Department of Justice – Page 42 – immigrationcourtside.com

🤮GOP NATIVISTS SAY STARVE ☠️ KIDS TO SOLVE FORMULA SHORTAGE! — “Pro-Life” Seems To End @ Birth!

GOP nativists say starving Brown-skinned kids will solve all problems.
Feed My Starving Children (“FMSC”) — El Salvador
Creative Commons License

Bess Levin @ The Levin Report:

The United States is in the midst of a massive formula crisis affecting some of the most vulnerable members of the population: babies. A perfect storm of numerous factors—pandemic-related supply chain delays; government bureaucracy; the stranglehold that just a few companies hold on the formula market; the closure of one of the biggest formula-manufacturing plants in the country, following the recall of contaminated batches and the death of two infants—has led to a terrifying reality for parents desperate and scrambling to feed their children. People who have the time—and many don’t—are driving long distances only to find empty shelves. Private sellers are reportedly price gouging, charging customers double or triple the normal amount. Unable to find what they need, some parents have been forced to ration formula as they search, often in vain, for more. One woman told The New York Times she recently found herself “freaking out, crying on the floor,” telling her husband, “Dude, I can’t feed our kids, I don’t know what to do.” The solution from Republicans, many of whom claim to be pro-life? Let the babies of undocumented parents starve. Or, at the very least, use the situation to demonize immigrants and score the cheapest of political points.

On Wednesday, Florida representative Kat Cammack tweeted a pair of photos, writing, “The first photo is from this morning at the Ursula Processing Center at the U.S. border. Shelves and pallets packed with baby formula. The second is from a shelf right here at home. Formula is scarce. This is what America last looks like.” Later, on Facebook, she claimed to have obtained the photos from a “border patrol agent” that’s been on the job for “30 years.” In the video, the congresswoman generously acknowledged that while all children deserve to eat, it’s not America’s job to feed the babies it detains.

“It is not the children’s fault at all,” Commack told her followers. “But what is infuriating to me is that this is another example of the ‘America Last’ agenda the Biden administration continues to perpetuate.” Cammack claims to be pro-life and only supports abortion in extreme cases in the first trimester, according to Fox News. She is cochair of the House Pro-Life Caucus and, naturally, is thrilled about the news that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

One day after Cammack’s suggestion that the migrant children the U.S. government has locked up should be forced to go hungry, Texas governor Greg Abbott jumped on the bandwagon, issuing a joint statement with the National Border Patrol Council: “While mothers and fathers stare at empty grocery store shelves in a panic, the Biden administration is happy to provide baby formula to illegal immigrants coming across our southern border…. Our children deserve a president who puts their needs and survival first—not one who gives critical supplies to illegal immigrants before the very people he took an oath to serve.” Like Cammack, Abbott would like people to believe he is “pro-life,” and signed a bill last September banning abortions after six weeks, leading to a surge of copycat legislation across the country.

Also on Thursday, Texas congressman Troy Nehls tweeted, “Baby formula should go to Americans before illegals.” (You can probably guess where Nehls stands on abortion.) And we’re sure it’ll absolutely shock you to hear that Fox News also believes migrant children should be forced to starve to death. As Media Matters’ Matt Gertz notes, a small selection of commentary from the networks’ stars over the past two days has included: “Why are we feeding illegal babies ahead of American babies?” (Jesse Watters); “These are not people that respected our borders, our laws, and our sovereignty. Why wouldn’t all of the pallets go to American families first?” (Sean Hannity); and “Once they get here, the Biden administration will give them food supplies that you can’t buy. Those would include baby formula…. How much more of this are people going to take, you wonder? It’s too humiliating” (Tucker Carlson). Fox, of course, has been a major voice in the antiabortion movement.

The rank hypocrisy of claiming to want to protect the “sanctity of life,” and then casually suggesting that some lives are less important than others aside, the entire situation these conservatives are decrying wouldn‘t actually be an issue if the right wasn’t so obsessed with imprisoning people trying to seek a better life. (While detention is not strictly the domain of Republicans— and both Joe Biden and Barack Obama were and remain happy to lock migrants up—Democrats are not the ones out there suggesting we let migrant children starve.) As the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler notes, federal law literally requires the government to provide food— as well as other basic human rights— to the people it detains. If conservatives don’t want to have to follow that rule, they should probably stop demanding the government throw migrants in prison, though we have a small, sneaking suspicion they won’t. Because demonizing people who weren‘t born here is quite clearly their thing, and has been for years. As Jezebel’s Caitlin Cruz wrote on Thursday: “Migrants and immigrants of all ages are the perfect boogeymen. First, they take their jobs; now they want to take food out of babies’ mouths, while also forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term. The hypocrisy is so thick I am choking on it.

Mitch McConnell: It’s the Supreme Court’s job to issue rulings Americans don’t want

One of the most outrageous aspects of the news that the Supreme Court is likely to overturn Roe v. Wade is the fact that—despite what some conservatives would have people believe—a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases and want to see the landmark decision upheld. But according to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnnell? It’s the high court’s job to issue rulings that fundamentally change life in a way Americans don’t want.

Speaking to NPR, the Kentucky lawmaker claimed that the whole point of the Supreme Court is to make decisions that most of the country doesn’t agree with. “For the Supreme Court to on any issue, to reach a decision contrary to public opinion it is exactly what the Supreme Court is about,” he argued. “It’s to protect basic rights, even when majorities are in favor of something else, that happens all the time.” McConnell then chose to bizarrely point to the issue of flag burning, the prohibition of which the court ruled in 1989 was a violation of the First Amendment. “If you took public opinion polls on that issue, people would overwhelmingly support a legislative prohibition of flag burning, but the Supreme Court interpreted that as a violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech.”

Of course, letting people burn flags is not the same as taking away the constitutional right of millions of people to make medical decisions about their own bodies, but you’ll have to forgive ole Mitchy, who’s currently trying to make people forget he’s one of the key architects of the impending obliteration of reproductive freedoms. In the interview with NPR, he claimed that his yearslong singular focus on installing conservative judges was not specifically about gutting Roe but keeping out “judicial activist[s],” a conservative smear for judges who believe in things like, for example, women having the same bodily autonomy as men. “My interest in this was unrelated to any particular issue,” he said. Naturally, he also blamed the declining trust in the court not on the appointment of people credibly accused of sexual assault (which they deny), or the revelation that at least one of them is married to someone who tried to have the 2020 election overturned, but on the left.

“It’s no wonder that by politicizing the Supreme Court, like the political left has, including the Democratic leader of the Senate—it would affect their approval ratings. That needs to stop,” McConnell said. “The president, who knows better, set up a commission to study the composition of the court. The Supreme Court is not broken and doesn’t need fixing.” Unsurprisingly, the GOP leader refused to say what he would do if Republicans take back the Senate and Joe Biden has an opportunity to nominate another justice, though, of course, it should already be clear. “How that plays out on individual confirmations or legislation, I’m not prepared to announce today, but we are going to see where we can cooperate,” he said, unconvincingly.

Rand Paul does another solid for his pal Putin

Texas continues its war on trans kids

Per NPR:

In a unanimous ruling on a controversial issue, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday has cleared the way for the state child welfare agency to resume investigating parents and doctors who provide gender-affirming care for trans youth—actions that Governor Greg Abbott has equated to child abuse. It’s a blow to Texas families with transgender children, some of whom are departing the state or considering moves because of the threat of these investigations.

The ruling overturns a lower court’s injunction from March 11, barring state officials from pursuing Abbott’s February 22 directive that instructed the Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate “any reported instances” of a range of treatments and procedures, including the administration of hormones and puberty-blocking drugs. The parents of a transgender teen sued to stop the investigations, and in early March, District Judge Amy Clark Meachum issued a temporary order halting an investigation into the parents of the 16-year-old girl. Meachum later issued another order at the statewide level, temporarily blocking all such investigations stemming from Abbott’s directive.

In February, after Abbott issued his directive, the White House told The Dallas Morning News: “Conservative officials in Texas and other states across the country should stop inserting themselves into health care decisions that create needless tension between pediatricians and their patients. No parent should face the agony of a politician standing in the way of accessing life-saving care for their child.”

Sam Alito’s former Princeton classmate doesn’t think too highly of him

Millions of people have that in common with her. Per CNN:

Susan Squier, a former classmate of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito at Princeton University and who organized a letter protesting a leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, on Thursday said she was stunned and called it “a greatest hits of misogyny.”

“When I read the document—I read all 98 pages of it, and mind you, I’m trained as a scholar of literature and medicine, and I look at nuance. And when I saw that he had smuggled into the document the wording from the Mississippi Gestational Age Act, which, as I understand it—now, I’m not a lawyer—but isn’t even law yet. And he was referring to unborn children rather than fetuses. I was just stunned,” Squier told CNN’s John Berman on New Day. “I mean, I have read a lot of medical history going back for doing literature and medicine, and his is like a greatest hits of misogyny.”

“He doesn’t consider the context,” Squier continued. “And this man was a historian at Princeton. He was a double major in history and poli sci. But it is as if he doesn’t believe history actually involves a record of things changing. Instead, it is history as, ‘let’s go back to the Salem witch trials.’ It makes me so angry.”

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

Get the full Levin Report here:

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click here to subscribe.

If you would like to share tonight’s newsletter, links to these stories can be found here and here. Thanks for supporting the LR!

Of course there is no causal connection between the U.S. nationwide formula shortage and providing the necessities of life to those in the DHS “New American Gulag.”

Nor are these asylum applicants illegally present in the U.S. Most were allowed in to pursue their legal right to asylum, after having been found to have a “credible fear.” Indeed, the “illegality” here is the DHS’s failure to recognize and carry out our legal and moral obligations to give all asylum seekers a fair opportunity to present their claims before impartial expert adjudicators.

Additionally, starving asylum seekers’ children would not in any way address the national shortage of formula. No, it would just be another gratuitous act of cruelty motivated by hate and racism. In other words, standard GOP policies.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-15-22

🤮☠️DUE PROCESS DISASTER IN 4TH CIR! — Trump Judges Strip Individuals In “New American Gulag” ⚰️ Of Constitutional Rights & Human Dignity — Dissenter, Chief Judge Urbanski (WD VA) The Only Panel Member To Follow Constitution!

The case is Miranda v. Garland, and it’s published:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201828.P.pdf

Quote from Judge Marvin Quattlebaum’s wrong-headed decision, joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Julius Richardson:

QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:

8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) permits the Attorney General to detain aliens1 pending their

removal hearings. And the Attorney General has adopted procedures for making that discretionary decision. Under those procedures, an alien is given notice and three opportunities to seek release by showing they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.

A district court determined that a class of aliens had a likelihood of establishing that those procedures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That court then issued a preliminary injunction ordering, on a class- wide basis, that to continue detaining an alien under § 1226(a), the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. The district court also required immigration judges, again on a class-wide basis, to consider an alien’s ability to pay any bond imposed and consider alternatives to detention.

However, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief that enjoined or restrained the process used to conduct § 1226(a) bond hearings. As for the individual relief issued by the district court, the detention procedures adopted for § 1226(a) bond hearings provide sufficient process to

1 We realize that the use of the term “alien” has been the subject of some debate. See e.g., Martinez Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 20-13201, 2021 WL 2836460, at *7 (11th Cir. July 8, 2021). We use the term because Congress used it in the text of the applicable statutes, and the same term is used in the applicable regulations. Our use of the term “alien” is not intended to express any opinion, pejorative or otherwise, about the plaintiffs in this action or others challenging their detention under our immigration laws.

