Department of Justice – Page 295 – immigrationcourtside.com

News From The United States Immigration Court In Arlington, VA — Judge Emmett D. Soper Joins Arlington Immigration Court — More Judges Planned For The Future!

Dateline Arlington, VA, Jan. 12, 2017

The United States Immigration Court in Arlington, VA announced recently that newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judge Emmett D. Soper will be starting to hear cases in February. Judge Soper most recently was an Associate General Counsel in the EOIR Office of General Counsel in Falls Church, VA. Before that, he was an Attorney Adviser with the Office of Chief Immigration Judge. If my recollection is correct, he was also a Judicial Law Clerk in the U.S. Immigration Court in Buffalo, NY. Congratulations, Judge Soper! Congratulations Arlington!

Judge Soper is a “good guy,” and should be a great fit in Arlington. He will join Judge John M. Bryant, Judge Robert P. Owens, Judge Lawrence O. Burman, Judge Roxanne C. Hladylowycz, Judge Rodger C. Harris, Judge Thomas G. Snow, Judge Quynh Vu Bain, Judge Traci Hong, and Judge Karen Donoso Stevens, bringing the total number of Judges in Arlington to ten, the largest compliment ever.

Unfortunately, however, because the Arlington Immigration Court currently has only eight courtrooms with public access, Judge Hong and Judge Donoso Stevens have been largely “stashed in the back room” sitting in interior euphemistically named “TV Courts” — which also serve as chambers — hearing cases from other Immigration Courts. I am not aware of what docket Judge Soper will be handling and whether he will be “visible” or “hidden.”

Unless I’m missing something, which is sometimes the case, when all ten Arlington Judges are present, two will always have to be doing interior TV Court to other cities. Additional space has been located at 1901 South Bell, and my understanding is that the Court plans to open new publicly accessible courtrooms, obviously on another floor, this spring, thus enabling all Arlington Judges to work on Arlington cases, something that happened only rarely during my thirteen year tenure there.

The local AILA Chapter has also been informed that the Arlington Immigration Court plans to expand to sixteen Immigration Judges by the end of 2017. This would be a most welcome development, given the current docket with in excess of 30,000 pending cases.

Apparently, the new court design will include publicly accessible courtrooms for 16 Judges with another two interior courtrooms which can be used only for TV Court to other locations. The latter seems rather curious to me. Why take up court space with courtrooms that can’t be used on the Arlington docket? But, hey, I was only an Immigration Judge. What do I know about space and planning?

Obviously, expansion plans will depend on new Attorney General Jeff Sessions and also on whether the U.S. Immigration Courts will be exempt (as they certainly should be, but who knows at present) from the “hiring freeze” that President Trump has promised to impose when he takes office. Maybe somebody at EOIR already knows the answer. But, I haven’t seen any public announcement. Stay tuned.

PWS

01/12/17

“AYUDA — MAKING AMERICA REALLY GREAT, EVERY DAY” — Meet A Spectacular Nonprofit Legal & Social Services Organization That “Walks The Walk and Talks The Talk” In The DC Metro Area — Read My Recent Speech Here!

AYUDA — MAKING AMERICA REALLY GREAT, EVERY DAY

January 11, 2017

Verizon Building

1300 Eye St., N.W.

Washington, D.C.

Remarks By Retired United States Immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt

Good evening. Thank you Christina,[1] for that wonderful introduction. Thank you, Michael,[2] for extending your hospitality in Verizon’s “state of the art” training center. And, of course, thank you Arleen[3] for inviting me, and for all that you and AYUDA do for our community and for our nation.

Even more important, thanks to all of you here for your continued support and promotion of AYUDA’s essential mission — to help hard-working individuals in our community help themselves, through legal assistance and a variety of educational and social support programs. You are AYUDA, and without your continuing support, encouragement, and active participation there would be no AUYDA and hence no place for those vulnerable individuals to seek assistance. Our community and our nation would be immeasurably poorer if that happened.

By coincidence, I began my professional career in immigration law in 1973, the year AYUDA was founded. On a personal level, and I know that this touches on only one narrow aspect of AYUDA’s ambitious program, I want to thank all of you for the unwavering support, assistance, and consistent professional excellence that AYUDA provided to the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia during my 13-year tenure as a judge, and, of course, continuing on after my retirement.

The sole role of an U.S. Immigration Judge is to provide fair, impartial hearings that fully comply with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution to individuals whom the Department of Homeland Security (the “DHS”) has charged with being removable from the United States. Without competent legal representation of the individual before the court, known as a “respondent,” the job of insuring due process can be totally daunting. With dedicated professional groups like AYUDA coming to the defense, my task of conducting fair hearings magically went from “daunting” to “doable.”

Representation makes a real difference in the lives of individuals. Represented individuals succeed in securing relief in Immigration Court at a rate of at least five times greater than those appearing without representation. But, for some of the most vulnerable populations, such as “recently arrived women with children,” bureaucratic lingo to describe actual human beings seeking protection from rampant violence in Central America whose removal has been “prioritized” in Immigration Court, the “success differential” is simply astounding: 14 times!

