” trying to help the system function properly and achieve justice! How screwed up, perverted, and cowardly is that?

Obviously justice and a functioning system have been antithetical to this regime and their toadies at DOJ and EOIR. With the degradation of the DOS Country Reports by political hacks, expert testimony has become essential in most asylum cases. Disgraceful performances by EOIR, as in this case, undermine the system and add to the backlog.

This case should have been completed in a single hearing. The BIA’s open contempt for the Circuits and failure to send strong signals to IJs (and the dilatory litigators at ICE) about issues that clearly should be resolved in the respondent’s favor is a mockery of justice!

Put the experts from the NDPA in charge of EOIR! Replace the BIA with real judges from the NDPA — asylum, human rights, and due process experts who will courageously stand up for the rule of law and hold both Immigration Judges and ICE accountable for scofflaw performances (and resist improper political interference from the DOJ — regardless of Administration).

Judges who will re-establish judicial independence and stop flooding the Circuit Courts (and even the U.S. District Courts) with cases and issues that should be resolved in favor of respondents at the trial level, consistently and efficiently. That’s how to stop DHS’s and DOJ’s frivolous, unethical, anti-immigrant “litigation positions” in immigration matters that are bogging down our justice system at all levels.

That’s also how to cut, rather than astronomically increase, backlogs (along with drastic pruning of all the “deadwood” mindlessly and improperly piled onto the EOIR docket by Sessions, Barr, and an out of control ICE acting as an arm of “White Nationalist nation”). The backlogs can be reduced and eventually eliminated without stomping on anyone’s rights or adversely affecting “real” law enforcement — as opposed to the bogus (and fiscally irresponsible) version we have seen from DHS over the past four years.

Stop “churning” cases! Stop the “denial factory! Create a model, best judicial practices, due-process oriented court system of which we all can be proud! Grant asylum expeditiously and consistently to those who qualify for protection under Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, and A-R-C-G- (after vacating the A-B- travesty and reissuing it as a precedent for clear grants in all similar cases)! Encourage the Asylum Offices to do likewise! Make “equal justice for all” part of the new Administration’s legacy!

Think of what a great “teaching tool” that will be for future generations! I always treated my “courtroom as a classroom,” teaching law, history, practical problem solving, best interpretations, and best practices. I can’t think of a more powerful “real life” teaching and doing tool for improving the future of American justice — from the “retail level” of the Immigration Courts to the failing Supremes.

Due Process Forever! A weaponized and dysfunctional EOIR, never!

It’s time for a sea change at EOIR. End the kakistocracy and the “malicious incompetence!” Time for action by the Biden Administration — not just hollow promises and more endless studies and discussions of what we already know and have known for years!

It’s not rocket science! The practical scholars and steadfast defenders of due process and democracy in the NDPA who can fix EOIR are out here and prepared to take over and hit the ground running for due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR! (Amazingly, those were once the goals and vision for EOIR, now trampled, degraded, mocked, and forgotten!) Leaving them on the sidelines again would be “governmental malpractice!” And we’ve already had more than enough of that!

PWS

11-19-20

BELOW THE RADAR SCREEN: Career Prosecutor Jonathan Fahey Quietly Installed As Head Of Office Of Principal Legal Advisor (“OPLA”) @ ICE

https://www.ice.gov/leadership

According to the ICE website, Jonathan Fahey is now the Principal Legal Advisor (“PLA”) at ICE. The “PLA” selects and supervises hundreds of ICE Chief and Assistant Chief Counsel who represent DHS in Immigration Courts nationwide as well as advises the Director of ICE and the Secretary of DHS on ICE legal matters.

Curiously, the prior PLA, Tony H. Pham is listed on the ICE website as “Senior Official Performing the Duties of The Director.” That’s bureaucratic gobbledygook for “Acting Director.” However, Fahey is not listed as “acting” in the PLA position. That leaves the question of exactly what Pham’s “official” position is these days.

Of course, it’s all part of a Trump regime “policy” of using “actings” and various related gimmicks to evade the Senate confirmation process and accompanying public scrutiny of senior political leadership at DHS. It also makes it easier for the White House to “lean on” and threaten, remove, or transfer senior officials because they lack the legitimacy and “political constituency” that comes from Senate confirmation. The ICE Director (formerly known as “Assistant Secretary”) requires Senate confirmation, the PLA does not. Incredibly, notwithstanding its “high visibility,” ICE has not had a duly appointed and confirmed Director during this Administration.

This ICE website doesn’t list Fahey’s bio. But, he’s no stranger to lawyers practicing in Northern Virginia. Here’s what Politico had to say when he joined ICE in April 2020:

DHS ARRIVAL LOUNGE — Jonathan Fahey is now a senior adviser at DHS. He previously was in the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia for 17 years, with a brief stint in 2018 as general counsel of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2020/04/16/trumps-impossible-adjourn-congress-bank-shot-488936

**************
Historical footnote: The DHS Chief Counsel program is the “direct descendent” of the “Legacy INS” Chief Legal Officer and later District Counsel programs that I helped establish as INS Deputy General Counsel (and occasionally Acting General Counsel) under the leadership of then INS General Counsel (now Immigration Judge) Dave Crosland and his successor the late Maurice C. “Iron Mike” Inman, Jr. Prior to that, INS Trial Attorneys were selected by the General Counsel, but were supervised and evaluated by the District Directors, actually their “clients.”