3

satisfy constitutional requirements. For that reason, the aliens are unable to establish a likelihood of success on their due process claims. Nor have they shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor or that an injunction is in the public interest. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction order.

A better quote from the only Panel Judge to get it right, Chief Judge Michael Urbanski of the WDVA, (an Obama appointee) sitting by designation:

While I am mindful of the executive’s vast authority over immigration, it must still

comport with constitutional safeguards. With this balancing in mind, requiring a detained noncitizen to prove he is not a danger to the community or risk of flight is unconstitutionally onerous on an already vulnerable group of defendants and violates due process. In sum, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Due Process Clause requires the government to bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) detention hearings and remand the case to the district court for consideration of § 1252(f)(1) and the availability of class-wide declaratory relief.

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

Well, at least one judge got it right!

The Round Table ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case. Additionally, Round Table Member Judge Denise Slavin filed an affidavit (cited by the USDJ) before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. There, Hon. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge, correctly ruled for the respondents. The Trump DOJ appealed, and Garland decided to continue to advance the prior Administration’s anti-due-process position before the Fourth Circuit.

Gosh, and Dem politicos wonder why it’s hard for them to gin up enthusiasm for the midterms!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-15-22

⚖️9TH CIR. SLAMS IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY FOR DEFICIENT FOIA RESPONSE ON DEATH OF TRANSGENDER ASYLUM APPLICANT IN “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” (“NAG”)!

From Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/12/20-17416.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-foia-transgender-law-center-v-ice#

“At the heart of this case is an effort by advocates to learn about the circumstances of an asylum-seeker’s tragic death in federal custody. The Freedom of Information Act exists for just such a purpose—to ensure an informed citizenry, promote official transparency, and provide a check against government impunity. Yet here the advocates’ FOIA requests met first with silence and then with stonewalling; only after the advocates filed suit did the government begin to comply with its statutory obligations. Our task is to discern whether the government’s belated disclosure was “adequate” under FOIA. We conclude that it was not. … REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Irene Lax, Kimberly A. Evans and R. Andrew Free!]

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

As Andrew Free ;pointed out to me, the 9th Circuit suggested some potential “bad faith” at work here in footnote 2 (p. 22):

2 Our conclusion is strengthened by evidence that the Government withheld information under this exemption in an overbroad manner. For instance, ICE redacted a portion of Hernandez’s credible fear interview under Exemption 7(E), but when TLC received an unredacted version from the CoreCivic production, the redacted text read as follows: “I left because my life was threatened by the Maras gang. A group of Maras raped and tried to kill me I was afraid for my life and left Honduras.” This statement from Hernandez could not possibly fall under the category of techniques, procedures, or guidelines. Such a redaction suggests that the agencies may have invoked Exemption 7(E) in an effort to shield prejudicial information. See Pulliam v. EPA, 292 F. Supp. 3d 255, 260 (D.D.C. 2018).

This raises the additional questions of 1) why is this going on in a Dem Administration that promised to restore the rule of law to immigration; and 2) why is Garland’s DOJ defending this nonsense and incredibly shoddy process in Federal Court?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-22

⚖️🧑🏻‍⚖️BIA APPELLATE JUDGE BETH LIEBMANN ISSUES MATTER OF A-B- REMAND, PROVIDES USEFUL GUIDANCE!

Here’s the decision (unfortunately unpublished):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15v7-tVnh-eqBWDWgwBE-Wxqx4rNCH_f8/view?usp=drivesdk

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

There is more helpful, practical guidance in Judge Liebmann’s “two-pager” than in most BIA precedents. So, why isn’t this a precedent?

A.G. Garland overruled Session’s abominable, wrong-headed precedent nearly one year ago. Yet, there has been no further guidance from the BIA on the meaning of the “reinstated A-R-C-G-.” Nor, have the so-called “gender-based regulations” ordered by Biden and referenced by Garland ever seen the light of day.

Meanwhile, there are many cases like this out there in the backlog. Most of them could be granted with proper guidance and supervision from a “Better BIA.” No wonder the backlog continues to grow!

My prediction that the “ascension” (she was a “mere TBM” at the time of this particular decision) of Judge Liebmann to join Judge Saenz on the BIA would be a “breath of fresh air” for practitioners appears to be gaining at least some traction. But, it’s going to take more than two well-qualified judges to pull the BIA out of its current “death spiral.”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-22

THE LEVIN REPORT: GOP VIEWS WOMEN AS “SEA TURTLES!”🐢

Bess Levin @ Vanity Fair writes:

As you’ve probably heard by now, within the next few months, the Supreme Court is expected to overturn Roe v. Wade, ending the national right to an abortion. If that happens, the medical procedure will be severely restricted or just outright banned in about half the country. A lot of people are extremely upset about this because, among other things, they think the government should not get to treat 50% of the population like second-class citizens, and that pregnant people should be allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies, just like men can chose to, say, have a vasectomy without a bunch of elected officials weighing in.

Yet somehow Montana senator Steve Daines doesn’t seem to understand why anyone would be griping about the catastrophic, dystopian situation that is about to befall women in the U.S. In fact, Daines appears to think he’s figured out a huge “gotcha” when it comes to liberals who want to ensure women have control of their own bodies: that “the left” cares more about the eggs of certain reptiles and birds than it does about human women’s eggs. Seriously.

Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, Daines opined: “If you were to take or destroy the eggs of a sea turtle—now I said the eggs, not the hatchlings that’s also a penalty but the eggs—the criminal penalties are severe: up to a $100,000 fine and a year in prison. Now why? Why do we have laws in place that protect the eggs of a sea turtle or the eggs of eagles? Because, when you destroy an egg, you’re killing a preborn baby sea turtle or preborn baby eagle. Yet when it comes to a preborn human baby, rather than a sea turtle, that baby will be stripped of all protections in all 50 states, under the Democrats’ bill that we’ll be voting on tomorrow. Is that what the America the left wants?” (Daines was referring to the Women’s Health Protection Act, legislation that would codify the constitutional right to an abortion into federal law, which the Senate failed to pass on Wednesday.)

Curiously, at no point in this speech lamenting that human women have too many rights compared to reptiles and birds, did Daines—who actually loves killing living things—acknowledge that humans do not lay eggs, that human embryos stay inside the mother until they are born, and that people are not endangered species. Must’ve been a mere oversight.

Senator Ron Johnson tells pregnant people to suck it up and drive out of state for an abortion if they want one

In the likely event that Roe v. Wade is gutted, countless lives will be destroyed, whether it‘s that of the rape victim who will have no choice but to give birth to her attacker’s kid, the woman living in poverty who can’t afford to raise a child, the literal child who has been impregnated by an abusive family member, or the person who simply had a different set of plans for their life that did not involve becoming a parent. Not to mention, the pregnant person who decides they have no choice but to undergo an illegal, risky abortion rather than be forced to give birth. But according to Republican senator Ron Johnson? None of this is a big deal and people are being hysterical over nothing.

Speaking to The Wall Street Journal, the Wisconsin lawmaker, who is up for reelection this year, said he doesn’t expect abortion to come up on the campaign trail because it’s basically a nonissue. “It might be a little messy for some people, but abortion is not going away,” Johnson said, an absolutely bizarre choice of words—not to mention, sentiment—given the history of women bleeding out and dying after unsafe abortions. He blithely added that though he doesn’t expect a 19th-century Wisconsin law banning abortions except to save the mother will go into effect if Roe is reversed, pregnant people can always go to neighboring Illinois if they want to obtain the medical procedure.

As so many people have noted, the reversal of Roe—and ensuing bans in numerous states—would disproportionately impact poor women and women of color. Those are people that, in fact, can’t necessarily just drive to Illinois (or the neighboring state that applies to them) because they can‘t get the time off of work, or don’t have a car, or have other children at home they can’t be away from for the night—or any of the many other reasons that Johnson apparently can’t think of. As for the idea that the 1849 Wisconsin law banning abortions won’t stand, Johnson is reportedly likely wrong about that too. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote last week, “Republican lawmakers for decades have made sure to preserve the 1849 ban in hopes that Roe would someday be overturned,” and the Republicans running for governor in the state “have [all] strongly opposed abortion and would be unlikely to sign legislation loosening the ban.”

Johnson, of course, has a long history of extremely shitty takes. As one of the most vocal proponents of Trump’s “big lie,” he repeatedly downplayed January 6, variously claiming that the attempted coup wasn’t “an armed insurrection,” even though that’s exactly what it was; that the rioters were not actually Trump supporters but “provocateurs” impersonating Trump supporters; and that he was never once worried for his life because the mob that stormed the Capitol were there to overturn an election, not protest for equal rights for Black people. He’s also a major purveyor of COVID misinformation, dispenses anti-vaccine rhetoric, and was temporarily kicked off of YouTube for promoting bogus cures. In 2010, he opposed a Wisconsin bill that would have eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse victims to bring lawsuits. And four years later, he reportedly did not tell the “police, Senate or Wisconsin officials that a former aide was allegedly sexually assaulted by a state lawmaker.”

So yeah, it’s not surprising that he has no earthly clue why any of this is a big deal, but that doesn’t make it any less crappy. “I just don’t think this is going to be the big political issue everybody thinks it is, because it’s not going to be that big a change,” he told the Journal, like only the absolutely most ignorant elected official can.

Nothing to see here, just Trump’s election coconspirator telling Pennsylvania to trash absentee ballots so it’d look like Trump won

Apparently John Eastman saw no potential issues here, hence putting the plot in actual writing. Per Politico:

Attorney John Eastman urged Republican legislators in Pennsylvania to retabulate the state’s popular vote—and throw out tens of thousands of absentee ballots—in order to show Donald Trump with a lead, according to newly unearthed emails sent in December 2020, as Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to subvert his defeat. This recalculation, he posited in an exchange with one GOP state lawmaker, “would help provide some cover” for Republicans to replace Joe Biden’s electors from the state with a slate of pro-Trump electors, part of a last-ditch bid to overturn the election results.

Per the exchange, Eastman suggested that GOP legislators could simply cite their concerns with Pennsylvania’s absentee ballot procedures and then use historical data to “discount each candidates’ totals by a prorated amount based on the absentee percentage those candidates otherwise received.”

“Having done that math, you’d be left with a significant Trump lead that would bolster the argument for the Legislature adopting a slate of Trump electors—perfectly within your authority to do anyway, but now bolstered by the untainted popular vote,” Eastman wrote in a Dec. 4, 2020 email to Pennsylvania Rep. Russ Diamond. “That would help provide some cover.”

The suggestion to simply throw out ballots like that was a very cool, very legal thing to do came out of a batch of emails obtained via public records requests by the Colorado Ethics Institute, which reportedly sent them to the January 6 committee. Neither the panel nor Eastman’s attorney responded to Politico’s requests for comment. Back in March, a federal judge said that Trump and Eastman “most likely” committed felonies when they tried to overturn the results of the 2020. “The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Judge David Carter wrote. Even more so now!

Guy whose entire shtick is to ban things from the classroom now requiring lessons about the harms of communism in the classroom

We’re going to guess that no, Ron DeSantis does not see the irony here. Per The Guardian:

Discussions of gender identity and sexual preference are banned in many Florida classrooms because of governor Ron DeSantis’s “don’t say gay” law, alongside dozens of math textbooks blocked for “prohibited topics.” Now the Republican who has loudly condemned what he sees as the “indoctrination” of young people has made another subject compulsory: students must receive at least 45 minutes’ instruction every November about the “victims of communism.”

In a ceremony Monday at Miami’s iconic Freedom Tower, where tens of thousands of Cuban immigrants fleeing Fidel Castro’s revolution were admitted into the US between 1962 and 1974, DeSantis signed into law House Bill 395, designating 7 November as Victims of Communism Day…. The instruction will begin in the 2023-2024 school year, DeSantis said, and will require teaching about Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro, as well as “poverty, starvation, migration, systemic lethal violence, and suppression of speech” endured under their leaderships in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba respectively.

Mispronouncing the name of Che Guevara as “Che Kay-Farra,” DeSantis used the ceremony to yell at students who wear T-shirts with the revolutionary leader’s image on it. “You can see at a college campus students flying the hammer and sickle from the old Soviet Union flag, you will see students that will have T-shirts with Che Guevara, you will see students that will idolize people like Mao Zedong,” he said, according to The Guardian. “That to me, this speaks of a tremendous ignorance about what those individuals represented and the evils that communism inflicted on people throughout the world…. While it’s fashionable in some circles to whitewash the history of communism, Florida will stand for truth and remain as a beachhead for freedom.”

Earlier this year, Florida banned public schools and private businesses from inflicting “discomfort” on white people during lessons or training about discrimination, a ridiculous law that grew out of the conservative hysteria over critical race theory. Florida, of course, now also prohibits teachers from discussing gender identity or sexual orientation in grades k–3 (and, critics say, beyond).

Strangely, DeSantis has not said anything about introducing a bill requiring schools to teach students about the history of petty tyrants.

Rep. Elise Stefanik tries her hand at comedy

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

Read the full “Levin Report” here:

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click here to subscribe.

If you would like to share tonight’s newsletter, links to these stories can be found here and here. Thanks for supporting the LR!

“Dehumanization” by the GOP started with the “war on immigrants” during the Trump Administration, has been enabled and furthered by GOP-appointed righty judges (see, e.g., “Dred Scottification”), and now threatens the legal and human rights of all groups that the GOP doesn’t like. That’s a big list, folks, and many of YOU and those you care about are likely on it! ☠️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-12-22

🗽WSJ’s MICHELLE HACKMAN ON THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S “BAND-AID” APPROACH TO UKRAINIAN REFUGEES

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/whats-news/us-bets-on-private-sponsors-to-resettle-ukrainian-refugees/417fd56e-ae00-40f2-9672-c5c16c3cde53?mod=djem10point

Luke Vargas: Coming up, the Biden administration is enlisting citizens, businesses, and nonprofit groups to sponsor Ukrainian refugees in the US. Could it become a new model for helping those fleeing conflict? We’ll have that story after the break. Several weeks ago, the Biden administration introduced a new sponsorship program for Ukrainian refugees. It’s called Uniting for Ukraine, and it expedites the admissions process for Ukrainians once they’ve found a US citizen or group to sponsor them. In the first 10 days, the program received more than 14,500 applications. So, could private sponsorship become a regular feature of the US Refugee Admissions Program? Wall Street Journal immigration reporter, Michelle Hackman, says the government could use all the help it can get, especially after America’s official resettlement system was overwhelmed by more than 76,000 Afghans last year. And Michelle joins us now with more. Hi, Michelle.

Michelle Hackman: Hi. Good to be here.

Luke Vargas: It’s great to have you. So, how is this program different from how refugees are normally admitted to the United States?

Michelle Hackman: Yeah. It’s an interesting trade-off. Refugees typically come through what we call the Refugee Admissions Program, and that is a process that can take years. The most common situation is you have people living in a refugee camp, let’s say in Africa or in somewhere in Southeast Asia, and they apply to the US, they have to go through a refugee interview. They have to be vetted to make sure they have no ties to terrorism or anything like that. And that takes two or three years. They go through medical checks. In exchange, when they come, they get two things, they get a green card and they get a lot of assistance from government and non-government organizations, including help finding a home, help finding a job, temporary access to Medicaid, and food stamps, and English lessons, and all this suite of benefits that you need to adjust to America after living in a really precarious situation.

Luke Vargas: But that is not how this system works for these refugees resettled from Ukraine is it?

Michelle Hackman: That’s right. So, the trade-off that’s being made here is that system obviously has a lot of benefits, but Ukrainians don’t have two or three years. They need homes right now. And so, the US is turning to a different mechanism to allow people in that’s called humanitarian parole, in case any of our listeners have heard that term. And so, the benefit of that is it gets Ukrainians here really quick, maybe a week to get that approval. But on the flip side, it means that they get none of those benefits. They get none of the resettlement support from the government and they don’t get green cards.

Luke Vargas: I understand that under this program, refugees from Ukraine aren’t guaranteed any long term legal status and that humanitarian parole, you mentioned only holds for two years. What exactly happens after that?

Michelle Hackman: Right. And that’s a reason that this program has gotten a lot of criticism from Ukrainian and refugee groups. A lot of Ukrainians probably feel like they don’t have a home to return to in Ukraine. Their city was destroyed. Their apartment building was destroyed, whatever it may be. Or other people may feel like, oh my gosh, if I move to America, and I find a job, and my kids start going to school, I can’t uproot myself again in two years. I just have to have some peace and dignity. But for those people, it’s honestly going to be difficult because as I said, they have these two-year grants of permission. A lot of people are going to be eligible for a really similar program called temporary protected status, which has been granted to Ukrainians and will almost certainly be extended by the Biden administration. But temporary programs are difficult. Republicans are not really in favor of them. If a Republican administration gets elected, they’ll almost certainly come to an end. And there isn’t a direct pathway for these people to get a green card. The main way that you can do it is if you have a parent, sibling, or child, who’s an American citizen, or if you find an employer who’s willing to sponsor you for a green card, which is quite costly, but those are limited options for people.

Luke Vargas: Okay. And yet, despite those potential pitfalls, you report that the Biden administration is looking at this program to see if they could use it as a model that could be scaled up. How exactly would that work?

Michelle Hackman: Yeah, it’s interesting. There are two aspects. There is the temporary nature of the program. And then there is the private sponsorship, which I would suggest you could separate out. And the Biden administration is looking at doing just that. They’re looking at creating a broader private sponsorship model. So, exactly how strangers in America are taking in Ukrainians, they don’t know. They’re trying to get more Americans to step up and do that with more refugees, but the idea would be once they launch that program, which they’re hoping to do by the end of this year, that those people that they’re sponsoring would be coming through the regular refugee program. So, that means those people arriving would get a green card. As permanent residents would get government healthcare, and food stamps, and things like that. But the adjustment to America piece of things, what I was talking about, finding a home, enrolling in school, that would be handled by your private sponsor. And that might be a church, or a synagogue, or a private volunteer organization, or whatever it may be.

Luke Vargas: That was Wall Street Journal immigration reporter, Michelle Hackman. Michelle, thanks so much.

Michelle Hackman: Thank you.

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

Read and listen to the complete interview of Michelle by Luke Vargas, along with other items, at the link above.

My take:

The Trump Administration destroyed U.S. legal refugee programs;
The Biden Administration pledged to rebuild them;
The Biden Administration failed to keep its promise;
Caught flatfooted by the Ukrainian war, the Biden Administration has created a “band-aid” approach that will result in uncertainty and problems down the line;
Why doesn’t the Administration just make the legal refugee system work?

What about all those refugees who have been waiting at the Southern Border for justice, humanity, and legality, but finding none?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-12-22

THE GIBSON REPORT: 05-09-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney, National Immigrant Justice Center — HEADLINERS: 2d Cir. Reverses BIA On CIMT; Texas AG Targets Legal Assistance To Migrants; EOIR “Friend of Court” Memo; Lack Of Immigrants Hurting U.S. Economy — PLUS BONUS COVERAGE: New Legal Aid Alliance Aims to Build a Model for Universal Representation for Detained Immigrants!

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

PRACTICE ALERTS

NEWS

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

RESOURCES

EVENTS

PRACTICE ALERTS

New EOIR Friend of the Court Memo

EAD Automatic Extension Time Period—Temporary Increase to up to 540 Days

USCIS Changing Communication of Case Processing Data

NEWS

Mexico will take back more Cubans and Nicaraguans expelled by U.S.

WaPo: The deal is potentially significant because the Mexican government has more latitude to carry out deportation flights to Cuba and Nicaragua, nations whose frosty relations with Washington severely limit the United States’ ability to return their citizens.

New Legal Aid Alliance for Detained Immigrants Facing Deportation in the Chicago Immigration Court

MIDA: The Midwest Immigrant Defenders Alliance (MIDA) is a partnership between three nonprofit organizations — the National Immigrant Justice Center, The Resurrection Project, and The Immigration Project — and the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender. The groups will lay the groundwork toward ensuring anyone who is detained by ICE and facing removal proceedings before the Chicago Immigration Court has access to legal representation. The program will reach immigrants detained in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Kentucky. While ICE no longer detains people in Illinois as the result of a state law enacted earlier this year, the groups will be representing Illinois residents who are being detained in other states.

Texas governor says the state may contest a Supreme Court ruling on migrant education

NPR: Abbott first made his remarks about the landmark education decision on Wednesday, in the aftermath of a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Abbott said the court’s 1982 ruling had imposed an unfair burden on his state. “I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different” from when the decision came down, Abbott said in an interview with conservative radio host Joe Pagliarulo.

Texas AG Opens Probe Into State Bar’s Immigration Funding

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday that his office had launched an investigation into the charitable arm of the State Bar of Texas over allegations that the organization is providing funding to “entities that encourage, participate in and fund illegal immigration.”

DeSantis scrutinizes health care costs for the undocumented

Politico: The DeSantis administration on Thursday asked state hospitals to tally up the cost of providing medical care to undocumented immigrants. It’s part of an executive order Gov. Ron DeSantis signed in September, but just had his Agency for Health Care Administration start implementing.

For Second Straight Year, California Sees a Population Decline

NYT: California lost 117,552 residents last year, driven largely by the Covid death toll and a sharp drop in foreign immigration. This followed a slightly bigger decline in 2020, when the state lost 182,083 residents — the first time in more than a century that California got smaller.

The Things They Carried: Is the Border Patrol discarding asylum seekers’ documents?

Border Chron: In Arizona and Texas, border residents are noticing more and more personal belongings left behind, including confidential documents, along the U.S. side of the border wall.

Biden administration scrambles to deal with Russians trying to reach America

Politico: A senior administration official told POLITICO that the United States is exploring ways to increase Russians’ access to the U.S. refugee program, but the official declined to give details. At the same time, U.S. diplomats are effectively being warned to be extra careful in issuing tourist visas to Russians because they are more likely to overstay them due to the war, according to the April 26 cable obtained by POLITICO.

Massachusetts Senate OKs immigrant driver’s license bill

AP: The bill was approved 32-8 in the Democratic-controlled chamber. That’s enough to override a possible veto from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, who has expressed opposition to similar efforts in the past.

Less immigrant labor in US contributing to price hikes

AP: The U.S. has, by some estimates, 2 million fewer immigrants than it would have if the pace had stayed the same, helping power a desperate scramble for workers in many sectors, from meatpacking to homebuilding, that is also contributing to supply shortages and price increases.

U.S. Homelessness Haunts Migrant Families Separated by Trump, Reunited by Biden

Reuters: Of the 200 families the task force has so far reunited, including Hernandez and her daughters, around three-quarters have struggled with housing insecurity, according to previously unreported data collected by two groups that aid them, Together & Free and Seneca Family of Agencies.

U.S. labor agency moves to thwart intimidation of immigrant workers

Reuters: The top lawyer at the agency that enforces U.S. labor laws on Monday directed staff to assure foreign workers that they will not face immigration-related consequences for filing complaints against employers or acting as witnesses in cases.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

Court orders additional briefing in dispute over “remain in Mexico” policy

Howe: In a short order, the justices asked both sides in the dispute to weigh in on technical – but potentially dispositive – issues relating to the court’s power to hear the case.

Matter of German Santos, 28 I&N Dec. 552 (BIA 2022)

BIA: Any fact that establishes or increases the permissible range of punishment for a criminal offense is an “element” for purposes of the categorical approach, even if the term “element” is defined differently under State law… Title 35, section 780-113(a)(30) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which punishes possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, is divisible with respect to the identity of the controlled substance possessed.

BIA Remand Relating To Matter Of A-B-

LexisNexis (quoting Geoffrey Hoffman): This is a great decision as it affirms that A-B- (III) changed the law back to A-R-C-G- and warrants a remand back to the IJ for new proceedings. Importantly the Board notes that the remand is in light of the current case law of the BIA and the Fifth Circuit. Importantly, the Fifth Circuit’s Jaco v. Garland decision was not cited or relied on as impeding remand.

CA1 on Somalia, CAT: Ali v. Garland

LexisNexis: The critical question is whether this record compels the conclusion that Ali could not make the requisite showing with regard to the nature of the abuse to which he will be subjected, notwithstanding the IJ’s failure to have addressed evidence bearing on it. … [W]e conclude that the prudent course is to vacate and remand for the BIA to address the aspects of the record that have not been given their proper consideration.

CA2 On CIMT: Jang V. Garland

LexisNexis: The agency found Jang ineligible for cancellation because of her state conviction for attempted second-degree money laundering, see N.Y. Penal L. § 470.15(1)(b)(ii)(A), which it deemed a “crime involving moral turpitude” (“CIMT”) under the Immigration and Nationality Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2). We agree with Jang that, because her crime of conviction lacks the requisite scienter, it is not a CIMT.

4th Circ. Says Tardiness Isn’t A Failure To Appear

Law360: The Fourth Circuit has rebuked the Board of Immigration Appeals for rubber-stamping an asylum-seeker’s in absentia deportation order without addressing claims that a medical issue made him late to his immigration hearing, saying tardiness isn’t the same as not showing up.

Defective NTA Remand at CA5: Urbina-Urbina v. Garland

LexisNexis: Accordingly, we VACATE the three BIA decisions and REMAND the three cases for reconsideration in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021).

6th Circ. Affirms Cuban Man’s Meth Possession Guilty Plea

Law360: The Sixth Circuit affirmed Monday the guilty plea of a Cuban man who was arrested for possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and sentenced to 16 years in prison, rejecting his argument that the district court made a crucial mistake by failing to warn him that the plea made him deportable.

9th Circ. Says BIA Must Rethink Gay Nigerian’s Torture Claim

Law360: The Board of Immigration Appeals must reconsider its denial of a Nigerian man’s request for protection against torture after the Ninth Circuit ruled that the man had presented enough evidence to show he faced persecution for being gay.

Military Can Help On Immigration Enforcement, 9th Circ. Says

Law360: The Ninth Circuit said on Wednesday that the U.S. military can assist Border Patrol agents in capturing those suspected of entering the country illegally, rejecting an appeal by a Mexican national who was apprehended with the help of a Marine Corps surveillance unit.

Indian Citizen Sues After Losing Work Due To USCIS Delays

Law360: An Indian citizen has asked a D.C. federal court to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to resolve her employment authorization renewal application, saying its unlawful delay caused her to lose her job where she was working on a multimillion-dollar project.

County Called ICE On Immigrant For Traffic Issue, Suit Says

Law360: A Salvadoran immigrant has brought a $5 million lawsuit against a Maryland county, saying it illegally detained and transferred him to federal immigration enforcement over a minor traffic violation, exposing him to federal surveillance and the threat of deportation.

Judge Won’t Ax Florida Challenge To Biden Border Policy

Law360: A federal judge refused to toss Florida’s legal attack on the Biden administration’s border detention policies, saying Wednesday the courts could “unquestionably” review the federal government’s detention policies in a harsh rebuke to the administration’s claims of discretionary immigration authority.

USCIS Temporary Final Rule Increasing Automatic Extension Period for EADs

AILA: USCIS temporary final rule providing that the automatic extension period applicable to expiring EADs for certain renewal applicants who have filed Form I-765 will be increased from up to 180 days to up to 540 days from the expiration date stated on their EADs. (87 FR 26614, 5/4/22)

HHS Supplementary Request for Comment on Forms Related to Release of Unaccompanied Children

AILA: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) supplementary request for public comment on revised versions of several forms related to the release of unaccompanied children from the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Comments are due 6/6/22. (87 FR 27159, 5/6/22)

RESOURCES

NIJC Resources

Basic Procedural Manual for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) Predicate Orders in Illinois, March 2022

FAQs for Immigrants and Advocates – Midwest Immigrant Defenders Alliance

General Resources

AIC: New Data Reveals How Immigration Can Help Meet Labor Demands and Move the US Economy Forward

AILA: Policy Brief: Use of Virtual Hearings in Removal Proceedings

AILA: Alert: Email Scam Masquerading as AILA Email

CAIR: Sign on Letter to EOIR to Continue Expansion of Records Access

CRS: U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service and Options for Military Relatives

DWN: State and local record requests template

ILRC: An Overview of Public Charge

ILRC: Community Materials for DA Town Hall on Immigration

NILA: Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland and Judicial Review of Reasonable Fear and Withholding Only Proceedings

NIPNLG: Oficina del Asesor Jurídico Principal (OPLA) Memorando Sobre la Discreción Fiscal – FAQ Comunitario

NIPNLG: Survey Re OPLA Motions to Dismiss Where the Respondent Does Not Want Dismissal

NIPNLG Prosecutorial Discretion Practice Materials (attached)

EVENTS

NIJC EVENTS

5/10/22 Justice & Java: What It Will Take To Save Our Asylum System

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

6/28/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 1

6/30/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 2

GENERAL EVENTS

5/10/22 Asylum Claims for Young People

5/10/22 2022 Consular Processing Updates: Strategies and Alternatives for NIV and IV Cases

5/11/22 EOIR/ICE Liaison Update: The Most Recent Information on the State of Prosecutorial Discretion

5/12/22 USCIS to Host Webinar on Changes to Communication of Processing Times

5/12/22 Advanced DACA Issues: What You Need to Know in 2022

5/12/22-5/13/22 T-Visa Conference

5/13/22 FBA Immigration Law Conference

5/17/22 Advocating for Prosecutorial Discretion for Clients in Removal Proceedings

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

5/18/22 U Visa Webinar Series: Adjustment of Status

5/19/22 USCIS to Host Webinar on Filing Form I-821D For Individuals Who Previously Received DACA

5/19/22 Fighting Interpol Red Notices with guest speaker, Sara Grossman

5/19/22 Waivers in Removal Proceedings: Beyond the Basics

5/19/22 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Your Client’s I-360 Is Approved, Now What?

5/20/22 Best Practices in Working with Translators and Interpreters

5/20/22 AILA Chicago 2022 Spring Ethics Conference

5/21/22 Spring Ethics Conference Agenda

5/24/22 Current Issues in Afghan Asylum Claims

5/24/22 Obstacles to TPS Eligibility

5/24/22 Advanced FOIA Techniques

5/26/22 LSP Roundtable on Afghan Asylum Interviews

6/7/22 Asylum and Employment Authorization

6/8/22 ASISTA: Immigration Practice & Policy for Survivors: What’s New & What’s Next

6/8/22 Naturalization for People with Disabilities

6/10/22 Representing Immigrant Survivors During & Post-Covid: Considerations for Attorneys and Advocates

6/14/22-6/15/22 NIPNLG 2022 Annual Pre-AILA Crimes & Immigration Seminar

6/20/22 NIPNLG’s Removal Defense Course

6/22/22 Introduction to Immigrant Visa Consular Processing

7/5/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

7/13/22 CGRS Using Universal Expert Declaration in Immigration Court

8/31/22 What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

9/26/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Elizabeth writes:

Hi Judge Schmidt,

I just wanted to share the exciting news of the official launch of the Midwest Immigrant Defenders Alliance (MIDA)! With the end of Immigration detention in Illinois, ICE is sending Illinois residents to remote detention centers where there is little access to counsel. MIDA will ensure these immigrants are not left behind. MIDA is a partnership between three nonprofit organizations — the National Immigrant Justice Center, The Resurrection Project, and The Immigration Project — and the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender, one of the largest public defender’s offices in the country.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:
Tara Tidwell Cullen, NIJC, (312) 833-2967, ttidwellcullen@heartlandalliance.org

New Legal Aid Alliance Aims to Build a Model for Universal Representation for Detained Immigrants Facing Deportation in the Chicago Immigration Court

CHICAGO (May 9, 2022) — A group of Illinois immigration legal aid organizations today announced a new collaboration to expand access to legal representation for people in deportation proceedings who are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The Midwest Immigrant Defenders Alliance (MIDA) is a partnership between three nonprofit organizations — the National Immigrant Justice Center, The Resurrection Project, and The Immigration Project — and the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender. Through a one-year pilot project, the groups will lay the groundwork toward ensuring anyone who is detained by ICE and facing removal proceedings before the Chicago Immigration Court has access to legal representation. The program will reach immigrants detained in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Kentucky. While ICE no longer detains people in Illinois as the result of a state law enacted earlier this year, the groups will be representing Illinois residents who are being detained in other states.

“The National Immigrant Justice Center has represented detained people facing deportation for more than 30 years and we are thrilled for this opportunity to collaborate with organizations who have been longtime partners in defending justice to build a model that will ensure our community members have access to legal counsel when in the throes of the punitive immigration system,” said Ruben Loyo, associate director, Detention Project, at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “We see this as the natural next step in our state to support immigrant families, and an opportunity for Illinois to join the ranks of other states like New York and California whose universal representation programs have demonstrated how ensuring access to affordable legal counsel both upholds justice and helps keep families and communities strong and intact.”

“Too often immigrants from rural and urban communities in central and southern Illinois feel isolated and marginalized while they are facing the highest possible stakes — separation from their families and, often, possible persecution in a country they may have not seen in decades,” said Charlotte Alvarez, executive director of The Immigration Project. “MIDA is a natural expansion of our current advocacy and legal representation work and will allow us to ensure that individuals who were ripped from our downstate communities are able to obtain legal counsel to pursue every possible avenue available to them under the law in order to return to their family.”

During the pilot, one day each week, any detained and unrepresented individual who has an initial hearing before the Chicago Immigration Court and cannot afford private counsel will have the opportunity to consult with one of the collaborating organizations and receive free legal representation while they are detained — and potentially longer if they reside in Illinois. The collaborative also will provide training and mentorship programs to welcome new legal practitioners into the immigration field, an effort to increase capacity for nonprofit organizations to provide affordable immigration defense services in the Midwest. Vera Institute of Justice, a nongovernmental research group, will track the case outcomes from the pilot project to evaluate its impact on ensuring justice for people facing removal proceedings in Chicago.

“Everyone has the right to due process, including immigrants, and immigrants should also have the right to an attorney if they can’t afford one — especially those in detention that face many more barriers to a successful case outcome,” said Eréndira Rendón, vice president of immigrant justice at The Resurrection Project (TRP). “MIDA will increase capacity of community-based legal service providers like TRP to ensure detained immigrants have free, high-quality, and accessible legal services. The more organizations trained and available to support with these complex cases, the closer we are to securing universal representation for all.”

“The launch of MIDA proves that the national movement for universal representation is only getting stronger as people across the country continue to demand that no one should face deportation without a lawyer,” said Annie Chen, director of the Advancing Universal Representation initiative at the Vera Institute of Justice. “People facing deportation are our neighbors, friends, and loved ones. They deserve to fight their cases freely in their communities and with a lawyer by their side. As Illinois becomes the latest state to support a right to counsel for all, we are honored to work with MIDA to help them evaluate their program’s impact and are confident it can serve as a model for the state’s anticipated task force.”

Removal proceedings can have dire consequences for many immigrants, including permanent separation from U.S. citizen children, spouses, and parents, as well as the loss of integral community members. In some cases, deportation may result in someone being sent to a country where they face persecution or death. Yet individuals in these proceedings do not have access to government-appointed legal counsel like defendants in other parts of the U.S. legal system. A 2016 study found that detained immigrants are twice as likely to obtain relief than detained immigrants without counsel. In recent years, approximately 60 percent of detained individuals have been unrepresented in the Chicago court.

The partnership between nonprofit legal aid organizations and the Immigration Unit Pilot of the Cook County Public Defender, one of the largest public defender’s offices in the country, is in part intended to chip away at racial disparities that permeate the U.S. immigration system. Black, Indigenous, and other immigrants of color are disproportionately targeted for criminal arrest, which significantly affects an immigrant’s ability to remain in the United States. Working together, public defenders and immigration counsel have the best chance of ensuring immigrants’ rights are upheld throughout the course of their legal proceedings. Advocates also believe that universal representation models advance racial equity by mitigating biases during the initial triage of cases, when service providers usually must decide who is most deserving of services.

MIDA’s launch comes just weeks after the Illinois General Assembly passed the Right to Counsel in Immigration Proceedings Act (SB 3144), which will create a task force to provide recommendations for how the state can move toward providing legal representation for all Illinoisans facing deportation. The legislation was the latest in a series of state laws championed by Illinois communities and supported by the General Assembly and Governor J.B. Pritzker in recent years to defend immigrant Illinoisans against unjust deportation. After years of advocacy to close immigrant detention centers in Illinois, in January the Illinois Way Forward Act took effect to prevent ICE from detaining immigrants within the state. MIDA seeks to ensure Illinois residents continue to have access to counsel even as ICE increasingly detains immigrants in remote detention centers that often lack local legal resources.

###

Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) ensures human rights protections for low-income immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, with the goal of promoting access to justice, family integrity, and community safety. With offices in Chicago, Indiana, Washington, D.C., and San Diego, NIJC provides direct legal services to and advocates for these populations through impact litigation, public education, and policy reform. NIJC’s immigration legal services are organized into distinct projects, including a Detention Project that for years has served detained immigrants in the Midwest. Visit immigrantjustice.org and follow @NIJC on Twitter.

The Immigration Project (TIP) has secured access to justice alongside immigrant communities in downstate Illinois for over 25 years. With offices in the Bloomington-Normal and Champaign-Urbana areas, TIP maintains an extensive network of staff, partner organizations, and specially trained community member volunteers to provide legal and social services to immigrant families residing in the 86 counties that comprise its service area. TIP works with and for immigrant communities in mutuality and interdependence to build a more just future for all. Visit www.immigrationproject.org.

The Resurrection Project (TRP) builds relationships and challenges individuals to act on their faith, values, and ideals to create healthier communities. Since its founding in 1990, TRP has increased the availability of services and expanded opportunities for Chicago’s low- and moderate-income Latinos. TRP is a trusted provider of culturally and linguistically inclusive services and helps enable families to fully participate and become invested in their communities. TRP serves families from all over the Chicago metropolitan region, though it has a deeply rooted presence in the predominantly Latino and immigrant communities of Pilsen, Little Village, and Back of the Yards.

Through the work of the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender (CCPD) Immigration Unit Pilot, Cook County is the largest county in the nation to provide public defenders to serve the immigrant communities that do not have access to attorneys. In early 2022, Governor JB Pritzker signed Public Act 102-0410 into law and the Cook County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution in support of this initiative. This authorized the defender’s office to begin representing noncitizens in removal proceedings.

LINK TO THIS STATEMENT

Follow NIJC

NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 | Chicago, Illinois 60604
immigrantjustice.org

SUBSCRIBE

DONATE

TAKE ACTION

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

Congrats to all the fantastic NDPA members involved in the MIDA!

As readers of “Courtside” know and see illustrated here every week, the difference between life-saving and legally correct grants of asylum and other relief in Immigration Court and “arbitrary, capricious, railroaded” denials that are all too common at EOIR is often in the expert representation.

Despite “throwing an occasional bone” to the pro bono and “low bono” bars, it’s disturbingly clear that, like its predecessors, the Biden Administration has chosen to fashion, operate, and staff the Immigration Court system on the assumption that the majority of individuals can be rotely “moved” through the system and rejected without effectively asserting their full rights to due process and fundamental fairness.

Effective representation does make a difference! An Administration and a Congress actually concerned about making the immigration justice system work would concentrate on moving toward universal representation rather than the plethora of money and time wasting “enforcement only/deterrence” gimmicks that have failed over the years and continue to do so every day!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-11-22

⚖️😎GARLAND REVERSES BIA: Mental Health Evidence SHOULD Be Considered In “Particularly Serious Crime” Determination! — Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 563 (A.G. 2022)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1504486/download

Matter of B-Z-R-, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General May 9, 2022

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

(1) Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2014), is overruled.

(2) Immigration adjudicators may consider a respondent’s mental health in determining whether an individual, “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); see id § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii).

***************************************
Notably, the problem with the BIA’s poor decision-making here goes back to the Obama Administration. Their indolent, tone-deaf approach to EOIR helped “set the table” for the later weaponization and abuses by the Trump DOJ!

As A.G. Garland, and several Circuits, point out, there was no discernible rationale for the BIA’s wrong-headed decision to exclude mental health evidence from the case-by-case determination.

What’s the cost of poor decision making by the BIA?

8 years of wrongly decided cases;
Unnecessary circuit splits;
Avoidable remands;
Lack of uniformity;
Wasteful and unnecessary litigation;
Wrongful deportations.

What if the BIA were composed of experts, committed to due process and best interpretations? Wouldn’t the whole system work better?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05–10-22

DISSENTING VIEW: LET THE SUN SHINE IN!☀️ — Unaccountable, Anti-Democracy, Out-Of-Touch Righty Supremes Need & Deserve Public Scrutiny Of Decision-Making! — The “Leak” Was “All Good” 😎 — The Retrograde Substance Of Alito’s “Draft,” Not So Much! 🤮

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Supreme-Court-leaks-are-good-actually-Let-s-17154277.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_opinioncentral&sid=5bfc15614843ea55da6b8709

Edward Wasserman writes in the SF Chron:

. . . .

No institution welcomes scrutiny. Maintaining internal cohesion and operational focus demands informational boundaries against the rest of the world. This wish deserves respect, but not automatic submission, especially when matters of vast public consequence are at stake.

That’s why news media take it as a duty to ignore organizational secrecy rules — except when disclosure would cause unwarranted harm — and insist that public awareness must outweigh institutional convenience. A document leaked from most any federal agency that upended longstanding policy would unquestionably be legitimate news, even if it was preliminary, even if exposure would gum up a cozy internal process, even if the leak broke agency rules.

But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Of all our governmental institutions, it is unique in the awe and deference with which our news media, for all their endless claims to seek truth aggressively, treat it.

To be sure, secrecy has a place in the judicial system. Grand juries, for example, are prosecutorial contrivances where untested evidence is presented and people suspected of wrongdoing have weak adversarial protections. Damaging the innocent by publicizing unrebutted claims is a strong possibility. Secrecy makes sense.

But the issue here is altogether different. The leak was of a 98-page draft opinion with 118 footnotes, not a filched personal email or the secondhand account of an overheard chat. It was deeply researched and carefully composed and was distributed internally nearly three months ago, and it signals a major change in an explosive area of public policy. Publishing it doesn’t endanger national security and puts no innocent lives at risk.

So should the Supreme Court, virtually alone among core public institutions, be entitled to say, “We’ll show it to you when we’re ready for you to see it?”

At best, that exceptionalist claim rests on a carefully nurtured myth of the court as a scholarly sanctuary in which big questions of public purpose are engaged through reflection, historical inquiry and quiet, reasoned debate, a process of ripening that must take place behind the sealed doors of an intellectual greenhouse.

That fiction lost credibility a long time ago, at least for anybody who was paying attention in the year 2000 when the court, with the flimsiest of pretexts, awarded the presidency to the candidate with fewer votes but of the same party as its majority.

Indeed, what standards of accountability govern the court? Its members serve life terms free from disciplinary oversight. To get aboard, nominees routinely lie before Congress — about their personal behavior and their judicial philosophy — rendering the Senate’s authority to approve candidates meaningless. Serving justices are not held to any discernible standard of independence. Their right to rule on matters in which close family have personal stakes, or on which they have clear prior leanings, is completely unregulated.

And then there’s the recent sharp increase in furtive rulings reached off-season without full briefing or oral argument — known as the shadow docket — which has further narrowed the window of public visibility. Last summer the court issued 11 such rulings, up from three in 2016, in a slapdash and opaque workaround beloved of the conservative majority that produces jurisprudence that “every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” as dissenting liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.

Perhaps the Roe leak will inaugurate a new era for the court. Maybe there will be more impertinent reporting that exposes the reasoning, bargaining, trade-offs and personal dynamics that drive constitutional lawmaking at the highest levels. Rather than something to be dreaded, such transparency would leave us all better informed and more fully empowered to play the role the system prescribes for us — to shape our collective future.

Edward Wasserman is professor of journalism and former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley.

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

Read Wasserman’s full article at the link.

He says, “No institution welcomes scrutiny.” Very true. Any leader or group of leaders who claim the contrary are probably lying.

Scrutiny sometimes brings accountability. And, as our system deteriorates before our eyes, that’s something that has become rare in today’s politics and public life.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-22

🙁“CAT-ASTROPHE” — GARLAND’S EOIR FLUNKS “CAT 101” — Coast-to-Coast Failures in 9th and 1st Cir Show A “Judiciary” With Life or Death ☠️ Authority Lacking In Basic Legal Skills & Competence!🤮

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

An immigration judge ordered a gay Nigerian man deported over a minor discrepancy. The Ninth Circuit just reversed in a fiery ruling https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/An-immigration-judge-ordered-a-gay-Nigerian-man-17151459.php

When a local security brigade in Nigeria learned Peter Udo and his boyfriend were seen having sex in a hotel room, they seized and beat the couple for six hours and later told Udo he should be put to death.

Udo’s mother used her family savings to enable him to flee the country and he wound up in California, where an immigration judge rejected his plea for asylum and ordered him deported because his description of the events gave a false name for the hotel where he had been captured. That order has now been firmly rejected by a federal appeals court.

The judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the deportation order, failed to give any “reasoned consideration” to the evidence Udo presented, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday in a ruling requiring the board to review his claim that he would be tortured if returned to Nigeria.

That evidence included an “excommunication notice,” signed by leaders of the community’s Council of Traditional Rulers, notifying Udo and his family that anyone engaging in homosexual acts is “subjected to public execution” and that his mother and five other relatives were no longer considered citizens of the community.

“Remarkably, the (Board of Immigration Appeals) did not reference the excommunication notice at all” in its ruling that would have returned Udo to Nigeria, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said in the appeals court’s 3-0 decision, which included a copy of the notice.

Udo’s lawyer, David Casarrubias, said the ruling was a victory for asylum seekers.

“The opinion stands for the proposition that although Congress may enact laws that make it harder for asylum seekers to prevail as a result of minor discrepancies in their applications, there are other international laws like the Convention Against Torture that still have teeth,” Casarrubias said.

. . . . .

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

Read the rest of Bob’s article at the link.

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

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1296P-01A.pdf

. . . .

The government does again urge us to construe the BIA as having merely affirmed a finding that it attributed to the IJ

10 For this reason, we need not resolve whether, as Ali contends, the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) by failing to consider all relevant evidence through the way the IJ treated the evidence from Harper in her testimony and March 2020 declaration that bears on Ali’s “security forces”-related ground for CAT-based deferral of removal.

– 30 –

regarding whether it was “more likely than not” that Ali would be subject to abuse severe enough to constitute torture rather than a finding that it attributed to the IJ regarding the limited severity of the abuse that Ali had shown that he was likely to suffer. But, as we explained in connection with Ali’s challenge to the BIA’s “other private actors”-related ruling, the IJ did not make that finding either. And, in any event, as we have noted, that is a strained reading of the BIA’s opinion, given that the opinion expressly quotes only from the portion of the relevant regulations that purports to define how severe abuse must be to constitute torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . .”), rather than a regulation concerning how “likely” it must be that the noncitizen will be subjected to abuse that is severe enough to constitute torture, see, e.g., id. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), (4).11

Finally, the government contends that we still must affirm the BIA’s ruling because, although Harper described violence, “she did not describe the injuries to the Somalis she

11 To the extent that the government means to argue here, too, that the BIA itself considered the Harper evidence in question because of the portion of the BIA’s opinion in which the BIA states, “after considering the risk of torture from all sources in the aggregate,” we cannot agree. That statement concerns only what the BIA determined that the IJ considered in making the finding about the severity of the abuse that Ali would face that the BIA attributed to the IJ. But, as we have explained, the IJ made no such finding.

– 31 –

witnessed being beaten or kicked . . . such that the agency could reasonably conclude she provided insufficient detail to show that such abuse by Somali security forces rose to the level of torture or that Ali was at risk that it likely would rise to the level of torture.” But, the IJ did not find that Ali had failed to meet his burden to show that he would likely be tortured by security forces in Somalia on any such basis. Rather, the IJ rejected his “security forces”-related ground for requesting deferral of removal pursuant to the CAT solely because the IJ found that “Harper indicated that the main motivation” of the security forces who “mean to do the respondent harm” is “they are either too busy to protect themselves and therefore they cannot protect other people” or to “harass people based on cultural differences,” such that they would not be acting “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” in visiting any abuse on Ali.

. . . .

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

These are complicated cases. Indeed, the 1st Circuit spent 33 pages analyzing this particular case.

By contrast, a supposedly (but, clearly not) “expert” BIA appears to have taken about 5 minutes to “rubber stamp” the clearly defective denials prepared by staff attorneys in these life or death matters! How is this due process or fundamental fairness? No way!

If this were a law school exam, rather than a life or death “court” case, the BIA’s effort probably would have received a “D-“ or an “F.” Yet, Garland finds this ridiculously deficient level of performance acceptable where “only” the rule of law, constitutional due process, and human lives are at stake!

One might expect this from a GOP AG. But, is this really what human rights advocates and progressives elected Biden to churn out?

I say “No.” This is NOT acceptable performance by the BIA! Nor is it acceptable professional performance by Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the other members of the “Clueless Crew” supposedly in charge of the DOJ!

⚖️Due process for migrants is due process for all in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-22

🗽CORNELL IMMIGRATION CLINIC PROVES “THE ASYLUMIST’S” POINT: Lots Of Potential “Winners” Out There Lost In Garland’s Backlogged, Dysfunctional, Unfair EOIR!

Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer
Assistant Clinical Professor
Cornell Law

Professor Steve Yale-Loehr @ Cornell Law writes:

Paul: My colleague Jakki Kelley-Widmer, who runs a 1L immigration clinic at Cornell Law, just won a difficult asylum case before an IJ in Buffalo.This article summarizes the case and mentions all the students who worked on the case over the last few years: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/news/1l-immigration-law-clinic-wins-high-stakes-case/?fbclid=IwAR05sriR0Z4lII65_xNMBtGE40f_JOudKSI78qvcIiLQxR3JmbyscmYz9Hc

Search

ADMISSIONS

ACADEMICS

FACULTY & RESEARCH

CAREERS

LIFE AT CORNELL LAW

Information for:
Current Students
Alumni

GIVE TODAY

News

1L Immigration Law Clinic Wins High-Stakes Case

By Law School staff

April 27, 2022

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Email

Paul: My colleague Jakki Kelley-Widmer, who runs a 1L immigration clinic at Cornell Law, just won a difficult asylum case before an IJ in Buffalo. This article summarizes the case and mentions all the students who worked on the case over the last few years: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/news/1l-immigration-law-clinic-wins-high-stakes-case/?fbclid=IwAR05sriR0Z4lII65_xNMBtGE40f_JOudKSI78qvcIiLQxR3JmbyscmYz9Hc

Search

ADMISSIONS
ACADEMICS
FACULTY & RESEARCH
CAREERS
LIFE AT CORNELL LAW
Information for: Current Students  Alumni
GIVE TODAY

News
1L Immigration Law Clinic Wins High-Stakes Case

By Law School staff

April 27, 2022
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Email

On March 31, The Cornell Law School’s 1L Immigration Law and Advocacy Clinic won a long-fought, difficult case in the Buffalo Immigration Court for a mother and her young children living on a farm in upstate New York, ensuring that the family will be able to live safely in the United States.
The client had arrived in 2019 from Mexico with three children under ten, including a baby. She was fleeing an abusive husband, to whom she had been forcibly married as a teenager, as well as direct threats of gang violence in her home country, whose government offered her no protection.
Immigration authorities detained her for several weeks in the winter of 2019 before releasing her with a notice to appear in court. She went to her first two court dates unrepresented, because few attorneys in upstate New York take this kind of case. Another nonprofit had already declined to represent her when she contacted Cornell Law’s Immigration Clinic.
“Asylum cases are incredibly difficult to win,” says clinic director Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer. “The process is onerous and takes tremendous resources. My students estimate that, across all the law students involved in the case, interpreters we used, law professors who contributed, volunteers who helped care for the client’s children, and administrative staff who assisted with filing and other logistics, this case took us about 1,000 collective hours over 14 months.”
She adds that the clinic was also partially basing its case on a novel argument related to the client’s marriage, which occurred while she was still a child. “The law students came up with this creative solution and found a path forward to make the claim, including by seeking multiple expert witnesses and researching country conditions to contextualize the client’s story.”
The core team of Jared Flanery ’23 and Tori Staley ’23 (who started as 1Ls) and Gaby Pico ’22 and Rachel Skene ’22 (who started as 2Ls) stayed with it for three semesters. They worked closely with the client, completely in Spanish and almost entirely remotely due to the pandemic and the client’s rural location.
The students conducted extensive research, drafted witness declarations, and wrote the briefing, involving three separate legal arguments. They also took on the trial, including direct examination of multiple witnesses, presentation of evidence, and closing arguments.
“Most importantly, the client herself has been her own best advocate,” says Kelley-Widmer. “We’ve laughed with her, we’ve cried with her, and together we celebrated this win for her long-term safety.”

**************************
Folks, these are “first year law students” in the NDPA who, with inspiration and guidance from some of the “best and brightest in American law,” (like Professor Jakki Kelly-Widmer) are running circles around Garland’s “stuck in reverse” DOJ and Mayorkas’s DHS.

I recently featured commentary from Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow about the egregiously horrible effects of EOIR’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) that continues unabated under Garland.
https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/05/04/%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bd%f0%9f%a4%aeaimless-docket-reshuffling-adr-garlands-eoir-screws-%f0%9f%94%a9asylum-seekers-with-long-pending-slam-dunk/

One of Jason’s many salient points was that there are lots of potentially “winnable” cases mired in Garland’s backlog that should be granted if they could only get a merits hearing before a fair judge.

As I have said repeatedly, the things necessary to transform EOIR into a “hotbed of due process” rather than it’s current state of “dysfunctional disaster” are NOT rocket 🚀 science:

More and better representation;
Fair, expert judges with practical experience;
Uniform, nationwide guidance on how to properly grant asylum and other relief in many worthy cases from a BIA of true experts and “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights;
Dockets that prioritize, expedite, and reward well-prepared, well-documented, grantable cases for asylum and other relief.

Those are the items that should have been “day one” priorities at DOJ and EOIR for Garland and his team. (Just what, if anything, has he accomplished in his time in office in ANY significant area of the law or policy?)

Instead, Garland has responded with:

Arbitrary and capricious, deterrence-driven “expedited dockets” that lead to more “ADR” and bigger backlogs;
“User unfriendly,” unilateral actions that have cost him support from the pro bono bar and experts would could have helped straighten out EOIR;
Maintaining a judiciary and “management” structure largely “designed and staffed” to “deny and deport” by his overtly nativist predecessors;
Wasting time, resources, and squandering goodwill by defending Title 42 and other indefensible policies left behind by the Trump-Miller regime.

These mistakes are NOT “small potatoes” 🥔 as Garland and some other misguided Dems seem to think. They have cost the Dems “big time” in the one overarching area where they had complete control and could have made necessary progressive changes for the common good without “60 votes” in the Senate. How many immigration bills did the Trump regime pass on their way to obliterating the law and human rights?

They have also cost the Dems a nearly unprecedented chance to show how sound legal and constitutional policies, equal justice, racial equity, and enlightened progressive humanitarianism can work to reaffirm and re-energize the essential contribution of immigration to America’s greatness and to disprove the racist, nativist, false myths about immigrants and people of color that have become a staple of modern day Republicanism.

Enlightened immigration policies could have materially helped solve or prevent some of the economic woes facing American today. They could have “beefed up” everything from the supply chain to essential workers to needed investments in rural America to the housing shortage.

Some of the “reddest” states in American are among those that could benefit most from immigrants — many of whom have faced and overcome in their lives some of the same problems frustrating rural America. But, migrants who are being illegally rejected at the border, unlawfully imprisoned, and/or then orbited to death or oblivion in failed countries can’t help themselves or anyone else. What a waste of human potential and opportunities to show what immigrants can achieve in and for America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-07-22

🥊EOIR PUMMELED, AGAIN! — Normally “DHS Friendly” 5th Cir. Rejects More Defective NTAs, As EOIR Continues To Reel Under Garland!

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60617.0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/defective-nta-remand-at-ca5-urbina-urbina-v-garland#

“This is a consolidated petition seeking review of three orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming decisions from an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioners’ motions to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the BIA decision and REMAND for reconsideration. … Statutory notice is the central issue in this case. All three family members argued before the BIA that they did not receive proper notice of the removal hearing, and thus that they should not have been removed in absentia. … The reasoning relied on by the BIA in its holding is now foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. In Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021), we held that “in the in absentia context,” an NTA must consist of “a single document containing the required information” regarding the removal hearing. Id. at 355. Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case because here, as in Rodriguez, the initial NTAs did not contain the date and time of the removal hearings. Id. And here, just as in Rodriguez, the BIA concluded that the deficiency was cured by a “subsequent notice of hearing specifying that information.” Id. The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021. … Accordingly, we VACATE the three BIA decisions and REMAND the three cases for reconsideration in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021).”

[Hats off, yet again, to Raed Gonzalez!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Many congrats to fearless NDPA Superstar 🌟 Raed Gonzalez!

Is this just the “tip of the iceberg” 🧊 for rebukes of EOIR’s lousy “jurisprudence” that continues to be an ungodly mess under Garland?

Count on it! As Raed tells me:

Lots out there, and IJ’s keep on issuing in absentias with defective NTA’s. More lawsuits will be coming soon because of the fake dates and times in an attempt to go around Pereira and Chavez. Can’t wait!

It’s what happens when Dem Administrations mindlessly put the wrong folks in charge and and fail to give potential progressive judicial talent — brilliant, practical minds committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices — a chance to straighten out the law and bring order, consistency, and integrity to what certainly is the most important (and currently most dysfunctional) “retail level” judicial system in America!

Compare the available, spectacular progressive judicial talent Biden and Garland HAVEN’T appointed to the “Immigration Bench” with the out of bounds, far right, ignore the Constitution and the law, “turn back the clock” poppycock being spewed forth by Justice Alito and his radical right, GOP, Federalist Society trained buddies on the Supremes and elsewhere! The Biden Administration’s failure to bring long overdue, achievable, beneficial reforms and a wave of better judges to EOIR is a stunning “missed opportunity” that now threatens the very foundations of our democracy!

To put it bluntly: If folks like Raed and other “practical scholars and intellectual powerhouses” from the NDPA were in charge of EOIR and on the “Immigration Bench” these problems wouldn’t exist and real progress would be made in reducing the backlog while enhancing due process!

Folks coming before the Immigration Courts would be receiving justice — rather than blithering nonsense — and our country and the world would be better for it!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-06-22

⚖️ THE GIBSON REPORT — 05-02-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney, National Immigrant Justice Center: Will GOP Supremes Stop Biden From Governing, Abbott’s Racist “Invasion Hoax,” More “Migrant Kills” Anticipated, GOP’s Fabricated Voter Fraud Threat, Mayorkas Mindlessly Tells Refugees “Don’t Come” While Providing No Viable Alternatives!

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

PRACTICE ALERTS

NEWS

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

RESOURCES

EVENTS

PRACTICE ALERTS

ICE Posted Additional Guidance on Prosecutorial Discretion

USCIS Stops Applying Certain EAD Provisions for Asylum Applicants (Updated)

NEWS

Remain in Mexico case in front of SCOTUS is also about whether Biden will be allowed to govern

Daily Kos: This case matters, not only because real lives are at stake, but because justices will be deciding whether an incumbent president has the power to legitimately end a predecessor’s flawed policy. See also ‘Remain In Mexico’ Case May Curb Courts’ Injunctive Power.

Abbott Threatens to Declare an ‘Invasion’ as Migrant Numbers Climb

NYT: Abbott is weighing whether to invoke actual war powers to seize much broader state authority on the border. He could do so, advocates inside and outside his administration argue, by officially declaring an “invasion” to comply with a clause in the U.S. Constitution that says states cannot engage in war except when “actually invaded.”

Biden admin struggles to calm the Democratic storm over immigration

Politico: Memo to the Biden administration: The written plan to handle a summertime migration surge at the border isn’t satisfying purple-state Democrats who were pointedly asking for one. See also Comprehensive Immigration Reform Has ‘Zero’ Chance This Year, Key Senate Democrat Reportedly Says; Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas testifies on Title 42 in Senate hearing.

G.O.P. Concocts Fake Threat: Voter Fraud by Undocumented Immigrants

NYT: Far from the U.S.-Mexico border, Ohio’s Senate primary shows how the Republican obsession with the fiction of a stolen election has spawned a new cause for fear of illegal immigration.

Thomson Reuters to review contracts, including for database used to track immigrants

WaPo: A Canadian trade union said it had scored a surprising victory Friday in its three-year tech battle with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in the United States, successfully persuading the media conglomerate Thomson Reuters to reevaluate its work selling personal data that the agency had used to investigate immigrants.

Huge border influx brings fears of grim summer for migrant deaths

WaPo: A sharp increase in the number of people crossing into the United States through remote desert areas along the U.S.-Mexico border has officials and rights advocates worried that this summer will be especially lethal, with the potential for a spike in migrant deaths. See also DHS chief doubles down on request to migrants at southern border: ‘Do not come’; U.S.-Mexico migration talks ‘constructive,’ not ‘threatening’ -White House; Risking it all: migrants brave Darién Gap in pursuit of the American dream.

People continue to camp outside of Orlando immigration office, hoping to be seen on Monday

ABC: People in search of appointments with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Orlando have been waiting in line for days now and some have been coming back to this spot for more than a month.

House Members Urge Funding for Legal Representation to Indigent Adults in Removal Proceedings

AILA: Forty-seven members of the House of Representatives, led by Congresswoman Norma Torres (D-CA), sent a letter calling for funding for the Department of Justice to expand federally funded legal representation for indigent adults facing immigration court removal proceedings.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

Matter of DANG, 28 I&N Dec. 541 (BIA 2022)

BIA: Because misdemeanor domestic abuse battery with child endangerment under section 14:35.3(I) of the Louisiana Statutes extends to mere offensive touching, it is overbroad with respect to § 16(a) and therefore is not categorically a crime of domestic violence under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

2nd Circ. Turns Down Convention Against Torture Relief Claim

Law360: The Second Circuit on Wednesday ruled that it lacked the jurisdiction to review an Indian man’s deportation, saying a recent immigration judge’s denial of his application for relief, under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, was not a “final order” that triggers the 30 days available for appellate court review.

En Banc 9th Circ. To Reconsider Calif. Private Prison Ban

Law360: The Ninth Circuit vacated on Tuesday a split panel’s decision that a California law banning private immigration detention facilities and other private prisons does not pass legal muster because it would impede the federal government’s immigration enforcement, saying it will hold an en banc hearing.

Federal Court Rules that Government Actions Under Remain in Mexico are Subject to Orantes Injunction

NILC: On Wednesday, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that plaintiffs raised significant questions regarding the federal government’s compliance with a permanent injunction in the Orantes case and ordered the government to produce more information to determine whether Remain in Mexico violated the injunction’s terms.

La. Judge Orders Biden To Keep Enforcing Title 42

Law360: A Louisiana federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Biden administration from prematurely unwinding the Title 42 order used to quickly expel migrants arriving at the border, saying lifting the order ahead of schedule could force states to shoulder the financial burden of more migrants.

Arizona v. CDC Restraining Order

AILA: The judge in Arizona v. CDC granted the temporary restraining order. For the next 14 days, DHS is enjoined and restrained from implementing the termination order, “including increases (over pre-Termination Order levels) in processing of migrants from Northern Triangle countries through Title 8 proceedings rather than under the Title 42 Orders, and are further enjoined and restrained from reducing processing of migrants pursuant to Title 42.” DHS may still practice case-by-case discretion and engage in targeted expedited removal to detain and remove individuals who have crossed multiple times.

New NIJC litigation challenges a sham accountability process, misuse of funds, and egregiously neglectful conditions

NIJC: The litigation exposes how local officials in Indiana unlawfully misappropriate federal dollars meant for the care of immigrants detained in their jail to pad their own budgets. The lawsuit also sheds light on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s deeply flawed oversight that allows private companies and local jails like Clay County to misuse federal taxpayer dollars while non-citizens suffer in egregiously poor conditions.

Migrant Advocates Push For Cert. In Juvenile Work Permit Suit

Law360: Immigrant advocates have urged a California federal court to certify two classes of vulnerable juveniles waiting for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to process their visa applications, saying new agency guidance for child abuse survivors doesn’t address their allegations.

Kariye v. Mayorkas, No. 2:22-CV-01916 (C.D. Cal., filed Mar. 24, 2022)

HoldCBPAccountable: On March 24, 2022, the ACLU, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and ACLU of Minnesota filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Muslim Americans, Abdirahman Aden Kariye, Mohamad Mouslli, and Hameem Shah, who have all been subjected to intrusive questioning from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) officials about their religious beliefs, practices, and associations in violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

Systemic Deficiencies at the Houston Asylum Office in Assessments of Credible and Reasonable Fear Cause Harm and Irreversible Damage to Asylum Seekers

NIPNLG: While many of the issues we raise have occurred in numerous asylum offices, the Houston Asylum Office has a particularly egregious record of conducting these screenings and we therefore ask that you investigate the Houston Asylum Office’s conduct.

Republican AGs Cry Foul Over Biden Asylum Policy

Law360: Over a dozen state attorneys general cried foul over President Joe Biden’s policy vesting asylum officers with greater power over asylum, filing lawsuits Thursday to block the rule, which they claim would force states to bear the cost of more migrants.

Texas Files Lawsuit Challenging Rule on Asylum Processing for Individuals Subject to Expedited Removal

AILA: On 4/28/22, the state of Texas filed a lawsuit challenging a DHS and DOJ interim final rule, issued on 3/29/22, and scheduled to take effect on 5/31/22. Texas argues the rule, which would change how individuals subject to expedited removal are processed for asylum, is unlawful.

DHS Notice of Implementation of Uniting for Ukraine Process

AILA: DHS notice of the implementation of the Uniting for Ukraine parole process, beginning 4/25/22. (87 FR 25040, 4/27/22)

DHS Plan for Southwest Border Security and Preparedness

DHS: Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas transmitted a memorandum to interested parties to provide additional details on the Biden-Harris Administration’s comprehensive plan to manage increased encounters of noncitizens at our Southwest Border.

RESOURCES

ACLU National Prison Project: Litigating Immigration Detention Conditions: An Introductory Guide (attached)

AIC: Survey on EOIR Mitigation for Access to Counsel Obstacles

AILA: Client Flyer: Rescheduling Biometrics Appointments

AILA: 75th Edition of the AILA Law Journal

ASISTA COVID-19 Practice Pointer: COVID Testing & Vaccination Requirements for Travel to the United States (Updated April 2022)

CRS: U.S. Immigration Courts and the Pending Cases Backlog

DHS OIG: Violations of ICE Detention Standards at South Texas ICE Processing Center

DHS Coloring Book

DOS: Information for Nationals of Ukraine

NIJC/DWN: State and Local Records Request Resources & Template

NILA: Template EOIR Motions to Stay Removal for Individuals Seeking to Reopen Removal Proceedings

NILA: The Basics of Motions to Reopen EOIR-Issued Removal Orders

NILA: Arriving Noncitizens and Adjustment of Status

NIPNLG OPLA Memo Explainer

NIPNLG: Survey Re OPLA Motions to Dismiss Where the Respondent Does Not Want Dismissal

EVENTS

NIJC EVENTS

5/7/22 Ukrainian Immigration Options Workshop

5/10/22 Justice & Java: What It Will Take To Save Our Asylum System

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

6/28/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 1

6/30/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 2

GENERAL EVENTS

5/3/22 The Family Visa Petition

5/3/22 Inaugural “Vicarious Trauma Check-in” for Immigration Attorneys & Legal Staff: Reflecting on Lawyering Under 4 Years of Trump + 1 Year of Biden and Looking Forward

5/4/22 California Pardons and Post-Conviction Relief

5/5/22 Stories from the Trenches: Tools for Dealing with Depression, Burnout, and Substance Abuse

5/5/22 Preventing & Mitigating Vicarious Trauma Among Immigration Legal Staff As An Immigration Attorney Supervisor or Manager

5/6/22 Preventing & Mitigating Vicarious Trauma Amidst Zealous Immigration Detention Lawyering & Organizing

5/6/22-5/13/22 NITA-NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” Training

5/10/22 Asylum Claims for Young People

5/10/22 2022 Consular Processing Updates: Strategies and Alternatives for NIV and IV Cases

5/11/22 EOIR/ICE Liaison Update: The Most Recent Information on the State of Prosecutorial Discretion

5/12/22 Advanced DACA Issues: What You Need to Know in 2022

5/12/22-5/13/22 T-Visa Conference

5/13/22 FBA Immigration Law Conference

5/17/22 Advocating for Prosecutorial Discretion for Clients in Removal Proceedings

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

5/18/22 U Visa Webinar Series: Adjustment of Status

5/19/22 USCIS to Host Webinar on Filing Form I-821D For Individuals Who Previously Received DACA

5/19/22 Fighting Interpol Red Notices with guest speaker, Sara Grossman

5/19/22 Waivers in Removal Proceedings: Beyond the Basics

5/19/22 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Your Client’s I-360 Is Approved, Now What?

5/20/22 AILA Chicago 2022 Spring Ethics Conference

5/21/22 Spring Ethics Conference Agenda

5/24/22 Current Issues in Afghan Asylum Claims

5/24/22 Obstacles to TPS Eligibility

5/24/22 Advanced FOIA Techniques

6/7/22 Asylum and Employment Authorization

6/8/22 ASISTA: Immigration Practice & Policy for Survivors: What’s New & What’s Next

6/8/22 Naturalization for People with Disabilities

6/14/22-6/15/22 NIPNLG 2022 Annual Pre-AILA Crimes & Immigration Seminar

6/22/22 Introduction to Immigrant Visa Consular Processing

7/5/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

7/13/22 CGRS Using Universal Expert Declaration in Immigration Court

8/31/22 What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

9/26/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Corrupt GOP nativist politicos grandstanding, inept Administration officials, experts ignored, human rights, Constitution, humanity trampled, killing migrants, empowering smugglers, lack of vision, disdain for the rule of law, moral cowardice.

The ugliness and futility of misguided, counterproductive, cruel, inhumane U.S. “enforcement only/deterrence” policies at border is in full display in this week’s report from Elizabeth!

Casey keeps asking the same question. Unhappily, nobody (except some members of the NDPA who are ignored except when creaming Garland in court) has “stepped up” with the answer!

“Can’t anybody here play this game?” — Casey Stengel
PHOTO: Rudi Reit
Creative Commons

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

O5-05-22

👎🏽🤮AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) @ GARLAND’S EOIR SCREWS 🔩ASYLUM SEEKERS WITH LONG-PENDING “SLAM DUNK” 🏀 CASES: “So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.”

From Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow:

https://www.asylumist.com/2022/04/27/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah/

Let me tell you about some recent events in my office.

We had two cases set for individual hearings this week. Both cases involve noncitizens who have been waiting years for their decisions, both have family members abroad who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their claims are successful, and both have strong cases for asylum.

For the first case, we prepared and submitted evidence earlier in the pandemic, but the case was postponed at the last minute due to Covid. We were hoping that the new date would stick, given that restrictions are easing and the court now has a system to do cases remotely (called Webex). As the date approached, we filed additional evidence and scheduled two practice sessions for the client. We also regularly checked the Immigration Court online portal, which lists our court dates, to be sure the case was still on the docket.

“Your asylum case is cancelled. Again.”

The second case has also been pending for years. The respondent (the noncitizen in court) is from Afghanistan, and such cases are supposedly receiving priority treatment. So at the Master Calendar Hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) asked us to be sure to talk to DHS prior to the hearing, presumably in the hope that we would come to an agreement about relief. The IJ also scheduled the hearing for a relatively short time slot in anticipation of a possible uncontested hearing. As with the first case, we filed all the evidence and scheduled the practices.

Both respondents had been in touch with their families overseas and both had talked to their relatives about hopefully reuniting soon.

Then – surprise! – we checked the Immigration Court portal and noticed that both cases had disappeared from the docket. Since the portal pages are sometimes screwy, and since court dates are constantly changing, we decided to wait a bit to see whether the dates reappeared. Informing clients about court delays is always fraught, and can even be traumatic for the clients and their families, who have a lot invested in these dates. So it is better not to inform the client until we are sure a date is canceled.

After some hours, we decided to tell the first client. We had a practice session scheduled for that afternoon, and it would waste time to prepare for a hearing that was not going forward. I called the client and informed him, and as I have often experienced before, he was upset and confused. Why had the case been postponed? Was it something about him or his case? Or was it something about the Court? I could at least inform him that we had two cases canceled on the same date (from two different IJs), and so he should understand that the cancellation was not related to him personally. That is obviously cold comfort, but I guess it is better than nothing. I know it was very upsetting for him to receive this news. It was emotionally exhausting for me as well.

For the next two days, this client kept checking the online court system to see whether anything changed. Then – surprise again! – the case re-appeared on the docket for the same old day and time!

I called the court to confirm, and the clerk told me that the case had been removed by accident, and that it was back on! How lucky! The client told me how upset he had been. He hadn’t been able to sleep or eat. He did not even inform his family back home, as he feared they would not understand or would not believe him. We rescheduled the two practice sessions and mentally re-prepared to go forward.

The next day – surprise again again! – I received a message from the court. The case was definitely off. The clerk apologized for the confusion, and told me that the matter would be set for a date in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to publish here the words that came from my mouth after receiving this message, but let’s just say that I was somewhat agitated. I called the clerk and left a message informing the court how harmful this whole process had been to the respondent, how upset he was, and how he had not seen his family members for years. I also mentioned how upsetting the experience had been for me.

I should say that I do not blame the clerk. He is actually very nice and very responsive (he actually called back and said he will try to get us a new date as soon as possible). The problem is “the system” and complaining to the system is about as effective as punching the ocean. No one is ever responsible, and so there is no one who can be held accountable.

As for client number two, at least he did not suffer the on-again, off-again fate of our first client. But he and his family members were also very upset, and given the IJ’s intention of scheduling the hearing quickly because the respondent is Afghan, it is particularly frustrating that a likely approval should be pushed off until who-knows-when.

What now? For both cases, we will wait a bit to see if new dates appear. Maybe they will. If not, we will file motions to advance, and we will try to get earlier dates. All this is more expense and wasted time for the clients, more work for us, and more work for the court, which will have to review our filings. Last year, I wrote about the harm caused by cancelled hearings, and–despite the easing pandemic and the wide-spread availability of Webex–the problem persists. I’ve mentioned just two cases here, but we see this again and again and again. Not in every case, but it’s common enough that we can never be confident that any particular case will go forward, which makes it much more difficult for respondents and attorneys to prepare for court.

While the situation is bleak, I should mention that the news is not all bad. We are still having some successes. For example, over my Spring Break, I litigated a Syrian case (remotely, with very questionable internet, and in what I believe is the first Immigration Court case in the history of Shickshinny, Pennsylvania). Although it was a close case and DHS generally opposed relief, the IJ explained his reasons for granting and DHS agreed not to appeal. And just yesterday, my client from Pakistan received asylum after a contested hearing. DHS did not appeal.

So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.

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

Thanks, Jason, for your clear and compelling description of the toxic human and systemic effects of Garland’s continuing “ADR” at EOIR!

Contrary to the “nativist false narrative” promoted under Administrations of both parties, those suffering in the inexcusable EOIR backlog are NOT “evading deportation.” Many, probably the majority, are individuals who are eligible to, and should be granted, the ability to remain in the U.S.

This is particularly true of asylum applicants. Even with a system improperly skewed against them, asylum applicants were winning the majority of their EOIR court cases as recently as FY 2012.

Despite worsening conditions since then in almost all “sending countries,” that rate cratered by about 50% during the Trump regime. It’s fairly obvious that the increased denial rates resulted from perversions of the law, ADR, and an intentional “dumbing down” of both the administrative law and EOIR personnel at all levels.

Garland has taken, at best, “baby steps” to improve the Immigration Courts. He’s merely “nibbling at the edges” where radical house cleaning 🧹and progressive reforms ⚖️ were absolutely necessary, recommended by experts, and achievable — at least had Garland “hit the ground running!”

EOIR should long ago have been replaced with an independent Article I Immigration Court based on the principles of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, and most of all, an overriding unswerving commitment to due process and best practices. Judges and administrators should be selected competitively, with private bar input, and exclusively on a merit basis from among those who have demonstrated expertise in immigration and human rights.

As long as EOIR inappropriately continues to reside in the U.S. Department of Justice, there should never, NEVER, again be another Attorney General who does not possess significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court — the fundamental “retail level” of our entire justice system. Garland ‘s failure to “get the job done for due process and equal justice” — not even close — is “Exhibit A” in what happens when the wrong person is appointed to oversee the Immigration Courts!

At a time when America needed enlightened, inspirational, informed, and courageous legal and ethical leadership for the Immigration Courts, Garland has been “MIA!” American justice, at all levels, is paying the heavy price!☹️

Alfred E. Neumann — Merrick Garland: “What, me worry? I’ve spent my entire law career in the ‘ivory tower.’ What’s ‘aimless docket reshuffling?’ Who cares about asylum seekers?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-22

⚡️ZAPPED AGAIN: 4TH CIR. TELLS EOIR TARDY IS NOT ABSENT! — NDPA Superstar 🌟 Helen Parsonage, Esquire, Comes Up Big For The Good Guys, Again! — Salomao v. Garland

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201856.U.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-in-absentia-order-tardy-does-not-mean-absent—salomao-v-garland

“This case arises out of an in absentia order against two Petitioners who allege to have arrived one hour and five minutes late to their individual hearing scheduled for several hours. Neither the immigration judge (“IJ”) nor the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) addressed this argument. For the reasons that follow, we find that the BIA abused its discretion when it made no mention of the alleged late arrival in its decision to dismiss the motion to reopen proceedings on appeal. Thus, we reverse and vacate the BIA’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Petitioners’ motion to reopen. In doing so, the BIA should determine whether Petitioners arrived late, and if so, whether the surrounding circumstances show that this late arrival constitutes a failure to appear for the purposes of the statute’s preclusive effect.”

[Hats off to Helen Parsonage!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Congrats, Helen!

Anybody have a guess as to how many of these “bogus in absentias” are out there right now? Haste makes waste!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-22

Bess Levin @ The Levin Report:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

The case is Miranda v. Garland, and it’s published:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Bess Levin @ Vanity Fair writes:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Elizabeth writes:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Edward Wasserman writes in the SF Chron:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Professor Steve Yale-Loehr @ Cornell Law writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: