🤯BILL FRELICK @ THE HILL BLASTS BIDEN’S SCOFFLAW, ELITIST MISTREATMENT OF VENEZUELAN REFUGEES! — Welcome A Few Of The Well-To-Do, Give Others In Need The Screw! 🔩☠️ — Whatever Happened To The Refugee Act of 1980 & The Rule Of Law?

Statue of Liberty
Too many Biden Administration Immigration officials appear to share Stephen Miller’s “upside down” view of the Statue of Liberty, in whole or in part! Why can’t they just follow the Refugee Act of 1980 and establish the robust, timely, generous legal approach to refugees and asylum seekers that best serves America?
Bill Frelick
Bill Frelick
Director
Refugee and Migrant Rights Division
Human Rights Watch

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3704714-bidens-new-plan-no-help-for-desperate-venezuelan-refugees/

Refugees are people who flee for their lives. Escape from danger and abuse is usually chaotic, sudden, desperate. The Biden administration’s rollout of its new policy for Venezuelan refugees seems oblivious to this refugee reality and risks doing more harm than good.

. . . .

Announcing the program on Oct. 12, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said Venezuelans who enter irregularly “will be returned to Mexico.”

He didn’t mention — and appeared to disregard — U.S. law, which recognizes that anyone who arrives in the United States has the right to seek asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of such alien’s status.”

The impact of this announcement, “effective immediately,” was the summary return to Mexico without examination of their asylum claims of any Venezuelans entering the United States without authorization. Mexico has given no assurances that it will examine their refugee claims or provide asylum to those who fear return to Venezuela. In fact, the 4,050 Venezuelans expelled to Mexico since the implementation of the policy have been given visas valid for only one week and instructed to leave the country.

. . . .

With the Biden administration’s plan in effect, we might as well apply a blowtorch to Emma Lazarus’s welcoming poem at the foot of the Statue of Liberty and chisel in a new message: “Give me your well-rested, your well-to-do, your properly ticketed jet-setters yearning to breathe free.”

Bill Frelick is the refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch. Follow him on Twitter @BillFrelick.

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

Read Bill’s complete op-ed act the link. Bill is one of many “practical experts” who would do a much better job than current Administration politicos in establishing and running a refugee and asylum program that would comply with the law,  due process, human dignity, and America’s best interests. Why is Biden following the lead of his “clueless (and spineless) crew?”

The Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted and amended to deal with these situations! Robust, realistic refugee programs outside the U.S. should encourage many refugees to apply, be screened abroad, and admitted legally. 

Other refugees arriving at our border can be promptly screened for credible fear. Those who fail that test can be summarily removed in accordance with existing law. 

Those who pass that test should have access to counsel and receive timely, expert adjudications, with full appeal rights, under the generous “well founded fear” (1 in 10 chance) international standard established by the Refugee Act. See, e.g., INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (Supremes); Matter of Mogharrabi (BIA).

It’s not “rocket science!” With dynamic, experienced refugee experts running the system and “practical scholars” with expertise in refugee processing and human rights laws serving as USCIS Asylum Officers and EOIR judges at the trial and appellate levels the legal system should be flexible enough to deal with all refugee situations in an orderly manner.

Many, probably a majority, of today’s asylum seekers should be granted asylum and admitted to the U.S. in full legal status, authorized to work, and on their way to green cards and eventual citizenship. Like those admitted from abroad, they could also be made eligible for certain resettlement assistance to facilitate integration into American communities who undoubtedly will benefit from their presence.

The more robust, realistic, and timely our overseas refugee programs become, the fewer refugees who will be forced to apply for asylum at our borders. Also, real, bold, dynamic humanitarian leadership, including accepting our fair share of refugees and asylees, could persuade other countries signatory to the Geneva Refugee Convention to do likewise.

No insurmountable backlogs; no bewildered individuals wandering around the U.S. in limbo waiting for hearings that will never happen; few “no shows;” no long-term detention; no botched, biased “any reason to deny” decisions from unqualified officers and judges leading to years of litigation cluttering our legal system, no diverting Border Patrol resources from real law enforcement, no refugees huddled under bridges or sitting on street corners in Mexico!

It’s not “pie in the sky!” It’s the way our legal system could and should work with competent leadership and the very best available adjudicators and judges! It would support the proper, important role of refugees as an essential component of LEGAL IMMIGRATION, not an “exception” or “loophole” as racists and nativists like to falsely argue.

Instead of demonstrating the competence and integrity to use existing law to deal with refugee and asylum situations, the Biden Administration resorts to ad hoc political gimmicks. Essentially, the “RA80” has been repealed “administratively.” Effectively, we’re back to the “ad hoc” arbitrary approaches we used prior to ‘80 (which I worked on during the Ford Administration, and where I recollect I first heard of Bill Frelick). 

I doubt that the late Senator Ted Kennedy, former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, and the rest of the group who helped shepherd the Refugee Act of 1980 through Congress would have thought that using Border Patrol Agents as Asylum Officers or packing the Immigration Courts and the BIA with judges prone to deny almost every asylum claim, regardless of facts or proper legal standards, was the “key to success!”

Congress specifically intended to eliminate the use of parole to deal with refugees except in extremely unusual circumstances, not present here. Biden’s latest ill-advised gimmick violates that premise. It’s totally inexcusable, as the refugee flow from Venezuela is neither new nor unpredictable. I was granting Venezuelan asylum cases before I retired in June 2016. Even then, there were legions of documentation, much of it generated by the USG, condemning the repressive regime in Venezuela and documenting the persecution of those who resisted!

A better AG would say “No” to these improper evasions of existing law. But, we have Merrick “What Me Worry” Garland! His botching of the Immigration Courts has been combined with a gross failure to stand up for equal justice for migrants (particularly those of color) across the board! America and refugees deserve better from our chief lawyer.

The Refugee Act of 1980 actually provides all the tools and flexibility the Biden Administration needs to establish order on the border and properly and fairly process refugees and asylees. Why won’t they use them?

Alfred E. Neumann
AG Merrick Garland has “looked the other way” while the Biden Administration flaunts applicable protection laws in and outside the U.S. He also runs a dysfunctional “court system” where anti-asylum bias, worst practices, poorly qualified decision makers, and grotesque inconsistencies undermine the legal rights of asylum seekers and other refugees. Doesn’t America deserve more competence from its top lawyer?
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-28-22

☠️💀⚰️DEATH VALLEY DAYS: ASYLUM SEEKERS & LAWYERS FACE HARSH CONDITIONS IN QUEST FOR ASYLUM IN GARLAND’S DYSFUNCTIONAL EOIR — Bad Law, Bias, Incompetence, Inconsistency, & Indifference To Humanity Among Obstacles — The Majority Perish Along The Way! — “Courtside” Takes You “Inside The Numbers” Of TRAC’s “New Look” IJ Asylum Reports — New Format, But Same Old Broken & Unfair System!

Death Valley
Asylum seekers and lawyers must cross hostile territory, with a dearth of naturally-occurring due process, to successfully negotiate Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR. Most never make it!
Death Valley
Creative Commons

Here’s the TRAC “New Format” IJ Asylum Report:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/

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

INSIDE THE NUMBERS FOR THE TRAC 10-09-22 IJ REPORT

NOTE: Does not account for: IJs no longer on the bench; IJs appearing in more than one location; differences among detained, non-detained dockets; profiles of high and non-high-denying courts excluded locations with fewer than four IJs listed. No guarantee of accuracy for my “hand count” — but, in accordance with the old government motto, “I did the best I could under the circumstances.”

