"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.
How horrible is today’s BIA? Well, there are endless examples documented in Courtside and the Jeffrey S.Chase Blog from my friend and Round Table colleague. But, here’s a particularly striking recent travesty from our friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:
The case is Hylton v. Att’y Gen. Here, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, hardly a hotbed of judicial liberalism or anti-Government sentiment, reamed the “Star Chamber BIA” for 1) misreading the plain statutory language, and 2) ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to reach an anti-migrant result.
This is merely the latest in a long line of screw-ups resulting from a powerful appellate body that lacks independence, expertise, and the institutional courage to uphold individual rights against the constant overreach of DHS Enforcement (characterized as “partners” by Sessions & Barr — how would you like to be tried by a “court” where the prosecutors and the judges are “in partnership” to extinguish your legal rights and humanity?)
Two major legal errors by supposed “expert judges” in the same case? Oh, and get this! This case misreading the “plain language” of the statute and dissing binding precedent from the Supremes, just to produce an (illegal) order of removal, was deemed so “routine” at the “Falls Church denial factory,” that it was handled by a single appellate “judge” — didn’t even merit consideration by a three-member panel!
That’s what the DOJ’s politically-motivated “deny and deport culture” produces. And, it’s not like this is an aberration; the BIA cranks out this sloppy garbage on a daily basis. Most of it doesn’t get caught by the U.S. Courts of Appeals, who all too often are on their own type of “autopilot” when it comes to the legal rights of migrants — many of them people of color!
For Judge Garland to be credible on any racial justice issue, and for EOIR to provide due process, we need radical, not incremental, change!
1) The process would work much better if EOIR consulted the stakeholders for their ideas before issuing any memo.
2) In the absence of a real e-filing system, the assignment of trial dates without consulting counsel as to their availability is likely to generate lots of motions for different dates.
3) In a system with 1.3 million cases, why not ask how much time counsel needs for prep and filing rather than setting arbitrary dates? “Live (or even TV) Masters” give the IJ and the parties an opportunity to “negotiate” mutually agreeable, realistic hearing dates. That, in turn, minimizes the number of motions to continue or reset and maximizes the chance of actually getting the case heard on the first scheduled Individual (Merits) Hearing date (barring more Aimless Docket Reshuffling from EOIR “management,” which is a continuing problem).
4) Given how messed up the EOIR dockets are, what’s the point of pushing for 30 day filings when the merits hearing might not be for years?
5) How do you encourage stipulations with precedents that make them worthless when the AG or BIA or IJ can choose to ignore them to deny? Stipulations seem to bind only one party: the respondent. Can’t imagine a much clearer indication of systemic bias or lack of due process and impartiality.
6) To me, this looks like just another gimmick to allow EOIR to “deny and deport” for failure to meet arbitrary filing deadlines, without EOIR committing to any reasonable limits on its own scheduling of merits hearings. The R has to “race or lose;” but, EOIR can (and does) take forever with no accountability.
7) What’s the empirical basis for all EOIR’s assumptions as to what best and most efficient practices are? How would an agency renowned for “malicious incompetence” know? Best and most efficient for whom? Falls Church bureaucrats? Politicos on the 5th Floor of the DOJ?
8) I completed lots of cases at Master, besides in absentias. In some situations, I suggested areas for stipulation or agreement, or invited joint motions to transfer to my “short calendar” if certain conditions were met. I’m not convinced that “interactive” Masters serve no purpose. I’d be interested in whether the private bar sees these procedures as an improvement. Amazing what you can actually accomplish when you have the parties and counsel in your actual presence as an IJ. Amazing what an IJ can actually teach and communicate from the bench during a “live” master.
9) To some degree, this ham-handed attempt at micromanagement “from afar and on high” looks like a restoration of the paper heavy and labor intensive chaos that existed in the system before EOIR was created in 1983 and the late Chief Judge William R. Robie “invented” Master Calendar as an essential scheduling tool that brought order from that chaos. If EOIR ever got competent court administration and created a functioning e-filing system (like almost every other tribunal in the U.S.), the private bar and actual sitting IJs could undoubtedly suggest some helpful “tune-ups” to the Master Calendar process to take advantage of efficiencies made possible through e-filling.
10) This memo also violates one of the key principles of effective judicial administration — that docket management and scheduling of cases should be left to local judges in conjunction with the private bar and the local DHS Chief Counsel. They, not bureaucrats in Falls Church or DOJ policies, are in the best position to develop the most reasonable and efficient docketing and scheduling procedures coordinator that particular court. The major contribution that “EOIR Headquarters” could make would be a functioning e-filing system — an area where they have an inexcusable two decade history of abject failure, wasted effort, and squandered public resources.
10) To me, this looks like another “designed to fail” edict from the purveyors of disaster, disorder, and injustice!
11) Other than that, it’s great!
Those wanting to contribute to an organized response to this latest “gut punch” might want to contact Michelle Mendez, Director of Defending Vulnerable Populations at CLINIC, or retired Judge Sue Roy (NJ Bar, AILA, Round Table).
On April 7, after you have attended the EOIR session, you might want to “tune in” to our panel for the Hispanic National Bar Association entitled“Who’s Judge Is It Anyway?” We’ll discuss ideas on how attorneys, particularly those from under-represented groups, can go about forcing change to the institutionalized racism, grotesque disorder, and systemic abuses of due processes, best practices, and human dignity still going on in our Immigration Courts even as the Biden Administration claims to be focusing on racial justice in America!
Let’s find ways to force Judge Garland out of his “ivory tower funk” and to make him start paying attention to the Constitutional mockery, amateurish jurisprudence, defiance of common sense, and racist dehumanization of “the other” going on in “his” wholly owned and beyond incompetently operated “courts!”
The Republican senator Ted Cruz has drawn criticism for taking a trip to America’s southern border as the conservative Texan politician once again became the butt of internet jokes and memes.
In the style of a wildlife documentary, Cruz captured his experience with the help of professional photographers and shared his recent journey to the US-Mexico border Thursday night on social media, where he aimed to shed light on what Republicans have dubbed a crisis.
Sporting a dark green fishing shirt and matching baseball cap with the Texas flag, Cruz spoke at a press conference where he sought to paint a dramatic picture of his experience: “On the other side of the river we have been listening to and seeing cartel members – human traffickers – right on the other side of the river waving flashlights, yelling and taunting Americans, taunting the border patrol.”
Advertisement
Upgrade to Premium and enjoy the app ad-free.
Upgrade to Premium
Despite his claims that the border situation is a direct result of the Biden administration’s immigration policies, residents in the Rio Grande Valley have said no such crisis exists. In fact, the number of border crossings under the Biden administration largely mirror those under the former Trump administration. Cruz was accompanied by 18 other Republican senators including John Cornyn, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham.
After claiming he ran into heckling cartel members and saw a dead body floating in the Rio Grande, Cruz was derided by many, including the former congressman Beto O’Rourke who said:“You’re in a border patrol boat armed with machine guns. The only threat you face is unarmed children and families who are seeking asylum (as well as the occasional heckler).”
. . . .
**********************
Read more at the link about the GOP’s complete farce — while much more courageous individuals, asylum seekers, are forced to risk their lives because the U.S. is incapable of administering our own asylum laws in a fair, responsible, and competent manner. Cruz & co apparently view this as a “photo op.” Actually, it’s a human tragedy for which history will hold Cruz and his racist party largely responsible, even if the voters fail to do so.
The best solution is to hire experts from the private/NGO/academic sectors; build a functioning asylum and refugee system that will process applicants fairly, generously, predictably, and efficiently; reopen legal ports of entry; establish a robust “on site” refugee program for the Northern Triangle; and work with the international community to alleviate the causes of forced migration. Figure out how new arrivals who qualify for legal status can help rebuild our economy moving forward. Develop a humane program for returning those who don’t qualify without endangering their lives, health, and safety.
An absolutely essential part of the solution is a new, “reimagined” EOIR, staffed with real judges who are experts in asylum, human rights, and due process. An EOIR that will “through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best courts, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Judge Garland, where are you in American justice’s hour of dire need?
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Imperfect as our current laws may be, they cover all of the foregoing. What we really need to do is follow our own laws with common sense, humanity, and a sense of urgency!
What we don’t need is more inane walls, more border enforcement directed against asylum seekers, and more cruel and illegal schemes to return refugees to back to danger without any due process. And, we certainly don’t need any more photo ops from Cruz and his GOP cronies.
“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Morales Lopez v. Garland, 5th Cir., 03-19-21, unpublished
PANEL: Southwick, Graves, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge
KEY QUOTE:
Morales Lopez argues that the IJ improperly determined that she did not make a sufficient showing of past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. Regarding past persecution, Morales Lopez argues that the IJ erroneously (1) required each incident of harm to rise to the level of persecution, (2) failed to consider all relevant incidents of harm, (3) required a showing of physical harm, and (4) failed to consider significant liberty deprivations suffered by Morales Lopez and her children. Morales Lopez further argues that (5) the substantial evidence compels a finding of past
10
Case: 18-60251 Document: 00515788451 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/19/2021
No. 18-60251
persecution and (6) the IJ erred by failing to consider Morales Lopez’s psychological harm.
Regarding a well-founded fear of future persecution, Morales Lopez argues that the IJ erroneously (1) applied a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard instead of a reasonable-possibility standard; (2) failed to evaluate Morales Lopez’s fear of future persecution using the four-part test set forth in In re Mogharrabi; (3) conflated the past-persecution and well-founded-fear- of-future persecution analyses, (4) required Morales Lopez to offer direct proof of her persecutors’ motives, and (5) mischaracterized Ungar’s testimony. Morales Lopez further argues that (6) the substantial evidence compels a finding of a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Although we neither agree with nor reach all of Morales Lopez’s arguments, we agree with her overarching point: the IJ and the BIA improperly determined that Morales Lopez did not make a sufficient showing of past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. We address Morales Lopez’s arguments in turn.
**************
Hon. James E. Graves, Jr. U.S. Circuit Judge Fifth Circuit PHOTO: Wikipedia
Too bad this is unpublished. Once again, a Circuit Court has to provide the detailed analysis required by due process after the supposedly “expert” BIA commits error after error!
When they get below the “caption line” in an opinion, things go south fast for EOIR judges. I’d attribute that to a deadly combination of poor judicial selection, defective training, a “culture of prejudgement and denial,” large-scale overuse and misuse of the woefully inadequate and outdated “contemporaneous oral decision” format (not used by any other “court” for decisions of this importance and complexity), “haste makes waste” gimmicks, absurd “quotas,” inane “performance ratings,” constant political interference with decision-making, disastrously incompetent unprofessional docket management, and maliciously incompetent “leadership” from the DOJ. It’s an ungodly and inexcusable mess.
Sadly, my grim description doesn’t begin to capture just how embarrassingly unjust, unfair, dysfunctional, and just plain terrible EOIR’s “killer clown show” 🦹🏿♂️🤡 is. Not to mention that it is clearly unconstitutional, and a “livingrepudiation of due process” as currently constituted and operated. Put this pathetic imitation of a “court system”out of its misery before it causes any more destruction of human lives and irreparable damage to our justice system!
Judge Garland, where, oh where, are you in American justice’s hour of need? Stop this disgraceful mockery of justice, humanity, and common sense! Now!
In the meantime, as I had warned, Judge Garland’s previously sterling record as a jurist 👨🏻⚖️ is being tarnished daily by association with some of the worst jurisprudence out there, courtesy of America’s Star Chambers,🏴☠️ a/k/a “Clown Courts,” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ now wholly owned by HIM, and “operated” in HIS name!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Clown Courts🤡🦹🏿♂️ & Star Chambers☠️🏴☠️⚰️, Never!
In an absolutely stunning statement, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) admitted in a radio interview that he wasn’t frightened by white insurrectionists’ attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 — but said he would have been “concerned” had they been Black.
Johnson accurately predicted that his racist statement to conservative radio host Joe Pags on Thursday would get him “into trouble.”
The senator noted that he has been criticized for previous remarks that he “never felt threatened” by the attack.
He added: “Now, had the tables been turned, Joe, and this’ll get me in trouble — had the tables been turned, and President Trump won the election, and those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned.”
. . . .
**************
Read the full article at the link.
Oh Wisconsin, how far you have fallen to inflict this racist idiot on our nation!
Government Misleadingly Posts Enjoined Asylum Regs
As we all know, on December 10, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security jointly published final rules widely referred to as the “Death to Asylum” regulations. On January 8, a U.S. District Court Judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking those rules from taking effect. The rules remain enjoined at present.
However, EOIR, the agency housing the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, maintains a Virtual Law Library (“VLL”) on its website. Most EOIR judges, staff attorneys, and law clerks use the VLL to reference applicable law when drafting decisions. Many private lawyers and other interested individuals outside of government use the VLL as a resource as well. In addition to listing all precedent decisions of the BIA and the Attorney General, the VLL contains links to the most current versions of both the Immigration & Nationality Act and the regulations that interpret it.
One clicking on the link to the federal regulations on the VLL is taken to a site called e-CFR, which is maintained by the U.S. Government Printing Office. At present, that site displays the enjoined “Death to Asylum” rules as if they are presently in effect. The site does not state that the regulations have been enjoined, and therefore may not be relied on.
This means that at present, an Immigration Judge, Board Member, law clerk, staff attorney, or anyone else involved in the decision-making process who researches the law applicable to a pending asylum case will read rules that are not actually in force, but that mandate the denial of asylum in cases that should be granted under the actual applicable law. The judges and their staff will see “rules” that require an overly narrow view of what constitutes political opinion or a particular social group; of who may be a persecutor and of how nexus is established. They will see language making it more difficult to find that an asylum seeker could not have reasonably relocated within their country; that discourage reliance on country condition information critical to establishing many elements of individual claims; and that, in some cases, call for the termination of bona fide asylum claims as “frivolous,” a classification that carries a lifetime bar to any and all immigration benefits.
Remarkably, when made aware of the problem, government officials defended the posting of the non-applicable rules on the grounds that their “effective date” had been reached, and seemed unable to understand what the problem was. I would hope that the Biden Administration might instruct these officials why it might actually be a problem for judges to access rules requiring them to deny asylum claims they should actually be granting. They might want to add that it would be a particularly good practice to double-check before posting any rule commonly referred to as “Death to Something.”
In the meantime, attorneys should carefully review all written decisions from EOIR, checking whether they cite to the inapplicable regs.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
***********************
They might want to add that it would be a particularly good practice to double-check before posting any rule commonly referred to as “Death to Something.”
In the meantime, attorneys should carefully review all written decisions from EOIR, checking whether they cite to the inapplicable regs.
Says it all! EOIR = FUBAR 🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️
Hey, it’s only human lives and futures at stake!
And, of course, it’s the job of the job of the private bar to “cite check” the (non) experts @ EOIR!
Just think how justice could be achieved with real expert judges who understand asylum law in the first place and competent judicial (not bureaucratic) management focused on quality, efficiency, best practices, and most of all, correct, just results that comply with due process and fundamental fairness? What if all Federal Courts (including the Supremes) functioned in the manner set forth in the previous sentence: Racial justice might become a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise!
Fold up the tent on the “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ and replace it with real judges and real courts. The right folks are out there! But, they are mostly fighting the “malicious incompetence” from the outside, rather than solving problems and promoting justice “from the inside.”
EOIR might not be using the correct version of 8 CFR. But, they DO have wasteful and unnecessary “Judicial Dashboards” on every bench to jack up stress levels, promote “corner cutting and sloppy work,” and check to make sure “deportation quotas” are being made!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigrants Facing Deportation Wait Twice as Long in FY 2021 Compared to FY 2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The latest available case-by-case Immigrant Court records show that immigration cases that were completed in the first four months of FY 2021 took nearly twice as long from beginning to end as cases completed in the first four months of FY 2020. Cases that were completed between the beginning of October 2020 and the end of January 2021 took, on average, 859 days compared to 436 days over the same period a year before. The duration was calculated as the number of days between the date the Notice to Appear was issued to the date of completion as recorded in the Immigration Court’s records.
The top ten Immigration Courts with the most case completions thus far in FY 2021 accounted for four out of every ten closures (42%). The Miami Immigration Court was the most active with 2,129 case closures. Completion times at the Miami Immigration Court have increased since November 2020, but were slightly lower than the national average at 832 average days. In November, the Miami court took on average 787 days. The Immigration Court in Los Angeles had the second highest number of case completions with 1,857 case closures, followed closely by San Francisco with 1,849. Baltimore and Dallas were in fourth and fifth place.
The longest disposition times were found in the Atlanta Immigration Court where it took on average 1,577 days to close a case. The Cleveland Immigration Court was close behind, taking an average of 1,573 days. The Arlington Immigration Court was in third place with completion times so far in FY 2021 averaging 1,535 days. Newark and Boston Immigration Courts were in fourth and fifth place. Cases completed by immigration judges in Atlanta, Cleveland, Arlington, and Newark all took, on average, longer than four years.
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through January 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
It’s what happens when you combine White Nationalism, maliciously incompetent management, bad judging, and endless “enforcement-only” gimmicks that tried to cut corners and short-circuit justice — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) to the max. What has been absent from this system for years is leadership that understands immigration, views migrants as humans, and is committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.
Pretty much what AILA pointed out in today’s report (policy brief).
The system can’t improve without better personnel — not necessarily more — just better qualified to get the job done in a fair and timely manner consistent with due process and human dignity!
McHenry informed EOIR employees last Friday that he was returning to his position as an OCAHO Administrative Law Judge. Can’t imagine there were too many tears shed, except within the “inner circle” of the “EOIR kakistocracy.”
OCAHO has long been viewed as EOIR’s “Siberia equivalent” and has been used to “exile” other “out of favor” Senior Execs in the past (ironically including King). Given OCAHO’s traditionally rather limited docket, it appears that McHenry’s ability to further damage our justice system and demean humanity will be restricted.
Notably, he was appointed Director by former Attorney General and notorious child abuser Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions without any known qualifications to manage one of America’s largest, most important, and totally screwed-up court systems. Over his four-year tenure, he proved to be every bit as unqualified for the job as his embarrassingly-thin resume originally suggested he would be.
He was part of the remarkably unqualified aptly-named “Atlanta Mafia” at EOIR. They degraded justice and humanity in equal portions as part of their nativist crusade to expand the “Atlanta Asylum Free Zone” nationwide. Basically, only the courageous hard work of talented immigration advocates stopped their nefarious program from reaching its objective, although that’s not to minimize in any way the lasting damage they did to our legal system and human lives.
Among McHenry’s many negative achievements was driving already-low EOIR morale and poor working conditions to depths never before seen or imagined. And, that was for his own employees! Imagine what it was like for foreign nationals and their courageous, determined, yet beleaguered attorneys consigned to this “hell on earth” specially designed to chew up lives and degrade humanity as part of as vile “strategy” to use “courts as deterrents” to those with audacity to seek justice in America.
Jean King, by contrast, is an experienced public servant known for her commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, sound scholarship, ethical standards (something that has “gone AWOL” at the DOJ over the past four years), and the “lost art of good government” which the Biden-Harris Administration appears committed to re-establishing.
Jean served on the on the BIA staff when I was Chair. She advanced in EOIR during the tenure of the late Juan Osuna as BIA Chair and then Director. She reportedly chose “exile to OCAHO” after she refused as General Counsel to “go along get along” with some of McHenry’s more outrageously illegal regulatory/administrative moves. He also retaliated by cutting the authority of the OGC and assigning it instead to his bogus “Office of Policy.” (Talk about “fraud, waste, and abuse” of government resources –- while the Immigration Courts lacked, and still lack, a functioning e-filing system, McHenry found time and resources for shenanigans like this, obscene “Immigration Judge dashboards,” and pursuing “decertification” of the NAIJ which had “blown the whistle” on his “maliciously incompetent” management!)
McHenry’s continuing presence as Director following the inauguration and his “in your face audacity” in issuing memos attempting to define “judicial independence” as obedience to the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda he had been implementing rightly drew outrage from all immigration experts who understand the ongoing contempt for due process and abuses of humanity that have somehow become “institutionalized” as “acceptable behavior” at EOIR during the last four years. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/27/biden-replaces-immigration-court-463053
If nothing else, Jean King should be able to stop the flood of illegal regulations, false and misleading policy memos and bogus “fact sheets,” and further deterioration of due process until “Team Garland” gets its “EOIR Reform Group” in place.
All of us who care about American justice and due process should be heartened that somebody on the Biden Team is aware of the due process disaster at EOIR, has taken bold, decisive action, and apparently plans to fix it, sooner rather than later!
Here is Jean’s bio from the EOIR website:
Jean King Chief Administrative Law Judge
Jean King was appointed as the chief administrative law judge in June 2019. Immediately prior to assuming her current duties, she served as general counsel of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) beginning in September 2015. Ms. King received a bachelor of arts degree in 1988 from Brown University and a juris doctorate in 1995 from the College of William and Mary. From July 2015 to August 2015, and previously from December 2012 to October 2014, Ms. King served as deputy general counsel, EOIR. From November 2014 to June 2015, she served as acting general counsel, EOIR. From October 2011 to December 2012, she served as a counsel to the director, EOIR. From March 2011 to October 2011, she served as acting director of operations, Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), EOIR. From 2009 to March 2011, Ms. King served as a temporary board member, BIA. From 2006 to 2009, she was a senior legal advisor at the BIA. From 1996 to 2006, she served as an attorney advisor at the BIA. Prior to joining the BIA, Ms. King spent one year as a judicial law clerk with the Superior Court of Connecticut. Ms. King is a member of the Connecticut and New York State bars.
Good luck Jean! Please don’t forget the “Old EOIR Vision” that used to at the top of our internal web page– “through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” It’s still the right vision for EOIR and America, and with the right team, in place, it still can be achieved!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
A Parting Shot At Women
As the Trump Administration comes to an end, let’s remember how it began. On the day following the inauguration, millions participated in Women’s Marches around the world. There is sadly no need to list the reasons why women in particular would feel the need to respond in such a way to a Trump presidency.
It was therefore no surprise that Trump’s first Attorney General issued a decision intended to strip protection under our asylum laws from women who are victims of domestic violence. That decision, Matter of A-B-, was so soundly rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit relied on his reasoning to conclude that Sessions’s decision had been abrogated. The First and Ninth Circuits further rejected Sessions’s view that the particular social group relied upon in A-B- was legally unsound. The Eighth Circuit rejected Sessions’s description of the standard for proving a government’s inability or unwillingness to control an abusive spouse, for example, as requiring evidence that the government condones his actions, or is completely helpless to prevent them.
The administration tried to codify the views expressed in A-B- and in another case, Matter of L-E-A-, by issuing proposed regulation designed to completely rewrite our asylum laws, with the purpose of making it virtually impossible for domestic violence and gang violence victims to qualify for asylum protection. Those rules, which were rushed out with very little time for public comment, were blocked on January 8 by a U.S. District Court judge.
There are at least two important cases presently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit involving the issues raised in both A-B- and L-E-A-. Had these decisions been issued by, e.g., U.S. District Court judges, the Department of Justice would be representing the government (in the form of the Attorney General), but not the judge who issued the decision below. But as to A-B-, the government attorneys represent an Attorney General acting as judge, and a judge with extraordinary powers. As a result of those powers, the official presently filling the position on an acting basis (who had come to the job a few weeks earlier from the Department of Transportation with absolutely no background in immigration law) was able to unilaterally issue a new decision in the case, in an attempt to shore up issues of concern before the circuits.
So what does the new decision of the recent Deputy Transportation Secretary say? It addresses two issues: the “condone or complete helplessness” language used by Sessions, and the proper test for when persecution can be said to be “on account of” an asylum seeker’s gender, familial relationship, or other group membership.
As to the first issue, the Acting AG now states that Sessions did not change the preexisting legal standard for determining whether a government is unwilling or unable to provide protection. The Acting AG accomplishes this by explaining that “condone” doesn’t actually mean condone, and that “complete helplessness” doesn’t mean complete helplessness.
I’m not sure of the need for what follows on the topic. Perhaps there is an Attorney General Style Guide which advises to never be succinct when there are so many more exciting options available. Besides from sounding overly defensive in explaining why Sessions chose to use terms that sure sounded like they raised the standard in order to supposedly signal that he was doing no such thing, the decision also feels the need to remind us of what that preexisting standard is, in spite of the fact that no one other than perhaps a Deputy Transportation Secretary pretending to be an asylum law scholar is in need of such a recap. Yes, we understand there are no crime-free societies, and the failure to prevent every single crime from occurring is not “unwilling or unable.” No court has ever said that it was. Let’s move on.
The second part of this new A-B- decision addresses a conflict between the views of the Fourth Circuit and the BIA in regard to when a nexus is established. This issue arises in all asylum claims, but the BIA addressed it in a case, Matter of L-E-A-, in which an asylum applicant was threatened by a violent gang because it wished to sell drugs in a store owned by his father. The question was whether the asylum seeker’s fear of harm from the gang was “on account of” his familial relationship to his father.
Our laws recognize that persecution can arise for multiple reasons. A 2005 statute requires a showing that one of the five specific bases for a grant of asylum (i.e. race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion) must form “one central reason” for the harm. The BIA itself has defined this to mean that the reason was more than “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason.”
In the context of family membership, the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly held that this “one central reason” test is satisfied where the family membership formed the reason why the asylum seeker, and not someone else, was targeted for harm. Using the L-E-A- example, the gang members were obviously motivated most of all by their desire for financial gain from the selling of the drugs in the store. But under the Fourth Circuit’s test, the family relationship would also be “one central reason” for the harm, because had the asylum seeker not been the son of the store owner, he wouldn’t have been the one targeted. This is known as a “but for” test, as in “but for” the familial relationship, the asylum seeker wouldn’t have been the one harmed
In L-E-A-, the BIA recognized the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation in a footnote, but added that the case it was deciding didn’t arise under that court’s jurisdiction. The BIA thus went on to create its own test, requiring evidence of an actual animus towards the family. The BIA provided as an example of its new test the assassination of the Romanov family in 1917 Russia, stating that while there were political reasons for the murders, it would be difficult to say that family membership was not one central reason for their persecution.
I’m going to create my own rule here: when you are proposing a particular legal standard, and the judge asks for an example, and all you can come up with is the Romanov family in 1917 Russia, you’re skating on thin ice. The other thing about legal standards is in order for judges to apply them and appeals courts to review them, they have to be understandable. I’m not a student of Russian history, but it would seem to me that (as the BIA acknowledged), the main motive in assassinating the Romanovs was political. I’m not sure what jumps out in that example as evidence of animus towards the family itself. How would one apply the Romanov test to anyone ever appearing in Immigration Court? By comparison, the Fourth Circuit’s test is a very clear one that is easy to apply and review on appeal.
Of course, this is just my humble opinion. The assistant Transportation czar feels differently. Drawing on his extensive minutes of experience in the complex field of asylum, he concluded: “I believe that the Fourth Circuit’s recent interpretation of ‘one central reason’ is not the best reading of the statutory language.”
I am guessing that by saying this in a precedent decision in the final days of this Administration, Transportation guy is hoping that the Fourth Circuit will feel compelled to accord his opinion Brand X deference. Legal scholar Geoffrey Hoffman has pointed out that no such deference is due, as the requirement that the statute be ambiguous is not satisfied. (Geoffrey’s excellent takedown of this same decision can be found here, and is well worth reading).
But the term in question, “on account of,” is also not one requiring agency expertise, which is of course a main justification for judicial deference. It is instead a legal standard not specific to asylum or immigration law.
For example, last June, the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County, a case involving employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court explained that the statutory term in question, “because of,” carries the same legal meaning as “on account of,” the relevant phrase for asylum purposes. In determining nexus, the Court stated:
It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn’t matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred.
That last sentence – “if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer” – is essentially the same “but for” standard applied by the Fourth Circuit in the asylum context. What would give an Acting Attorney General the authority to hold otherwise?
A conservative commentator observed a difference between the discrimination required in Bostock and the persecution required in L-E-A-, stating that discrimination can involve favoring one group without necessarily hating the group being passed over, whereas persecuting someone requires an animus towards them.
However, the BIA recognized nearly 25 years ago that persecution can be found in harm resulting from actions intended to overcome a characteristic of the victim, and that no subjective punitive or malignant intent is required. The BIA acknowledged this in L-E-A-, noting that a punitive intent is not required.
Furthermore, the legislative history of the REAL ID Act (which created the requirement in question) shows that Congress amended the original proposed requirement that the protected ground be “the central motive” for the harm, to the final language requiring that it be “one central reason.”1 While animus would fall under “motive,” “reason” covers the type of causation central to the Fourth Circuit’s “but for” test. The history seems to undermine the former Transportation official’s claim that under the Fourth Circuit’s test, the “one central reason” language would be “mere surplusage.” This is untrue, as that additional language serves to clarify that the reason can be one of many (as opposed to “the” reason), and that the relevant issue is reason and not motive. Perhaps the author required more than three weeks at the Department of Justice to understand this.
I write this on the last full day of the Trump presidency. Let’s hope that all of the decisions issued by this administration will be vacated shortly; that the BIA will soon be comprised of fair and independent immigration law scholars (preferably as part of an independent Article I Immigration Court), and that future posts will document a much more enlightened era of asylum adjudication.
Note:
1. See Deborah Anker, The Law of Asylum in the United States (Thomson Reuters) at § 5:12.See also Ndayshimiye v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 557 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2009) (recounting the legislative history and rejecting a dominance test for determining “one central reason”).
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
***************
Judge Garland and his team must address systemic failures at the dysfunctional DOJ well beyond the festering, unconstitutional mess @ EOIR (“The Clown Show” 🤡) that requires an immediate “remove and replace.” The ethical failings, bad lawyering, dilatory litigating tactics, anti-American attitudes, racism, misogyny, intellectual dishonesty, coddling of authoritarianism, and complicity in the face of tyranny are in every corner of the disgraced Department.
Withdrawal of every bogus, biased, unconstitutional, racist- motivated “precedent” issued during the Trump regime and turning the proper development and fair interpretation of immigration and asylum laws over to a “new BIA” — consisting of real judges who are widely recognized and respected experts in immigration, human rights, and due process — must be a “day one” priority for Judge Garland and his team.
The Clown Show🤡🦹🏿♂️ that has made mincemeat out of American justice — not to mention legal ethics and human morality — must go! And, the problem goes far beyond the “Falls Church Circus!”🎪🤹
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Institutionalized misogyny, 🤮☠️never! No more Jeffrey Rosens @ DOJ —ever!
And, firms like Kirkland & Ellis need to think twice about re-employing a sleazy “empty suit” like Rosen who represents everything that is wrong with American law in the 21st century! Public disgrace should not be mistaken for “public service.”
“Normalizing” political toadies, “senior executives,” government “lawyers,” and other “public officials” who carried the water and willingly (often, as in Rosen’s case, enthusiastically, gratuitously, and totally unnecessarily) advanced the objectives of a White Nationalist, anti-American regime whose disgraceful and toxic rule ended in a violent, unhinged, failed insurrection against our democracy encouraged by a Traitor-President, his supporters, and members of the GOP would be a HUGE, perhaps fatal, mistake!
Make no mistake about it! Brave, determined refugee women like Ms. A-B- and her lawyers (superstars like Professor Karen Musalo and Blaine Bookey of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies) are the true American heroes 🦸🏻 of the resistance to White Nationalist, racist, xenophobic policies of cruelty, hate, and disparaging of the rule of law. Toadies and traitors like Rosen are the eternal villains!🦹🏿♂️ Picking on refugees on the way out the door is an act of supreme cowardice that will live in infamy!🐓🤮
*Roto-Rooter is the registered trademark of Roto Rooter Co.🪠🚽🧻
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Justice” Star Chamber StyleHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports more good news for the NDPA, bad news for the EOIR kakistocracy🤡 🦹🏿♂️and the seedy DOJ lawyers 🦹🏿♂️clogging the Federal Courts with frivolous litigation engendered by the White Nationalist, nativist immigration agenda ☠️⚰️🏴☠️ at failed DOJ:
Hi all: The lesser asylum regs that were scheduled to take effect tomorrow were just blocked by a TRO and preliminary injunction granted in D.C. District Court (order to follow). These regs would have required certain respondents to file their I-589s within 15 days of the first Master Calendar hearing, and would have required EOIR to reject any I-589 which left even a single space blank, among other things.
Best, Jeff
*************
There needs to be a “day of reckoning” for DOJ lawyers who have “carried the water” for the racist kakistocracy @ the regime’s “Ministry of Nativist Propaganda & Crimes Against Humanity” (the Federal agency formerly known as the “Department of Justice”).
Illegal regulations, clogging the Federal Courts with frivolous positions, defending the actions of imposters impersonating Cabinet officers and other officials, inventing pretexts to cover invidious intent, targeting the most vulnerable among us have “real life” consequences.
There will be no “rebirth” at Justice unless “Team Garland”👨🏻⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸 deals with the xenophobia, racism, institutionalized cowardice, and criminal misuse of office and Government resources at the failed DOJ over the past four years.
That’s in addition to the “maliciously incompetent” mismanagement aspect of the unmitigated disaster @ EOIR which has (mis)used various illegal “gimmicks” to pour more mismanaged resources into creating astronomical, mostly unnecessary backlogs in our failed and beyond dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” (actually Star Chambers, masquerading as “courts”), in “partnership” with the out of control, White Nationalist enforcement kakistocracy @ ICE/DHS and violating the Constitution and human decency to boot! Really, could it be any worse?
The Trump/GOP insurrection🥷🏻 @ our Capitol is directly related to lack of accountability that let the Trump kakistocracy “get away with murder.” That’s why the Inauguration is being held in a city under military lockdown next week.
You can bet that the lies, “back-pedaling,” cover-ups, finger pointing, and avoidance of responsibility for the disintegration of democracy will be in full swing by the end of next week! Judge Garland will have to deal with it up front; he can’t “wait for Godot” as has been the problem with past Dem Administrations!
Today’s “DOJ” looks and “(mal)functions” like a Clown Show 🤡 repertory company playing “Theater of The Absurd” in a bad imitation of a Franz Kafka novel! If Judge Garland doesn’t want to become the “star” of this revolting exhibition, he’d better start cleaning 🧹 up and cleaning out 🪠on “Day 1.” And the EOIR “Tower of Babble” would be a great starting point for “Operation Clean Sweep”🧹!
There will be no real justice in America without a a “day of reckoning” @ Justice. It’s long, long, long, long overdue!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information on the relevant government websites and with colleagues as best you can.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, February 5, 2021. NYC non-detained remains closed for hearings.
CBS: Another federal judge on Friday ruled that Chad Wolf was likely unlawfully appointed to his position at the helm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), issuing a decision that blocked a set of broad asylum limits slated to take effect Monday.
WaPo: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the administration’s policy undermines the national resettlement program created four decades ago by Congress.
WaPo: President-elect Joe Biden plans to nominate federal judge Merrick B. Garland, a Democratic casualty of the bitter partisan divide in Washington, to be the next attorney general, tasked with restoring the Justice Department’s independence and credibility, according to people familiar with the decision.
Law360: Democratic victories in Georgia’s heated Senate runoffs gave the party a slim majority in Congress, but without enough votes to end a filibuster.
WaPo: More than 2,500 detainees, most with no serious criminal history, have given up their cases since March, according to records from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group at Syracuse University. Those records also show that detainees put in deportation proceedings in July 2020 were twice as likely to opt for voluntary departure than those from a year before.
WaPo: Over 170 new applicants have become the first individuals in several years to win approval to the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for immigrants brought to the U.S. as young people, the U.S. government revealed in a court filing Monday.
Guardian: US federal prosecutors have filed motions saying the Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernández, took bribes from drug traffickers and had the country’s armed forces protect a cocaine laboratory and shipments to the US.
NY: This year, Governor Cuomo will continue to support the Liberty Defense Project to keep fighting for immigrants seeking a better life for themselves and their families. New York’s strength, character, and pride are found in the diversity and rich culture that makes us the Empire State.
A federal district court in California preliminarily enjoined the government from implementing, enforcing, or applying the 12/11/20 final rule, “Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review.” (Pangea Legal Services, et al. v. DHS, et al., 1/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011107
EOIR issued a memo (PM 21-13) updating and replacing OPPM 17-01, Continuances, to account for legal and policy developments subsequent to its issuance. The memo provides a non-exhaustive list of legal and policy principles as an aid to adjudicators considering common types of continuance requests. AILA Doc. No. 21011101
Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Ninth Circuit ruling that detained asylum seekers who clear an initial fear screening must be given a prompt bond hearing, sending the case back to the appeals court for reconsideration.
SCOTUSblog: The case asks whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status if those noncitizens originally entered the United States without being “inspected and admitted” – a term of art referring to lawful entry and authorization by an immigration officer.
ImmProf: There are four immigration related cases set to be considered, with three being petitions by the government (more SG petitions on distinct immigration issues than one would usually expect in the course of an entire year), and the other involving a case in which the SG is agreeing that certiorari is appropriate (also a rare position for the SG). The SG’s position in each of these cases shows an unusual aggressiveness towards the role of the Supreme Court.
The BIA found that IJs may find a document to be fraudulent without forensic analysis if it contains obvious defects or readily identifiable hallmarks of fraud, and the party submitting the document is given an opportunity to explain the defects. Matter of O-M-O-, 28 I&N Dec. 191 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21010801
The court held that a conspiracy or attempt to commit fraud or deceit involving over $10,000 in intended losses is an aggravated felony, and remanded to determine whether petitioner’s convictions under 18 USC §1037(a) reflected over $10,000 in intended losses. (Rad v. Att’y Gen., 12/21/20) AILA Doc. No. 21010500
The court reversed the district court opinion and disagreed with CA6 and CA9 interpretations of the statute, by holding that a grant of TPS does not constitute an “admission” into the United States under INA §1255. (Sanchez v. Wolf, 7/22/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011100
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Somalia, finding that the BIA did not fail to consider al-Shabaab’s increase in power or ISIS-Somalia’s emergence and growing violence from 2011 to 2018. (Mohamed v. Barr, 12/23/20) AILA Doc. No. 21010502
The court held that the Vietnamese petitioner had waived review of the BIA’s discretionary denial of asylum relief, and that his proposed social group comprised of “known drug users” was not legally cognizable because it lacked particularity. (Nguyen v. Barr, 12/21/20) AILA Doc. No. 21010503
The court reversed an injunction of PP 9945, which requires IV applicants to demonstrate acquisition of health insurance or ability to pay for future healthcare costs. The court found the proclamation within the president’s executive authority. (Doe, et al., v. Trump, et al., 12/31/20) AILA Doc. No. 21010436
President Trump issued a memorandum directing the Secretary of State to assess whether to classify Antifa as a terrorist organization under 8 USC §1182(a)(3)(B)(vi), and to take steps to consider listing Antifa in 9 FAM 302.5-4(B)(2)(U), Aliens Who Are Members of an Identified Criminal Organization. AILA Doc. No. 21010635
USCIS provided additional updates about lockbox operations, noting that applicants may face delays of four to six weeks in receiving receipt notices for some applications and petitions filed at a USCIS lockbox facility. Delays may vary among form types and lockbox locations. AILA Doc. No. 20121534
I sure hope that Judge Garland and Secretary-Designate Mayorkas are paying close attention!
Because unless they take some immediate forceful action to disable the “regime’s immigration kakistocracy” and make the radical bureaucratic changes necessary to regain control, their “dream jobs” are going to turn into “Nightmare on Elm Street” overnight!
Human rights are being violated and taxpayer funds (in an already “over budget” USG) are being poured down thetoilet 🚽by the minute by the out of control, maliciously incompetent kakistocrats at EOIR, DHS, and in the SG’s Office to name just a few of the most obvious “national disgraces” that need an immediate fix!
The defeated anti-American, neo-Nazi regime was “not normal” and neither Garland nor Mayorkas can afford to treat the wreckage of democracy and human decency and those who did the regime’s bidding at DOJ and DHS as “acceptable” for another minute!
“[W]e conclude that the BIA abused its discretion by denying E.A.’s motion to reopen. E.A.’s mother’s recent childbirth is a serious medical event, which coupled with E.A.’s minor age, her difficulty obtaining transportation, and her difficulty navigating the immigration system without assistance, constitute “exceptional circumstances” necessitating rescission of the in absentia removal order. … The BIA’s decision was also contrary to law, and therefore an abuse of discretion. … First, the BIA improperly considered E.A.’s age separately, rather than considering age alongside other factors, when determining that she had not shown that exceptional circumstances justified her failure to appear. Second, the BIA erred when it dismissed without adequate explanation E.A.’s evidence that she is eligible for SIJS. Finally, the BIA improperly stated that E.A. was required to present prima facie evidence that she was eligible for immigration relief as part of her motion to reopen. … For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the removal order, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats way off to Rachel Naggar! Here is a link to the audio of the oral argument.]
“Salim Al Amiri, an Iraqi citizen, seeks relief from removal on the grounds of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He premises his requests for such relief on the harm that he fears that he would be subjected to in Iraq at the hands of members of Iraq’s military or civilian insurgents operating in that country. Al Amiri contends that he has reason to fear he would be subjected to that harm on account of his work as a paid contractor for the United States Army during the war in Iraq, as in that role he educated U.S. soldiers about Iraqi customs and practices as they prepared for their deployment. We vacate and remand the ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal, but we deny his petition insofar as it challenges the BIA’s ruling rejecting his CAT claim.”
Think how much better this system would function with expertjudges who treated asylum applicants fairly from the “git go,” granted protection wherever possible in accordance with the the Refugee Act of 1980 and the (more “woke”) Supremes’ precedent in Cardoza-Fonseca, provided clear, positive guidance on how valid claims could be documented and granted, and promoted and consistently applied best practices to achieve efficiency with maximum due process.
At first glance, although the issue is reopening rather than a continuance, E.A.C.A. undercuts McHenry’s nativist, insanely wasteful, and totally dishonest attempt to “raise the bar” for routine continuances for asylum applicants who need time to properly document and prepare their cases.
The “Deny – Deny Program” — deny due process, deny relief — that infects EOIR’s “Star Chambers” (impersonating “courts”) is a huge backlog builder that kills people and screws up Court of Appeals dockets in the process.
Reopening cases that should be reopened, getting to the merits, and getting the many properly grantable asylum cases represented, documented, and prioritized would be a huge step in reducing EOIR’s largely self-created and unnecessary “bogus backlog.”
Ultimately, many of the clearly grantable asylum cases being mishandled and wrongly denied at EOIR, at great waste of time and resources, not to mention unnecessary human trauma, could, with real expert judges at EOIR setting and consistently enforcing the precedents, be granted more efficiently and expeditiously at the Asylum Office and ultimately shifted to a more robust and properly run Refugee Program.
In the longer run, once EOIR is redesigned and rebuilt as a proper court with real, independent, expert judges, it might be appropriate to place the Asylum Offices under judicial supervision, given the grotesque abuses and corrupt, perhaps criminal, mismanagement of the Asylum Offices by USCIS toadies carrying out the regime’s racist, White Nationalist, unconstitutional agenda of hate and waste.
NOTE TO JUDGE GARLAND👨🏻⚖️:Please fix the EOIR mess, Your Honor, before it brings you and the entire US justice system crashing down with it! This is a national emergency, and a damaging national disgrace, NOT a “back burner” issue!
Here’s some additional E.A.C.A. analysis by my good friend and NDPA “warrior queen” 👸🏽Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC!
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
Subject: CLINIC MTR In Absentia Win at the CA6 on behalf of SIJS-Seeking UC (E. A. C. A. v. Jeffrey Rosen)
Greetings,
Sharing this win, E. A. C. A. v. Jeffrey Rosen, out of the CA6 by my amazing colleague Rachel Naggar who manages our BIA Pro Bono Project. This was an appeal of an IJ (Memphis) denial of an in absentia motion to reopen for a 13-year old unaccompanied child.
Interestingly, after oral argument, OIL filed a motion to remand the case (which Rachel opposed) and the CA6 denied that motion. Seems the CA6 really wanted to issue a decision on the merits and we are grateful for the decision. Here are some highlights from the decision:
SIJS
· “Notably, the IJ’s decision does not mention E.A.’s claims that she was eligible for SIJS.”
· FN 1: “As of the December 2020 Visa Bulletin, visas are available for special immigrants (category EB4) from El Salvador to adjust their status if their priority date is prior to February 2018. If DHS removes E.A. prior to approving her visa, she will be unable to apply for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).”
Totality of the Circumstances
· “Based on the totality of the circumstances, including E.A. mother’s recent childbirth, E.A.’s young age, E.A.’s mother’s failed attempts to obtain counsel to help change the address of E.A.’s hearing, and E.A.’s inability to travel from New York to Memphis for the hearing, we hold that E.A. established exceptional circumstances.”
· “Under the totality of the circumstances, E.A.’s young age is an important factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.”
Exceptional Circumstances
· “E.A.’s mother’s recent childbirth is a serious medical condition that supports reopening. The statute defining ‘exceptional circumstances’ that justify reopening an immigration proceeding lists the ‘serious illness of the alien, or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien’ as an example. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). Childbirth is a serious medical event that necessitates a recovery period.”
· “Instead of recognizing that childbirth is a serious medical condition, the BIA minimized the seriousness of childbirth and its impact on E.A.’s mother’s ability to bring E.A. to Memphis. […] Recovery from childbirth is exactly the type of circumstance that § 1229a(e)(1) was intended to cover.”
Prima Facie Eligibility
· “Finally, the BIA erred by stating that E.A. was required to prove prima facie eligibility for immigration relief. The BIA’s decision improperly states that E.A. is required to show at this stage prima facie eligibility for relief. The statute governing motions to reopen removal orders entered in absentia provides that the petitioner must ‘demonstrate[] that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances.’ 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). In general, we have stated that ‘[a] prima facie showing of eligibility for relief is required in motions to reopen.’ Alizoti, 477 F.3d at 451–52. In the case of a motion to rescind a removal order entered in absentia, however, the BIA has held that ‘an alien is not required to show prejudice in order to rescind an order of deportation” or removal. In re Grijalva-Barrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. 472, 473 n.2 (BIA 1996); see also In re Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. 599, 603 n.1 (BIA 1996). This is consistent with the statute governing motions to rescind removal orders entered in absentia, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), which does not list a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief from removal as a requirement to rescind in absentia removal orders. Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 603 n.1; see also Galvez-Vergara v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 798, 803 n.6 (5th Cir. 2007) (declining ‘to affirm the IJ’s decision on the grounds that [the petitioner] has not shown that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance’ because ‘In re Grijalva-Barrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 473 n.2, provides that an alien need not demonstrate prejudice for his counsel’s erroneous advice to constitute an ‘exceptional circumstance’ justifying rescission of an in absentia removal order’); Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 939 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘follow[ing] the BIA’s usual practice of not requiring a showing of prejudice’ to rescind an in absentia order of removal). We now join our sister circuits and hold that E.A. is not required to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief in order to obtain rescission under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) of the in absentia order of removal.”
Thanks to our entire Defending Vulnerable Populations team for supporting Rachel on the briefing, oral argument, and negotiations with OIL.
Gratefully,
Michelle N. Mendez | she/her/ella/elle
Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
**********************
In addition to the “normal” overall White Nationalist, racist agenda that EOIR “management” has carried out under the defeated regime, there was a good deal of misogyny 🤮 involved in the BIA’s gross mishandling of the “pregnancy issue,” as described by the Sixth Circuit. This misogynistic trend can be traced back directly to the unconstitutional and unethical actions of mysogynist White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions 🤮 🦹🏿♂️🤡in the “Matter of A-B- Abomination.” ☠️⚰️🏴☠️👎🏻
Biased, anti-migrant decision-making in support of bogus enforcement gimmicks and White Nationalist anti-democracy agendas builds backlogs and kills, maims, and tortures “real” people! Migrants are people and persons, not “threats” and “bogus statistics.”
The “dehumanization” and “de-personification” of migrants, with the connivance of the tone-deaf and spineless GOP Supremes’ majority, is a serious, continuing threat to American democracy! It must stop! Justices who won’t treat migrants physically present in the U.S. or at our borders as “persons” under our Constitution — which they clearly are — do not belong on the Supremes! ⚖️🗽🇺🇸
I can also draw the lines connecting George Floyd, institutionalized racial injustice, voter suppression, riots at the Capitol, and the “Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants by EOIR!
HINT TO JUDGE GARLAND:Michelle Mendez would be an outstanding choice to lead the “clean up and rebuild” program at EOIR and the BIA once the “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ is removed!🪠🧹 Put experts with practical experience like Rachel Nagger and Christopher Linas onto the bench, on the BIA, the Immigration Courts, and the Article III Judiciary to get the American Justice system functioning again!
The “judicial selection system” for the Immigration Courts and the Article III Judiciary has failed American democracy — big time — over the past four years. Fixing it must be part of your legacy!
The folks who preserved due process and our Constitution in the face of tyranny are mostly “on the outside looking in.” You need to get them “inside Government” — on the bench and in other key policy positions — and empower them to start cleaning up the ungodly mess left by four years of regime kakistocracy🤮☠️🤡⚰️👎🏻. “Same old, same old” (sadly, a tradition of Dem Administrations) won’t get the job done, now any more than it has in the past! New faces for a new start!
And, it starts with better judges @ EOIR, which is entirely under YOUR control!An EOIR that actually fulfills its noble, one-time vision of “Through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” will be a model for fixing our failing Federal Courts — all the way up to the leaderless and complicit Supremes who failed, particularly in immigration, human rights, voting rights, and racial justice, to effectively and courageously stand up to the Trump-Miller White Nationalist agenda of hate and tyranny!
We are where we are today as a nation, to a large extent, because of the Supremes’ majority’s gross mishandling of the “Muslim Ban” cases which set a sorry standard for complicity and total lack of accountability for unconstitutional actions, racism, dishonesty, cowardly official bullying, and abandonment of ethics by the Executive that has brought our nation to the precipice! Life tenure was actually supposed to protect us from judges who wouldn’t protect our individual rights. In this case, it hasn’t gotten the job done! Better judges for a better America!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The EOIR Clown Show🤡🦹🏿♂️ ☠️⚰️Never!
Dean Kevin Johnson reports @ ImmigrationProf Blog:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sanchez v. Wolf, which presents the question under the Immigration and Nationality Act whether a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient may adjust his or her status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The Third Circuit held that TPS recipients were not entitled to adjust their status because TPS status was not an “admission,” under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The Third Circuit decision in Sanchez conflicts with the rulings of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
********************
Here’s the government’s position in a nutshell: Notwithstanding the “plain language” of section 244(f)(4) which makes holders of TPS status eligible to adjust status in the U.S. if they meet all of the requirements for legal immigration (usually an an approved visa petition based on family ties or job skills), we have employed legal gobbledygook to refuse to adjust them. Thereby, we mindlessly keep them in “suspended animation” in the U.S. although they are long-time productive members of our society who have resided here with permission and work authorization and now meet our criteria for permanent immigration.
Sound pretty stupid?That’s because it is! I actually had this issue argued before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. Not surprisingly, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel was unable to come up with any rational reason for circumventing the statutory language to achieve a nonsensical result that actually unnecessarily inflated the case backlog and served no legitimate government purpose. Needless to say, I ruled in the respondent’s favor.
This isn’t “rocket science.” The new SG should join the petitioner’s counsel, JAIME W. APARISI (who regularly appeared before me in Arlington) and LISA S. BLATT (Williams & Connolly LLP) in agreeing that this issue was correctly resolved in the respondents’ favor by the Sixth & Ninth Circuits.
Then, ICE should ask the “new BIA” (real judges with immigration and human rights backgrounds appointed by AG Garland) to adopt this view nationwide.
Presto!
No more bogus, contrived “circuit split;”
TPSers with adjustment eligibility can be taken out of EOIR’s ridiculous 1.1 – 1.5 million case backlog and returned to USCIS for routine adjustment of status;
Productive, long-time members of our society can become green card holders, get on the path to citizenship, and reach their full productive potential for both their benefit and the benefit of our society;
A win, win, win, instead of wasting time attempting to achieve an illegal, undesirable, yet fundamentally stupid, irrational, and counterproductive result;
And, unlike the stupidity going on now, it actually doesn’t require expenditure of funds (actually will save and perhaps even generate money from adjustment filing fees), major regulatory changes, new legislation, or protracted litigation. It’s “low hanging fruit” that the Trump immigration kakistocracy has let rot on the tree! Rational administration of the immigration laws can actually be quite efficient.
Is it any wonder that the EOIR bogus “court,” whose “guiding principle” is “always construe the law against the individual and in favor of DHS” is building uncontrollable backlog hand over fist, even with double the number of “judges?” This is “fraud, waste, and abuse” in action! 💸🤮 Not something I’d want to “own” if I were Judge Garland (which, of course, I’m not, and never will be)!
That’s how “practical scholarship” @ EOIR, DOJ, and ICE; smarter, better, more ethical progressive leadership at the DOJ; and the private/NGO/academic bar can work together to solve legal problems and stop wasting the time of the Federal Courts and the Supremes. Perhaps, with the time saved, the Williams Connolly LLP team can even take some more pro bono asylum cases, make the system work better at the “retail level,” and save some deserving lives of vulnerable individuals who have been mistreated by Miller and his neo-Nazi gang of thugs and the malicious incompetents now “running” EOIR (into the ground) in the process.
Not rocket science! But, it will require Judge Garland to bring in some members of the NDPA who actually understand the interrelated issues of immigration, human rights, due process, civil rights, equal justice, and practical problem solving to replace the current “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ at EOIR and the DOJ. (Not to mention, a comprehensive “de-clownification” 🦹🏿♂️🤡 of DHS by Secretary-designate Mayorkas and his team). All of those skills have been conspicuously absent from the Executive branch during the last four years of kakistocracy.
⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Let the De-Clownifying 🤡🦹🏿♂️ Of Government Begin!
Pangea Legal Services v. DHS (“Pangea II”), N.D. CA (USD Judge James Donato), 01-08-21
KEY QUOTE:
Wolf has not spent his time idly at DHS. During his relatively brief tenure, he has attempted to suspend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and impose administrative fees for immigration services and eliminate fee waivers, among other actions. These efforts resulted in several lawsuits in federal courts across the United States, each of which challenged Wolf’s rulemaking authority on the same grounds presented by plaintiffs here. In all of these cases, the district courts have concluded that Wolf was not a duly authorized Acting Secretary, and that his actions were a legal nullity. See Batalla Vidal v. Wolf, No. 16-CV-4756 (NGG) (VMS), 2020 WL 6695076, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2020); Nw. Immigrant Rights Project v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. CV 19-3283 (RDM), 2020 WL 5995206, at *24 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020); Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. v. Wolf, No. 20-CV-05883-
United States District Court Northern District of California
Case 3:20-cv-09253-JD Document 66 Filed 01/08/21 Page 7 of 14
JSW, 2020 WL 5798269, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2020); Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Chad F. Wolf, Case No. 8:20-cv-02118-PX, 2020 WL 5500165, at *23 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020).3
This Court is now the fifth federal court to be asked to plow the same ground about Wolf’s authority vel non to change the immigration regulations. If the government had proffered new facts or law with respect to that question, or a hitherto unconsidered argument, this might have been a worthwhile exercise. It did not. The government has recycled exactly the same legal and factual claims made in the prior cases, as if they had not been soundly rejected in well-reasoned opinions by several courts. The government initially appealed two of these decisions, both of which it later voluntarily dismissed, and appears to have only one appeal pending. In the main, the government contents itself simply with saying the prior courts were wrong, with scant explanation. See, e.g., Pangea Dkt. No. 48 at ECF p. 11 (“the various courts that have embraced this argument are mistaken”); Immigration Equality Dkt. No. 37 at 14 (same).
This is a troubling litigation strategy. In effect, the government keeps crashing the same car into a gate, hoping that someday it might break through. To be sure, one court decision alone does not necessarily close the door to any further cases or arguments along similar lines. Our common law system contemplates that more than one judicial examination of facts and issues is often merited. But our system has no room for relitigating the same facts and law in successive district court cases ad infinitum. That is what the government is doing here. The Court took pains at oral argument to discuss this with counsel for the government, and specifically asked how their arguments here are in any way different from the ones made and rejected in the preceding cases.4 Counsel responded mainly with a disparaging comment to the effect that the other district courts had shirked from working their way through the record. That is untrue. Each of the prior decisions conducted a painstaking analysis of the facts with respect to the Acting Secretary
3 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also found that Wolf’s appointment was invalid under the Homeland Security Act. See Matter of Dep’t of Homeland Security, Gov’t Accountability Office (Aug. 14, 2020), https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/708830.pdf, at 2.
4 Attorney August Flentje at DOJ handled this portion of the government’s argument at the hearing.
United States District Court Northern District of California
Case 3:20-cv-09253-JD Document 66 Filed 01/08/21 Page 8 of 14
position at DHS, with full attention to the unprecedented efforts to validate Wolf’s claim to the job, irrespective of governing law and procedures.
A good argument might be made that, at this point in time, the government’s arguments lack a good-faith basis in law or fact. But the Court need not reach that conclusion to reject those arguments yet again. The Court’s independent review of the record indicates that Batalla Vidal, 2020 WL 6695076, which is the latest decision before this order, correctly identified and analyzed the salient points vitiating Wolf’s claim of rulemaking authority, and the Court agrees with it in full.
********************
Wolf’s continuing impersonation of a Cabinet Officer and Barr’s knowingly illegal, ultra vires approval of clearly unlawfully promulgated regulations that actually threaten the lives of bona fide asylum seekers should be dealt with as criminal offenses after Jan. 20, 2021. Every Government official who participated in this travesty, as well as the unethical DOJ officials and their supervisors who were involved in the frivolous and unethical “defense” of this clearly unlawful, and invidiously motivated, action should be removed from Federal Service. Clearly, prosecutions should be explored against racist mastermind “human rights criminal” Stephen Miller.
As the regime of treason and insurrection comes to an end, those who knowingly helped further its gross illegalities should be held fully accountable under the law. Criminals have no right to government lawyers to defend their scofflaw behavior in civil actions like this!
The EOIR Clown Show 🦹🏿♂️🤡 must go! But, there also must be some accountability for those who abused their government positions and violated their oaths of office to illegally inflict harm and suffering on the most vulnerable among us.
We have seen a serious breakdown of legal ethics and bar policing responsibility at all levels of the Federal Government during the regime. That breakdown extends to Federal Judges all the way up to the indolent Supremes who have consistently failed to hold U.S. Government attorneys (including, specifically, the highly unethical former Solicitor General and his staff) accountable for their unethical behavior in engaging in frivolous civil litigation, advancing “bad faith” defenses for clearly illegal actions, seeking unjustified stays, manufacturing and arguing clear “pretexts” for unconstitutionally discriminatory Executive actions, failing to do even minimal “due diligence,” putting forth factually erroneous and misleading arguments, and allowing the government to abuse, harass, and waste the time of private counsel for improper purposes.
This case also reinforces the absolute necessity of nationwide injunctive relief against Government abuses like this. The “solicitation” of cases challenging and improperly narrowing this necessary form of relief, a corrupt project of the Federalist Society and the former Solicitor General, should raise serious questions of the judicial qualifications of the two “GOP Justices” who recently engaged in this form of rancid, immoral, and legally defective political pandering in their “separate opinion.” Better Justices for a Better America!
What really held the American legal system together for the last four perilous years was the tenacity of lawyers, many of them arguing Immigration or human rights cases pro bono, and the legal scholarship and courage of some U.S. District Judges who stood tall even in the face of a spineless and complicit Supremes’ majority that all too often failed to support them and could barely move fast enough to give a patently lawless, corrupt, racist, treasonous, and clearly unqualified President and his neo-Nazi minions carte blanch to abuse humanity and “Dred Scottify” persons of color. Leadership, moral courage, and integrity count. But for Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and the late RBG, the Supremes came up disastrously short of fulfilling their Constitutional rule in far, far too many cases, and innocent people suffered and died because of it. This is simply unacceptable in our highest level judges.
It’s high time for law schools to reexamine and beef up obviously inadequate ethical training, for a review of the failure of basic ethics throughout Government, and for review and reform of the scurrilous and unacceptable abdication of ethical norms and responsibilities by Federal Judges at every level of our floundering and failing Federal legal system. Criminals like Wolf and Miller and clowns like EOIR officials violate the laws and degrade humanity because they have every reason to believe they will get away with it. They must be held accountable if we want the abuses that came close to destroying our democracy this week to be stopped!