I am honored tonight to be in the presence of two of the “real heroes – or, more properly, heroines,” of due process at the Arlington Immigration Court: your own “Hall of Famer,” the incomparable Anya Sykes,[4] and your amazingly talented newly appointed — great choice guys –Executive Director, Paula Fitzgerald. Both were “regulars” in my courtroom.

Quite simply, Anya and Paula save lives. Numerous hard working individuals and families in our community, who are contributing at the grass roots level to the greatness of America, owe their very existence to Anya, Paula, and AYUDA.

For example, last year alone, AYUDA helped a remarkable 1,900 individuals resolve more than 3,500 matters in our legal system. And, Immigration Court is just the “tip of the iceberg.” Much of the work was done with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, with domestic violence victims in local courts, and through AYUDA’s superstar Social Services and Language Services branches.

I know we all want to get back to main event – eating, drinking, and being merry. So, I’m going to limit myself to one “war story” about my time with Anya and Paula in court.

As some of you probably know, there is a wonderful law enacted some years ago known as “NACARA.” It really could be a model for future laws enabling earned membership in our national community. NACARA has allowed thousands of individuals in our community who decades ago fled violence in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, and have lived law abiding, productive lives here for many years, often in valid Temporary Protected Status, to obtain green cards and get on the track for U.S. citizenship and full participation in the vibrant political life of our community and our country.

The basic NACARA criteria were fairly straightforward, and most individuals were able to have their applications granted at the Asylum Office of the USCIS. But, as with any mass adjudication program, there was group of so-called “dog cases” left over at the end.

Most of those involved individuals who had served or were believed to have served with the Salvadoran military or Civil Patrol during the civil war that raged in the 1980s. If you remember, the U.S. supported the Salvadoran government during that civil war, and some of the individuals who served in the Salvadoran Army actually received training or instruction at military installations in the United States.

At that time, international human rights groups claimed that the Salvadoran government and military were engaging in large scale human rights violations, many directed against innocent civilians, in an effort to suppress guerilla insurgents. Our Government denied, downplayed, or outright ignored most of these claims and refused asylum to almost all Salvadorans on the grounds that no persecution was occurring.

Times change, however, and at some point somebody in our Government actually looked at the evidence and agreed, long after the fact, that the Salvadoran government and military had committed large scale “persecution of others,” even though many of the “others” had been denied asylum in the U.S. based on inability to establish that persecution.

By the time I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court, the DHS was taking the position that nearly all individuals connected with the Salvadoran military were presumed to be “persecutors,” and therefore should be denied NACARA unless the individual could prove, by credible evidence, that he or she did not, in fact, engage in persecution decades earlier during the civil war. These cases were routinely declined at the Asylum Office and “referred” to our court for re-adjudication.

As you might imagine, such cases are extremely complicated, requiring the individual not only to have detailed knowledge of the structure and activities of the Salvadoran military during the civil war but also specific knowledge of what individual units and soldiers were doing at particular times, places, and dates, and to be able to coherently account for and corroborate their own activities at those times.

Most of those “referred” were hard working, tax paying, law-abiding individuals who had lived in the U.S. for decades, and supported their families, but did not have the necessary funds to pay for good lawyers familiar with, and willing to handle, this type of sophisticated case. The chance of an individual being able to successfully present his or her own case was approximately “zero.” Most were completely bewildered as to why service with the U.S.-supported government of El Salvador, once considered a “good” thing, was now a “bad thing,” requiring mandatory denial of their NACARA applications.

This is where talented NGO lawyers like Paula and Anya stepped in. With their help and legal expertise, notwithstanding the passage of decades, individuals were able to document, corroborate, and testify convincingly about their “non-persecutory” activities during the civil war. I recollect that every such NACARA case handled by AYUDA before me eventually was granted, most without appeal or with the actual concurrence of the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel.

As a direct consequence, hard working, productive, law-abiding, tax-paying individuals remained in the community, continued to support their families, and, with green cards in hand, could now find better work opportunities and get on the path to eventual U.S. citizenship and full participation in our national community. This is “Lifesaving 101” in action, and Anya, Paula, and AYUDA are the “lifesavers.” If there were an “Arlington Immigration Court Hall of Fame,” they would certainly be in it. In addition to their outstanding services to AYUDA’s clients, Anya and Paula are inspiring mentors and role models for lawyers just entering the field.

In closing, I’ve always tried to keep five important values in front of me: fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork. Dedicated individuals like Anya and Paula, and great organizations like AYUDA, embody these important values.

And, beyond that, these are your values. Your investment in AYUDA and its critical mission is an investment in social justice and the values that have made our country great and will continue to do so into the future.

Thanks for coming, thanks for listening, and, most of all, thanks for your investment in AYUDA and turning your values into effective action that saves lives, builds futures, and insures the continuing greatness of America.

[1] Christina M. Wilkes, Esquire, Partner, Grossman Law Firm, LLC – Chair, AYUDA Board of Directors.