This ushered in the era of “independent legal advice” at INS, patterned on the “U.S. Attorney model.” Among other changes, it resulted in the appointment of many additional “Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys” (“SAUSAs”) from INS to assist with both civil and criminal litigation in the U.S. District Courts. It also resulted in the assignment of “Sector Counsel” to advise Border Patrol Chiefs. Additionally, a “failed power move” by the “Nelson/Inman/Schmidt Cabal” to take over the U.S. Circuit and District Court litigation from the DOJ Criminal Division, prompted the creation of the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) in the DOJ Civil Division, as well as the creation of EOIR as a separate entity to house the Immigration Courts and the BIA in 1983.

But, institutional change never comes easily, particularly at a place like the “Legacy INS.” I remember the first “Annual Commissioner’s Conference” during the tenure of the late Commissioner Al Nelson, held during the early months of the Reagan Administration. Perhaps the location was at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (“FLETC”) in Glynco, Georgia. In any event, it was in a “classroom-type setting.”

I found myself “in the pit” of an “amphitheater-type” classroom, the seats filled with super-irate INS District Directors and Regional Commissioners screaming that I had “stolen their attorneys.” Of course it’s always a bad idea to scream at the “loudest voice in the room” — me! So, I was shouting back at a decibel level that must of carried halfway to Atlanta!

Meanwhile, my “new boss,” “Iron Mike” was sitting in the first row alternately guffawing and shaking his head as I “aggressively defended” our policies and tried to explain how it would be a “win-win” for everyone. (It was! Eventually, almost everyone in the room was “lobbying” me for more lawyers, SAUSAs, and “personal assistance” in handling their never-ending legal problems).

Afterwards, Mike came up to me and said “Jesus, Schmidt, you managed to piss off and out-yell every manager in the country. Great job!”

Of course, “Iron Mike” was no slouch when it came to the “strategic yell” — once in a “Bobby Knight moment” sending one of our budget analysts into a fainting spell. “GENCO” in the “Time Iron Mike” wasn’t a place for the faint of heart!

And, of course his “favorite tactic” was to yell at me: “What did they teach you at that lefty law school in Madison?” No “Legal Executive Council” meeting was complete without us getting into least one “knock down drag ‘em out” in front of the “troops.” But, the relationship worked. We actually complemented each other and got a lot accomplished.

So, for better or worse (mostly seems like the latter, these days), I was one of the “Founding  Fathers” of the modern DHS Chief Counsel/Assistant Chief Counsel system.

PWS

10-20-20

😎👍⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖️👨‍⚖️🇺🇸YES! — WOW! IN A HUGE VICTORY FOR DUE PROCESS & FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, PANEL LED BY JUDGE STEPHANIE THACKER WITH 2 TRUMP APPOINTEES UNANIMOUSLY BLOWS AWAY BIA ON NEXUS TO A NUCLEAR FAMILY PSG FROM EL SALVADOR! — Arlington Superstar 🌟 Litigator Aaron Caruso With Big Win For Cause Of Justice! — Hernandez-Cartagena v, Barr! — “Kardashian Rule” & Other BIA/Billy The Bigot Nonsense Smashed!

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191823.P.pdf

HERNANDEZ-CARTAGENA v. BARR, 4th Cir., 10-15-20, published

PANEL: THACKER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBUAM, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: JUDGE STEPHANIE THACKER

KEY QUOTE:

Contrary to the BIA’s conclusion in this case, the record does not support the conclusion that Petitioner’s own conflict with the gang precipitated any of the events in question. Indeed, substantial evidence in the record compels the conclusion that at least one central reason Petitioner was targeted was her membership in the Hernandez-Cartagena family. The unrebutted evidence in the record demonstrates that the threats and violence against Petitioner, her child, and her siblings were designed to get her parents to pay up. Pursuant to Hernandez-Avalos, it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.
11

IV.
For the reasons set forth herein, the petition for review is granted, the decision of
the BIA is reversed, and we remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Why this is important: It delivers a totally deserved “double whammy” to two of the worst and most biased precedents issued during the Trump White Nationalist “kangaroo court era” at the BIA.

First, in Matter of L-E-A, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), (“L-E-A- 1”) the BIA recognized the “nuclear family” as a “particular social group.” Yet, to produce the necessary asylum denial sought by their “Trump handlers” at DOJ, the BIA erroneously found that the threatened harm had no “nexus” to the PSG.

To reach this improper and illogical result, the BIA disingenuously trashed the “normal” rules of causation. Those say that nexus is established if the harm would not have occurred “but for” membership in the protected group. Of course, there could be multiple “but fors” in a particular case, recognizing the “at least one central reason” statutory language for nexus.

That respondent was targeted for harm by gangs because his family owned a drug store that the gangs wanted to access to distribute illegal drugs. Had the respondent not been a member of his particular family, there is no reason to believe he would have have been targeted for any harm, or indeed have been of any interest to the gangs at all.

In other words, “but for” his membership in that particular family PSG, the threats would not have occurred. Essentially, a “no brainer” asylum grant that could have been quickly granted by a competent adjudicator. Any DHS appeal should have been a strong candidate for summary dismissal.

Instead of doing the obvious, the BIA invented new rules of causation. Contrary to the record, they found that family membership was essentially irrelevant to the threatened persecution. No, according to the BIA, the threats against the respondent were motivated solely the gang’s desire to sell illegal drugs through the family store, not a protected ground.

By searching for “any other motivation” and then basically substituting it to the exclusion of the clear family PSG motivation, the BIA bizarrely and erroneously concluded that the PSG was not “one central reason” for the persecution. This allowed the BIA to deny asylum to a respondent who fit squarely within the “refugee” definition.

Although the decision might have been cloaked in garbled legalese and irrational, result-oriented analysis, the overall message to Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges was clear: faced with facts that demanded an asylum grant to a Central American refugee, the adjudicator should manufacture “any reason other than a protected ground” to deny protection. The BIA will have your back.

Let’s play out the BIA’s intentionally perverted analysis on a larger scale. The leaders of the Nazi movement stood to profit mightily from the eradication of the German Jewish community. Stolen artwork, confiscated wealth and property, and even the proceeds of the gold and silver obtained from collecting and melting down the dental fillings of gassed Jews found their way into Nazi bank accounts, many abroad. Thus, the BIA could view the Holocaust not as religious, nationality, or racial persecution, but rather part of an overall criminal scheme to enrich Nazi leaders by stealing from prosperous or vulnerable individuals. No persecution there!

Happily, in Hernandez-Cartagena, Judge Thacker and her colleagues blew through the type of bogus analysis set forth in L-E-A- 1. Although not specifically citing the BIA’s defective precedent, the court applied “normal rules of causation” rather than the BIA’s “any reason to deny” approach.

The petitioner was a “conduit” In the gang’s scheme to extort money from her parents. The court recognized that “it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.”

Good bye and good riddance L-E-A- 1. Hello, rational analysis and well-merited protection, although sadly only within Fourth Circuit, for now.

But, that’s not the end of the tale of woe from America’s most blatantly biased, unprofessional, deadly, and totally unconstitutional “21st Century Star Chambers.” Not satisfied with the BIA’s illegal denial of protection in L-E-A- 1, two years later, Attorney General “Billy the Bigot” Barr “certified” that case to himself. That became Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) (“L-E-A- 2”).

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

His purpose? To reverse the only correct part of L-E-A- 1: the BIA’s recognition of the “nuclear family” as a “PSG.” As we all know, the nuclear family is one of the oldest, most well-established, well-defined, and universally recognized social units in human history. Not surprisingly, then, it has been recognized as a “PSG” under the Refugee Act of 1980 in numerous judicial and BIA decisions as well as by a myriad of human rights and international law scholars.

Billy Barr Consigliere Artist: Par Begley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license, Large — Bill Barr Consigliere
Artist: Pat Bagley
Salt Lake Tribune
Reproduced under license

No matter to Billy! In an exercise in disingenuous legal gobbledygook and counter-rationality, he tried to explain why it was wrong to recognize the obvious: that the nuclear family” is a “cognizable PSG” for asylum adjudication purposes.

Instead, Billy substituted what I call the “Kardashian rule.” Only those families who have some sort of widespread recognition in society as a whole should be considered to possess the “social distinction” (the characteristic formerly known as “social visibility”) to qualify as a “cognizable PSG.”

Kardashians — Billy Barr’s Vision Of A “Cognizable Particular
Social Group” By hotrock pictures – Vimeo: Kardashian Kollection at Sears (view archived source), CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82871460
Creative Commons License

Again, without specifically citing L-E-A- 2, (perhaps the OIL was too embarrassed to argue it) Judge Thacker and her colleagues “blew away” its bigoted and irrational nonsense:

We have repeatedly held “a nuclear family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group” cognizable in our asylum framework. Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has been a leader in recognizing the nuclear family as a PSG, going all the way back to a case where they reinstated some of my rulings as an Immigration Judge that had been wrongfully reversed by the BIA: Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). But, hey, who remembers stuff like that from nearly a decade ago where I was once again proved right and the BIA was wrong?

Yeah, I’ll have to admit that after eight years of regularly getting “stuffed” by my BIA colleagues at en banc, there were few things in my professional life more satisfying than having a Court of Appeals “stuff” the BIA on a case where I had dissented as a BIA Judge or been reversed as an Immigration Judge!

So Billy the Bigot’s attempt to impose the absurdist “Kardashian rule” (sorry Kim, Kourtney, and Khloe) in L-E-A- 2 bites the dust, at least in the Fourth Circuit. I hope it will serve as a “blueprint” to eradicate the “twin travesties” of L-E-A- 1 & 2 across the nation!

Exhilarating as this case is, it’s just one step in the right direction. The unconstitutional White Nativist bias and abuse being heaped upon refugees and other migrants by a “Star Chamber” beholden to the likes of “Billy the Bigot” Barr and his predecessor Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions won’t end until EOIR is abolished and replaced with a real court system that complies with 5th Amendment Due Process. If the Article III Courts don’t have the guts to get the job done, then its up to future better Congress to make it happen!

Lots of “gold stars” to hand out here!

🌟First and foremost, Aaron Caruso, Esquire, of Abod & Caruso, Wheaton, MD. He appeared before me in Arlington. He’s the “total pro,” a “judge’s lawyer:” scholarly, unfailingly courteous, prompt, well-prepared, practical, wrote outstanding “to the issue” briefs that didn’t waste my time, took tough cases, and never gave up on his clients. In a “better world,” he’s definitely someone I could see on the Federal Bench at some level. A member of the NDPA, for sure!

Judge Stephanie D. Thacker — Honorable Stephanie D. Thacker
U.S. Circuit Judge
Fourth Circuit
Photo From Ballotpedia

🌟Judge Stephanie Thacker of the Fourth Circuit. I haven’t studied all of her judicial opinions. But, based on this opinion and her outstanding and totally correct dissent in Portillo-Flores v. Barr where she cogently castigated her fellow panel members for “going along to get along” with the BIA’s “at worst nonsensical and cursory at best” asylum denial, she appears one of a painfully small number of Article III Judges who both understand the mockery of justice going on in our Immigration “Courts” and have the guts to take a strong stand against it. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/09/04/%E2%80%8D%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8Finjustice-watch-4th-cir-judge-stephanie-thacker-cogently-castigates-colleagues-for-misapplying/

Interestingly, this is the same panel as in Portillo-Flores. And, the BIA’s sloppy and incompetent analysis, including ignoring the evidence of record, presents largely the same issues. Only, this time Judge Thacker’s colleagues paid attention to what she was saying!

That says something about both her persuasiveness and her colleagues’ willingness to listen and take a better approach to judicial review. That’s also what’s known in the business as “making progress every day, one case, one life at a time.”

Unfortunately, Trump and the GOP right wing pols have turned Federal judicial selection into a race to control justice until at least 2060. That has forced the Dems to finally wake up and do likewise the next time they get the chance. The upshot: At 55, although still in the “prime years” of her career from a professional standpoint, Judge Thacker has probably “aged out” of the sweepstakes to be the “heart and soul” of the Supremes for the next four decades.

The good news: She should be around to continue saving lives, speaking truth to power, and serving as a great role model for younger, aspiring jurists and public officials of all races and genders for many years to come.

Compare Judge Thacker’s clear, concise, cogent analysis in this case with the wandering legal gobbledygook and pure nonsense put forth by the BIA and Barr in L-E-A- 1 & 2.

🌟Judge Julius N. Richardson and Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of the Fourth Circuit also deserve stars. I really lambasted these two Trump appointees for their tone-deaf performance in Portillo-Flores. But, here they surprised me by joining fully in Judge Thacker’s analysis. Shows a capacity for teamwork, listening, adjusting views, and taking judicial review seriously, all really good things!

Additionally, it’s really important and significant when Trump appointees “do the right thing” and uphold due process, fundamental fairness, and recognize asylum seekers as “persons” entitled to equal justice under our Constitution. Given the large number of fairly young Trump appointees on the Federal Bench, it’s critical that as many of them as possible join their colleagues in resisting the White Nationalist assault on the rights and human dignity of people of color, particularly migrants and asylum seekers, being orchestrated by Trump, Miller, Barr, Wolf, and the rest of the regime’s gang of bigots.

Don’t know if this will be repeated in the future, but the votes of Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum in this case are an encouraging sign for the American justice system. Will it be a trend or an aberration? Can’t tell, but stay tuned.

🌟Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hats off for Sandra Marleny Hernandez-Cartagena. In the face of a bogus “court” system controlled and operated by White Nationalist racist bigots for the purpose of wiping out asylum laws, demoralizing applicants through dishonest procedures and rules meant to discourage them from seeking protection, and to “send a message” that they aren’t wanted in our country, she persisted for herself, her family, and others similarly situated. Her victory in this case is a victory for American justice and for every one of us who believe in due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all.

Thanks, Sandra, for inspiring us with your courage and unrelenting persistence in the face of evil and institutionalized, illegal, bias!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-16-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮👎🏻ERROR SUPPLY: EOIR’s Anti-Asylum Bias, Failure To Apply Precedents, Earns Yet Another Rebuke From 3d Cir. — Blanco v. AG

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

25 Jul 2020

persecution

cat

Honduras

asylum

CA3 on Persecution: Blanco v. Atty. Gen.

Blanco v. Atty. Gen.

“Ricardo Javier Blanco, a citizen of Honduras, is a member of Honduras’s Liberty and Refoundation (“LIBRE”) Party, an anti-corruption political party that opposes the current Honduran president. After participating in six political marches, he was abducted by the Honduran police and beaten, on and off, for twelve hours. He was let go but received death threats over the next several months until he fled to the United States. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Blanco now petitions for review of the agency’s decision, arguing that the BIA and IJ erred in denying his asylum and withholding of removal claims on the basis that his treatment did not rise to the level of persecution. He also argues that it was improper to require him to corroborate his testimony to prove his CAT claim. Because the agency misapplied our precedent when determining whether Blanco had established past persecution, and because it did not follow the three-part inquiry we established in Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 554 (3d Cir. 2001), before requiring Blanco to corroborate his CAT claim testimony, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings.”

[Hats off to patent lawyers Gary H. Levin and Aaron B. Rabinowitz!]

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

This should have been a “no brainer” asylum grant!

Instead, after two levels of disturbingly unprofessional administrative decision-making, now driven by racism and overt anti-immigrant bias, and one layer of “real court” review, the case is basically back to square one. No wonder this “Deadly Clown Court” ☠️🤡 is running a 1.4 million backlog, and counting!

Think we have the wrong folks on the “Immigration Bench?” You bet! Two smart patent lawyers from Baker Hostetler run legal circles around an IJ, the BIA, and OIL!

Interestingly, a significant number of students in my Georgetown Law Summer Semester Immigration Law & Policy (“ILP”) Class have been patent examiners and/or patent attorneys! They have all been amazing, both in class dialogue and on the final exam. I suspect it has something to do with analytical skills, meticulous research, and attention to detail — always biggies in asylum litigation!

That’s why we must end a “built to fail” system that preys on unrepresented or underrepresented asylum seekers in illegal, intentionally inhumane and coercive, detention settings, where adequate preparation and documentation are impossible and where judges, too often lacking in asylum expertise, humanity, and/or the time to carefully research and deliberate, are pressured to engage in “assembly line denials.”

And, thanks to the racial dehumanization embraced by the Supremes’ majority many refugees, disproportionately those with brown or black skins, are completely denied fair access to the asylum hearing system. They are simply treated by our highest Court like human garbage — sent back to torture or potential death in unsafe foreign countries without any due process at all. So, the systemic failure is not by any means limited to the “Immigration Star Chambers.”

A simple rule of judging that appears “over the heads” of the current Supremes majority: If it wouldn’t be due process for you or your family in a death penalty case, than it’s not due process for any “person.” Not “rocket science.” Just “Con Law 101” with doses of common sense and simple humanity thrown in. So why is it beyond the capabilities of our most powerful judges?

If there is any good news coming out of this mess, it’s that more talented litigators like Gary Levin and Aaron Rabinowitz from firms like Baker Hostetler are becoming involved in immigration and human rights litigation. They often run circles around Billy the Bigot’s ethically-challenged group of captive DOJ lawyers, who can no longer operate independently and ethically, even if they want to.

So, in a better future, after regime change, there are going to be lots of really great sources for better judges out there at all levels of the Federal Judiciary from the eventually independent Immigration Courts, to the U.S. District Courts and Magistrate Judges, to the Courts of Appeals, all the way to the Supremes.

At the latter, we need new and better Justices: Justices who understand immigration and human rights laws and the overriding human interests at stake, who will “lose” the White institutional racial bias and perverted right-wing ideologies that infect our current Court, and who are dedicated to making the vision of folks like Dr. King and Congressman John Lewis for “equal justice under law” and an end to dehumanization of persons of color a reality under our Constitution and within our system of justice!

There is no excuse for the current Supreme Court-enabled travesty unfolding in a biased, broken, and dysfunctional immigration system every day!

Due Process Forever!

This November, vote like our nation’s future existence depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

07-26-20

🤮👎☠️SCREWED: ICE, Advocates, Judge Conspiring To Sell Out Refugee Kids & Families To Illegal Racist Scheme Called “Binary Choice” To Disguise Invidious Intent!

Michelle Hackman
Immigration Reporter
Wall Street Journal

Alicia A. Caldwell
Immigration Reporter
Wall Street Journal

https://apple.news/A4SQ_qG_DSme90hH0KK4C4g

Michelle Hackman and Alicia Caldwell report for the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration is nearing a deal with some immigrant advocates that would present a choice to jailed parents fighting denial of asylum: let their children be released without them or remain detained together indefinitely, according to federal court filings and lawyers for the children.

The deal is being negotiated between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and attorneys representing roughly 100 children in detention, a development that has divided the pro-immigrant advocacy community.

If enacted, the “binary choice” plan, as it is known, would realize a long-sought goal by the Trump administration not to release immigrant families seeking asylum together in the U.S. Many of these families report fleeing gang violence, poverty or corruption in Central American countries. The plan would allow parents to choose between releasing their children to relatives in the U.S. or long-term foster care, or keeping their families in detention, waiving rights given to the children under a 23-year-old court settlement.

That settlement, known as the Flores agreement, requires ICE to release migrant children in its custody, not entire families, though past administrations, including the Trump administration until last year, largely complied with it by releasing children together with their parents.

Most immigrant advocates oppose “binary choice,” arguing it is tantamount to a new family separation policy, akin to a policy the administration adopted briefly in 2018 to prosecute all adults crossing the border illegally. The policy resulted in children being taken away from those adults. The government halted those family separations after a broad bipartisan outcry, though it has been looking for other ways to deter migrant families from seeking asylum ever since.

“Asking a parent to choose between indefinite detention in a place where there is already a Covid outbreak and being separated from your child for an undetermined length of time, that is a coercive situation,” said Stephanie Alvarez-Jones, a staff attorney with Proyecto Dilley, which provides legal representation to families at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.

The lawyers working with ICE, who represent the children in continuing enforcement of the Flores agreement, say they are left with little choice and aim to protect the best interests of the migrant children.

“By negotiating, we’ve been able to substantially lessen the harshness of ICE’s proposal,” said Peter Schey, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which has managed the Flores Agreement.

ICE declined to comment on the details of the case, citing the pending litigation.

. . . .

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

Those with full WSJ access can read the complete article at the link.

It’s not rocket science. “Binary choice” is nothing but a racist scam designed by Stephen Miller and other White Nationalists in the regime primarily to punish asylum seekers of color and their children for seeking legal protection, to traumatize and duress them into giving up potentially valid claims, to inflict lasting psychological harm on non-white populations, and to serve as an example and deterrent to others who might dare to exercise their legal rights in the face of tyranny by a racist Executive. All of the foregoing are in clear violation of the 5^th, 8^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, not to mention our asylum statutes and international instruments to which we supposedly are party. You don’t need a law degree to figure that out.

Those who have engineered, furthered, and gone along to get along with these gross abuses of children and betrayals of the human rights and dignity of the most vulnerable among us will not escape the judgment of history. Sadly, that will be small consolation for the multitude of broken bodies, traumatized minds, and damaged souls that they leave in their ugly wake!

⁴²For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

⁴³I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

⁴⁴Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

⁴⁵Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

—— Matthew 25

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-23-20

⚖️🗽👍🏼⚔️NDPA NEWS: LAW YOU CAN USE: “Immigrants’ Access to Federal District Court: The Narrowing of § 1252(b)(9) Post-Jennings” — By Adam Garnick @ Penn Law

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3623142

Immigrants’ Access to Federal District Court: The Narrowing of § 1252(b)(9) Post-Jennings

University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Forthcoming

62 Pages Posted:

Adam Garnick

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: May 15, 2020

Abstract

Congress has long sought to limit immigrants’ access to federal district court. This was most evident in the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), which channeled any judicial review of a final order of removal away from federal district courts and into courts of appeals through a petition for review (PFR). But IIRAIRA channeled more than just review of final orders into courts of appeals. With the addition of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), all claims “arising from” the immigration process would likewise be consolidated into a PFR in the court of appeals. Seemingly a wide range of claims—including many urgent challenges to potentially unconstitutional government action—would be swallowed by § 1252(b)(9) and thus precluded from immediate review in federal district court. However, when the Supreme Court first construed the provision, it did so narrowly. Indeed, in circuits that adopted the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the provision, immigrants were able to evade the strictures of § 1252(b)(9) and bring immigration-related claims directly to federal district court. But not all lower courts adhered to the Court’s reading of the provision. The First Circuit—and eventually the Ninth Circuit—adopted a far broader view of § 1252(b)(9), describing it as “breathtaking in scope” and finding it to channel an extensive set of claims. Against this backdrop, the Court, nearly two decades after its first in-depth discussion of the provision, revisited § 1252(b)(9). Though the result was a fractured opinion that explicitly failed to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the provision, the decision offered several important clues on the proper scope of § 1252(b)(9). First, it undercut the expansive interpretation of the provision offered by the First Circuit and adopted by the Ninth Circuit. Second, and relatedly, it altered several of the considerations lowers courts use when determining whether § 1252(b)(9) swallows an immigrant’s claims, which has led to a substantive narrowing of the provision’s scope. As such, the lower courts that previously adopted the broad view of § 1252(b)(9) should revisit and narrow the scope of the provision in accordance with Court precedent. This will ensure that immigrants who bring urgent claims challenging government action with potentially grave consequences are not categorically barred from immediate access to federal district court.

Keywords: 1252(b)(9), Jennings, jurisdiction, immigration, INA, district court

Suggested Citation:

Garnick, Adam, Immigrants’ Access to Federal District Court: The Narrowing of § 1252(b)(9) Post-Jennings (May 15, 2020). University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=

Download This Paper

Open PDF in Browser

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

You can download Adam’s complete article from SSRN, with much helpful research and many helpful strategic suggestions, at the link in the above abstract.

Thanks for being such an important part of the “New Due Process Army” (NDPA), Adam!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-11-20

👂🏻👀🤫EOIR RUMOR MILL — DOJ Honcho & X-OILer David H. Wetmore Reportedly Will Be Tapped As New BIA Chair!

https://jnc.dc.gov/biography/david-h-wetmore

David H. Wetmore

David H. Wetmore, Esq. is a career appellate litigator in the United States Department of Justice, currently serving as Associate Deputy Attorney General. During his tenure at the Department of Justice, Mr. Wetmore has also served as Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and as a Trial Attorney in the Civil Division. He has been the principal author of hundreds of appellate briefs and argued over twenty-five cases in federal courts of appeals. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Mr. Wetmore was an associate attorney in Sidley Austin LLP’s District of Columbia office, and at Jenner & Block LLP’s Chicago office, where his practice focused on civil, criminal, and constitutional litigation. Mr. Wetmore has experience in all aspects of litigation, from initial investigation and discovery through trial and appeal, in both state and federal courts, including in the District of Columbia. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor at The George Washington University Law School.

Mr. Wetmore earned his Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, from Miami University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, graduated from the University Honors Program, and received Departmental Honors in Political Science and Philosophy. He earned his Juris Doctor, with High Honors, from The George Washington University Law School, where he was an Articles Editor of The George Washington Law Review, elected to Order of the Coif, and a member of the Moot Court Board. Following law school, Mr. Wetmore served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gordon J. Quist, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, and later to the Honorable Daniel A. Manion, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

Normally reliable, totally unofficial anonymous sources say Wetmore’s “the one.”

There is further rank, unverified speculation that the current Acting Chair, Judge Garry Malphrus, eventually will get the just-advertised “Vice Chair/Deputy Chief Appellate Judge” position as a reward for reliably furthering the BIA’s anti-immigrant jurisprudence during his tenure. Malphrus replaced former Chair David Neal who resigned suddenly last Fall.

Wetmore currently is an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ. That’s roughly the DOJ equivalent of the “Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man*.” The Associate Deputy Attorney General, of course, should never be confused with the Deputy Associate Attorney General, an entirely different position. Actually, it’s about as far up the DOJ hierarchy that a “career” attorney can get. The higher level positions, in this case the Deputy Attorney General, are Presidentially-appointed politicos.

With this development, the connection between the BIA and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) should become “seamless.” The BIA staff can just “cut and paste” OIL briefs into their decisions and vice versa. This eliminates the need to sometimes request time-consuming Circuit Court remands to get the BIA to adopt OIL’s preferred litigating position. In turn, this should totally eliminate the possibility of an individual ever “winning” a BIA appeal and will eradicate any remaining traces of due process or fundamental fairness at the BIA.

These moves, combined with an outrageous proposed increase in the filing fee for a BIA appeal, will undoubtedly be a powerful tool for deterring, discouraging, and punishing individuals for exercising their legal rights. These are critical steps in insuring the smooth operation of the regime’s “Deportation Railroad.”

Any way you look at it, today’s BIA certainly presents an “interesting diversity profile,” particularly considering the community whose rights it once was supposed to protect, but now has unabashedly abandoned as it seeks to carry out the Trump/Miller/Barr White Nationalist mission of “Dred Scottifying the other.”

It also continues a two-decades long “DOJ tradition” of intentionally failing to attract better-qualified candidates from the private immigration sector, with actual experience representing and interacting with asylum seekers and other migrants, for BIA judgeships. The “outside, non-restrictionist world” has also been overwhelmingly excluded from appointments to Immigration Courts, with essentially de facto preference being given to government prosecutors.

Obviously, the reduction of Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges to something akin to “deportation clerks” straining to meet “production quotas” and pressured by regime politicos to aid DHS Enforcement by churning out deportation orders has been an important step in “dumbing down” EOIR. Today, EOIR is probably more subservient to DHS Enforcement, less impartial, and more of an administrative disaster than it was under the “Legacy INS.” Except, now there is more of everything — more overt political interference in the adjudication process, more bad law intentionally created, more and bigger backlogs, more intellectual dishonesty, more chaos, more disrespect for and demeaning of respondents and their attorneys, and more lives ruined.

Due Process Forever! Weaponized, Captive, “Courts” Never!

PWS

05-21-20

*Stones, The Rolling, “The Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man”

Well, I’m waiting at the bus stop in downtown L.A.
Well, I’m waiting at the bus stop in downtown L.A.
But I’d much rather be on a boardwalk on Broadway

Well, I’m sitting here thinkin’ just how sharp I am
Well, I’m sitting here thinkin’ just how sharp I am
I’m an under assistant west coast promo man

Well, I promo groups when they come into town
Well, I promo groups when they come into town
Well they laugh at my toupee, they’re sure to put me down

Well, I’m sitting here thinking just how sharp I am
Yeah, I’m sitting here thinking just how sharp I am
I’m a necessary talent behind every rock and roll band

Yeah, I’m sharp
I’m really, really sharp
I sure do earn my pay
Sitting on the beach every day, yeah
I’m real real sharp, yes I am
I got a Corvette and a seersucker suit
Yes, I have

Here comes the bus, uh oh
I though I had a dime
Where’s my dime
I know I have a dime somewhere
I’m pretty sure

Writer/s: Keith Richards, Michael Jagger

Publisher: Abkco Music, Inc.

Lyrics licensed and provided by LyricFind

Check it out from YouTube here (you can skip the commercials):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjLoP2OzMfpAhWFYTUKHaZUDvUQyCkwAHoECBMQBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6-3_TK2GASE&usg=AOvVaw1o9mdRm85Jy8KtVxomIK9N

IT’S HERE! — IMMIGRATION HISTORY AT ITS BEST! — Months In The Making, The “Schmidtcast,” A 7-Part Series Featuring Podcaster Marica Sharashenidze Interviewing Me About My Legal Career “American Immigration From Mariel to Miller” — Tune In Now!

Marica Sharashenidze

Born in 1993, Marica was raised in Maryland and earned a B.A. in Sociology from Rice University. Marica worked in the past as a paralegal at Hudson Legal in Ann Arbor and most recently explored eGovernance based infrastructure projects on the Dorot Fellowship. In the past, she received the Wagoner Fellowship, from the Higher School of Economics in Saint Petersburg, Russia, where she completed a year long ethnographic research project. She is fluent in Russian and proficient in Spanish and Hebrew.

Hon. Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Ret.)
Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law
Blogger, immigrationcourtside.com

Judge (Retired) Paul Wickham Schmidt

Judge Schmidt was appointed as an Immigration Judge at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia, in May 2003 and retired from the bench on June 30, 2016. Prior to his appointment as an Immigration Judge, he served as a Board Member for the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, in Falls Church, VA, since February 12, 1995. Judge Schmidt served as Board Chairman from February 12, 1995, until April 9, 2001, when he chose to step down as Chairman to adjudicate cases full-time. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Lawrence University in 1970 (cum laude), and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Wisconsin School of Law in 1973 (cum laude; Order of the Coif). While at the University of Wisconsin, he served as an editor of the Wisconsin Law Review. Judge Schmidt served as acting General Counsel of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (1986-1987; 1979-1981), where he was instrumental in developing the rules and procedures to implement the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. He also served as the Deputy General Counsel of INS for 10 years (1978-1987). He was the managing partner of the Washington, DC, office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen (1993-95), and also practiced business immigration law with the Washington, DC, office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987-92 (partner, 1990-92). Judge Schmidt also served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989 and at Georgetown University Law Center (2012-14; 2017–). He has authored numerous articles on immigration law, and has written extensively for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Judge Schmidt is a member of the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, and the Wisconsin and District of Columbia Bars. Judge Schmidt was one of the founding members of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (“IARLJ”). In June 2010, Judge Schmidt received the Lucia R. Briggs Distinguished Achievement Award from the Lawrence University Alumni Association in recognition of his notable career achievements in the field of immigration law. Since retiring, in addition to resuming his Adjunct Professor position at Georgetown Law, Judge Schmidt has established the blog immigrationcourtside.com, is an Americas Vice President of the IARLJ, serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects, as well as speaking, lecturing, and writing in forums throughout the country on contemporary immigration issues, due process, and U.S. Immigration Court reform.

Here are links:

https://pws.transistor.fm/

https://feeds.transistor.fm/the-life-and-times-of-the-honorable-paul-wickham-schmidt

And here are some “Previews with links to each episode:”

APRIL 23, 2020 • 66 MINUTES

Concluding Remarks

So, what now? Will the intentional cruelty, “Dred Scottification,” false narratives, and demonization of “the other,” particularly women, children, and people of color, by presidential advisor Stephen Miller and his White Nationalists become the “future face” of America? Or, will “Our Better Angels” help us reclaim the vision of America as the “Shining City on the Hill,” welcoming immigrants and protecting refugees, in good times and bad, while “leading by example” toward a more just and equal world?

APRIL 22, 2020 • 48 MINUTES

The Mariel Boatlift Crisis

The Refugee Act of 1980 feels like a huge success…for a short amount of time. The first test of the act comes when Fidel Castro opens Cuba’s borders (and Cuba’s prisons) and hundreds of refugees arrive on Florida shores. The Mariel Boatlift Crisis forced the U.S. government to realize that not all asylum processing can happen abroad. Unfortunately, it also left the public with the impression that “Open arms and open hearts” leads only to crisis.

APRIL 22, 2020 • 25 MINUTES

The Refugee Act of 1980

The year is 1980 and the war in Vietnam has displaced hundreds and thousands of people. The system of presidential parole doesn’t seem like it can handle the growing global refugee crisis. What is the answer to this ballooning need? Process most refugees abroad to streamline their entrance to the U.S. Codify asylum in the U.S. in legislation that puts human rights first. Increase prestige, improve overall government coordination, provide a permanent source of funding, and institutionalize refugee resettlement programs and assimilation. Have Ted Kennedy be the face of the effort. For once, things are actually working out for humanity.

APRIL 22, 2020 • 54 MINUTES

The 1990s BIA

In the 1990s, Judge Schmidt was BIA Chairman Schmidt. With the support of then Attorney General Janel Reno, he aspired to “open up” appellate judgeships to all immigration experts, and to lead the BIA to much-needed progressive steps towards humane asylum law, better scholarship, improved public service, transparency, and streamlined efficiency to reduce the backlog. However, progress seemed to stall at several points and certain types of behavior tended to be rewarded. The Board sits at the intersection between a court and an agency within the administration, which means its hurdles come both from structural issues with the U.S. Justice System and with entrenched government bureaucracy.

APRIL 22, 2020 • 48 MINUTES

Creating EOIR

In the 1980s, critics claimed that the federal agency in charge of immigration enforcement, the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), could not process quasi-judicial cases in a fair and just manner due to limited autonomy, non-existent technology, insufficient resources, haphazard management, poor judicial selection processes, and backlogs. The solution? Create a sub-agency of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) just for the immigration courts, focused on “due process with efficiency” and organizationally separate from the agency charged with immigration enforcement. The Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) was an ambitious and noble endeavor, meant to be an independent court system operating inside of a Federal Cabinet agency. Spoiler: despite significant initial progress it did not work out that way in the long run.

APRIL 21, 2020 • 36 MINUTES

The Immigration Reform and Control Act

In 1986, the United States was facing an immigration crisis with an overwhelmed INS and a record number of undocumented folks in the country. IRCA, a bipartisan bill, was created to solve the immigration crisis through a three-pronged approach: legalization, enforcement and employer accountability. However, it soon became apparent that some parts of IRCA were more successful than others. IRCA taught us relevant lessons for going forward. Because while pathways to citizenship are self-sustaining, enforcing borders is not.

APRIL 18, 2020 • 43 MINUTES

The Ashcroft Purge

Judges are meant to be impartial; but, U.S. Immigration Judges have political bosses who are willing and able to fire them while making little secret of their pro-enforcement, anti-immigrant political agenda. What are the public consequences of an Immigration Court with limited autonomy from the Executive Branch? We begin the podcast at one of the “turning points,” when Attorney General John Ashcroft fired almost all the most “liberal” Board Members of the BIA, all of whom were appointed during the Clinton Administration. What followed created havoc among the U.S. Courts of Appeals who review BIA decisions. The situation has continually deteriorated into the “worst ever,” with “rock bottom” morale, overwhelming backlogs, fading decisional quality, and the “weaponized”Immigration Courts now tasked with carrying out the Trump Administration’s extreme enforcement policies.

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

Many, many thanks to Marica for persuading me to do this project and for doing all the “hard stuff.” I just “rambled on” — her questions and expert editing provided the context and “framework.” And, of course, Marica provided all the equipment (the day her brother “borrowed” her batteries) and the accompanying audio clips and written introductions.

Also, many thanks to my wife Cathy for the many hours that she and “Luna the Dog” (a huge “Marica fan”) spent trying not to listen to us working in the dining room, while adding many helpful suggestions to me, starting with “you sound too rehearsed” and “lose the ‘uhs’ and ‘you knows.’” She even put up with me playing some of the “original takes” while we were “on the road” to Wisconsin or Maine.

Happy listening!

Due Process Forever!

PWS😎

05-19-20

9th Thwarts Anti-Asylum Misogyny For Gang-Rape Victim:

1st Calls Out Violation Of Regs, Incredibly Stupid Denial Of Reopening For Approved U Visa Petition Beneficiary Waiting For “Number:”

3rd “Perplexed” By BIA’s Ignorance Of “Equitable Tolling,” Own Authority:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼👨🏻‍⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! The EOIR Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️☠️ Never!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The EOIR Clown Show🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ ☠️⚰️Never!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Better Judges for a Better, Fairer America.🇺🇸 Make Equal Justice Under Law ⚖️ A Reality Rather Than an Ongoing, Judicially-Enabled, Charade!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸

Related posts:

⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Complicity Never☠️🤮🏴‍☠️👎🏻!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! A weaponized and dysfunctional EOIR, never!

It’s time for a sea change at EOIR. End the kakistocracy and the “malicious incompetence!” Time for action by the Biden Administration — not just hollow promises and more endless studies and discussions of what we already know and have known for years!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

This November, vote like our nation’s future existence depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

—— Matthew 25

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: