"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
BIA Asylum Panel cutting down the backlog by trampling asylum seekers and their legal rights! Guatemalans are a favorite target for Garland’s “Band of Bullies” at EOIR. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA3 on Guatemala, Law, Facts and Standard of Review: Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
“Based on past experiences, if returned to Guatemala, Selvin Heraldo Saban-Cach fears being persecuted by a local gang because of his identity as an indigenous person. Accordingly, he seeks withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied his applications and ordered his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. This petition for review followed. For the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Although the BIA need not write an overly detailed explanation of its review of an IJ’s decision, it must provide an adequate explanation of its ruling and afford us an opportunity to review it. Here, the BIA did neither. At times, the IJ’s decision completely conflicts with the record. Yet, for reasons that are not at all apparent, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in its entirety. … The BIA must review the first, factual question for clear error and the second, legal question de novo. In affirming the IJ’s decision of the second question regarding acquiescence, the BIA concluded that it found “no clear error in the [IJ]’s predictive fact-finding.” Accordingly, in addition to not bifurcating the Myrie step-two inquiry, the BIA also erred by applying this heightened standard of review to a legal question. Because of these errors, “we have little insight into the basis for [the BIA’s] determination that the IJ’s opinion ‘clearly reflects that [s]he used the proper “willful blindness” standard in relation to the issue of acquiescence.’” Accordingly, on remand the BIA needs to reassess each question.”
[Hats way off to Stephanie Norton, CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall!]
Stephanie Norton CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall Law PHOTO: Seton Hall Law website
********************
Congratulations to NDPA star Stephanie Norton! This is yet another example of the great talent “out here” who could replace mal-functioning EOIR judges. Human lives are at stake, this system is dysfunctional, crying out for bold reforms! Wonder how the Dems will try to “spin” their miserable performance at EOIR in 2024?
The IJ’s and BIA’s findings of “no past persecution” in this case rise to the level of absurd! Here’s what happened:
The BIA recognized that gang members had attacked Saban-Cach on multiple occasions and that the worst attack left him unconscious after he was stabbed with a broken glass bottle. However, the BIA agreed with the IJ that, in the aggregate, this abuse did not rise to the level of persecution. The BIA explained that, “because most of the incidents did not involve physical injuries, and because the worst attack did not require him to seek professional medical care for his physical injuries, the applicant did not establish harm rising to the level of past persecution.”
Come on man! No competent, fair minded judge would reach such a totally ridiculous conclusion based on such shallow, specious, and basically “made up reasoning!” Not incidentally, it also directly conflicted with Circuit precedent as well as with the realities of life in Guatemala!
The BIA also ran roughshod over its OWN binding precedent, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 23 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1998) (cumulative harm is persecution), which should have made a finding of past persecution a “no brainer” for a panel of competent asylum adjudicators! The sloppy, biased, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR is a major cause of their out of control backlog. Efforts to deny easily grantable cases, and failure to direct wayward asylum-denying IJs to get it right in the first place, is a drag on our entire justice system — all the way up to the Courts of Appeals!
That’s because EOIR’s “any reason to deny” approach to asylum encourages, and often rewards, frivolous litigating positions by ICE, discourages stipulations and settlements in cases that should easily be granted, and results in OIL taking ethically and legally flawed positions in the Courts of Appeals. For example, in this case the 3rd Circuit characterized parts of OIL’s position as “disingenuous,” “puzzling and disappointing,” and pointedly stated that “[r]egrettably, the government’s response brief doubles down on this inaccuracy.”
So, these are the legal quality and ethical standards set at DOJ by AG Merrick Garland, a former Circuit Judge himself who certainly should be expected to “know better.” Apparently, in his view, due process, fundamental fairness, impartial adjudication, adherence to the law, judicial and legal ethics don’t apply when it’s “only migrants” whose lives are at stake! While this is a common approach from White Nationalist GOP politicos, don’t we deserve better from a Dem Administration that claims to care about racial justice, but whose actions with respect to migrants say otherwise?
The court also blasted EOIR for “ethnocentric” judging and failure to fairly evaluate cases.
We have previously cautioned IJs and the BIA against ethnocentric evaluations of petitioners’ resources. Petitioners primarily come from countries in the poorest and most dangerous regions of the world. Any presumption that they enjoy the same kinds of resources as their adjudicators is shortsighted and unfair. Unless the record supports it, IJs and the BIA should not assume that their own views of appropriate medical care and its ready accessibility make up a universal reality.
Petitioners for relief under the asylum system must be afforded the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands. The immigration system can only provide a fair and neutral determination of the claims of people from different cultural and economic circumstances if adjudicators diligently avoid unrealistic assumptions about petitioners’ circumstances.
Any competent asylum practitioner would understand what the court is getting at. But, EOIR IJs at both the trial and appellate level make these basic mistakes time after time.
The 3rd Circuit and other courts might claim to find the BIA’s “entire” affirmance of a decision often in “complete conflict” with the record to be inexplicable. But, WE know that it’s because the “deportation assembly line” works on the “principle” of “any reason to deny” and “keep cranking out those final orders of removal.” To Hell with justice, quality, fairness, and the human lives involved!
This disasterous, backlogged, “star chamber system” is neither appropriately staffed nor competently operated to afford individuals “the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands.” How is this due process and fundamental fairness required by our Constitution?
“Justice” Star Chamber Style. — AG Merrick Garland appears to be blissfully unconcerned about the methods applied by too many of his EOIR “judges,” and his DOJ attorneys who “run interference” for them, to achieve “removal for any reason, at any cost!”
Until a court has the guts to “pull the plug” on EOIR’s ongoing, deadly clown show 🤡, declare it unconstitutional, and require at least minimal due process reforms, these outrages will continue! “Puzzling” about recurring miscarriages of justice at EOIR, as the 3rd Circuit did here, is one thing; acting decisively to enforce the Constitution by stopping the abuse, once and for all, is quite different. Requiring EOIR judges with demonstrated expertise in asylum law, willing to professionally review records, and decide cases of asylum seekers correctly, without “ethnocentrism” or bias, would be a logical starting point! It should be a “no brainer!”