[2] Michael Woods, Esquire, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Verizon — Director, AYUDA Board of Directors.

[3] Arleen Ramirez Borysiewicz, Director of Program Initiatives, AYUDA.

[4] Unfortunately, Anya was unable to attend. But, almost everyone in the room was mouthing “Anya” when I said the word “heroine” so I realized that she was “there is spirit” and proceeded accordingly. Anya Sykes was inducted into the AYUDA Hall of Fame in 2013.

Senator Cory Booker Is Skeptical That Jeff Sessions Will “Seek Justice For All” As AG!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jeff-sessions-has-made-his-case-to-be-the-attorney-general-now-the-senate-will-hear-from-supporters-and-detractors/2017/01/10/5683ce24-d796-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_sessions-1225p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.60a27c7babe2

In an unprecedented move, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) became the first U.S. Senator ever to testify against a colleague during a confirmation hearing. In the above account from the Washington Post, Senator Booker charged that:

“If confirmed, Sen. Sessions will be required to pursue justice for women, but his record indicates that he won’t,” Booker said. “He will be expected to defend the equal rights of gay and lesbian and transgender Americans, but his record indicates that he won’t. He will be expected to defend voting rights, but his record indicates that he won’t. He will be expected to defend the rights of immigrants and affirm their human dignity, but the record indicates that he won’t.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee also heard testimony from a number of Sessions’s supporters, including former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who said, according to the Post:

“Sessions is “thoroughly dedicated to the rule of law and the mission of the [Justice] department.”

The Post also reported that the Committee heard testimony from Oscar Vasquez, a former undocumented individual, who expressed the fear of many so-called “Dreamers” that as Attorney General Sessions will support the revocation of their protected status and use the information that they voluntarily furnished to the USCIS to institute removal proceedings.

During yesterday’s hearing, Senator Sessions took a somewhat ambiguous position on Dreamers. He indicated he would have no problem if President Trump decided to revoke the Executive Order establishing the DACA program, while at the same time acknowledging that there was no plan in the offing to actually place Dreamers into removal proceedings.

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

Notwithstanding Senator Booker’s reservations, and those of many others in the civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, and immigrants’ rights communities, Senator Sessions will be the next Attorney General. At best, therefore, Senator Booker’s testimony was a “marker” in the event that once confirmed, Senator Sessions abandons his promise to seek justice for all Americans (which includes lawfully resident immigrants and undocumented individuals residing in the United States) and returns to the much narrower view of civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, and immigrants’ rights that he has often expressed and defended during his long Senate career.

It’s a tall order for Senator Sessions to rise above the limitations of his past and take a broader, more inclusive, more humane view of the U.S. legal system. But, for the sake of all Americans, I sincerely hope he can pull it off.

PWS

01/11/17

Sessions Gives Few Specifics About Immigration Role During First Day of Hearings — Offers Neither Support Nor Solution For Dreamers, But Doesn’t Consider Them Removal Priorities — Defends Hard Line Positions, But Says He Would Like To Work Together On Solving Difficult Problem In Compassionate Manner

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-dick-durbin-immigration_us_58751aa5e4b02b5f858b5c4a

“The attorney general is not in charge of most deportation efforts ― that falls to the Department of Homeland Security. But should he be confirmed, Sessions would still have plenty of power to affect immigration matters, from shaping the resources immigration courts receive and how they make decisions to pressuring local law enforcement to assist in deportation efforts.

Sessions said that Durbin was “wrong” about what his record indicates he’d do as attorney general, but he also defended his support of limiting immigration and increasing deportations.

“I believe the American people spoke clearly in this election,” Sessions said. “I believe they agreed with my basic view and I think it’s a good view, a decent view, a solid legal view for the United States of America that we create a lawful system of immigration that allows people to apply to this country and if they’re accepted, they get in; if they’re not accepted, they don’t get in.”

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

Senator Sessions seemed neither sympathetic to, nor understanding of, the difficult situation of “Dreamers.” On the plus side, he seemed to recognize that the Dreamers, and similarly situated individuals who have successfully integrated into the community of the United States, probably aren’t going anywhere, but offered no specific suggestions as to how they should be treated if DACA is withdrawn.

I was somewhat encouraged by the Senator’s recognition of the complexity of the immigration issue — something many enforcement-oriented individuals refuse to acknowledge — the need to work together to solve problems, ideally through legislation, and his use of the term “compassionate.” He also seems to appreciate that being the Attorney General of the United States is a markedly different role than representing Alabama in the Senate — it’s a bigger picture with a much border, more diverse constituency.

As far as I can tell from reading press accounts, Senator Sessions was neither asked about nor did he reveal his plans for what is probably going to be his biggest problem when he assumes the leadership of the Department of Justice — the total meltdown of the U.S. Immigration Court System.

PWS

01-11-17

Attention Advocates: Another Chance To Change The Course Of the Law — BIA Requests Amicus Briefs On “Material Support Bar!”

Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-09
AMICUS INVITATION (MATERIAL SUPPORT BAR), DUE FEBRUARY 8, 2017

The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue:

ISSUES PRESENTED:

(1) Does the word “material” in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) of the Immigration and nationality Act have an independent meaning, or is the phrase a term of art in which “material” has no independent meaning?
(2) Assuming there is a de minimis exception to the material support bar, does that exception apply to contributions of money?

Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae (“Request to Appear”) pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix B (Directory), and Appendix F (Sample Cover Page) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-09. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board Practice Manual.

Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-09. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider a brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.

Request for Case Information: Additional information is not available in this case.
Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 30 double-spaced pages.

Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear and brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by February 8, 2017. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear and brief are disfavored. The briefs or extension request must be RECEIVED at the Board on or before the due date. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.

Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear and brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.

Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear and brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae).

Notice: A Request to Appear may be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(f). A Request to Appear filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.

Attribution: Should the Board decide to publish a decision, the Board may, at its discretion, name up to three attorneys or representatives. If you wish a different set of three names or you have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear and brief.

Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:

To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:

Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041 703-605-1007

Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear and amicus brief.

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

The deadline is February 8, 2017 and the above posting contains complete instructions on how to file.

Kudos to the BIA for seeking public input on these important issues!

PWS

01/10/17

Post Editorial Slams Total Due Process Meltdown In U.S. Immigration Courts! Why We Need An Independent Article I Immigration Court — Now!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-immigration-courts-are-a-diorama-of-dysfunction/2017/01/09/38c59cf6-ceda-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.2597096ea1d8

“The nation’s 58 immigration courts, administered not by the judiciary but by the Justice Department, are places of Dickensian impenetrability, operating under comically antiquated conditions. Case files are scarcely digitized. Clerks are outmatched by mountains of paper files. Translators struggle to convey evidence and legal concepts across linguistic and cultural barriers.
Disgracefully, wild disparities in outcomes and legal standards characterize the various courts, meaning that asylum seekers who appear before immigration judges in Atlanta face almost impossibly long odds and are generally ordered deported, while those in New York are usually granted relief and allowed to remain in the country.

In these courts, the idea of justice itself is so degraded, and the burnout rate so high, that some immigration lawyers have simply thrown in the towel. One of them, movingly profiled by The Post’s Chico Harlan, got sick of the charade and finally quit. “I genuinely believed these people could die if they’re sent back” to their home countries, said Elizabeth Matherne, who once represented asylum seekers. “And you’re talking to somebody” — the judge — “who is not listening.”

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

Why We Need An Independent Article I Immigration Court — Now!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Not a pretty picture of Due Process in America, especially for a Court System whose noble, but forgotten, “Vision” is supposed to be “though teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”

Undoubtedly, this downward spiral into judicial dysfunction started with the politically-motivated manipulation of the Immigration Courts and the selection system for Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members during the Bush Administration.

But, the Obama Administration had eight years to clean up this mess. Not only has it failed to act, but in some ways has made it even worse. Even in the disastrous Bush years, the backlog of pending cases never approached today’s level of more than 530,000, and it’s growing every day.

The Justice Department has no plausible plan for dealing with this morass, which directly affects the lives and futures of millions of “real people.” Nor is there even a rudimentary plan in place to implement an e-filing system — a staple of virtually every other Federal Court System. Under the Department of Justice, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), which is charged with administering the Immigration Courts, began “studying” the process for e-filing more than 15 years ago — so far, without achieving any visible success.

Yes, Congress has failed to pass practical, badly needed reforms of the immigration system, unnecessarily compounding the Immigration Courts’ burdens. And, yes, the Congressional approach to appropriating needed resources for the Immigration Courts has been inconsistent and all too often has lagged far beyond funding for immigration enforcement.

But, for the most part, the Immigration Courts are the responsibility of the Executive Branch and the Justice Department. The structure, supervision, and operation of the Immigration Courts is almost entirely a matter of Justice Department regulations. Judicial selections do not have to go through the cumbersome Senate confirmation process.

The Justice Department has shown neither enthusiasm nor the ability to promptly fill existing judicial vacancies through a transparent merit selection system, nor has sufficient attention been paid to locating the necessary courtroom space or planning for painfully obvious expansion needs. Even if all the existing judicial vacancies were filled, as of today there is no place to put the extra Immigration Judges. Effective judicial administration, never a point of expertise for the Justice Department, has completely disintegrated over the past decade and one-half under Administrations of both parties and a succession of Attorneys General who simply failed in their duty to run a fair, efficient, highly professional Immigration Court system.

We have not yet seen the Trump Administration’s and Attorney General Sessions’s plans for how to restore justice to the Immigration Court system. But, the preliminary rhetoric isn’t encouraging — lots of tough talk about immigration enforcement, but neither acknowledgement of nor emphasis on the accompanying equally important need for achieving and protecting due process in the Immigration Courts.

After more than three decades in the Justice Department, the Immigration Courts have not developed in a way that fulfills their essential role in insuring fairness and guaranteeing due process in the removal hearing process. Waiting for the Justice Department to appropriately reform the system is like “Waiting for Godot.” It’s more than time for bipartisan action in Congress to remove the Immigration Courts from the Department of Justice and create an independent, well-functioning Article I Immigration Court. Only then, will the Immigration Courts be able to achieve their “noble vision” of “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”

PWS

01/10/17

My Upcoming Interview With David Noriega On Vice News/HBO

I did a taped interview today with Vice News Reporter David Noriega. It was done in the freezing cold and wind outside the U.S. Department of Justice at the corner of 9th and Pennsylvania — but, it probably would have been warmer outside Lambeau Field (“Go Pack Go”). It’s possible the only “takeaway” will be “Man you guys sure look cold out there!” It was worse for David, who hails from sunny California, than those of us born and raised in the frigid winters of Wisconsin.

The subject is why the Attorney General’s role in administering the U.S. Immigration Court system is so critically important to the hundreds of thousands of individuals who depend on that system for due process and fair treatment, to the many Immigration Judges and support staff who have dedicated their professional lives to making the system work, and to our nation and its future.

The interview is scheduled to air tomorrow night, Tuesday, January 10, 2017, at 7:30 PM EST, on the “Vice News” show on HBO (which we don’t happen to have on our cable package). But, I encourage everyone with HBO access to tune in and see how David and I did, elements notwithstanding.

PWS

01/09/17

Sessions’s “Enforcement Only” Views On Immigration Detailed — “Nice Guy” Factor Expected To Smooth Comfirmation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-justice-department-sessions-could-play-a-key-role-on-immigration/2017/01/07/84a94a54-c7c9-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.

“As a senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions has vigorously opposed any efforts to reform the U.S. immigration system in ways that might benefit those in the country illegally. He has advocated tempering even legal immigration, fearful that people from other countries might take Americans’ jobs.

Sessions (R), President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to be the next attorney general, will face no shortage of questions at his confirmation hearing starting Tuesday about his alleged past racist comments, his prosecution of civil rights activists, and his views on voting rights and same-sex marriage. But civil liberties advocates say Sessions’s views on immigration concern them just as much because of the role the Justice Department plays in dealing with those who come to the United States from other countries, and because of the constitutionally questionable policies Trump has suggested that Sessions’s Justice Department would likely implement.”

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

While there have been plenty of “negative vibes” about the Sessions nomination, based on his lack of sympathy for civil rights and immigrants, his “nice guy” persona during a long Senate career virtually assures his confirmation as described in this Washington Post article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/jeff-sessions-should-have-been-a-tough-sell-in-the-us-senate-thats-not-likely/2017/01/07/2de7c280-d44f-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.66b34036721a

PWS

01/07/17

David Leopold Warns About Possible Five-Point Attack On Immigrants By Attorney General Sessions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/five-chilling-ways-senator-jeff-sessions-could-attack-immigrants-as-attorney-general_us_5870022ce4b099cdb0fd2ef7

“As the nation’s top lawyer, head of the immigration court, and civil rights officer, Jeff Sessions would have access to multiple tools to harm immigrants and undermine due process. Given his rhetoric and record as a United States Senator, as well as his association with anti-immigrant extremists, there is every reason to believe he would use all of them.

Here are five ways Sessions could attempt to undermine immigrants and immigration policy if confirmed as Attorney General:

Impose his radical, anti-immigrant ideology on decisions by the federal immigration courts;

Expand the number of immigrants who are deported even though they qualify for a green card or asylum;

Reduce access to legal counsel and information about immigrants’ legal rights;

Criminalize immigrants by bringing trumped up charges against ordinary workers; and

Strong arm state and local police to become Trump deportation agents

Of course, any attempt Sessions would make to undermine civil and due process rights will be met by strong litigation from the outside. But the U.S. Senate should block his confirmation from the start, as Senator Sessions is highly unqualified for this position and has showed a profound disregard for civil and human rights.”

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

Sorry, David, but Jeff Sessions has the votes to be confirmed as the next Attorney General. Those who don’t like that can rant, but that’s not going to change the reality that Donald Trump won the Presidential election and the Republicans firmly control both Houses of Congress.

When you lose elections at the national and state levels, like the Democrats did, you end up with next to no leverage on appointments or policies unless you can reach across the aisle and strike a chord with at least some Republicans. Right now, it appears that all Republican Senators, and probably a few Democrats, ewill vote for Senator Sessions’s confirmation. Whatever his pros and cons, Senator Sessions appears to have had the wisdom to be polite and cordial to his colleagues and to occasionally reach across the aisle on issues of common interest. Rightly or wrongly, that seems to count for a lot when current or former Senators come up for confirmation to Executive Branch positions.

So barring a “bombshell” next week, and I must say his record has been “flyspecked” — regardless of what he put in the Judiciary Committee questionnaire — that’s unlikely. For better or worse, Senator Session’s views on a wide variety of subjects and his conduct as a public servant over many decades are a matter of public record. Nothing in that record seems to have given pause to any of his Republican Senate colleagues.

That being said, it woulds be nice to think that upon hearing some of the criticisms, Jeff Sessions will reflect on the huge differences between being a Senator from Alabama, the Attorney General of Alabama, and a U.S. Attorney for Alabama, and the wider responsibilities of being the chief law enforcement official, legal adviser, and litigator representing all of the People of the United States, not just the Trump Administration.

David is, of course, correct to focus on Attorney General Session’s vast authority over immigration. He will control a huge and critically important U.S. Immigration Court System currently sporting a backlog of more than one-half million cases and suffering from chronically inadequate judicial administration and lack of basic technology like e-filing. While there certainly is an interrelationship among civil rights, human rights, and due process in the Immigration Courts, there is every reason to believe that Attorney General Session’s biggest impact will be in the field of immigration.

If things go as David predicts, then the battle over fundamental fairness and due process in immigration policy and the Immigration Courts is likely to be fought out in the Article III Federal Courts, which, unlike the Immigration Courts, aren’t under Executive control. That will have some drawbacks for everyone, but particularly for the Trump Administration.

And, if Sessions is wise, he’ll look back at what happened when the Bush Administration tried to promote a “rubber stamp” approach to justice and due process in the Immigration Courts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals were outraged at the patent lack of due process and fundamental fairness as “not quite ready for prime time” cases were “streamlined” and thrown into the Courts of Appeals for review with glaring factual errors and remarkable legal defects. Not totally incidentally, this also dramatically increased their workload, with judicial review of immigration matters occupying a majority of the docket in several prominent circuits.

As a result, cases were returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals, who then returned them to the Immigration Courts for “re-dos,” in droves. The Courts of Appeals lost faith in the Executive’s ability to run a fundamentally fair, high quality Immigration Court System, and basically placed the Immigration Courts into “judicial receivership” until things stabilized at least somewhat. The waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars caused by this “haste makes waste” approach was beyond contemplation and, for a time, threatened to paralyze the entire American justice system.

Additionally, it would be a huge mistake for the Trump Administration to view the Bush Administration’s Immigration Court debacle as the product of “bleeding heart liberal appellate judges” appointed by President Bill Clinton. The criticism from Article III Judges cut across political lines. Two of the most outspoken judicial critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the U.S. Immigration Courts were Republican appointees: then Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the Second Circuit and Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit. Indeed, Judge Walker is a cousin of former President George H.W. Bush.

Obviously, those who favor greater immigration enforcement won the election and are going to have a chance to try out their policies. But, “enhanced enforcement” is likely to be effective only if we have a fair, impartial, and totally due process oriented Immigration Court System.

In other words, the Immigration Courts must be a “level playing field” with judges who, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, play the role of “impartial umpires” between those seeking to stay in our country and those seeking to remove them. Results from such a due-process oriented system would be more likely to inspire confidence from the U.S. Courts of Appeals, thereby increasing the stature of the Immigration Courts and their ability to achieve final resolutions at the initial, and most cost-efficient, level of our justice system. Due process and fairness in the Immigration Court System should be a nonpartisan common interest no matter where one stands on other aspects of the “immigration debate.”

We are about to find out what Attorney General Jeff Sessions has in mind for the U.S. Immigration Courts and the rest of the U.S. justice system. I’m hoping for the best, but preparing to assert the essential constitutional requirement for due process in the Immigration Courts if, as David predicts, it comes under attack.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01/07/16

Read Political Satire From Andy Borowitz: “Nation with Crumbling Bridges and Roads Excited to Build Giant Wall”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/nation-with-crumbling-bridges-and-roads-excited-to-build-giant-wall

“WASHINGTON ()—As America’s bridges, roads, and other infrastructure dangerously deteriorate from decades of neglect, there is a mounting sense of urgency that it is time to build a giant wall.

Across the U.S., whose rail system is a rickety antique plagued by deadly accidents, Americans are increasingly recognizing that building a wall with Mexico, and possibly another one with Canada, should be the country’s top priority.

Harland Dorrinson, the executive director of a Washington-based think tank called the Center for Responsible Immigration, believes that most Americans favor the building of border walls over extravagant pet projects like structurally sound freeway overpasses.

“The estimated cost of a border wall with Mexico is five billion dollars,” he said. “We could easily blow the same amount of money on infrastructure repairs and have nothing to show for it but functioning highways.”

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

Will the incoming Trump Administration sound the death knell for political satirists like Andy Horowitz? It’s getting pretty hard to tell the difference among “satire,” “fake news,” “made up facts,” and what passes for “truth” these days.

After all, we do actually have a a group of so-called “fiscal conservatives” in Congress lining up to throw perhaps as much as eight billion dollars (almost like “real money”) at a project that most immigration experts, whether “hardliners” or “softliners,” agree is a waste of time and money and won’t solve the problems of border security and immigration enforcement. These same legislators can’t, or won’t, come up with the money to fund things like health care, the safety net, public education, our infrastructure, or government salaries.

And, for those of us who are, probably naively, hoping that soon to be Attorney General Jeff Sessions would take his new, broader responsibilities to our country seriously, rethink some of his ill-advised anti-immigrant positions, and at least occasionally act as the “adult in the room” — counseling prudence and moderation — there is some, perhaps not unexpected, bad news.

According to the article below from today’s Washington Post, Sessions and his closest advisers apparently are working behind the scenes to “egg on” the Administration and Congress to throw taxpayer money at this futile, and nationally embarrassing, project. Could we fix the current mess in the U.S. Immigration Courts — which Sessions will run — for eight billion dollars? You bet we could!

We could build a first-class, independent, due process oriented court system that would be a source of national pride and would live up to its currently unfulfilled vision of “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” And, there would be plenty left over from the eight billion dollars to spend on thoughtful immigration and border enforcement if that’s what Sessions and others in the Administration and Congress really want. It should be a classic “win-win.” But, will it happen? Only time will tell. But, the early signs aren’t very promising.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hill-republicans-embrace-building-of-border-wall-despite-cost/2017/01/06/06f29b18-d432-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.fac057dfce36

PWS

01/07/16

Can “Globalists” and “Nationalists” Bridge Their Gap And Find Some Middle Ground For The Common Good?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/we-arent-the-world-1483728161

“Above all, globalists should not equate concern for cultural norms and national borders with xenophobia. Large majorities of Americans, for example, welcome immigrants so long as they adopt American values, learn English, bring useful skills and wait their turn. Australia’s low tolerance for illegal immigration helps to maintain public support for high levels of legal entrants.

“We’ve created this false dichotomy that if you’re not for open borders, you’re racist,” says Avik Roy, president of the conservative Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a former adviser to Republican presidential candidates. “There is some sort of middle ground between a nationalist and globalist approach,” Mr. Roy argues.

Even as committed a globalist as Mr. Obama has come to acknowledge this. Democrats, he told Rolling Stone the day after the election, must recognize that “for the majority of the American people, borders mean something.”

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

This very interesting and thought provoking article by Greg Ip from the Wall Street Journal points out that the old “left – right” political struggles have been replaced by a contest between “globalism” and “nationalism” that often crosses some of the traditional political boundaries between left and right.

It also echoes some of the themes about the need to “understand where the other guys are coming from” rather than just “demonizing the opposition” that have been raised in previous blogs and comments by Thomas “Mink” Felhofer and Nolan Rappaport.

The world is definitely changing, and many of the “old norms” are breaking down. The challenge is how to find some stability in the middle that doesn’t sacrifice or run across strongly held views or principles.

When I was the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, I found one of the difficulties in reaching “consensus positions” is that, unlike a “compromise,” a “consensus” requires both ends of the spectrum to nominally support, or at least refrain from public disagreement with, the result. That’s a challenge when judges, or anyone else, have worked in the area for many years and have strong views tied to their underlying principles. For better or worse, on many occasions, the best we could do was “agree to disagree” and move on to the next case. That’s at best a “compromise” — “you win” this time but we’ll preserve our objections for the future — rather than a “consensus.” But, at least the results were very transparent and arguments for and against carefully developed for future debate.

PWS

01/07/17

The Asylumist (Jason Dzubow) Urges Public Servants In Immigration Enforcement And Adjudication To “Stay” — “You Are Exactly The Type of Person We Need!”

In his “Open Letter” to Feds, Dzubow writes:

“In speaking to some DOJ and DHS attorneys and officers since the recent election, I have seen a certain level of demoralization. Some people have expressed to me their desire to leave government service. While these individuals respect and follow the law–even when the results are harsh–they are not ideological. They do not hate immigrants (or non-white people, or Muslims) and they do not want to enable or contribute to a system that they fear will become overtly hostile to immigrants that President Trump considers undesirable. I suppose if I have one word of advice for such people, it is this: Stay.

If you are a government attorney or officer and you are thinking of leaving because you fear an overtly ideological Administration, you are exactly the type of person that we need to stay. As has often been the case in recent decades, an honest, competent bureaucracy is the bulwark against our sometimes extremist politics.

It’s likely that if you are a government employee who is sympathetic to non-citizens, your job will get more difficult, the atmosphere may become more hostile. It will be harder to “do the right thing” as you see it. Opportunities for promotions may become more limited. Nevertheless, I urge you to stay. We need you to help uphold the law and ensure due process for non-citizens and their families. To a large extent, our immigration system is as good or as bad as the people who administer the law. We need the good ones to stay.”

http://www.asylumist.com/2016/12/22/an-open-letter-to-my-friends-at-dhs-and-doj/

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

I blogged yesterday about the outrageous attack on the Civil Service System and career public servants by the House GOP:

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-4O

As noted by Jason, one of those urging such cowardly attacks on the fabric of our Government and those who keep it running is Newt Gingrich. Interestingly, while in Congress, Gingrich was censored by his colleagues for ethics abuses while on the public payroll.

PWS

01/06/17

EOIR Hits The Airwaves with First YouTube Release — See The Blockbuster Hit “Recognition And Accreditation Programs — 2016” Starring Steven Lang and Peggy Gleason! Learn About The Recently Revised Procedures For Recognition and Accreditation!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV_yNi23nbQ

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

This is “Must See TV” for all NGOs who practice, or wish to practice, before the U.S. Immigration Court and the DHS! An impressive offering for an agency that houses the only major U.S. court system unable to implement the not-so-new technology for electronic filing!

PWS

01/06/17

Advocates: Here’s Your Opportunity To Shape The Future Of American Immigration Law — Don’t Blow It! — BIA Asks For Amicus Briefing On Whether “Misprision Of A Felony” Is A “Crime Involving Moral Turpitude!”

Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05
AMICUS INVITATION (MISPRISION OF A FELONY), DUE FEBRUARY 6, 2017

The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue:

ISSUES PRESENTED:

(1) Does the offense of misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4 categorically qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude? Please see in that regard and address Matter of Robles- Urrea, 24 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 2006), reversed, Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2012); and Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2002).
(2) Assuming the Board should decide to adhere to Matter of Robles-Urrea, supra, in circuits other than the Ninth, is the application of such precedent impermissibly retroactive to convictions for acts committed prior to the publication of Matter of Robles- Urrea inasmuch as that decision overruled a prior precedent holding that misprision of a felony was not a crime involving moral turpitude?

Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae (“Request to Appear”) pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix B (Directory), and Appendix F (Sample Cover Page) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board Practice Manual.

Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider a brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.

Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case may be available. Please contact the Amicus Clerk by phone or mail (see contact information below) for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear and brief.

Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 30 double-spaced pages.

Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear and brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by February 6, 2017. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear and brief are disfavored. The briefs or extension request must be RECEIVED at the Board on or before the due date. It is not sufficient simply

to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.

Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:

To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:

Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041 703-605-1007

Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear and amicus briefs.

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

The key case to read is Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2012), where the Ninth Circuit rejected the BIA’s conclusion in Matter of Robles- Urrea, 24 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 2006) that misprision of a felony is “categorically” a “crime involving moral turpitude” for removal purposes.

In simple terms, among other things, the BIA is now considering whether to “blow off” the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in other circuits and adhere to its prior interpretation which the Ninth Circuit found to be wrong and which, of course, is must less favorable to respondents.

So, anybody who thinks that the BIA is about to “bark up the wrong tree” here (and, not for the first time, ignore the well reasoned decision of an Article III Court under the so-called “Chevron doctrine”) better get their group together and get crackin’ on a brief to convince the BIA that the Ninth Circuit got it right.

The deadline is February 6, 2017, (WARNING: The BIA seldom extends amicus deadlines) and everything you need to know about how to file the brief is in the BIA’s notice, reproduced above.

Here are links to Robles-Urrea v. Holder: https://casetext.com/case/roblesurrea-v-holder

and Matter of Robles: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3542.pdf to help you get started.

Good luck!

PWS

01/06/17

Sessions Garners Support From Son Of “Marion 3” Defendants — N/W/S Controversy, Confirmation Appears Likely — As AG, He Will Administer One Of Our Most Important Court Systems: The United States Immigration Court!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/alabama-politician-whose-parents-were-prosecuted-by-sessions-endorses-him-for-attorney-general/2017/01/04/51c89608-d29b-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.6469f01a24e7

“Albert F. Turner Jr., the son of civil rights activists who were prosecuted by Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions in a controversial voting fraud case 32 years ago, said Wednesday he supports the Alabama lawmaker’s nomination to be attorney general.

“My family and I have literally been on the front line of the fight for civil rights my whole life,” said Turner, a county commissioner in Perry County, Ala. “And while I respect the deeply held positions of other civil rights advocates who oppose Senator Sessions, I believe it is important for me to speak out with regard to Senator Sessions personally. . . . He is not a racist.”

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

Another article in the Washington Post discusses positive aspects of Senator Session’s character and career. He appears to be someone who engenders strong feelings, both positive and negative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/dueling-images-of-attorney-general-nominee-jeff-sessions/2017/01/05/e96bb796-d36e-11e6-9651-54a0154cf5b3_story.html?utm_term=.ecd459fbad2c

But, unless something quite unexpected comes up during his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions appears to be well on his way to confirmation as the next Attorney General.

Although most of the focus has been on Civil Rights, as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions’s most important and largely overlooked role probably will be his authority over the hugely important and highly troubled — to the tune of a stunning 530,000+ case backlog which continues to grow — United States Immigration Court System, with both trial and appellate branches administered by the DOJ through the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”).

Although many experts have called for establishing a truly independent Immigration Court System outside of the DOJ, the current reality is that the DOJ controls perhaps the largest and most important Federal Court System. Whether as Attorney General Jeff Sessions nurtures, supports, and improves the independent due process mission of the Immigration Courts, or rather tries to undermine and “game” the Immigration Courts’ due process role, as some of his predecessors have done, will, to a much larger extent than most imagine, determine the future of our nation.

PWS

01/06/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: