"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Peter Schey, who championed the rights of immigrants for more than five decades, winning landmark legal cases on behalf of undocumented children and their families and helping lead the charge against Proposition 187, a California law that sought to deny social services to people suspected of arriving in the country illegally, died April 2 at a hospital in Santa Monica, Calif. He was 77.
The cause was lymphoma, said Melinda Bird, his friend and former wife.
A driven and tenacious lawyer with a workaholic intensity, Mr. Schey had firsthand experience with the American immigration system. His parents were refugees from Nazi Germany, sailing to South Africa during World War II, and the family moved to the United States when he was 15, after he began participating in anti-apartheid protests and worried his parents when his picture appeared in the newspaper.
Working out of an office in the Westlake district of Los Angeles, Mr. Schey went on to take hundreds of human rights and immigration cases while leading a nonprofit organization, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, and battling Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington.
He was lead counsel in Plyler v. Doe, a landmark 1982 Supreme Court decision that safeguarded the right of undocumented children to attend public schools, and litigated Reno v. Flores, a class-action suit that resulted in a 1997 settlement agreement protecting children in immigration custody. The case transformed the nation’s treatment of young migrants, establishing improved standards of care that Mr. Schey spent years fighting to uphold in court.
. . . .
“When you start being able to refer to other precedents, other cases that you’ve won, it’s a revelation,” [Attorney Carlos] Holguín said in a phone interview, reflecting on Mr. Schey’s career. “You basically are building off a legacy of prior work to move the law even further. Plyler, I think most constitutional law scholars would agree, was the high-water mark of equal protection jurisprudence. We’ve only gone backward from there.”
. . . .
***************************
Peter got a “full page” obit in the WashPost — the kind usually reserved for heads of state, powerful politicos, famous athletes, entertainers, and world-renowned artists. You should read it at the above link. I’m familiar with many aspects of Peter’s career, but I learned things I never knew before!
Plyler v. Doe is one of those cases that has a “real-life impact!” Like all of my former colleagues at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court, I encouraged school-aged children coming before me to enroll and get as much education as possible. I said,“However your case comes out, the education you get is yours to keep, forever!”
I could see how students progressed in their mastery of English and their comprehension from hearing to hearing. Some of them proudly brought in their report cards to show me their achievements. Peter Schey helped make it possible!
Under the Trump administration, most of the people we met there [in immigration detention in the Dodge County Jail] had benefits (some protection against deportation) that they were eligible for. They were asylum seekers, people with family ties, or people with DACA (people who were brought to the U.S. when they were children). It would be shocking every time I went to see the number of people that needed representation. They had strong claims to remain in the U.S. and often had family ties. Some were employed at certain jobs for a very long time and had no criminal record.
. . . .
Everybody deserves a fair chance, and legal representation is part of the fair chance.
Most people who have a conviction for an aggravated felony are not going to be allowed to remain in the U.S. But certain individuals are from countries that are unsafe for them to return to, and our laws say we will never deport anybody that will more likely than not be tortured or killed. And these individuals need representation because the stakes are so high.
No one is perfect, and our legal system certainly isn’t perfect. But without legal representation, we cannot ensure that people have their rights and have a fair due process in immigration proceedings.
. . . .
Every day, I witness the politicization of this topic. And political parties are taking on the rhetoric to fearmonger in a lot of ways. I find that horrifying and discouraging.
I can understand why these ads and messaging incite fear and why people can be scared by the messaging, even though the messaging is often untrue. It scares me that that’s what we’re doing to people that I work with everyday, who are mostly families and children who’ve become part of our communities.
. . . .
Q: Tell me more about the work you’re doing in collaboration with others in Colombia.
A: The program is called Safe Passage. It’s a collaboration with Sara McKinnon at the Department of Communications, us at the Law School, and Jorge Osorio at the Global Health Institute.
People often have to take an extremely dangerous journey just to arrive at the southern border to ask for asylum in the U.S. We are looking at whether some alternative, regular routes for migration can be beneficial in decreasing the pressure on the southern border.
. . . .
The last time I was in Colombia, there were people from all over the world. There were people from Afghanistan who probably had very strong claims for asylum. There were people from China, and they generally have very high approval rates for asylum. But in order to seek the benefits under the law, they have no option but to take a very dangerous journey.
So I think if we were able to expand the safe mobility offices in these other countries to process applications from other people who could potentially be eligible, we could ensure safety and take pressures off of the southern border. I think that’s something that everybody wants.
************************
Read the complete interview at the link.
Here’s a comment about Erin that I recently received from Professor Juliet Stumpf at Lewis & Clark Law:
I had the pleasure of meeting Erin when we both took students to Tijuana to work with asylum seekers at Al Otro Lado in 2020. She is a wise, kind, and collaborative colleague, and I was lucky enough to benefit from her deep experience and her generosity in sharing it.
Tom and I had the honor of appearing at a recent luncheon at U.W. Law hosted by Erin and her colleague Professor Sara McKinnon to discuss our proposal with students.
What a difference it makes to hear from experts like Erin and Sara who actually understand the laws, the realities of forced migration, and deal directly with the human trauma caused by short-sighted government“deterrence only” policies. The latter, promoted by politicos who have lost their moral bearings, intentionally misconstrue or ignore legal protections for migrants while failing to acknowledge or take responsibility for the proven, unnecessary human trauma caused by bad policies like “Remain in Mexico, “Title 42,” and “Mandatory Detention.”
That same report showed that “violence against migrants transit[ing] Mexico is escalating, the study found: 39.2% of interviewees were assaulted in the country, while 27.3% were threatened or extorted – with the actual figures likely higher than the official statistics as victims tend not to report crimes committed against them.”
Yet, despite these facts, politicos of both parties shamelessly press for the reinstitution of these demonstrably harmful, ineffective, immoral, and arguably illegal policies. Never do they acknowledge or discuss the infliction of human carnage they are irresponsibly promoting. Perhaps even worse, the so-called “mainstream media” seldom, if ever, has the integrity to confront these politicos of both parties with the deadly human consequences of the immoral, yet predictably ineffective, actions they advocate!
Rekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KS
Rekha Sharma-Crawford writes in Linkedin:
The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College Faculty, 2024. Kick ass trial lawyers sharing their wisdom and knowledge to elevate the practice before the immigration courts. Blessed to call them all friends! Thank you my friends!! 🙏🏽🗽⚖️💕
Sharma-Crawford Faculty 2024
Paul Schmidt Lory Rosenberg Elina Magaly Santana Erich Straub Michael Sharma-Crawford Kelli Stump Lindsay Gray David Bell Kelly Driscoll Nathan Dayani Davorin Odrcic Michelle Saenz-Rodriguez Sarah Owings Genevra Alberti Susan Roy Patrick Lewis Angel Marie Graf
********************************
Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College Defensive Asylum Day 2!
Sharma-Crawford 2024 Day 2Sharma-Crawford 2024 Day 2
It’s incredible to witness the dedication and passion of our attendees as they dive into the world of defensive asylum cases.
#TheClinicSCAL #KansasCity #TrialCollege …see more
*********************************
The Clinic @ Sharma-Crawford Law
Immigration Court can, quite intentionally on the part of its “political handlers,” be intimidating, particularly for newer litigators.
Among the many “user unfriendly/due process denying features:”
Arbitrary, “make ‘em up as you go along” rules that apply to individuals, but not to DHS or EOIR;
Cosmically inconsistent adjudications;
Lack of universal asylum expertise among judges at both the trial and appellate levels;
Institutional bias against asylum seekers and failure to follow generous precedents such as Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi;
Shifting political priorities driving “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and creating unmanageable backlogs;
Permissive lack of discipline at DHS in intentionally overloading system;
Grotesque overemphasis of “bogus productivity” over due process, quality, and fundamental fairness;
One-sided “disciplinary procedures” that give DHS counsel a “free pass;” and
A “permissive culture” of racial bias and “any reason to deny” decision-making.
Yet, despite this intentional, unethical “tilting of the playing field’ against migrants, particularly asylum seekers of color, and their representatives, well-represented individuals win their cases against the odds at all levels of this system every day!
The faculty of the Sharma-Crawford Immigration Court Trial College is a unique blend of experienced, hard-nosed, gutsy, immigration advocates, criminal defense attorneys, former prosecutors and judges, teachers, and coaches. We teach skills and instill fearless attitudes that have proven to be successful in criminal, civil, and immigration litigation!
The Trial College now has more the 150 “alumni” nationwide who are using their enhanced talents to force due process on a reluctant system, save lives, and “build America,” one case at a time! The “Class of 2024” was larger than usual and showed exceptional seriousness, dedication, creativity, and commitment to changing the course of American Justice for the better at the oft-ignored but existentially important “retail level.”
I was particularly pleased to be “reunited” on the faculty with my colleagues and “EOIR Alums” retired Judges Lory Rosenberg, Sue Roy, and “new recruit” Ed Kelly! I also appreciate the courtesy of Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jayme Salinardi and the Kansas City Immigration Court in arranging for the students and faculty to observe some Master Calendar hearings.
I am privileged to be part of this amazing and inspiring multi-disciplinary effort! Thanks to Rekha Sharma-Crawford, Michael Crawford, Genevra Alberti, and the Clinic Staff for their leadership in making this happen!😎
Genevra W. Alberti, Esq. The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Kansas City, Mo. PHOTO: The Clinic
Congrats, my friend, on this well-deserved recognition! Kansas City, here I come! On my way, looking forward to seeing you and the rest of the All-Star 🌟 faculty on Thursday!
Professor Erin Barbato Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic UW Law Photo source: UW LawSara McKinnon Professor, U.W. Madison Sara L. McKinnon is Professor of Rhetoric, Politics & Culture in the Department of Communication Arts, and Faculty Director of Latin American, Caribbean, and Iberian Studies. She is co-chair of the Human Rights Program PHOTO: U.WJorge Osorio Director, Global Health Institute Jorge Osorio, DVM, Ph.D., M.S., is a professor in the Department of Pathobiological Sciences in the School of Veterinary Medicine. Osorio has had a lengthy career in medical sciences, including virology, field epidemiological studies, vaccinology,… PHOTO: U.W.
A policy and research collective of the University of Wisconsin-Madison focused on assessing migration policy and developing ways to reduce risk and harm to make movement and residence safer for migrants throughout the Western Hemisphere. We approach this goal from a range of methodologies and perspectives, and share our work in a range of formats including research reports, policy documents, field briefings, narratives and stories, videos, and audio recordings or podcasts. We hope you find our research and information to be helpful in your own work.
***************************
Get more information on this amazing initiative at the above link.
Also, here’s a link to a video of the recent UW Global Health Symposium, where Sara and Erin explain their truly amazing work in detail (starting at about 1:22 of the video):
I am also proud that my U.W. Law ’73 classmate retired Judge Tom Lister and I will be Erin’s guests at a public luncheon presentation at the U.W. Law School tomorrow (April 23, 12pm-1pm, ) where will will discuss, among other topics related to justice, our concept for “Judges Without Borders.” This innovative idea ties in well and supports the objectives of the Migration In The Americas project of analyzing and providing accurate, unbiased information about the situations of migrants before they reach our border utilizing the huge potential of retired State and Federal judges.
We hope you will join us if you are in the Madison area! (The room assignment was “pending” when the flyer went to press, so you should call the Clinic or ask at the Law School on arrival for the latest).
Hon. Thomas Lister Retired Jackson County (WI) Circuit Judge
You can read more about “Judges Without Borders” here:
The Immigration Clinic Wins Two Asylum Cases in One Day
15APR 2024
Last week, the Immigration Clinic secured two asylum victories in one day for our Afghan allies. These cases spanned two academic years, but both cases were granted by the Arlington Asylum Office on the same day.
In August of 2021, thousands of people went to Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan to flee the Taliban. Among those thousands of people were Ms. S*, daughter of an Afghan government official, and Mr. K*, an Afghan attorney, and his wife Mrs. K*. Luckily, they all managed to get on a plane out of Kabul and were evacuated to the United States. When they were resettled to Hampton Roads, Ms. S, Mr. K, and Mrs. K all reached out to the Immigration Clinic for assistance in their cases.
During the 2022-23 Academic Year, Melissa Box J.D. ’23 worked with Mr. and Mrs. K on their asylum cases. Then during the 2023-24 Academic Year, Sarah Nagle, J.D. ’24 worked with Ms. S on her asylum case.
Below, we share the stories behind these lifechanging victories.
Mr. K and Melissa Box, J.D. ‘23
In Fall 2022, Melissa Box, J.D. ’23, was assigned to work on Mr. and Mrs. K’s asylum case.
Melissa was first assigned to write Mr. K’s affidavit for his asylum case. Asylum affidavits require several interviews and meticulous detail about a client’s case. While an asylum applicant’s testimony can, in theory, be enough to prove their case, the written and oral testimony must be consistent and credible. In order to capture the level of detail necessary for his case, as well as accurately prepare an affidavit in his voice, Melissa worked with Clinic Director Professor Stacy Kern-Scheerer to interview Mr. K. Across many interviews over the course of many months, Melissa learned about Mr. K’s career as an attorney, his passion for his work, and the danger he faced because of it.
Through their interviews, Mr. K and Melissa built a deep and lasting rapport. “I was lucky to have the time to make sure I fully understood Mr. K’s life’s story and gain his trust,” Melissa shared before her graduation last year. “I know Mr. K better than some law students I’ve spent years in class with. I know his mannerisms and was able to advocate for him. It really meant a lot when my client told Professor Kern-Scheerer and me that he thought I knew him better than he knew himself.”
After writing Mr. K’s affidavit, Melissa researched conditions in Afghanistan relevant to Mr. K’s case, including the treatment of attorneys and former government employees in Afghanistan. Melissa worked with Clinic Professor Nicole Medved on finding and preparing the country conditions evidence that would best support Mr. K’s asylum claim. This research was critical to contextualizing Mr. K’s fear of returning to Afghanistan.
After the Clinic submitted Mr. K’s asylum case in March 2023, USCIS quickly scheduled Mr. K and his wife for an asylum interview in April 2023, during the last week of classes of the semester. Clinic Director Professor Kern-Scheerer and Melissa prepared Mr. and Mrs. K for what to expect at the interview, and Melissa prepared her closing argument to present to the Asylum Officer for why Mr. and Mrs. K merit a grant of asylum.
Melissa Box, J.D. ’23 (left) and Professor Kern-Scheerer (right) at the Arlington Asylum Office for Mr. and Mrs. K’s Asylum interview (Spring 2023).
During the last week of class, Professor Kern-Scheerer and Melissa accompanied Mr. and Mrs. K to their asylum interview. After a roughly 3-hour hour interview, Melissa delivered her closing argument to the officer. After the interview had finished, there was nothing left to do but wait for a decision on the case.
Ms. S and Sarah Nagle, J.D. ‘24
Ms. S and her family also reached out to the Immigration Clinic for assistance in their asylum case. Ordinarily, children can be included on their parents’ asylum applications so that if the parent wins asylum, the child wins as well. However, Ms. S was too old to be included in her father’s case. Instead, she would have to meet the high burden of asylum all on her own.
This fall, Sarah Nagle, J.D. Class of 2024, was assigned to work on Ms. S’s asylum case. Sarah’s first task was to write Ms. S’s affidavit. Asylum affidavits are a critical piece of evidence because an asylum applicant’s testimony alone can be sufficient to prove their case. Since interviews with Ms. S about her story had already been completed, Sarah worked with Professor Kern-Scheerer to best capture Ms. S’s voice in her affidavit. “Sarah faced a unique challenge in writing Ms. S’s affidavit,” said Professor Kern-Scheerer. “Her assignment was to capture Ms. S’s personality and convey her fears without having heard her tell the story herself. This also underscored the importance of prior students having kept meticulous notes from previous interviews and discussions. Sarah met this challenge with thoughtful persistence, and wrote an excellent affidavit for Ms. S. ”
“Working on an affidavit was unlike any legal writing I had ever done before,” said Sarah. “Focusing on what was important to Ms. S—family, peace, and a willingness to stand by her convictions—helped anchor me in her perspective. Even though every word of the affidavit was based on her own words, I had doubts about my success until I reviewed the affidavit with her and received a smile, firm nod, and assertive ‘yes’ that I had captured what she wanted to convey. Being entrusted with helping tell someone else’s story was a great honor and fantastic learning experience.”
After completing Ms. S’s affidavit, Sarah next turned to researching conditions in Afghanistan relevant to Ms. S’s case. While it is easier to find evidence about the Taliban’s brutality against former government officials or former members of the military, finding evidence of the Taliban’s violence against their family members is not as simple. Sarah worked with Clinic Professor Nicole Medved next on finding and preparing the country conditions evidence that would best support Ms. S’s claims. This evidence played a critical role in contextualizing Ms. S’s fears of returning to Afghanistan.
In November 2023, after finishing all of the forms, affidavit, and evidence gathering, the Clinic submitted Ms. S’s asylum application to USCIS.
To everyone’s surprise, Ms. S was scheduled for an asylum interview just three weeks later. Sarah and Professor Medved worked closely with Ms. S to prepare her for what to expect at the asylum interview. Sarah also prepared her closing argument for Ms. S, demonstrating how Ms. S’s affidavit and country conditions evidence all prove that Ms. S merits a grant of asylum.
Sarah Nagle, J.D. ’24, reviewing Ms. S’s case prior to her Asylum Interview (Fall 2023).
In December, Professor Medved and Sarah Nagle accompanied Ms. S to her asylum interview in Arlington, Virginia. After Ms. S’s two-hour interview, Sarah delivered her closing argument to the officer.
“Actually getting to speak during a legal proceeding, instead of just observing, was incredible,” said Sarah. “It was really empowering to be trusted with such an important moment in someone’s life, and also reassuring to have Professor Medved right there in the interview with me after having helped me prepare and rehearse the statement!”
After Sarah’s closing argument, all that was left to do was wait. Despite requirements from Congress that her case should be decided quickly, the Clinic’s experience showed that Ms. S would likely wait many more months—or even years—before hearing a decision on her case.
Last week, the Clinic received notice that Ms. S’s asylum case was approved. Ms. S’s case marks the fastest decision ever received on any asylum case the Clinic has submitted.
Then, just hours later, the Clinic received notice that Mr. K’s asylum case was also approved, nearly one year after his asylum interview. With Mr. K’s case approved, his wife Mrs. K was also automatically granted asylum.
Now that their asylum cases have been granted, Ms. S, Mr. K, and Mrs. K can all live in the United States without fear of being forced to return to Afghanistan. They will be eligible to receive lawful permanent residency (their “green cards”) in one year, and eligible to apply for citizenship five years after that.
“My experience at the William and Mary Immigration Clinic was so meaningful,” said Melissa. “I know that I actually had a positive impact on my clients’ lives. It makes me smile when I think of Mr. K calling me his ‘Big Little Sister’ (because I’m taller than him but younger than him). I know my time and work was valued by Mr. and Ms. K.”
“Hearing that my client’s asylum case had been approved was the most incredible, and surreal, experience,” said Sarah. “Because students work in the Clinic for at most two semesters and USCIS usually operates on a timeline far longer than that, I’d gotten very used to the idea that I wouldn’t see the results of my work during my time in the Clinic. But because of the unusually quick turnaround for this asylum case, I got to share the news with Ms. S in an email that contained a lot more enthusiasm than is usually warranted in a legal context. It was a wonderful way to close out my time with this client.”
“We could not be happier for Mr. K, Mrs. K, and Ms. S or prouder of the Clinic students who worked tirelessly to prepare their asylum cases,” said Professor Kern-Scheerer. “Sarah’s and Melissa’s work, and the strong relationships that they built with the clients through their time in the Clinic, is emblematic of the incredible work that our Clinic students do here every day. In this busy season as we wrap up the end of this academic year, we’re grateful for the opportunity to pause and celebrate these lifechanging outcomes.”
Victories like these are made possible by the Clinic’s generous supporters. You can make wins like this a reality for more immigrants in Hampton Roads by donating to the Immigration Clinic.
The Clinic cannot guarantee any particular results for any particular individual or particular case. While the Clinic celebrates our victories, we recognize that each case is unique. Every noncitizen should consult with a licensed attorney about their case if they are concerned about their situation or are interested in applying for any form of immigration relief. The Clinic cannot promise any particular outcome or any timeframe to any client or potential client.
*All client names and initials have been changed for confidentiality and security
*********************
Many congrats to all involved in more great, life-saving work from the Clinic. Once again, representation, scholarship, and exceptional preparation win the day and help the system improve efficiency and deliver justice!
My only question is why hasn’t the Government issued “positive precedent” cases dealing with repetitive situations like this?
Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab CAIR Coalition Charter Member, NDPA PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
NDPA Superstar 🌟 Adina Appelbaum writes on Linkedin:
Grateful for the opportunity to support undocumented students at Georgetown University tonight to learn about entrepreneurship options available to them as part of Georgetown’s UndocuHoya Month.
As a Georgetown University Law Center and Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy alumna, it was an honor to teach these brilliant students about how to navigate the immigration law, business, finance, and tax systems, so that they can become more financially empowered with the opportunities available to them through entrepreneurship.
If only all universities celebrated their undocumented students, and had people like Jennifer A. Crewalk, Ph.D. supporting them, like Georgetown.
Starting the training, it was surreal to speak about my own great grandparents who came to this country with nothing and survived by starting little candy, liquor, and grocery shops in Georgetown.
If they had been immigrants today, they would have been considered undocumented – there just weren’t the immigration laws in place at the time that labeled them as such.
Thanks, Adina, for posting this and for contributing your expertise to this program.
Proud to be part of the Georgetown U Community!
“If they had been immigrants today, they would have been considered undocumented – there just weren’t the immigration laws in place at the time that labeled them as such.”
So true for so many of us! How soon we as a nation forget our immigrant history and heritage!
Due Process is a true team effort! PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center
Maria Daniella Prieshoff writes on LinkedIn:
Maria Daniella Prieshoff Managing Attorney Tahirih Justice Center Baltimore, MD PHOTO: Tahirih
Want to level up your #advocacy skills for your #genderbased #asylum cases in #immigrationcourt?Want to learn from a real immigration judge the basics of presenting your case before the immigration court?Then join me for Tahirih Justice Center’s”Advancing Justice: Gender-Based Violence Asylum Litigation in Immigration Court” webinar series!
Part 1 of the series is on April 23, 12-1:30pm. It will focus on the case law and strategy you’ll need to present your best gender-based asylum case, including how to handle credibility, competency, and stipulations.Monica Mananzan from CAIR Coalition will join me in this webinar. To register for Part 1: http://bit.ly/3xvwPyt
Honorable Lisa Dornell U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired) Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Part 2 of the series is on April 25, 12-1:30pm. Retired Immigration Judge Lisa Dornell will explain the best practices of litigating gender-based asylum cases before an immigration judge, as well as recommendations for direct examination, cross-examination, and how to handle issues with a client’s memory, trauma, or court interpretation.To register for Part 2: https://bit.ly/3PXJqRn
Please share with your networks!Our goal for this webinar series is to help pro bono attorneys and advocates enhance their the advocacy for #genderbasedviolence to have #immigrationjustice – we’d love for you to join us!
Wonderful learning opportunity! Many thanks to everyone involved in putting it together!
Litigating gender-based asylum cases can still be an “ordeal” at EOIR, despite some decent precedents. Learn how to avoid this fate for your clients! 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Wonder whatever happened to the “gender-based regulations” that Biden ordered to be drafted by Executive Order issued shortly after taking office? At this point, given his “lobotomized/running scared/retrograde/Trumpy Lite” position on asylum seekers and immigrants’ rights, probably just as well that they died an unheralded bureaucratic death (just as similar assignments have in the last three Dem Administrations over a quarter century).
Outside of a few Immigration Judges, who, because they understand the issue and have worked with asylum-seeking women, would never be asked anyway, I can’t really think of anyone at DOJ who would actually be qualified to draft legally-compliant gender-based regulations!
GOP are misogynists. Dem politicos are spineless and can’t “connect the dots” between their deadly, tone-deaf policies and poor adjudicative practices aimed at women of color in the asylum system and other racist and misogynistic polities being pushed aggressively by the far right! While, thankfully, it might not “be 1864” in the Dem Party, sadly, inexplicably, and quote contrary to what Biden and Harris claim these days, it’s not 2024 either, particularly for those caught up in their deadly, broken, and indolently run immigration, asylum, and border enforcement systems!
Paulina Vera and Alberto Benítez joined Alexander Love, a former client of the Immigration Clinic at GW Law, for his naturalization ceremony—“the happy part of immigration cases,” in Vera’s words. (Contributed photo)
Comedies often end with a wedding, and there’s a marriage in this story, but it’s not a comedy. This is an immigration story, and it ends in a naturalization ceremony, with some painful, dramatic scenes along the way. It begins in the Soviet Union with a gay boy called Sasha, and ends in the United States with a gay man named Alexander. They’re the same person, with a lot of credit for that transformation due to students and faculty of the Immigration Clinic at GW Law.
Alexander Love, as he is now known, was born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union. His family moved to suburban Moscow, where he grew up and was expected to become highly educated. As a young teen, he realized he is gay, but he came out only to a few trusted friends and, aged 18, began serving in the Soviet Army. After being discharged in 1991, just as the Soviet Union was breaking apart, he went back to school.
“I was artistic and the majority of my subjects were things like physics, chemistry and mathematics,” Love said. “The only classes I passed were English classes.” Following his passion for working with textiles, he quit school and began sewing clothes for himself and for friends who ordered garments from him. He also taught English.
In these years just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union dissolved and Mikhail Gorbachev, then the Russian president, instituted major reforms. Gay bars and clubs opened (and have since closed) and Western values were embraced. Love befriended Americans living in Moscow and realized how different his life was from theirs. Though Russian society was more relaxed in this period, it could still be very difficult and even dangerous for LGTBQ individuals. In 1998, Love visited the United States for the first time, returning in 1999 and again in 2000, when he first came to Washington, D.C.
“I had been to Spain a few times, so I knew how different it was for gay people outside of Russia,” he said. Gay life at home, even in the more open climate at that time, was risky. “Verbal and physical harassment was always there. You could be stopped on the street or followed by a police car, mostly for the bribes. Sometimes they put some kind of powder in your car.” In taxis, on public transportation, even in gay clubs, he said, people were harassed just because they looked different.
Today, Love prefers not to dwell on the worst abuses he suffered. In 2001, he came to GW Law’s Immigration Clinic for help with his asylum application. Applicants fleeing persecution of LGBTQ people in their home countries need to prove past persecution or that they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Though ill treatment of LGBTQ individuals in Russia is well documented, Love’s application was denied.
Faculty and students in the Immigration Clinic didn’t give up. They assisted him in getting a work permit that allowed him to stay in the United States while they worked on his case. Because he was a clothing designer who had worked with singer Mariah Carey and other persons of note, he was approved for a work permit based on his special skills. But fate quickly intervened.
“Unfortunately,” Love said, “I was diagnosed with HIV, and at that time, you could not apply for a work visa if you had HIV.” (A year later, the law was changed.)
Years passed, and GW Law students came and went with the natural rhythm of matriculation and graduation, but professor Alberto M. Benítez, director of the Immigration Clinic, was a steady presence. So was the man Love said brought stability to his life, his boyfriend (now husband) Michael Love. When same-sex marriage was legalized in 2013, they had been together for eight years. Benítez told Alexander (whose last name then was Sozonov) that if he and Love were married, the clinic could work on obtaining a marriage-based adjustment to his request for permission to remain in America. The partners eagerly wed, but to get their marriage recognized as legitimate in the eyes of the immigration system, both men had to make many court appearances.
A high-stakes version of ‘The Newlywed Game’
Marriage to an American citizen did not automatically mean Love could be granted status as a permanent resident and issued a green card. Sydney Josephson, J.D. ’14, was one of the students who worked on his case. One of her significant contributions to Love’s case was filing a motion to get an approved marriage-based immigrant petition establishing that his union was made in good faith.
Sydney Josephson, J.D. ’14, is flanked by Alexander Love and Michael Love in April 2014 on the day of their interview in support of their marriage-based immigrant petition, which was approved soon after. (Contributed photo)
The process of gaining such recognition can be tricky, according to Josephson, who now practices immigration law with the Fragomen firm in Atlanta. “Sometimes they’ll put people in separate rooms,” she said, “and ask questions like, ‘What color is your fridge?’ One person will say white and the other person will say black. And immigration officials say, ‘This isn’t a good faith marriage. You don’t live together.’”
But Love’s application went smoothly. He and his husband did not go through interviews in separate rooms. They had been together for so long by then that there was little doubt about the nature of their marriage.
Some applicants see less happy results, Josephson said. “A colleague told me about a woman who was asked, ‘What does your husband wear to sleep in?’ She said, ‘Pajamas,’ and the man said, ‘I sleep in gym shorts and a T-shirt.’ And that was one of the reasons they were denied because the officer didn’t think they actually lived together. But I think someone who grew up in another country may think of sweatpants and T-shirt as pajamas.”
Working in immigration law can be extremely rewarding, according to Josephson, because it feels good to help people like Love.
“He’s an amazing person,” she said. “He has a beautiful relationship with Michael, and they’re wonderful people.”
Love was granted status as a permanent resident of the United States in 2016. He enjoys working as a textile librarian for the Washington Design Center.
“It’s a library, but instead of books you have tons of fabrics, trims, leathers and wallpapers,” Love said. “You have to know where everything is at and how to handle them. I’m very happy in this position.”
Clients from around the world
Alumna Paulina Vera, B.A. ’12, J.D. ’15, is a professorial lecturer in law and a supervising attorney of the Immigration Clinic. Since returning to GW seven years ago, she has supervised the students working on Love’s case and others.
“I actually was a student in the Immigration Clinic in my third year at GW Law,” Vera said. “I went to law school because I wanted to be an immigration attorney. I’m the daughter of two immigrants. My mom is from England; my dad, rest in peace, was from Peru. I grew up in Tucson, an hour away from the U.S.-Mexico border. So, immigration has always been a pretty big part of my personal life.”
The Immigration Clinic at GW Law started in 1979 and has helped countless people seek asylum or resist deportation. Clinic members have assisted victims of trafficking as well as DREAMers and youth covered by the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. They have worked with clients from El Salvador, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, Indonesia, China and elsewhere. Recently, they helped a returning client—a woman they successfully represented in her application for asylum in 2018—bring her four children to the United States from Honduras.
Benítez and Vera currently have a cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to review the decision of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Moisés Cruz Cruz, an undocumented Mexican man living in Virginia. During a routine traffic stop, a police officer asked Cruz his name. In a nervous moment, Cruz combined his own name with his brother’s name. Though he immediately corrected his mistake and wrote his correct name and date of birth on a piece of paper, the officer charged him with false identification, a misdemeanor. On the advice of a lawyer, Cruz entered a guilty plea, and as a result he is now facing deportation. Three of his children are U.S. citizens.
“To me,” Vera said, “this case is very indicative of the overarching immigration consequences that fairly minor criminal convictions can have. Are we going to separate a man from his family of five who has a partner who’s not from Mexico, so could not go back to Mexico with him, over something that stemmed from a traffic stop?”
Benítez said the Immigration Clinic staff unsuccessfully tried, through a different lawyer, to get Cruz’s guilty plea withdrawn. The case hinges on the question of whether Cruz committed a “crime involving moral turpitude,” which justifies deportation in immigration cases. Such crimes are typically defined as depraved acts involving child pornography, rape and other violent crimes such as murder.
“He did plead guilty, and he is in violation of the Virginia state code,” Benítez said. “We’re not disputing that. But is it an immigration violation? We hope that the Supreme Court agrees with us that it is not. State criminal law and federal immigration law are two different things. If the Supreme Court agrees with us, Moisés would be eligible to apply for—not necessarily get—a remedy that we call an immigration law cancellation of removal. That is for long-term residents of the United States who have no status, who establish ties to the United States and establish that they are good citizens.”
‘These folks are not criminals’
Growing up in Buffalo, New York, as the child of Mexican parents, Benítez never discussed immigration with them. His interest in immigration law was piqued when he was in college and learned that applications for asylum were processed with political rather than humanitarian concerns uppermost at play. He went to law school during the Reagan years and has taught at GW since 1996. After practicing immigration law for decades, Benítez said he knows at least one thing for sure.
“There is no border crisis,” he said. “These folks are not criminals. They do not bring disease. They are people trying to save themselves and save their kids. And the way that certain elements in our society demonize them is just plain wrong.”
There is never a shortage of clients at the Immigration Clinic, he said. On the contrary, they sometimes have to make wrenching decisions about which cases to take and which to decline. On average, he estimates that the clinic helps about 50 people per year, including the family members of clients. The clinic’s efforts on behalf of clients, Love among them, can stretch over several years.
“As long as the clients are prepared to continue fighting,” Benítez said, “we are prepared to continue fighting. The student attorneys that I’ve supervised, including Paulina, are the best. Whatever they lack in experience, they make up for in zeal, intelligence, professionalism and empathy.”
Love’s gratitude for the students who helped him remains undimmed.
“The students were the stars of my case,” he said. “I should frame their pictures. I’m thankful to all of them.”
The closing scene in Love’s immigration story takes place at his naturalization ceremony in 2020. Benítez and Vera were present to congratulate him on becoming a U.S. citizen.
*******************
I was privileged to have the GW Law Clinic appear before me in the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court during my 13 year tenure there. Professor Alberto Benítez is a long-time friend, neighbor, and fellow dog walker! I’m also proud that Professor Paulina Vera is an alum of the Arlington Internship Program and a “charter member” of the New Due Process Army. Additionally, Attorney Sydney Josephson, JD-‘14, instrumental in this case, now practices with Fragomen, a firm where I was a partner from 1992 until my appointment as BIA Chair in 1995.
Congrats to the GW Clinic on 45 years of spectacular success, leadership in the legal profession, and many lives saved!
The clinic assisted M, a lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) from Fiji who has lived in the United States with his family for the past 21 years. M had some minor brushes with the criminal justice system as a young adult, and DHS alleged that the government could deport M based on a 1999 conviction. M’s removal case was dismissed after the clinic submitted a brief on his behalf to immigration court arguing that M’s 1999 conviction could not lead to his deportation under Ninth Circuit case law.
Melinda Koster (’11) and Shira Levine(’11) moved to dismiss the deportation proceedings against M arguing that DHS failed to meet its burden of proof under the federal immigration laws. After extensive strategic thinking, legal research and consultation with their client, Melinda and Shira submitted a legal brief to the immigration court arguing that M’s 1999 conviction could not lead to his deportation under Ninth Circuit case law. The Immigration Judge agreed with Melinda and Shira’s reasoning and ruled that the government cannot deport M. This victory built on the success of Orion Danjuma (’10) and Jenny Kim (’11), who previously defeated DHS’s initial charge that M.A. was removable as an “aggravated felon,” a classification that would have resulted in almost certain deportation to Fiji.
*******************
No possible way an unrepresented individual could have prevailed! It would have been a “slam dunk” for DHS.
Yet Article IIIs, Congress, the Administration all insist that due process doesn’t require representation like this! What total BS💩!
Pass Immigration 101? Understand “mixed motive” and how it should be used to protect, not reject? Willing to stand up for due process and the legal and human rights of migrants? Prepared to promote justice and resist the evil culture of “any reason to deny?” We need YOU on the BIA today! “Revolution by evolution” is a crock. We need an aggressive “Due Process Revolution” from within EOIR NOW! Public Domain
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 23-1443
AMGAD SAMIR HALIM KHALIL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Gelpí, Howard, and Rikelman,
Circuit Judges.
Saher J. Macarius, with whom Audrey Botros and Law Offices of Saher J. Macarius LLC were on brief, for petitioner.
Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, with whom Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, were on brief, for respondent.
Julian Bava, with whom Adriana Lafaille, Sabrineh Ardalan, Tiffany Lieu, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc., and Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical Program, were on brief, for amici curiae.
March 29, 2024
RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge.
. . . .
We turn, then, to Khalil’s argument that the factual record compels the conclusion that religion was at least one central reason for his beating. We review the factual finding
– 15 –
against Khalil on this issue under the substantial evidence standard. Pineda-Maldonado, 91 F.4th at 87.
Here, a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Khalil’s religion qualifies as a central reason for the beating. Khalil’s attackers demanded he convert, beat him when he refused to do so, demanded again that he convert, and beat him more intensely when he again refused. The attackers’ own statements show that, regardless of whatever else prompted the beating, Khalil would not have been harmed had he agreed to convert. See Sanchez-Vasquez v. Garland, 994 F.3d 40, 47 (1st Cir. 2021) (deeming perpetrators’ statements essential to the nexus determination); Ivanov v. Holder, 736 F.3d 5, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2013) (determining persecutors were driven by a religious motive that they “recognized and gave voice to” during their attack of the applicant); Singh v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2008) (explaining that perpetrators’ statements “are a crucial factor” for determining the central reason for harm); cf. Esteban-Garcia v. Garland, 94 F.4th 186, 194 (1st Cir. 2024) (finding no nexus because persecutors “didn’t say anything” about the applicant’s protected ground).
The attackers’ demands that Khalil convert to another faith and their increased violence in response to his refusal to do so make this case unlike Sompotan v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2008), which the IJ relied on in finding that the beating was
– 16 –
the result of a personal dispute only. In Sompotan, we held that the record did not compel the conclusion that those who robbed the petitioners and their restaurant while yelling “Chinese bastard, crazy Christian, crazy Chinese” were motivated by religious and racial animus rather than by a desire to rob because “[t]he fact that [robbers] would stoop to the level of using racial slurs is, unfortunately, not surprising.” 533 F.3d at 70. By contrast, the attackers here did not make just a passing reference to Khalil’s religion. Rather, they made religious demands on him during the attack and beat him more vigorously when he refused to cede to those demands.
The arguments the government offers as to why substantial evidence supports the agency’s no-nexus determination do not alter our conclusion. The government emphasizes that Khalil recounted his attackers’ demands that he convert only in his asylum interview and written declaration attached to his asylum application, but not in his testimony before the IJ. But in evaluating whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion, we are tasked with reviewing “the record as a whole.” Barnica-Lopez, 59 F.4th at 527. Further, at his hearing, Khalil described the beating exclusively during the government’s cross-examination, and the government strategically asked him only one question about what his attackers said during the beating: Did they reference the blood test results? The framing of the
– 17 –
government’s questions on cross-examination does not change our assessment of the record as a whole. The government also contends that, because Khalil testified that the imam had no issue with him until the imam found out about the blood test results, religion did not motivate the attack. But that argument ignores the attackers’ own words and actions.
For all these reasons, we find that the record compels the conclusion that Khalil’s religion played more than an incidental role in his beating. We therefore grant the petition for review as to Khalil’s asylum claim premised on mixed-motive persecution.5
. . . .
********************
Many congrats and much appreciation to the NDPA team involved in this litigation!👏🙏
Oh yeah, the BIA also screwed up the CAT analysis! 🤯
This is another classic example of deficient scholarship and an “any reason to deny culture” that Garland, inexplicably, has allowed to flourish in some parts of EOIR on his watch!
This is the REAL “immigration crisis” gripping America, and one that obviously could be solved with better-qualified judges and dynamic due-processed-focused leadership at EOIR!
“Revolution by evolution” is a meaningless piece of bureaucratic gobbledegook I sometimes heard during Dem Administrations to justify their often gutless, inept, and dilatory approach to due process at EOIR! What total poppycock! EOIR needs a dramatic “Due Process Revolution” from within! And, it needs it yesterday, with lives and the future of American justice on the line!
There’s an opportunity, open until April 12, 2024, to become a BIA Appellate Judge and start improving the trajectory of American justice at the “retail level!”
Congrats, endless admiration, and much appreciation to all of these amazing and inspiring leaders! CAIR Coalition was a mainstay of the pro bono program during my tenure at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court. Many outstanding leaders of the legal profession have been associated with CAIR. They have saved countless lives and made American society better and fairer!
As Courtside readers know, I am particularly proud of Adina Appelbaum, Program Director, Immigration Impact Lab.Here’s what I wrote about her in a past Courtside post:
I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!
If only Garland had followed the advice of many of us to recruit amazingly talented expert leaders like Adina to reform and institutionalize due process at EOIR, the immigration “debate” would be completely different today!
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges Statement on EOIR’s Prior Restraint on NAIJ Speech
As former Immigration Judges and BIA Board Members we strongly protest the unconstitutional prior restraint imposed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which effectively silences the officers of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and prohibits them from providing information or engaging in advocacy involving the complex workings of our nation’s Immigration Court system. We call for immediate reversal of this misguided policy.
In late February 2024 EOIR advised NAIJ officers that they could not speak publicly without obtaining advance permission through the agency’s “”SET” (Speaking Engagement Team) process, a requirement which was never imposed before. This is a cumbersome, multistep process which requires Immigration Judges to seek permission from their supervisors, the SET unit, and sometimes even EOIR’s Ethics team and the Office of Policy. It provides no time frames for decisions nor any opportunity for review of adverse determinations. It is a process which is wildly incompatible with the practical realities involved in responding to media or congressional inquiries which often involve extremely short deadlines, sometimes mere hours or days. Mandating union officers use this process is a thinly disguised gag order.
This step is a dramatic departure from a precedent of more than 50 years, since NAIJ was established in 1973 and was never previously mandated to seek prior approval for appearances or speech. It ignores the uncontroverted fact that NAIJ officials scrupulously provide disclaimers indicating that they are not speaking on behalf of EOIR [or its parent, the Department of Justice (DOJ)] or articulating any position except that held by NAIJ members. It unfairly penalizes NAIJ officers who risk personal discipline for insubordination should they fail to comply but are then hampered in the duties owed to their union members when they remain silent.
NAIJ has played a pivotal role fostering the independence and increased professionalism of the Immigration Courts. It brought home to Congress the crucial function that IJs serve in the deportation and removal process, not as prosecutors but rather as neutral arbiters. This resulted in a change in job title from Special Inquiry Officer to Immigration Judge in 1996, with a concomitant enhanced special pay rate intended to broaden and improve the candidate pool for new judges. NAIJ was a crucial player in efforts to protect the independence of the Immigration
Courts in 2002 by leading the successful effort to keep the court independent from the newly created Department of Homeland Security despite strong opposition to that end by the administration and DOJ. At that time, NAIJ argued presciently that the establishment of an Article I Court was the only enduring way to safeguard the sanctity of these courts which hear “death penalty cases in a traffic court setting.” While NAIJ did not succeed in achieving that lofty goal then, legislation to do just that is currently pending in Congress, largely due to NAIJ’s tireless advocacy and coalition building. NAIJ’s voice in the media often stands alone explaining the practical implications of the complex workings of our immigration removal laws since DOJ eschews comments despite the American standard in jurisprudence which emphasizes transparency in its tribunals. NAIJ is the only spokesperson for IJs in the field, who have the first-hand view of court operations. Without NAIJ speech, no views from these benches in the trenches will be heard.
Perhaps worst of all, this policy deprives the American public of the views of an important, informed group which can shed light on the realities of the implementation of immigration laws and policy at a time when public scrutiny is at an all-time high and accurate factual information scarce. Under this new policy, NAIJ officers cannot even speak at educational or professional seminars or other public events without DOJ approval and instruction as to precisely what they can or cannot say.
Government employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they take office. To the contrary, their duty to educate the public is heightened and their voice enhanced by their informed opinions and expertise.
We urge EOIR to restore NAIJ’s important voice and revoke this new policy. ###
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is composed of 56 former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We were appointed and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Members of our group have served in training and management roles at EOIR. Several of our members were officers and leaders in NAIJ and were instrumental in guiding NAIJ to accomplish the achievements described above. Combined we have decades of experience and unique expertise in the immigration court system and the field of immigration law.
For media inquiries, please contact Hon. Dana Leigh Marks (ret.) at danamarks@pobox.com or (415) 577-9831
3/25/24
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired) San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges, Member Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
************************
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
MINI-ESSAY: NAIJ IS AN ESSENTIAL FORCE FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
By Judge (Ret.) Jeffrey S. Chase
March 25, 2024
In Matter of A-R-C-G-, the BIA at footnote 16 recognized that AILA, UNHCR, and CGRS in their amicus briefs had all argued that gender alone should be sufficient to constitute a valid PSG in the matter. However, the Board chickened out, stating that because they were recognizing the narrower group stipulated to by DHS, “we need not reach this issue.”
I think the real proof of the validity of gender per se as a PSG is found in what happened after Sessions issued Matter of A-B-. With A-R-C-G- vacated, IJs all around the country began issuing detailed written decisions recognizing gender plus nationality, and explaining why such group met all of the legal requirements. This was done by IJs with very different grant rates, across different circuits, and included at least one ACIJ. And remember, this was done under an AG that clearly didn’t want IJs to reach that conclusion.
Which allows me to segue into our next issue: a major reason that IJs felt empowered to issue those decisions that were clearly not to the AG’s liking was due to the decades of effort by the NAIJ on behalf of judicial independence. Our public statement, prepared by our esteemed colleague Judge Dana Marks with input from others in our group, criticizing EOIR’s recent gag order on NAIJ officers, who for the first time will now be required to request agency permission to speak publicly, is a powerful reminder of the essential role played by NAIJ in protecting judicial independence, promoting due process and fundamental fairness, and, ultimately, saving lives of those seeking justice from our nation.
***********************
Thanks to Dana, “Sir Jeffrey,” and all our other wonderful Round Table colleagues for speaking out so forcefully in favor of due process for all and judicial independence!
Sarah Nagle, J.D. ’24, reviewing Ms. S’s case prior to her Asylum Interview (Fall 2023).