“When you walk into your EOIR ‘courtroom’ and this guy takes the bench, you’re probably in for a BAD day! Isn’t it time to finally END the ‘Clown Show’ in our dystopian Immigration ‘Courts?'” PHOTO: Clown Civertan.jpg, Creative Commons License
Immigration law rocks with “Professor Stevie & His Ramblin’ Band of Experts!” Public Realm
Immigration Reform: Lessons Learned and a Path Forward
Congress has been unable to enact comprehensive immigration reform for over 30 years.
Employers face an unprecedented shortage of workers.
The Dreamers, long-contributing members of our society, face uncertainty due to litigation questioning the legality of the DACA program.
And border security concerns everyone.
Polls suggest Americans want immigration reform. But the conventional wisdom is that “comprehensive immigration reform” is impossible in a divided Congress.
This conference will explore targeted legislation and other policy changes that could be enacted in 2023, focusing on work visa changes to help alleviate our labor shortages, border security and asylum reforms, and a permanent path forward for Dreamers, farmworkers.
Sponsored by the Cornell Law School Immigration Law and Policy Research Program and cosponsored by the Cornell Migrations Initiative.
While we encourage in-person attendance, the conference will be webcast live from the National Press Club. Mark your calendars now for this important event!
Panelists from the following organizations:
American Action Forum, American Business Immigration Coalition, AmericanHort, Bipartisan Policy Center, Compete America, Cornell Law School, Migration Policy Institute, National Association of Evangelicals, National Immigration Forum, Niskanen Center, Service Employees International Union,
Texas Association of Business, TheDream.US, UnidosUS,
United Farm Workers of America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
A special thanks to the Charles Koch Foundation for sponsoring this event.
This is a promising idea. Hope it works! I have to wonder, however, why a coordinated effort like this wasn’t implemented for asylum seekers arriving at the Southern Border?
You can register (free) for the Cornell Conference, where this and other timely topics will be discussed by the experts!
Professor Kristina Campbell Visiting Professor S.J. Quinney College of Law U. of Utah PHOTO: Quinney Website
Kristina reports:
I just wanted to share with you that I launched a new Refugee Law Clinic at the University of Utah this semester! I am a visiting professor here & my students this semester are working with a Ukrainian family, as well as UACs from Afghanistan and Latin America. You can read more about the clinic here:
I also attached some photos of the clinic space at the law school:
Refugee Clinic @ S.J. Quinney PHOTO: K. Campbell
**********************
Kristina and her UDC Clinic students were “regulars” at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court during my tenure. Since retiring, I have had the pleasure of being a guest lecturer, along with my friend Judge Dorothy Harbeck, at clinic classes taught by Kristina and her amazing colleague, Professor Lindsay Harris. (Lindsay was a guest lecturer in my Refugee Law & Policy class @ Georgetown Law during her time as a CALS Asylum Clinic fellow.)
Thanks for the report Kristina. Those are lucky students and clients to have you working for and withthem! And, my gratitude and admiration for all you have done and continue to accomplish for justice in America. Scholar, author, advocate, creative thinker, educator, administrator, organizer, inspiring role model, innovator: You “check all the boxes,” Kristina!
Your students are so fortunate to have you for a teacher and inspiring example of all that’s best in American law!
I had a few highlights roll in after this was first posted, so here is an updated thread regarding the wonderful things that immigration law professors around the country had to celebrate in 2022.
Eugenio Mollo, Jr. joined Toledo as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Law to launch and direct the school’s Immigrant Justice Clinic.
Aadhithi Padmanabhan (Maryland) started her first full-time job in academia as an Assistant Professor of Law directing the new Federal Appellate Immigration Clinic.
Carrie Rosenbaum joined Chapman as a Visiting Assistant Professor in Fall 2022.
Tania N. Valdez started her first tenure-track job as an Associate Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Promotions and Awards:
Lauren R. Aronson (Illinois) was promoted to Full Clinical Professor in August and granted Clinical Tenure.
Jason Cade (Georgia) was promoted to full professor. He also received the University of Georgia’s Engaged Scholar Award.
Jennifer Chacón (Stanford) received the Bruce Tyson Mitchell professorship.
Ming Hsu Chen (Hastings) was named the Harry & Lillian Hastings Research Chair and Founding Director of the Center for Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality (RICE).
Shane Ellison (Duke) was promoted to Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching).
Kate Evans (Duke) was awarded clinical tenure in 2022.
Laila Hlass (Tulane) was promoted to Clinical Professor of Law. She was also awarded the 2022 NIPNLG Elisabeth S. “Lisa” Brodyaga Award.
Kevin Johnson (Davis) was named the first recipient of the Michael A. Olivas Award for Outstanding Leadership in Diversity and Mentoring in the Legal Academy. We look forward to the formal celebration in 2023.
Kit Johnson (Oklahoma) received the Thomas P. Hester Presidential Professorship.
Gabriela Kahrl (Maryland) was promoted from Associate Director to Co-Director of the Chacón Center for Immigrant Justice.
Jennifer Lee (Temple) was approved for tenure by a vote of the law school faculty — their first tenured clinician! We look forward to celebrating the formal approval from central campus in 2023.
Mauricio E. Noroña (Cardozo) became a VAP this year after a stint as a teaching fellow in the Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic.
Shalini Bhargava Ray (Alabama) was approved for tenure by a vote of the law school faculty. We look forward to celebrating the formal approval from central campus in 2023.
Rachel Rosenbloom (Northeastern) is a fellow with Northeastern’s Center for Law, Equity and Race (CLEAR) while she is on sabbatical this year.
Scott Titshaw (Mercer) was promoted in 2022 from Associate Professor to Professor.
Administrative Gigs:
Hemanth Gundavaram (Northeastern) became Associate Dean of Experiential Education and Director of Clinical Programs; he continues to also serve as Director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic.
Anita Maddali (Northern Illinois) became the Associate Dean for Student Affairs in August 2022, stepping down from the Director of Clinics role she’d been in since 2011.
Rachel Rosenbloom (Northeastern) finished her term as Associate Dean for Experiential Education.
Other Exciting News:
Kate Evans (Duke) secured an additional $2.5 million grant to support Duke’s Immigrant Rights Clinic and the activities of the Duke Immigrant & Refugee Project.
Jill Family (Widener) became Chair of the ABA Administrative Law section.
Dina Haynes (New England) started a non-profit–Refugeeprojects.org–through which she has assisted many refugees, asylum seekers, pro bono attorneys and governments. She coordinates 800 attorneys assisting Afghans with evacuation, transit and Immigration status.
Laila Hlass (Tulane), Sarah Sherman-Stokes (Boston U), and Mary Yanik (Tulane) received a 2022 Research & Policy Grant from Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research.
Geoffrey Hoffman (formerly Houston) became an immigration judge!
NEW BABIES (Squee!)
Joe Landau (Fordham) welcomed Max Fitzgerald Landau on 1/1/22 at 4:49am. 6 lbs, 2 oz of greatness.
Lauren R. Aronson (Illinois) welcomed Max Reuben Aronson-Orr on 12/15/2022 at 8:00pm. 8 lbs., 12 oz. of joy.
Congratulations to all!
-KitJ
********************
“Super-kudos” to all! 🎖🏆😎 Thanks to Kit (the “Amazing KitJ @ ImmProf”) for putting this together and many congrats on her receipt of the Thomas P. Hester Presidential Professorship @ Oklahoma Law. Couldn’t have gone to a more deserving and consequential role model for the NDPA!
As one of my NDPA colleagues recently observed about the work of these NDPA “practical scholars:”
[T]he law schools today have incredible clinical programs that encourage and develop critical thinking and creative problem-solving; they send so many great new members of the NDPA out into the world.
Those familiar with what’s really happening in American justice these days also had this cogent observation:
EOIR does exactly the opposite; it kills critical or original thought, and rewards the bland “go along to get along” types. And the training is horrible, and actually refuses to include anyone from outside – even former IJs and Board Members. So the good people either quit, linger in the shadows, or are broken over time.
It’s very clear that a better Dem Attorney General would have “tapped in” to the practical problem solving skills, guts, integrity, and intellectual firepower of those on Kit’s honor roll and many others like them. I note with great pleasure and immense gratitude that Honor Roll member, Judge Geoffrey Hoffman, formerly of Houston Law, did “make the leap” to the Immigration Bench this year. But we need more, many more, like Judge Hoffman at all levels of EOIR to “rescue the sinking ship.”
The talent to change EOIR from a “CINO” to a “model court system” is out here! What’s sorely missing is dynamic leadership and consistent direction from the Biden Administration and Dems in Congress.
Immigrants have legal rights. Immigration isn’t going away in the future no matter how much Dems try to “wish it below the radar screen” and the GOP tries to “demonize it to death!”
The disgraceful failure of both parties to enforce legal rights of immigrants, stand up for human rights, and take realistic approaches to human migration is damaging our democracy and diminishing our national strength.
I advocate NDPA members “taking over” the Immigration Judiciary and fixing things from “the bottom up.” It won’t happen overnight; but waiting for real leadership from Dems or change from the “top” is like “waiting for Godot” — Not going to happen! See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8hm.
And, you’d be surprised at the useful insights and knowledge that can be gained from getting “inside EOIR” — an intentionally opaque, “closed” organization if there ever was one. That’s why courts often pay attention to what we “Former Immigration Judges and Board Members in the Round Table” say in our amicus briefs. We’re they only ones speaking truth about what really happens in Immigration Court “behind the bench.” All the “official versions” are “highly sanitized,” “manipulated,” or sometime just “unadulterated BS!”
Don’t leave “judging in America” to the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and inept Dem politicos who are too tone-deaf, insecure, and/or scared to do the right thing for YOUR future and the future of our nation.
Storm the tower! 🗼Take back justice at the retail level of our system!Better judges for a better America!
”Storm the Tower!” — EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it! Public Domain
Excerpts:
Now, those of you who read my blog immigrationcourtside.com or have heard me speak before, or both, know that I am an outspoken critic of the last four Administrations’ gross mismanagement and misdirection of our Immigration Courts. So, you might well ask why I am here recruiting YOU to become part of a court system that I have consistently lampooned and characterized as dysfunctional, FUBAR, and badly in need of long-overdue reforms.
A better question might be why AG Garland, VP Harris, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, and Associate AG Vanita Gupta AREN’T here today actively recruiting you to apply to become Immigration Judges in their system. It’s a hugely important court, perhaps the largest in the Federal Government, that cries out for excellence, practical immigration scholarship, and badly needs a much more diverse, representative, and expert judiciary to achieve equal justice for all in America.
The short answer is because I CARE, and THEY DON’T! I have a vision of a model court system unswervingly dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, great practical scholarship, best judicial practices, fantastic public service, and equal justice for all! THEY DON’T!
After two largely fruitiness and frustrating years of the Biden Administration’s bungling immigration and social justice mis-steps, it’s painfully clear that the needed management, personnel, operational, and expertise reforms needed at EOIR AREN’T going to come from above.
But, if you have been in Immigration Court and thought “Hey, there is a better, more informed, more efficient, more just way to run this railroad, why isn’t it happening,” THIS is YOUR chance to get on board and change the direction of EOIR and the millions of lives and livelihoods that depend on it! See that the next generations of dedicated immigration lawyers won’t face some of the unnecessary and counterproductive roadblocks and bad experiences that you have had to deal with in seeking justice for your clients before EOIR!
. . . .
Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates dropped precipitously during the Trump years. Although they have rebounded some under Biden, they still remain below the 2012 levels. It’s certainly not that conditions have substantially “improved” in major “sending countries.” If anything, conditions are worse in most of those countries than in the years preceding 2012.
So, if the law hasn’t changed substantially and country conditions haven’t improved, what has caused regression in asylum grant rates at EOIR? It comes down to poor judging, accompanied by inadequate training, too much emphasis on “churning the numbers over quality and correctness,” and a BIA that really doesn’t believe much in asylum law and lacks the expertise and commitment to consistently set and apply favorable precedents and end disgraceful inconsistencies and “asylum free zones” that continue to exist.
Some of the most disgraceful, intentional asylum misinterpretations by Sessions and Barr now have been reversed by Garland. Unfortunately, he failed to follow-up to insure that the correct standards are actually applied, particularly to recurring circumstances. It’s one of many reasons that the Biden Administration struggles to re-establish a fair and efficient legal asylum system at the Southern Border — notwithstanding having two years to address the problems!
But, it doesn’t have to be this way! Recently, as I noted earlier, a number of notable “practical scholar experts” have been appointed to the Immigration Judiciary. When such well-qualified jurists reach a “critical mass” in the expanding EOIR, systemic changes and improvements in practices and results will happen.
The “dialogue” among Immigration Judges from government backgrounds and those from the private/NGO sector will improve. Lives will be saved. Life-threatening inconsistencies and wasteful litigation to correct basic mistakes at all levels of EOIR will diminish. The EOIR system will resume movement toward the former noble, but now long abandoned, vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
. . . .
So, warriors of the NDPA, check out USA Jobs, make those applications for EOIR judgeships! Storm the tower from below! Make a difference in the lives of others, stand up for due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, and help save our democracy! Become better judges for a better America! If not YOU, then who?
You can watch my full webinar here:
AILA Webinars shared the following meeting recording with you.
Topic: How to become an EOIR judge
Date: Jan 11, 2023 11:42 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Genevra W. Alberti, Esq. The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Kansas City, Mo. PHOTO: The Clinic
Dear Colleagues,
The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law – a nonprofit removal defense organization in Kansas City, Missouri – is hosting its sixth annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College from Thursday, May 4, 2023 to Saturday, May 6, 2023 in the Kansas City metro area.
This is a unique, hands-on, one-on-one, training experience designed to make you confident in immigration court, and the program has something for beginners as well as experienced removal defense litigators. Under the guidance of seasoned trial attorneys from all over the country (myself included) and using a real case, real witnesses, and real courtrooms, participants will learn fundamental trial skills while preparing a cancellation of removal case for a mock trial. The complete conference schedule and faculty bios are available on The Clinic’s website here.
Days 1 and 2 of the program will focus on helping attendees master the fundamentals of trial practice and prepare a cancellation of removal case and witness for trial. For many of the sessions, attendees will be broken up into smaller groups, each with its own set of faculty members to provide one-on-one input. Each attendee will be assigned a role – either the respondent’s attorney, or the DHS attorney – and will have a volunteer “witness” to prep. On day 3, mock trials will be held in real courtrooms with faculty serving as the judges.
Tickets are available now, and you can register on The Clinic’s website here. There is a discounted rate for attorneys who are employed by a nonprofit. Price includes breakfast, lunch, coffee and refreshments throughout, along with a happy hour on Thursday. **VERY IMPORTANT: It is imperative that you commit to attending all 3 days of the conference, so please do not register unless you can do so.** If you have questions about this, please let me know. Proof of COVID-19 vaccination is also required.
Space is limited, so be sure to get your tickets soon. We hope to see you there!
I’ll be there again, along with my Round Table colleagues Judge Lory Rosenberg, Judge Sue Roy, and a host of other great faculty. See you in Kansas City in May!
“Going to Kansas City, Kansas City here I come . . . .”
Forgot to thank both of you for an amazing semester! This class has helped me not feel too down about law school and not judge my intelligence. I liked that both of you show the human side of law. Thank you for not only showing us that the subject is based on people, but also teaching in a way that showed you were approachable. I love that both of you know how to turn off the legal side and just talk to students about ordinary life, which has helped a lot in my ability to approach other professors. And, you both taught in a language that I can actually understand. Thanks again and I hope to have other professors like the two of you in the future!”
From a student in our Immigration Law I course. Thursday was the final class of the semester.
*******************
This is one reason why the NDPA has been such a formidable force for due process and against Government human rights abuses and “bad law.”
It also shows why more and more immigration and immigration clinical professors are not only receiving tenure, but are “moving up the leadership ladder” at their institutions.
Immigration law teaching has been far, far ahead of the curve in teaching “law you can use” and practical skills that not only spell success in legal practice but in all aspects of life. One of these is taking complex subjects and breaking them down into understandable terms and pieces that make sense and relate to human experience.
It’s been over 30 years since Congress enacted the most recent set of comprehensive immigration reforms: the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990. These bipartisan yet hotly contested bills passed only after a debate spanning five presidential administrations, eight congressional sessions, and painful compromises by all parties. Even then, both bills died on the House floor before being resurrected at the 11th hour.
Can lessons learned during the last round of reform be applied to future debates? Charles Kamasaki, author of “Immigration Reform: The Corpse That Will Not Die” (Mandel Vilar Press, 2019), thinks so. The book provides a history of how the 1980s-era reforms were enacted, along with a summary of developments since then. It concludes with seven lessons that advocates and lawmakers should consider in advancing future immigration reform.
Join us for a discussion with Mr. Kamasaki, Cornell Law School professor Steve Yale-Loehr, and Wall Street Journal immigration reporter Michelle Hackman about the prospects for immigration reform legislation in 2023.
This webinar is cosponsored by the Cornell Migrations Initiative, the Cornell Law School Immigration Law and Policy Research Program, and Catholic Charities of Tompkins and Tioga Counties.
Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg Senior Advisor Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLCRekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KSHon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesMe
Here it is “Time for a Child Welfare Approach to Cancellation of Removal:”
So honored to collaborate with my colleagues Lory, Sue, and Rekha on this. Grateful to AILA for publishing. This resulted from lively conversations and brainstorming when we served as faculty at the Immigration Trial College sponsored by Rekha’s firm in Kansas City in April 2022!
We all hope that this “practical scholarship” will give ideas to practitioners on how to argue for a “child centered approach.” That the BIA is one of the American authorities NOT following this better approach, supported by compelling empirical evidence, is a testament to how badly broken and in desperately needing reform our Immigration Courts are today. They aren’t going to change on their own. So, start arguing for a better approach, now!
There’s also some “insider BIA history” in here from those of us “expelled” for our aggressive, progressive judicial views on due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Namely, Lory and me!
Knightess of the Round Table — “Primed and ready to keep fighting dysfunction @ EOIR until due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and equal justice for all prevail!”
Introduction and Summary of Argument
This brief presents amici’s practical perspective on why the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provision for removal based on a conviction for a “crime involving moral turpitude” is void for vagueness. Section 1227(a)(2)(A) combines the imprecision of the phrase “moral turpitude” with the indeterminacy of applying that phrase to a hypothetical set of facts
1 Counsel of record for all parties received notice of amici’s intent to file this brief at least ten days before its due date. The parties have consented to this filing. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
2
under the categorical approach. The result is a provision so vague that adjudicators cannot agree on how to conduct the inquiry and frequently reach inconsistent results.
The Act charges immigration judges with determining which crimes involve “moral turpitude.” Though the statute provides no definition, in 1951, this Court held that the “language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct.” Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 231-32 (1951). But time has disproved that understanding. The usual “consistency [that] can be expected to emerge with the accretion of case law,” S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., 894 F.3d 535, 550 (3d Cir. 2018), has not materialized. Indeed, the typical sources of clarity—the Board of Immigration Appeals and the courts of appeals—have produced more questions than answers. Whose morals matter? How should judges discern what those morals are? What course should judges follow when moral views conflict? How do they account for changes in views over time? Immigration judges have no way to know. And the uncertainty that the statute’s vague words create left amici with no guide except their own moral intuitions.
To this ambiguity, add that, under the categorical approach, immigration judges do not evaluate the actual conduct engaged in by the noncitizen before them. Instead, they must assess the moral implications of a theoretical set of facts—the “least culpable” means of committing the crime in question. The hypothetical nature of this mode of analysis exacerbates the underlying vagueness of the statutory phrase “crime involving moral turpitude.”
3
Recently, this Court has struck down statutory provisions that suffered from analogous uncertainty, holding each unconstitutionally vague. See Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018); United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Section 1227(a)(2)(A) should suffer the same fate.
The real-world effects of Section 1227(a)(2)(A)’s vagueness confirm this conclusion. Attempts to curtail the provision’s arbitrariness by articulating standards have failed. The Board and the courts of appeals have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to craft a workable set of rules for identifying which crimes involve moral turpitude. Their efforts have instead produced a series of non-dispositive, ad hoc tests that generate inconsistent and arbitrary results. Confusion abounds in immigration courts and in Article III courts alike, with widespread disagreement over whether a given crime involves moral turpitude. Among other unexplainable outcomes, the courts of appeals part ways on whether crimes such as making a terroristic threat or deceptively using a social security number involve moral turpitude. Amici were required to sort through this morass, unsure of which of the growing list of ad hoc tests applied or how to deal with the conflicting results. Their experiences confirm that the phrase “moral turpitude” is too vague to govern the “particularly severe ‘penalty’” of removal. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 365 (2010) (quoting Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 740 (1893)).
For these reasons, this Court should grant review and reverse.
For over 70 years, Federal Judges from the Supremes on down have turned a “blind eye” to our Constitution and substituted their subjective views on morality and immigrants for the rule of law. Our Round Table says it’s high time to stop! ⚔️🛡
Madeline Meth ESQUIRE Deputy Director and Staff Attorney – Georgetown Law Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic PHOTO: Linkedin — “She’s training tomorrow’s lawyers to fix today’s failing courts!“
Thanks again to the superstars Esthena L. Barlow, Brian Wolfman, Counsel of Record Madeline Meth, and the rest of the “Youth Brigade of the NDPA” over @ Georgetown Law!
It wasn’t “Camelot,” as you can clearly see from this picture taken on the day of my retirement, June 30, 2016. No “Arthurs, Guineveres, or Lancelots” in this shot! But, the Arlington Immigration Court did its best to bring a modicum of due process, fundamental fairness, justice, and respect to those passing before it. Not perfect, by any means. But I was glad to be there and be “part of the team” for 13 years!
⚖️🪦 “REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT” — Farewell To The Arlington Immigration Court
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Nov. 7, 2022
It was my “professional home” for the final 13 years of my career, until I retired in 2016. The Arlington Immigration Court was “born in controversy” decades ago when the Immigration Courts abandoned the sole outpost in the District Colombia and moved across the Potomac River to Northern Virginia. For many years thereafter, its internal acronym remained “WAS,” and mail and record files intended for the Seattle Immigration Court in the “State of Washington” periodically were misrouted to WAS, and vice versa.
Over the years, it grew from a single Immigration Judge — the legendary trail-blazer Judge Joan Churchill — to a judicial cast in the double digits. It outgrew always-inadequate space several times, reaching “the final resting place” on Bell Street in National Landing (née “Crystal City”) in 2012. It was combined and uncombined with the nearby “Headquarters Immigration Court.” At various times, Arlington Judges had regular jurisdiction over such far-flung locations as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo, Puerto Rico, and the USVI!
To be sure, Arlington had its share of tragedies, scandals, screw-ups, and nonsense. When located in the misnamed “penthouse” — a/k/a the top floor of the Ballston Metro Center — there were NO PUBLIC RESTROOMS — undoubtedly a violation of various Federal and local rules and an act of gross inhumanity to mankind by the chronically inept “powers that be” at EOIR “Headquarters” in Falls Church. Obviously, there were also no “10-minute recesses,” as attorneys and clients — old, young, handicapped, mobile or immobile, fit or unfit— were required to take the elevator to the lobby and fan out to various coffee shops and restaurants in the neighborhood to seek “relief from injustice and inconsideration.”
But, I like to think that the cause of justice was sometimes served at Starbucks, in the corridors, the elevator lobby, or on the surrounding streets during these interludes. On some happy occasions, counsel returned from these “extended recesses”with joint solutions to the case that might not previously have occurred to them, or to me.
On several occasions, the Arlington Fire Marshals closed us down for overcrowding! Toward the end of of our tenancy at Ballston, I inherited the sole “courtroom with a window.” I sometimes quipped that by craning my neck, I could see all the phases of my EOIR career from there: my past (the notorious “EOIR Tower in Falls Church”); my present (the humanity before me in my courtroom); and my future (“The Jefferson” Retirement Home across the square).
But, Arlington also was a place of general and genuine camaraderie: Where judges, Government attorneys, private attorneys, interpreters, and staff worked together as a team to bring practical, efficient, justice to those individuals appearing before the court and the many beyond that whose lives and fates were tied up in theirs. Indeed, of the various places I worked and visited in EOIR, it most reflected the values that have always been important to me: Fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork.
Those “Thursday Judicial Lunches” and the famous or infamous “Seersucker Thursdays” helped model the spirit of teamwork and camaraderie. Indeed, my judicial career ended on June 30, 2016 — not incidentally, my final “Seersucker Thursday.” (I did, however, “carry on the tradition when teaching at Georgetown Law each June thereafter — until COVID and the “Zoom-era” struck!)
It was also a “showcase court” — or as close an approximation of one as EOIR had at the time. Because of the location in the DMV area, a steady stream of politicos, senior managers, journalists, Congressional Committee staff, professors, DOJ attorneys, USCIS adjudicators, statisticians, demographers, and the like passed through Arlington’s cramped confines and sat on some of the world’s most uncomfortable pews (some interns actually brought “stadium cushions”) to observe the “real life drama” of Immigration Court.
Also, as then Chief Judge Michael Creppy accurately told me at the time of my 2003 reassignment, Arlington was a “teaching court.” Generations of outstanding student attorneys from local law school clinics, “Big Law” associates, and newly-minted immigration practitioners “learned the ropes” in our cramped and chronically over-or under-heated courtrooms. (Immigration Judges were deemed “not qualified” to adjust courtroom thermostats. We had to call on the Court Administrator or the Security Guard to exercise that higher-level responsibility. I actually used to get “joint oral motions” from counsel to raise my courtroom temperature when we were in Ballston!)
And, Arlington Judges were known for their willingness toengage in “educational dialogue” with the parties and observers at the conclusion of the case. Of course, the “merits” of cases were “off limits.” But, it was a terrific opportunity to share information about procedures, practices, and to convey “judicial expectations” to those eager to learn more. Memorably, Judge Wayne Iskra’s totally accurate and painfully obvious remark that “the system is broken” seemed to go above and beyond what our “handlers” in Falls Church deemed appropriate!
Notably, a large number of “Arlington alums” are now themselves in key positions, as judges, government officials, NGO leaders, law firm founders and partners, academics, scholarly commentators, or media figures. Arlington interns and judicial law clerks have also gone on to distinguish themselves. For better or worse, hopefully the former, Arlington had “influence” that went beyond its “utilitarian wannabe to shabby” physical confines.
It was also a place of hope. That might have been why for years we had a negligible “no show” rate for individual hearings. For a number of years, from 2010 to the “advent of Trump,’” it was among the “league leaders” in asylum grants and favorable outcomes for individuals. This was in an age where the overall system and many of the attitudes of DOJ politicos who had authority over the Immigration Courts were relatively unsympathetic to asylum seekers, particularly those arriving at our southern land border or by boat!
A “colorful cast of characters” passed through the Arlington bench. Some were “up and comers” — on their way to “fame and fortune” in the EOIR hierarchy or beyond.
Others of us were exiles or refugees from “The Tower” or Senior Executive positions elsewhere at so-called “Main Justice” or “other government agencies.” At various points during my 13-year tenure, the following were “in residence” at Arlington: former Acting Commissioner of the “Legacy INS;” former INS General Counsel; former BIA Chair; former BIA Members and “Temporary BIA Members;” former Acting INS General Counsel; former INS Deputy General Counsel; Former Principal Deputy Director, International Section of the DOJ; former Principal Deputy Chief Immigration Judge, two-time former Chief Trial Judge of the U.S. Army; former Acting Chief Immigration Judges; former Acting EOIR Director; former Assistant Chief Immigration Judges; former “Brooks Bros Rioter;” former Partner at Jones Day; former Managing Partner of the DC Office of Fragomen; past President of the National Association of Immigration Judges; founder and first President of the BIA Employees Union; former Chief Counsel to the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Justice; (briefly) former EOIR General Counsel and Deputy General; former Associate Counsel at the White House Domestic Policy Council; former Assistant to the Deputy Attorney General; Adjunct Professor and former Adjunct Professors at Georgetown Law, George Mason Law, and UVA Law.That’s just what I can remember; I’m sure I’ve overlooked some.A few “legitimate celebs” passed through our doors, including Angela Jolie who was a witness in one case!
To be sure, those of us “on the way down the government food chain” or those voluntarily fleeing it far outnumbered those slated to move “up the ladder.” Of course, Arlington wasn’t above criticism. Too old, too White, too male, too many “bureaucratic retreads” to accurately reflect the diverse nature of both the “customers” and the legal community in the DMV area. I won’t deny that there was some validity to those observations.
But, we “were what we were” — the choices that led to our composition at any one time were “above our pay grade.” Heck, I didn’t even apply for the job!
I think all of us did our best to compensate for or “work around” our undoubted “blind spots.” Whether we were successful is for others to decide. As a group, regardless of gender, we all consciously tried to avoid the “grumpy old men” appellation attached to some Immigration Courts of that era.
On October 14, 2022, the Arlington Immigration Court passed into history. Its judges, staff, cases, and the lives they affect scattered, in a tidal wave of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,”among the newly-established Sterling and Annandale Immigration Courts and the Falls Church and Richmond “Immigration Adjudication Centers.”The latter are apparently part of the current “vision “ of “migrating” EOIR back to its “INS roots” of yore by “emulating” the impersonality of USCIS “Service Centers” — while reportedly providing a level of “customer service” significantly below that which would make USCIS blush!
So, it’s a final farewell to Arlington. But, I will always remain grateful for the time I spent there, for the colleagues I worked with, for those who came before me and helped enlighten me in court, and for those whose lives and futures were entrusted to my care.
Cornell Law School Welcomes New Immigration Postdocs and Scholars
By Law School staff
September 26, 2022
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Email
In 2021, Cornell Law School received a grant of $1.6 million from the Charles Koch Foundation for a two-year project to study ways to improve immigration law and policy. Thanks to that generous funding, the Law School has hired two postdoctoral research associates and two distinguished visiting scholars to expand upon its research capabilities in this area.
According to Stephen Yale-Loehr, faculty director of the Immigration law and policy research program, “Cornell Law School already had a strong immigration scholar base. Adding these four new people will make us even more preeminent in this important area.”
Information about the new hires is below.
Janine Prantl
Janine Prantl recently received her Ph.D. from the University of Innsbruck in Austria. Her thesis focused on the legal framework for refugee resettlement in the European Union. Prantl was awarded a postgraduate fellowship from Columbia Law School, where she received an LL.M. in 2021. Under this fellowship, she helped establish a global strategic litigation council for refugee rights. Prantl is collaborating with Professor Yale-Loehr on a report on why and how the United States should allow individuals to sponsor refugees, just as other countries already allow. If adopted, such a policy would permit more refugees to come to the United States.
Jacob Hamburger
Jacob Hamburger has a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School, where he focused on immigration law and policy issues. Before law school he was an independent journalist covering European and U.S. politics, including the politics of migration and activist movements led by immigrants. Hamburger is collaborating with Professor Yale-Loehr in researching ways local and state governments can help undocumented immigrants work legally.
Distinguished Immigration Scholars
Cornell Law School is bringing prominent immigration scholars, policymakers, and public figures to the law school based on their demonstrated ability to participate in public and policy discourse. Distinguished immigration scholars work for either a semester or a full academic year. Two distinguished scholars are starting now; two others will start in the spring:
Charles Kamasaki is former executive vice president at UnidosUS (formerly the National Council of La Raza), the nation’s largest Latino civil rights organization. He also is a fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and has written a book about immigration policy called Immigration Reform: The Corpse That Will Not Die.
Randel Johnson
Randel Johnson has worked on employment and immigration law and policy issues for over twenty-five years, bringing a broad perspective from working in the executive agencies, on Capitol Hill, and in the private sector. Deeply involved in past efforts on comprehensive immigration reform, including testifying in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, his experience includes working as the senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor counsel to the House Education and Labor Committee, and special assistant to the solicitor of labor at the U.S. Department of Labor. He was also a partner at the law firm of Seyfarth Shaw and most recently a judge on the Administrative Review Board at the Labor Department.
********************
Many congrats to all involved! The power and prowess of the NDPA continues to grow even as the government sector continues to falter and fail!
Professor Erin Barbato Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic UW Law Photo source: UW Law
Good morning Judge Schmidt,
I hope this email finds you well. It is already getting chilly in Wisconsin but fall is one of my favorite seasons here. In case you are interested, this is a little piece that Newsy put together about a lovely family and Ngwa, an asylum seeker from Cameroon, who became part of their family. How a Cameroonian Immigrant Was Granted Asylum in the U.S. (VIDEO) (newsy.com) I do believe there are other families like this across the country willing to welcome people. The political use of humans seeking refuge is horrifying these days.
Thank you for all you do! I appreciate you.
Erin M. Barbato
Director Immigrant Justice Clinic
University of Wisconsin Law School
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53706
(608)262-2276
She/Her/Hers
The University of Wisconsin-Madison is built on the ancestral land of the Ho-Chunk Nation. In an 1832 treaty, the Ho-Chunk were forced to cede this territory. We respect the inherent sovereignty of the Ho-Chunk Nation, along with the eleven other First Nations of Wisconsin.
******************************
View the video at the above link! Thanks, Erin, my friend for sending this in and for all that your and your wonderful students do for humanity and for Due Process in America! Many thanks to the Swandbys and other great American families for standing by refugees in need and being role models for the best in America at a time when so many of our politicians and their followers are “modeling bad behavior and lack of fundamental values!”
It’s always good to keep in mind that many Americans do have sound values and welcome asylum seekers and other immigrants, rather than using their situation to engineer political farces at the expense of vulnerable humans who have come here seeing legal refuge and are allowed to be in the US while pursuing their claims. As I have pointed out many times, any government official truly interested in addressing migration issues would prioritize spending money for 1) representation of asylum seekers, 2) orderly relocation to places where support systems are available and asylum claims are more likely to be fairly an timely adjudicated. But, that would take a thoughtful, cooperative, governing for the common good approach rather than wasteful political stunts.
Voters in both Florida and Texas will have a chance to remove their “stuntmen” in November. Unfortunately, however, it’s not clear that will happen.
We also shouldn’t let the Biden administration “off the hook” for: 1) failing to put in place a reasonable program for resettling asylum seekers away from stressed border communities; 2) the abject failure of the Immigration Court’s asylum adjudication process which is driving much of the haphazard response to legal asylum seekers; 3) the failure to achieve meaningful reforms, training, and appropriate staffing of the USCIS Asylum Offices (even assuming that the “new asylum regulations” were the answer, the implementation has been inexcusable, inept, and ineffective, just as many experts predicted); 4) the gross failure to establish a robust, generous, realistic refugee admission system for the Western Hemisphere to process refugees for admission before they are forced to come to our borders; and 5) their overall failure of leadership on refugee and asylum issues in both the national and international arenas.
The John McCutcheon version of Woodie Guthrie’s song “Deportees” shows how deeply ingrained “Dred Scottification” is in our country’s often unconstitutional, impractical, and sometimes immoral approach to immigration enforcement.“De-personification” of “the other’” — treating them as numbers, statistics, even “beds” or “apps” without names, faces or rights — and making up vile myths and lies about them, all whileexploiting their labor — is still at the heart of the anti-American White Nationalist agenda!
Social justice activism is an important multi-disciplinary endeavor — here we see how law, education, religion, civics, history, broadcast journalism, performance art, music, technology, political science, economics, language, culture, & communication all work together to thwart hate and lies;
More undergraduate institutions need to be making these links and insisting that the true history of American Immigration — with all its triumphs and warts — becomes a staple of education;
Many of those tone-deaf (or worse) politicos pushing the far right agenda of hate, lies, and racism reflected in the defeated amendments are elitists masquerading as “bogus populists” who got the benefit of education at some of the top law schools and universities in the nation. Whatever happened to the teaching of basic legal ethics and responsibilities to society? The Jim Crow agendas of today differ little from those of the pre-civil rights era of the 20th Century. These are NOT debates between legitimate “differing viewpoints,” but essentially questions of truth vs. lies, hate v. tolerance, integration v. exploitation;
The White Nationalist Right is taking over school boards and local governance in the false name of “parents’ rights” — actually meaning the rights of far right parents to impose their minority religious doctrines and false social doctrines on others. The fight for social justice begins at the local level where where teaching of truth and legitimate debates are being drowned out by disgruntled, anti-democracy, empowered White Nationalist theocrats who claim they want liberty but actually are trying to impose autocracy and minority rule;
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
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.
EOIR: In response to comments from the public, EOIR is once again making the Board and Immigration Court Practice Manuals available as downloadable PDF documents. [Also, the BIA Practice Manual now lists the BIA brief page limit at 50 pages.]
NPR: NPR’s A Martinez talks to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program which is now in the federal government’s code of regulations.
AP: In 2021, when Venezuelans could still fly to Cancun or Mexico City as tourists, only 3,000 of them crossed the Darien Gap — a literal gap in the Pan-American Highway that stretches along 60 miles (97 kilometers) of mountains, rainforest and rivers. So far this year, there have been 45,000, according to Panama’s National Immigration Service.
CNN: Back in 2007, the number of migrants in this “other” category was negligible. But since then, it’s grown dramatically — 11,000% — with the sharpest increase in just the past two years.
AP: Announced Monday, the rule change from the New Mexico Supreme Court is scheduled to take effect Oct. 1. Several states already have provisions that disregard residency or immigration status in licensure decisions.
Buzzfeed: ORR is working on an updated policy, and advocates have heard that the agency was already transferring minors to other states if they need access to abortion services, Amiri said. But nothing official has been released.
Law360: The First Circuit has told the Board of Immigration Appeals to have another look at a Haitian man’s asylum request, saying the board did not adequately explain why his marijuana offenses made him ineligible for asylum.
Law360: The Third Circuit ruled that U.S. Department of Homeland Security couldn’t deport an Indian immigrant over a stalking conviction, saying the man was convicted under an overbroad Pennsylvania law that criminalized misconduct that doesn’t warrant deportation.
LexisNexis: During that hearing, the immigration judge neglected to advise Fernandez Sanchez about his eligibility for voluntary departure or inform him of his right to appeal. Then, in his written summary order, the immigration judge indicated that Fernandez Sanchez had waived his right to appeal—even though this was never discussed during the hearing…Ultimately, we agree with Fernandez Sanchez that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the denial of his appeal rights, he would not have been deported.
Law360: Afghan and Iraqi allies suing the federal government over delays with their green card applications told the D.C. Circuit that a lower court’s refusal to impose a deadline to address the delays endangers their lives given the deteriorating security conditions in their homelands.
Law360: A New York City blogger told a Manhattan federal judge Wednesday that he assisted two lawyers in creating fraudulent asylum applications to submit to U.S. immigration authorities, pleading guilty to a conspiracy count.
Law360: An investor of The GEO Group has lodged a derivative suit against higher-ups of the private prison operator, saying their disclosures about GEO’s financial prospects didn’t match internal financial concerns stemming from lawsuits alleging forced labor by immigrant detainees.
DHS: Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas today announced that the Department has issued a final rule that will preserve and fortify the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy for certain eligible noncitizens who arrived in the United States as children, deferring their removal and allowing them an opportunity to access a renewable, two-year work permit.
AILA: EOIR 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-42A, Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents, and Form EOIR-42B, Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents.
AILA: DOJ 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-44, Immigration Practitioner Complaint Form. Comments are due 10/24/22.
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
As usual, this is a good rundown of some of the continuing problems that Garland’s EOIR is having in the Federal Courts, including a few items previously reported on Courtside.