  • Precipitous unexplained rise in nationwide denial rate since FY 2012, from 44.5% to 63.3%, even though human rights conditions in most so-called “sending countries” remained horrible and in some cases significantly deteriorated. See for FY2012 stats, https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/306/
  • Lots of “Nay-Sayers” on the Immigration Bench:
    • 92 IJs denied asylum 90% or more of the time.
    • Another 94 IJs denied 85-90% of the time.
    • Total of 186 “High Deniers” — those who denied 85% or more — significantly (21.7% or more) above already inexplicably high 63.3% national rate.
  • High Denying Courts (majority of IJs listed denied 85%+)
    • Atlanta (including ATD-Detained) (10 of 10 IJs)
    • Charlotte (6 of 8 IJs)
    • Conroe (5 of 9 IJs)
    • Houston (19 of 22 IJs)
    • Houston-Greenspoint (4 of 5 IJs)
    • Jena (6 of 6 IJs)
    • LA – North (8 of 11 IJs)
    • Los Fresnos (5 of 6 IJs)
    • Lumpkin (5 of 7 IJs)
    • Memphis (6 of 11 IJs)
    • Miami (20 of 31 IJs)
    • Miamii – Krome (7 of 9 IJs) 
  • Non-High-Denying Courts (all, or almost all, listed IJs denied less than 85%)
    • Adelanto (5 IJs)
    • Arlington (3 of 25 IJs High Deniers)
    • Bloomington (1 of 13 IJs High Denier)
    • Boston (1 of 15 IJs High Denier)
    • Baltimore (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
    • Batavia (1 of 4 IJs High Denier)
    • Chicago (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
    • Denver (2 of 8 IJs High Deniers)
    • Detroit (4 IJs)
    • Elizabeth (5 IJs)
    • Imperial (5 IJs)
    • New York (46 IJs, 0 High Deniers) **
    • New York Detained (17 IJs, 1 High Denier) 
    • Newark (3 of 16 IJs High Deniers)
    • Otay Mesa (7 IJs)
    • Pearsall (5 IJs)
    • Philadelphia (8 IJs)
    • Portland OR (4 IJs)
    • San Francisco (2 of 27 High Deniers)
    • Seattle (8 IJs)
    • Tacoma (5 IJs)
    • Van Nuys (1 of 7 IJs High Denier)
  • Telling stats:  99.1%, 97.4%, 94.3% 90.4% — Asylum denial rates for four BIA Appellate Immigration Judges listed in the chart who continue to serve on Garland’s BIA. No wonder asylum seekers are saddled with bad law and sloppy, one-sided appellate review within Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR.
  • Best courts for asylum seekers: Generally  in the Northeast and Northern California: Arlington, Boston, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, San Francisco, Chicago.
  • Worst places for asylum seekers: Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Houston, Louisiana.
  • Mind-blowing stat: Compare the performance of IJs in Arlington and Baltimore with those in Charlotte, all within the 4th Circuit.
  • Observations:
    • New York, followed by San Francisco, appear to be the largest and best functioning courts with respect to actually following the generous standards for asylum seekers set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca, enunciated (but seldom followed) by the BIA in Mogharrabi, and to a large extent incorporated into sporadically enforced regulations.
    • In NY, 46 IJs, 0 High Deniers, 24 listed IJs granted at least 50% or more of the cases, denial rates ranging from 7.1% to 83.5%, still a rather mind-boggling range.The 24 IJs in the 50% or more grant range would seem like a good place for Garland to look for a model for rebuilding EOIR as a fair, due-process-oriented, subject matter expert court. He doesn’t seem interested in doing that, but it could be done with better leadership.
    • Although generally one would expect Detention Courts to be in the “High Denier” category, that’s not always the case. Courts like NY-Detained, Elizabeth, Adelanto, Otay Mesa, and Pearsall, all had some significant asylum grant rates. Conversely, several predominantly non-detained courts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, and Houston were unseemly “dead zones” for asylum seekers. Garland’s failure to address the gross inconsistencies and abuses of asylum law going on in those and other “High Denier Courts” is disgraceful.
  • Overall, this is a statistical picture of a failed and dysfunctional court system where critical life or death decisions depend more on where you are and who your judge or BIA “panel” is than on the quality of the evidence or the state of the law. It has failed to deliver on its promise of being a court of widely acknowledged subject matter experts who will guarantee due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices for all on some of the most important and life-determining decisions in American jurisprudence. It’s bad; and not significantly improving under the Dems!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-28-22

🤯🤮👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽☠️ THIS JUST ISN’T RIGHT! — GARLAND’S “HALLOWEEN HOUSE OF HORRORS @ EOIR” & THE PUNISHMENT HE & HIS UNQUALIFIED, OUT OF TOUCH JUDGES ARE INFLICTING ON VULNERABLE HUMANS & ATTORNEYS DOING THEIR JOBS HAS TO END!

Grim Reaper
As someone who has not represented asylum seekers in his “Houses of Horror” and who disdains engaging with those who have, Merrick Garland has shown that he is unqualified to be Attorney General of the US.  His “Clown Courts” are now “Houses of Horror” that are no joke, particularly for those who have to deal with his beyond dysfuntional mess on a daily basis!  Reaper Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License

 

I received this from a practitioner in response my earlier post about Garland’s ongoing scheduling and due process fiasco @ EOIR:

Glad you wrote this. It has been so hard. I am working 7 days a week and feel like I am losing my mind. Hopefully they start making changes, because how this is currently going is just not sustainable. Many of the Judges are not granting the continuances or making you go to the IH and giving you a hard time about it. Multiple Judges told me a month or even less notice was “plenty of time.” O boy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-26-22

🤯 BREAKING: DUE PROCESS MELTDOWN @ EOIR: 140 PRACTITIONERS, EXPERTS, ACADEMICS, NGOs PROTEST GARLAND’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL & UNETHICAL “SCHEDULING” & “AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING” (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS IN IMMIGRATION COURTS!

Meltdown
Meltdown
Public Realm

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Special

Oct. 26, 2022

 

“Due process cannot exist if an attorney does not have sufficient time and advance notice to prepare for a case.” 

The above is an elementary statement of the minimum requirement for due process in any court setting! Yet, in the “wacky world of Garland’s EOIR” 🤯 it is being knowingly and intentionally violated hundreds of times each day!

Not only does this inhibit effective professional representation of those fortunate enough to have lawyers, but it actively discourages attorneys from taking on cases in Immigration Court, particularly those acting in a pro bono or low bono capacity. How will we interest and inspire new lawyers to get into the practice when this is the way they can expect to be treated? It’s a truly disgusting and disgraceful development!

The following letter from a consortium of practitioners, academics, and NGO leaders protests the insane, due-process-denying lack of notice and the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on steroids” ongoing @ EOIR and makes suggestions for constructive changes to restore at least some order to Garland’s dysfunctional courts. In my view, this situation raises huge Constitutional, ethical, and policy issues affecting all justice in America! It also illustrates the incredibly poor judgement and dismissive attitude of the Biden Administration and Garland’s DOJ in approaching the most serious “life or death” issues involving human rights and racial justice!

Among the signers:

NJ AILA chapter signed on, former judges, Rocky Mountain Advocacy Network, professors, CGRS, ASAP (150,000 members), NC Justice Center, etc. Attorneys practicing in every state + DC + Puerto Rico ended up signing-on to this letter.

I am a signatory. As you know, many of us believe that the ongoing intentional deterioration of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR is a preventable national disgrace that is undermining equal justice and democratic institutions in America. Consequently, I think it is critical to keep this issue “in the public eye” and to demand constructive, common sense reforms at EOIR.

The “constructive suggestions” contained in the letter are great! But, it’s a colossal waste of time and resources to have unqualified bureaucrats, far removed from the actual practice before these dysfunctional “courts,” unilaterally institute these ill-advised, unethical, due-process denying changes. Then, it’s left to the “outside experts” to drop everything and “plead and beg” for common sense and sanity from an arrogant, dysfunctional system!

The American justice system can’t continue to afford to let this wasteful and highly counterproductive “clown show” 🤡 go on unabated! It’s up to everyone who cares about equal justice in America (NOT just immigration practitioners) to demand that Merrick Garland get rid of the incompetents at EOIR and replace them with expert administrators and real, well-qualified judges who are “practical scholars” in the law, understand the needs of justice, and will reform this broken system to work for the best interests of everyone in America!

Here’s a copy of the letter, as sent: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kb25xExBERwZG65EbGZ9iR29UoQiGLL6/view?usp=sharing

🇺🇸“Due Process Forever!”

Paul⚖️🗽😎

10-26-22

THE GIBSON REPORT — 10-24-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Managing Attorney, NIJC — Human Rights Advocates, Immigrants, Abandoned By Biden Administration! — Garland’s “Unforced Errors” @ EOIR Haunt Dems!  — Where Do Operating “America’s Worst Courts” & “Dissing Equal Justice” Fit Into Dem’s Vision Of Democracy?🤯

Elizabeth Gibson
Elizabeth Gibson
Managing Attorney
National Immigrant Justice Center
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

pastedGraphic.png

 

Weekly Briefing

 

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

 

CONTENTS (jump to section)

  • NEWS
  • LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
  • RESOURCES
  • EVENTS

 

FEATURED EVENT

 

2022 Convening on Advancing Universal Representation on 10/27

This gathering will bring together existing universal representation projects as well as groups considering starting/supporting new programs to reflect on best practices, adapting models while seeking to end detention, and ways to expand universal representation. The deadline to register for virtual attendance is tomorrow, October 25, 2022.

 

NEWS

 

US border encounters top 2 million in fiscal year 2022

CNN: There were 227,547 migrant encounters along the US-Mexico border in September, up 12 percent from the previous month. The sharp increase in migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua contributed to the uptick.

 

Illegal Border Crossings by Venezuelans Plunge in the Face of New Policies

NYT: The number of Venezuelans entering the United States illegally dropped from about 1,200 a day to 150 in the first days after the Biden administration rolled out the new policies.

 

U.S. grants Temporary Protected Status to Ethiopians fleeing conflict

Reuters: The Ethiopian military and allies including troops from neighboring Eritrea have been battling forces from the northern region of Tigray on and off for two years. The conflict has killed thousands, displaced millions and left hundreds of thousands on the brink of famine.

 

Coast Guard returns more than 300 migrants to Cuba over weekend

The Hill: The Coast Guard stopped 185 Cubans on Friday, 94 on Saturday and 40 on Sunday. In total, the service says it has intercepted 921 Cubans since Oct. 1.

 

US Border Patrol sending migrants to offices with no notice

AP: Molina was among 13 migrants who recently arrived in the U.S. who agreed to share documents with The Associated Press that they received when they were released from U.S. custody while they seek asylum after crossing the border with Mexico. The AP found that most had no idea where they were going — nor did the people at the addresses listed on their paperwork.

 

‘Hail Mary after Hail Mary’: Biden administration struggles with border policy, fueling frustration

CNN: It has been an endless cycle since President Joe Biden took office, according to multiple administration officials and sources close to the White House. Agency officials dream up a plan but then struggle to get White House approval, even as the problem compounds and Republicans step up their criticism. See also Immigrant advocates feel abandoned as they stare at Biden’s first-term checklist.

 

Nearly 500,000 Immigrants Go Through ICE’s Alternatives to Detention System in Two Years

TRAC: According to new data obtained by TRAC through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, 480,301 people have been enrolled in ICE’s electronic monitoring program known as Alternatives to Detention (ATD) between August 2020 and June 2022. Many of these individuals, about 196,000, were previously active in ATD but have since ceased to be monitored under ATD, while 284,000 immigrants were still in ATD as of the end of June.

 

Over 63,000 DHS Cases Thrown Out of Immigration Court This Year Because No NTA Was Filed

TRAC:  As of the end of September 2022, Immigration Court judges dismissed a total of 63,586 cases because Department of Homeland Security officials, chiefly Border Patrol agents, are not filing the actual “Notice to Appear” (NTA) with the Immigration Court. Without a filed NTA, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

 

Arrests for unlicensed driving plunge in New York following unauthorized immigrant license law like Mass.’s

GBH: Police in New York arrested about 57,000 unlicensed drivers a year before state lawmakers narrowly approved the Green Light Law in 2019, making most immigrants eligible for licenses regardless of their legal status. In 2021, those arrests declined to about 30,000 and are on a similar pace for this year, according to records obtained by GBH News from the New York State Unified Court System.

 

An Overwhelmed Immigration System Is Facing A Shortage Of Attorneys Amid A Growing Backlog Of Cases

Block Club: As a major city that attracts immigrants, Chicago specifically has been struggling to support the recent influx of asylum seekers. After dealing with cuts under the Trump administration and then the COVID-19 pandemic, immigrant serving organizations’ resources were already strained before the war in Ukraine and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and subsequent Taliban takeover sent thousands of refugees and asylum seekers to Chicago. The recent arrival of migrants from Texas has only added to the strain on organizations’ resources, including legal services and representation.

 

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

 

CA1 on Honduras, MS-13, CAT: H.H. v. Garland

LexisNexis: He argues that the immigration judge (“IJ”) applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether he would more likely than not be tortured with the “consent or acquiescence” of the Honduran government, and that the BIA erred in its review of the IJ’s decision. He also argues that the BIA failed to consider whether the Honduran government would likely torture him and whether the MS-13 gang is a de facto government actor. We agree that the agency erred in these respects, and we therefore grant his petition for review, vacate the order of the BIA to the extent it denied him CAT relief as to Honduras, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

CA1 on El Salvador, CAT, MS-13: Chavez v. Garland

CA1: We  thus  remand  for  the  BIA  to  consider  in  the  first instance  whether  Chavez’s  proposed  social  group  satisfies  the requirements for constituting a particular social group under the INA to which he belongs.  We express no opinion as to the merits of that issue other than to emphasize that the BIA cannot reject such a group based solely on its determination that current or former gang members cannot form a particular social group.

 

Unpub. CA3 CIMT Victory: King v. Atty. Gen.

LexisNexis: The plain language of the statute, coupled with the reasoning of Mahn and Ramirez-Contreras, persuades us that the Pennsylvania felony fleeing statute does not qualify as turpitudinous. While the failing to stop for a police officer while crossing a state line is conduct that may put another in danger, it does not necessarily do so. The agency therefore erred in its conclusion that King was convicted of a CIMT.

CA9 on CAT, Guatemala: De Leon Lopez v. Garland

LexisNexis: We conclude: (1) the record in this case compels the conclusion that two of De Leon’s attackers were police officers during a July 2011 incident; (2) De Leon showed acquiescence on the part of the Guatemalan government with respect to that incident because government officials— namely, the two police officers—directly participated in the incident; and (3) the record indicates that the IJ and BIA’s conclusion that De Leon is not likely to be subjected to torture with government acquiescence if returned to Guatemala disregards several important circumstances pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of future torture. In light of these errors, we grant the petition and remand for the agency to reconsider De Leon’s application for relief.

 

Texas Drops Challenge To Biden’s Title 42 Child Migrant Policy

Law360: The state of Texas on Wednesday agreed to drop its challenge to a provision of the pandemic-era Title 42 policy which exempted unaccompanied minor migrants from being expelled from the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Ill. Professor, Students Can’t Halt Chinese Student Visa Ban

Law360: An Illinois university professor and students can’t stop the Biden administration from enforcing a Trump-era policy barring student visas to Chinese nationals who are connected to any entity in China that supports its “military-civil fusion strategy,” a federal judge has ruled, denying the plaintiffs’ bid for a temporary restraining order.

 

Soldiers Forgo $10M Citizenship Dispute Fee For $2.75M

Law360: A class of foreign-born military recruits who sought $10 million in attorney fees after winning back their expedited path to naturalization two years ago have settled for $2.75 million in the interest of conserving resources and avoiding further litigation risks.

 

Legal Organizations Sue ICE for Illegally Preventing Attorneys from Communicating with Detained Immigrants in Four States

AIC: Several legal services organizations filed a lawsuit today against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for unlawfully preventing attorneys from communicating with immigrants detained in four detention facilities in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and Arizona.

 

USCIS Implements New Process for Venezuelans

USCIS: On Oct. 12, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a new process for Venezuelans.

 

DHS Designates Ethiopia for Temporary Protected Status for 18 Months

USCIS: Only individuals who are already residing in the United States as of October 20, 2022 will be eligible for TPS.

 

USCIS Extends COVID-19-related Flexibilities

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is extending certain COVID-19-related flexibilities through Jan. 24, 2023, to assist applicants, petitioners, and requestors.

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

 

 

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

 

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

 

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

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

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

From Politico:

. . . .

But immigrant advocates note that some of their demands aren’t contingent on Congress or the courts, which makes it all the more exasperating as to why the administration has failed to deliver.

Some told POLITICO they simply wanted to see the administration remedy the harm caused by the Trump administration’s family separation policies. Others want to see follow-up on early proposals to protect immigrant workers in labor disputes.

The administration further angered the community last week when it announced plans to use the Trump-era pandemic policy, Title 42, to expel Venezuelan migrants crossing the border illegally as part of its new humanitarian parole program for them. Advocates decried the expansion of Title 42, which the Justice Department is fighting in court, as a continuation of the Trump “playbook.”

. . . .

The biggest, most significant “unforced error” by the Biden Administration has been the failure to “clean house” at EOIR and to reform the Immigration Courts to be a model of great, scholarly, humane judging, and a bastion of due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices. 

The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation set forth a successful “blueprint” for a far-right takeover of not only the Immigration Courts, but the entire Article III Judiciary. The Trump Administration adopted and successfully followed it!

By stark contrast, the Dems have failed to act timely and decisively on the one all-important Federal court system that they completely control! EOIR is a system that probably has more impact on the future of America — or whether there will even be a future America — than any court short of the Supremes!

Garland’s dismissive treatment of the informed views of immigration, human rights, and racial justice experts — who have had “hands on” experience with “America’s most dysfunctional courts” (the Immigration Courts) — has undermined our legal system and hamstrung almost every other progressive social justice initiative — from voting rights to abortion! 

Garland’s failure to bring in experienced, dynamic, inspirational, respected, “Tier One” progressive practical scholar/leaders — folks like, for example, Dean Kevin Johnson, Professor Karen Musalo, Marielena Hincapie, Professor Phil Schrag, Margaret Stock, Professor Michele Pistone, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks — to clean up EOIR, kick some tail, and create “the best, fairest, most efficient courts in America” — is beyond inexcusable!

Dems are a self-inflicted mess when it comes to immigration — apparently because those “calling the shots” are more “Stephen Miller Lite” than they are Julian Castro and other Democrats who understand the essential importance of immigrants and of standing up for their rights — starting with the “retail level” of American justice. 

As one frustrated experienced practitioner recently told me: “Biden’s entire immigration policies are a train wreck. He didn’t take the action he said he would. The practice of immigration law is soul crushing.”

“Soul crushing!” Those words should be a “wake up call” to the “tone deaf” policy honchos in the Administration. It shouldn’t be this way in a Dem Administration that was elected because they promised to do better and to stand up to the lies, myths, and false narratives of the nativist right! Once in power, Dems don’t seem to be able to distinguish between their friends and their adversaries. That’s proven NOT to be a “formula for success!”

For every immigrant/racial justice advocate that the Biden Administration wears down and demoralizes, two “new recruits” for the NDPA will arise, fully energized to keep litigating, winning, and raising hell until due process, human rights, fundamental fairness, and racial justice get some long overdue ACTION. Based on results to date, that means continuing to “beat Garland’s brains out” in court! The talent and creativity is obviously “out here,” not in Garland’s “Halls of (In)Justice!” Given that the “Stephen Miller Group” is also challenging the Administration in court, Garland will eventually find himself doing nothing but litigating immigration issues and getting walloped by both sides!

Meanwhile, as the Administration daily fails on immigration, human rights, and racial justice within the Executive Branch, my mailbox and message box are overflowing with desperate requests from Dem politicos, from Joe, Kamala, Nancy, and Chuck on down, for more donations of money and time. But, once the election cycle is over, our views are ignored, and we are treated as “PNGs.” Meanwhile, those who actively undermined immigrants’ rights and diminished due process are rewarded or retained in key positions where they continue to heap damage on the most vulnerable among us and frustrate their supporters.

Doesn’t seem like a sustainable future for the Democratic Party or for American democracy! But, hey, I’m just a retired Immigration Judge. Maybe my friends in the social justice movement enjoy being treated as “chopped liver” — frozen out and ignored — once they have helped elect Dems.

Republicans boldly “run on the big lie.” Meanwhile, Dems “run from the truth” about immigrants and their all-important role in America’s future! Go figure!

A quote from a recent NY Times article struck me as aptly summarizing the failure of leaders of both political parties to take an honest, creative, and practical approach to the opportunity presented by continuing human migration:

Immigration in the United States is broken, but one side of the fence wants to study the root causes of the problem, and don’t want to see what’s happening right here,” Mr. [John] Martin [deputy director of the Opportunity Center for the Homeless in El Paso] said, squinting beneath the brim of his cowboy hat. “And the other side wants to build a wall which would become a dam and eventually burst.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/20/opinion/el-paso-migrant-buses-republicans.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions went to the border to preach his “gospel” of anti-immigrant hate, lies, nativist myths, and to “fire up” officials for one of the biggest unconstitutional abuses of prosecutorial authority in modern American history.  Indeed, that is when one reporter coined the term “Gonzo Apocalypto” to describe the absolute nonsense spewing from Sessions’s mouth.

Sessions orchestrated a vile “strategy” of family separation from which the victims haven’t yet, and may never, fully recover. Interestingly, he has also escaped accountability.

By contrast, Garland, to my knowledge, has never bothered to visit the border and engage first-hand with the human carnage his failed “courts” and abuse of both the Constitution and asylum law inflict on others. He interacts neither with those outside government trying to uphold the rule of law nor the enforcement officials given “mission impossible.” He absolves himself from observing the effect that his failure to carry out orderly, humane, legally compliant refugee and asylum processing — using existing law rather than extralegal “gimmicks” — has on communities on the border and in the interior.

Sessions was a vile, intellectually dishonest, and immoral leader; Garland is simply a failed and disengaged one. But, the difference might not be readily apparent to most practitioners laboring in the foul trenches of Garland’s dysfunctional “court” system.

From my observation, there are folks out here interested in, and capable of, addressing the opportunities, potential benefits, and challenges presented by the inevitability of human migration in the 21st Century. Most of them, unlike “pontificating politicos,” have, at some point, “walked the walk” with those humans caught up in the migration dilemma, on both sides of the border.

But, leaders of neither party are interested in the constructive ideas and solutions developed within the rule of law that these unusually talented and dedicated individuals can offer. As long as that is the case, the realities of human migration, false promises, racially driven bias, and wildly inconsistent application of justice in America will continue to vex both politicians and the voters who put such “non-problem-solvers” in office!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-25-22

⚖️ “BRAVING THE WILDERNESS: HOLDING HANDS WITH STRANGERS” — A Timely Sermon About Promoting Justice & Resisting Bigotry — By Steven A. Honley

Steven A. Honley
Steven A.Honley
Director of Music
Beverley Hills Community United Methodist Church
Alexandria, VA
PHOTO: afsa.org

October 23, 2022                 Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost         10:00 AM

Scripture Lesson: Matthew 25:31-40

Sermon: “Braving the Wilderness: Holding Hands with Strangers”

 

When Pastor Deborah asked me to preach today, I was honored as always to accept her gracious invitation. But I have to tell you: This has ended up being one of the most challenging sermons to write that I’ve given in my 28 years at Beverley Hills, for several reasons.

The first challenge stems from the fact that I had never read anything by Brené Brown until now. In fact, I first heard of her just a few months ago, when her name popped up on a Canadian situation comedy, “The Lake,” that I streamed on Amazon Prime.

The next problem: I have never been a fan of self-help books, though I enjoyed reading this one. And I found a lot of Brown’s observations sensible, if sometimes obvious.

The title of this morning’s topic was yet another hurdle. Most of you will probably not be surprised to hear me confess that the very idea of holding hands with strangers gives me the willies. Frankly, I’m not even wild about holding hands with friends! But duty calls.

Finally, it turns me off when authors strive to come across as “spiritual” rather than religious. You won’t find any Bible verses in Braving the Wilderness, and only passing references to Christianity. What I find most frustrating about that approach is that it appears Brené Brown and I have had similar journeys, moving from Southern-fried fundamentalism to a more inclusive faith. So I would have liked to hear more about that!

To be blunt, Braving the Wilderness is only incidentally a book about faith. But as you’ve been hearing—and I hope you’ll hear again today—it still has some useful things to say to us about becoming an even more welcoming faith community. And in that respect, I admire the way Pastor Deborah has adapted Brown’s thoughts for our current sermon series, both by focusing on the themes in various chapters each week and finding Scripture passages to go with them.

All of which brings me to today’s topic, “Holding Hands with Strangers.”

********

In today’s Gospel passage—surely one of the most memorable of our Lord’s parables—Jesus describes two groups of people. The first group, the sheep, have done God’s will by ministering to strangers: feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, clothing the naked, and visiting those who are sick or in prison. The king in the story informs these servants of his pleasure at their virtuous conduct on his behalf, which shocks the sheep. They had literally no idea they’d done anything out of the ordinary, let alone done something for royalty. So they ask: “When did we do that for you?” And he answers: “Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it unto me.”

Matthew does not record what, if anything, they said when the king explains that, but I imagine “O my God, what if I hadn’t done that?” figured pretty prominently in their thoughts.

We didn’t hear the goats’ story read today, but you know how that part of the story goes. They saw the same strangers as the sheep did, but did nothing to help them.

Now, I have a hunch that only some of the goats were callous, intentionally withholding their

assistance from the needy because they regarded them as unworthy. The rest were just preoccupied with their own troubles, or feared they wouldn’t have enough resources for their own families if they gave away food and clothing to mere strangers. Some may genuinely have believed that someone else would take care of feeding the hungry and performing other good works.

Whatever the reasons for each goat’s indifference and apathy, the core issue is that they failed to recognize the people they encountered as people: members of their own community. As Desmond Tutu once observed: “We’re not our brother’s keeper; we’re our brother’s brother.”

Beverley Hills Community United Methodist Church has a long tradition of acting on that understanding. We don’t just write checks, either, valuable as that is. No, many of you are hands-on participants at Carpenter’s Shelter and ALIVE and Casa Chirilagua and many other worthy organizations. You literally hold hands with strangers!

********

Speaking of which: I can’t honestly say I found much of Brown’s chapter on this topic helpful. She devotes a lot of it to the idea of experiencing community at soccer games and rock concerts and funerals, and even goes so far as to talk about “football as religion.”

She doesn’t mean that literally, of course, but she really does seem to believe that the wave of emotion a stadium full of fans feels is not just a momentary rush of adrenaline, but something more profound. Maybe I’d buy that claim if I’d ever felt it for myself, but I haven’t—so I don’t.

Happily, just when I was about to give up on finding any inspiration in this chapter, Brown talks about a concept she calls “common enemy intimacy.” Or, as the old saying goes, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Brown cites one of my favorite quotes to introduce this section of the chapter: “If you don’t have something nice to say about someone, come sit by me!” That saying, generally attributed to Alice Roosevelt Longworth, expresses something universal. Most of us love to gossip about someone, especially if they’re all high and mighty and could stand to be taken down a few pegs.

But the problem, as Brown notes, is that there is no adhesiveness to such a bond. If all two people have in common is their mutual dislike of a third, then their “friendship” is phony. And as such, it can’t sustain a more meaningful relationship, let alone build community.

From there, common enemy intimacy snowballs into tribalism, which dehumanizes not just individuals but whole groups. And because there is nothing keeping such a group cohesive except fear and hatred, its leaders must keep fueling the fire with ever more polarizing rhetoric that attacks anyone not in the group.

********

Sadly, we see the evidence of the breakdown of community all around us. So what can we do as Christians to bring about reconciliation and healing?

Alas, I have no sweeping answers to that question. But I will offer this recommendation: We should speak out, both as individuals and as a church, against the bullying and abuse so many of our politicians and faith leaders are advocating. And I’m not talking about generic hand-wringing, either. We should be naming names, and making clear that those who invoke God as they persecute sexual minorities and the powerless are not honoring Christ in the process.

Now, some of you are probably thinking, “Wait a minute! What about turning the other cheek? Aren’t we supposed to be peacemakers?”

Yes, of course we are. But I would respectfully point out that our Lord did not mince words when he confronted the religious authorities of his day, who followed the letter of the law but not its spirit.

In Luke 11, Jesus declares: “Now, you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? … Woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; those you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and salutations in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like graves which are not seen, and men walk over them without knowing it.”

Pretty harsh, right? But Jesus was following a long prophetic tradition that stretches all the way back to Moses warning the pharaoh of the dire consequences if he didn’t let the Israelites go. Elijah and Elisha and Isaiah and Jeremiah all denounced the kings of Israel for their failure to rule justly.

Nor did our Lord stop at speaking truth to power. He took matters into his own hands on one memorable occasion, Matthew 21 tells us. Just days before his death, “Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. And He declared to them, “It is written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer.’ But you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”

I have always detested the saying “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” As a gay man, I’ve heard that a lot over the years, and in practice, what it actually means is: Hate the sin and marginalize the sinner. So let me be clear: I am not advocating that we sink to the level of those who promote so-called “Christian Nationalism,” by declaring them evil and beyond redemption.

But we do have a solemn charge to resist those who are working to flout democratic norms and rend our social fabric, under the pretext of making America a “Christian nation.” Our faith commands us to defend all those whom politicians target and exploit for who they are; for whom they love; for what deity they believe in or don’t; for the color of their skin; for the language they speak; or where they came from. As I John 4 tells us: “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.”

Back in January, on the first anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, Washington National Cathedral hosted an online conversation between Jon Meachum, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and journalist, and the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop, Michael Curry. If you watched the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markel a few years back, you saw and heard Bishop Curry in action; hold that image in your mind while I share a few excerpts from that dialogue.

Bishop Curry begins his remarks by referencing all the stories about Jesus and his disciples huddled on a boat at night in turbulent waters. There’s no artificial light, just the moon and stars, so we can certainly understand why the men are terrified.

In one of those stories, Peter sees Jesus walking on the water in the midst of the storm. Impetuous as always, he jumps out of the boat and starts walking toward him. Peter’s doing OK until he lets his fear of the storm take his focus off Jesus, at which point he immediately starts sinking. Curry draws this parallel to our situation:

“We must not shift our focus from becoming the true democracy—a multiracial, multiethnic, plural, holistic democracy—which is that shining ‘city on a hill.’ We must not shift from that vision of who we can be by focusing only on the storms that are in our midst, because the storms will consume us. They will consume our perception. And eventually, we’ll believe that’s all there is—lightning, thunder and the roll of the water—instead of the possibility of becoming that city on the hill.

Bishop Curry continues: “It’s midnight in the hour of this democracy. We will determine what we will do with that moment. It’s a moment of decision, and we must decide: Will we be E Pluribus Unum? Will we truly become, from many diverse peoples, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice—not just for some, but for all?”

The full title of Brené Brown’s book is: Braving the Wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the Courage to Stand Alone. Even in a state somewhere between purple and light blue, and a fairly liberal city, it still takes real courage for us to denounce racism and misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, and every other form of bigotry, and to resist those who would enshrine those evils in our laws.

But that is how we can hold hands with strangers, and help them belong. In the process, we will truly live up to the words we recite at the end of each service at Beverley Hills: “Our mission is to welcome all people as they are, to grow together in Christian faith and fellowship, and to share Christ-like love in word and deed.” Amen.

Republished by permission.

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

My friend Steven A. Honley is the Director of Music at the Beverley Hills Community Methodist Church in Alexandria, Virginia, A Reconciling Congregation, where my wife Cathy and I are members. He is a retired Foreign Service Officer and former Editor-in-Chief of the Foreign Service Journal (2001-14). Steve is a frequent contributor to the Washington Post’s “Style Invitational,” and a passionate advocate for inclusion and equal justice for all persons in America.

Here’s another timely piece on promoting justice and resisting bigotry in today’s America from the San Francisco Chronicle: ‘We are the real face of America’: Local faith and civil rights leaders call out racism, division https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/We-are-the-real-face-of-America-Local-17529396.php.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-24-22

☠️⚰️💀GARLAND’S STAR CHAMBERS — “SLOW VIOLENCE” ON PEOPLE OF COLOR!🥵— Bias, Bad Law, Bungling Bureaucracy! — “Where Due Process Goes To Die!” 🤮 — Upcoming Book Will Expose Garland’s Lawless, Cruel, Inhumane “Court” System!

 

Slow Injustice @ EOIR
Garland’s approach to immigrant justice in his courts harkens back to “the bad old days.” Yet he remains impervious — and unaccountable!
The Wasp 1882-01-06 cover Slow but sure.jpg
Slow, but Sure. Cartoon depicts Lady Justice riding a tortoise, about to hang a man.
George Frederick Keller
Public domain

Dean Kevin Johnson @ ImmigrationProf Blog previews upcoming book by Professor Maya Pagni Barack:

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/10/from-the-bookshelves-the-slow-violence-of-immigration-court-procedural-justice-on-trial-by-maya-pagn.html

Friday, October 21, 2022

From the Bookshelves: The Slow Violence of Immigration Court Procedural Justice on Trial by Maya Pagni Barak

By Immigration Prof

The Slow Violence of Immigration Court Procedural Justice on Trial by Maya Pagni Barak (forthcominng March 2023, NYU Press)

The publisher’s description of the book reads as follows:

“Each year, hundreds of thousands of migrants are moved through immigration court. With a national backlog surpassing one million cases, court hearings take years and most migrants will eventually be ordered deported. The Slow Violence of Immigration Court sheds light on the experiences of migrants from the “Northern Triangle” (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) as they navigate legal processes, deportation proceedings, immigration court, and the immigration system writ large.

Grounded in the illuminating stories of people facing deportation, the family members who support them, and the attorneys who defend them, The Slow Violence of Immigration Court invites readers to question matters of fairness and justice and the fear of living with the threat of deportation. Although the spectacle of violence created by family separation and deportation is perceived as extreme and unprecedented, these long legal proceedings are masked in the mundane and are often overlooked, ignored, and excused. In an urgent call to action, Maya Pagni Barak deftly demonstrates that deportation and family separation are not abhorrent anomalies, but are a routine, slow form of violence at the heart of the U.S. immigration system.”

KJ

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

The ongoing national disgrace called “EOIR” continues to mete out injustice and inane bureaucratic nonsense under a DEMOCRATIC Administration that pledged to return the rule of law and humanity to our broken Immigration Court system! 

That system is “headed and controlled” by a DEMOCRATIC AG, Merrick Garland. He is a former Federal Appellate Judge who certainly knows that what passes for “justice” in his broken “court” system is nothing of the sort! Also this ongoing debacle doesn’t say much good about Garland’s “lieutenants:” Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, Associate AG Vanita Gupta, Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.

They have all “looked the other way,” defended, or failed to condemn this travesty undermining our entire justice system, unfolding under their collective noses at EOIR every day! At some point in the future, all these guys will be “making the rounds” of major law firms, NGOs, universities, mainstream media, and corporations — seeking to “cash in” on their DOJ “experience.” Then, folks should remember how they ACTUALLY PERFORMED (or didn’t) when they had a chance to fix “America’s worst courts” — hotbeds of racial and ethnic injustice, purveyors of bad law, and a haven for ridiculously dysfunctional procedures!

Perhaps a suitable future for these willfully blind “public servants” would be to require them to spend the balance of their careers practicing on a pro bono basis before the “star chambers” they inflicted on others! See how they like being “scheduled,” with no or inadequate notice, to do 15 or 20 asylum cases per month; appearing before too many ill-qualified “judges” who have already decided to deny regardless of the law and facts; appealing to a captive “appellate court” dominated by individuals, working for the Executive, whose main “judicial qualification” was that they denied close to 100% of the asylum claims that came before them in Immigration Court and were known for their rude and dismissive treatment of asylum applicants and their lawyers! See, e.g., “Confronting The American Star Chamber . . .,” https://wp.me/p8eeJm-4Vm.,

Here’s Professor Barak’s bio from the U of Michigan-Dearborn website:

Maya Barak, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Studies

Maya P. Barak
Maya P. Barak, PhD
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Studies
U. of Michigan -Dearborn
PHOTO: UM-D Websitew

College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters

College-Wide Programs

mbarak@umich.edu

1070 Social Sciences Building | 4901 Evergreen Road | Dearborn, MI 48128

Personal Website

Teaching Areas: Arab American Studies, Criminology & Criminal Justice Studies, Master of Science in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Women’s & Gender Studies

Research Areas: Capital Punishment, Criminal Justice, Criminology, Gangs, Immigrants / Crimmigration, Legal Sociology, Procedural Justice, State-Corporate Crime

Biography and Education

I am an Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. I hold a PhD in Justice, Law and Criminology from American University (2016), an MA in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Eastern Michigan University (2011), and a BA in Social Anthropology and Peace and Social Justice from the University of Michigan (2009). My research brings together the areas of law, deviance, immigration, and power, utilizing interdisciplinary approaches that span the fields of criminology, law and society, and anthropology.

Education

Ph.D. in Justice, Law and Criminology

Teaching and Research

Courses Taught

Selected Publications

Books

Gould, Jon B. and Maya Barak. 2019. Capital Defense: Inside the Lives of America’s Death Penalty Lawyers. New York: NYU Press.

Selected Articles

Barak, Maya. 2021. “Can You Hear Me Now? Attorney Perceptions of Interpretation, Technology, and Power in Immigration Court.” Journal on Migration and Human Security (https://doi.org/10.1177/23315024211034740).

Barak, Maya. 2021. “A Hollow Hope? The Empty Promise of Rights in the U.S. Immigration System”/ “¿Una promesa vacía? La ilusión de “los derechos” en el sistema migratorio de los Estados Unidos.” Las Cadenas Que Amamos: Una panorámica sobre el retroceso de Occidente a todos los niveles.

Barak, Maya. 2021. “Family Separation as State-Corporate Crime.” Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime Vol. 2(2), 2021, pp. 109-121 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2631309X20982299). (2021 Outstanding Article or Book Chapter Award, Division of White-Collar and Corporate Crime, American Society of Criminology)

Barak, Maya, Leon, K., and Maguire, Edward. 2020. “Conceptual and Empirical Obstacles in Defining MS-13: Law-Enforcement Perspectives.” Criminology and Public Policy (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12493).

Barak, Maya. 2017. “Motherhood and Immigration Policy: How Immigration Law Shapes Central Americans’ Experience of Family.” In Forced Out and Fenced In: Immigration Tales from the Field, edited by Tanya Golash-Boza. New York: Oxford University Press.

Advocates and all Americans committed to racial justice and equal justice under law need to keep raising hell — and supporting progressive candidates — until this horrible system is replaced by a real court system, with subject matter expert judges, totally focused on delivering due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices to all!

What’s happening to individuals (fellow humans, “persons” under our Constitution) and their lawyers at EOIR is NOT OK, nor is it acceptable from a DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION!

Yeah, “there’s trouble, right here in River City!” And, it begins with “E,” ends with “R,” and rhymes with “EYORE!”

EYORE
“Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-22-22

🗽PRANTL & YALE-LOEHR @ NY DAILY NEWS: Private Refugee Sponsorship — An Idea Whose Time Has Come! — But, The Biden Administration Has Turned Its Back On The Legal & Human Rights Refugees!🏴‍☠️

 

Janine Prantl
Dr. Janine Prantl
Immigration Postdoctoral Associate
Cornell Law
PHOTO: Cornell Law
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Cornell Law

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-let-private-citizens-sponsor-refugees-20221015-dtepnanthfegnpf6anjirwt3by-story.html 

Let private citizens sponsor refugees

By Janine Prantl and Stephen Yale-Loehr

New York Daily News

Oct 15, 2022

Every fall, the U.S. president sets a refugee ceiling — the maximum number of refugees that may be resettled annually to the United States. For the new fiscal year that started Oct. 1, President Biden plans to resettle up to 125,000 refugees. Because of dramatic cuts to the refugee program during the prior administration, that goal will be hard to meet. A year ago, Biden set the same target, but more than 100,000 refugee slots went unused.

Historically, only the U.S. government, working with international refugee agencies and nonprofits, has determined which refugees will be admitted to the United States. That’s a mistake. To meet its goal of admitting 125,000 refugees this fiscal year, the United States should also promptly allow private sponsorships of refugees.

In February 2021, Biden issued an executive order to rebuild our refugee program, including through private refugee sponsorships. Subsequently, the State Department announced plans to start a pilot program, but the launch has been delayed. Over a year after the first announcement, and close to the end of 2022, the State Department has not decided on the funding of prospective partners or issued guidelines on the pilot. The clock is ticking.

Several countries, including Canada, Australia, Argentina, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Spain, already allow private sponsorships of refugees. Under private sponsorships, individuals and community groups collaborate to provide financial, emotional, and practical support for refugees. Some countries also empower sponsors to nominate specific refugees to enter and stay in their country.

Canada’s experience shows that private sponsorships can work. A 2020 study confirmed that privately-sponsored refugees are more likely than government-sponsored refugees to be working within the first year after entering Canada, with an employment rate at 90% for men and 71% for women. Findings from Canada also suggest that privately-sponsored refugees are more likely to stay at their initial destinations and private sponsorships could contribute to geographic dispersal of resettled refugees.

Americans are already engaged in private sponsorships for Afghans and Ukrainians through the Sponsor Circles initiative. This initiative supports Americans who decide to become sponsors by assisting them in the application process, offering temporary housing credits through Airbnb.org, as well as ongoing expert guidance and other sponsor tools and resources. More than 123,000 Americans have applied to financially sponsor Ukrainians, and over 87,000 Ukrainians have been granted permission to travel to the United States. The number of arrivals will likely exceed 100,000 by the end of 2022.

While technically most Ukrainians and Afghans have not entered the United States as refugees, lessons learned from the Sponsor Circles initiative could help establish a formal private refugee sponsorship model. Because most Ukrainians enter the United States under parole power, they can be authorized for travel in as little as two weeks. However, prospective sponsors have recently reported longer processing times.

To transform private sponsorships from an emergency one-time program to a formalized program where beneficiaries enter as refugees, with access to long-term residence and citizenship, the backlog issue becomes even more concerning. Current tests of 30-day streamlined visa processing for Afghans in Doha could be expanded and serve as a role model for both parolees and refugees. Moreover, to mobilize private refugee sponsors and enable them to prepare, the U.S. government needs to move forward quickly and specify a program design for private refugee sponsors, including financial requirements, sponsorship time commitments, and concrete sponsor responsibilities.

Once a private refugee sponsorship program gets launched, sponsors will have to accomplish challenging tasks. They will have to deal with language barriers, find affordable housing and help new refugees apply for public benefits. For such a process to work, it is important to set up communication streams between private refugee sponsors and existing refugee resettlement agencies.

Public-private partnerships work in other areas. For example, they have become an increasingly popular way to upgrade infrastructure and address the challenges of climate change. By incorporating a private refugee sponsorship model, the U.S. government can supplement its own efforts to admit 125,000 refugees this fiscal year.

More importantly, private refugee sponsorships would allow Americans to participate directly in welcoming refugees and facilitating their successful integration. Experience in the United Kingdom shows that private sponsorship can be a powerful tool in expanding communities’ understanding and capacity for welcoming newcomers. It can reduce fears about others more generally, change working practices to make them more inclusive for diverse populations, and bring new perspectives into relatively homogeneous communities. Involving U.S. citizens in the immigration process could thus be a way to dampen the current heated debate about immigration and allow Americans to see the mutual benefits of immigration.

Janine Prantl is an immigration postdoctoral associate in the Cornell Law School Immigration Law and Policy Research Program. Stephen Yale-Loehr is professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School.

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

Lots of creative ideas out here on how to improve our broken refugee and asylum systems! But, from those in charge of migration policy in the Biden Administration, not so much!😢

No, they are stuck in reverse. A small-time “overseas” refugee program for  Venezuelans (24k “slots” for a refugee crisis that has generated more than 6 million refugees)🤯; a heavy dose of cruel and discredited “Stephen Miller Lite” Title 42 for those who exercise their legal right to apply for asylum at or near the border 🤮; more “due process free” illegal returns to abusive conditions in Mexico☠️.

Perhaps inadvertently, a recent NBC Nightly News report on the border mentioned a widely ignored fact. It pictured and described desperate Venezuelans patiently waiting in line to turn themselves in to CPB to exercise their legal rights to apply for asylum and other protections in the U.S. That’s right — “turn themselves in!”

This is NOT real law enforcement, nor does it present a security crisis! Nor are the oft repeated “record numbers” of  border “apprehensions” legitimate!

Since individuals are often returned to Mexico with neither proper processing nor due process, many of these “apprehensions” are inflated — representing repeated “apprehensions” of the same individual merely seeking to apply for asyluma legal right denied to them by both the Trump and Biden Administrations!

One might also ask whether an individual turning him or herself in and requesting legal asylum is “apprehended” at all? That’s why CBP has started using the more ambiguous term “encounter” to disguise what’s really happening at the border.

Under the Biden Administration’s latest discriminatory and  brain dead application of Title 42, those Venezuelans  who voluntarily turn themselves in at ports of entry or near the border will be illegally returned to Mexico to rot — as a “reward” for attempting to follow the law. Does this make sense? Of course not. And the consequences of this horrible “policy” are dire for both the refugees and our nation. In many ways, the Biden Administration inexplicably has gone even beyond the cruel stunts of DeSantis and Abbott in making “political footballs” 🏈out of vulnerable Venezuelan refugees! It’s an ongoing national disgrace, masquerading as “policy!”

The only avenue for legal refugee for these Venezuelans fleeing a repressive left-wing dictatorship is to hire a smuggler to get them past the border where they can lose themselves in the interior of the U.S. That is, under the Biden policy, “do it yourself, black market refuge” substitutes for a variable legal system and adds to the unscreened and often unknown underground population of undocumented migrants. in the U.S.

A robust, realistic refugee program for Venezuela, operating both in Mexico and in or near Venezuela, might well reduce the incentives for extralegal migration. It could also take some pressure off of other “receiving” countries in the Hemisphere. But, the “token” — unduly limited — program proposed by the Biden Administration will do nothing of the sort!

Extralegal entries and underground populations are not good. Robust, realistic, timely, refugee and asylum programs — properly focused on using existing laws for protection, not rejection — would reduce the incentive for extralegal migration while reaping the many potential benefits and strengths that refugees and asylees “bring to the table.”

Such a beneficial program is achievable — under current law. But, not without a radical shakeup in both the leadership and substance of the Biden Administration’s so-called human rights bureaucracy!

Casey Stengel

“Can’t anybody here play this game,” wonders Casey Stengel about the cruel, clueless crew in charge of human rights and immigration (non)policy in the Biden-Harris Administration.
PHOTO: Rudi Reit
Creative Commons

 🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-17-22

 

🇺🇸 RATHER & KIRSCHNER @ THE STEADY: Trump, Insurrectionist GOP An Existential Threat To America’s Future! 

Dan Rather
Dan Rather
American Journalist
PHOTO: Creative Commons

Breaking The Republic

January 6 wasn’t an accident

Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner
pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic_1.png
pastedGraphic_2.png
▷  LISTEN
SAVE

(Photo by Brent Stirton/Getty Images)

“That, my fellow citizens, breaks the republic.”

This was the chilling conclusion of Liz Cheney today at the January 6 hearings over what would have happened if the guardrails of our democracy, exposed for their frailty in 2020, had buckled to an autocrat determined to hold onto power. And the danger remains. “Without accountability, it all becomes normal, and it will recur,” Cheney warned.

Cheney’s statement is striking in its simplicity and its power. Her audience is her “fellow citizens,” the ones who will be going to the polls in less than a month to decide who should lead this nation going forward. Her fellow Republicans have cast Cheney as a pariah for having the courage to state the truth: that their leader wanted to destroy America as we know it.

What the committee presented today shed a spotlight on the authorship of this historic tragedy. It is Trump who is the playwright, conjuring and casting the roles of those who would act out his destructive intentions. It was he who dreamt up and directed a frontal attack on American democracy. But he couldn’t have done it without his willing accomplices.

Today, we saw footage of members of Congress grappling in real time with a deteriorating situation on January 6 that could have ended with more bloodshed and the decimation of governmental order. We could feel a visceral fear in their actions and words, not only for their own personal safety but for the safety of the nation they had sworn an oath to serve. Those who could have intervened, starting with the president but including his top aides inside the White House, were absent. And that is just as the president wanted it. We heard today evidence that Trump knew he had lost, and he didn’t care what it would take to retain power.

This man who shamelessly pounds his chest with protestations of patriotism, who literally wraps himself in the American flag, who demonizes his political opponents as haters of America is really the one who views our imperfect experiment in self-governance with disgust. Elections. The rule of law. Peaceful transfers of power. The will of the people. These are the pillars of our nation’s foundation. But for Trump, that’s all just for suckers. He had the presidency, and he didn’t plan on relinquishing it, no matter what the voters or the Constitution said.

January 6 wasn’t an accident. It wasn’t a rally that spun out of control. It was a dangerous and violent storm threatening our nation’s core principles and our whole system of representative democracy. Stop and ponder that. Then remember that it should have been no surprise. The committee has made clear that the plan had been on the radar for weeks. There was plenty of evidence in advance that Trump and his cronies were planning to disregard the verdict of the election if it went against him.

But details and evidence uncovered since have been stunning, including documentary footage of longtime Trump loyalist Roger Stone played today. Here is what Stone had to say even before Election Day (excuse the language, please): “I say fuck the voting, let’s get right to the violence.” Was what we saw on January 6 a Plan B, or really a Plan A?

One of the great attributes of this committee is expert storytelling, laying out, with gripping detail, a narrative — a true story — about the attempted destruction of our democratic order. They have carefully traced the origins of this horror to before the election. They have shown the rising danger and threats of violence. They have identified villainy, led by the president. They have explained with breathtaking intimacy what took place on January 6. And they have made very clear that that day’s actions, while dramatic, were not a denouement. How this story ends is currently unknowable. We will have a better sense after the midterm elections and with the Department of Justice’s decision if, how, and whom to prosecute.

There is a lot about what we heard today, and in the previous hearings, that is infuriating. It also is hard not to feel a deep sadness about the precariousness of our democracy. But we can find hope in the service of this committee. They are saying to all of us, “This happened. Let us not let it happen again. And let us hold those responsible, accountable.”

They believe that most Americans cherish our self-governance, our stability, and our rule of law. They believe that if we know the truth, that we will do everything in our power, as a people, as a nation, to protect against its recurrence.

Does that belief still hold? Or are we now so divided that we can no longer be sure? This is the overriding question as our beloved America evolves in the first quarter of the 21st century.

Note: If you are not already a subscriber to our Steady newsletter, please consider joining us. And we always appreciate you sharing our content with others and leaving your thoughts in the comments.

Upgrade to paid

Leave a comment

Share

You’re on the free list for Steady. For those who are able, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to support our efforts.

Upgrade to paid

pastedGraphic.pngLIKE
pastedGraphic_1.pngCOMMENT
pastedGraphic_2.pngSHARE

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

You can subscribe to Rather’s Steady newsletter for free here: https://steady.substack.com/subscribe?utm_source=ready-for-more

When indisputable truth becomes a matter of partisan political “opinion,” we’re all in deep trouble!

The GOP’s cowardly failure to convict Trump twice despite overwhelming evidenced against him was despicable. But, it looks much worse in retrospect. Obviously, lack of accountability encourages the “Trumps of the world!”

The first Steady comment on this post “hit the nail on the head:”

There is something that can’t be repeated enough:

*The outcome of next month’s election is up to US.*

Not the January 6th Committee, the Department of Justice, the New York State AG, or investigators down in Georgia.

No amount of scandal, indictments, whistle blowing, bombshells or leaks will make “MAGA” Republicans stay home, or change their minds.

We — I’m speaking to progressives, sane Republicans, independents, and everyone else who values democracy — need to hit the streets. Knocking on doors, dropping literature, waving campaign signs, phone banking, and talking to neighbors, friends, and relatives.

Time is running out to register to vote and to verify that your registration is still valid. (https://www.vote.org can help with both.) Once you are sure you are registered, make a game plan. Know your polling place! Know your options for early voting and voting by mail. Know what you need to vote (IDs, etc.). Make a fool proof game plan for election day.

And HELP OTHERS. Offer rides to polling places.

 

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-14-22

⚖️ “HON. SIR JEFFREY OF CLAIRVOYANCE” — The Day After His Blog On “Ineffective Assistance,” The 3rd & 10th Cirs “Blow Out” Garland EOIR’s Inept Approach!

Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Dan Kowalski
Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-ineffective-assistance-saint-ford-ii#

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/211729p1.pdf

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/211729po.pdf

“The need for effective assistance of counsel applies in immigration law just as it does in criminal law. Aliens, many of whom do not speak English and some of whom are detained before their immigration hearings, can be particularly susceptible to the consequences of ineffective lawyers. Petitioner Arckange Saint Ford paid a lawyer to represent him in removal proceedings, but Saint Ford’s requests for relief from deportation were denied after the lawyer failed to present important and easily available evidence going to the heart of Saint Ford’s claims. Saint Ford retained new counsel, and his new lawyer asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen his case because of his former attorney’s ineffective assistance. The Board declined to do so. Because Saint Ford presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand. … AMBRO, Circuit Judge, concurring Arckange Saint Ford will get a second shot at seeking withholding of removal—that’s what matters. The majority is remanding because of his former counsel’s deficient performance at Saint Ford’s removal hearing. I agree with that and concur in full. But former counsel was not the only one who made significant missteps at the hearing. The Immigration Judge did as well. I therefore would have granted Saint Ford’s initial petition for review and remanded on that basis. I write separately to explain these errors in the hope that similar ones will not be made at Saint Ford’s new hearing. [Emphasis added.]”

“The opinion and judgment filed on May 16, 2022 [34 F.4th 201 (3d Cir. 2022)] are hereby vacated. The Clerk is directed to file the amended opinion and re-enter the judgment contemporaneously with this order.” – Saint Ford v. Atty. Gen.

[Hats off again to Robert Andrew Painter!]

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

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110752008.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/unpub-ca10-mtr-remand-singh-v-garland#

“Singh argues the BIA committed legal error in denying his motion to reopen because it failed to cite or apply the prejudice standard from Matter of Lozada and its progeny—i.e., that the alien “show a reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have been different,” Molina, 763 F.3d at 1263 (internal quotation marks omitted)— and instead applied an elevated standard of prejudice from Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (B.I.A. 2020)—i.e., that the alien “overcome” a prior adverse credibility determination. We agree. … The BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether Singh had been prejudiced by his attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance because it required him to “overcome” the adverse credibility determination to show prejudice. The BIA therefore abused its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen. See Qiu, 870 F.3d at 1202 (“[C]ommitting a legal error . . . is necessarily an abuse of discretion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). On remand, the BIA should consider whether there is “a reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s deficient performance.” Mena-Flores, 776 F.3d at 1169 (internal quotation marks omitted).”

[Hats off to Jessica K. Miles of El Paso!]

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

Wrong legal standards, mistakes at both trial and appellate levels, sloppy work, unfair results in “life or death” cases. Why is this “acceptable quasi-judicial performance” in the Biden Administration? Why isn’t Garland being held accountable for his life-threatening, ongoing, anti-due-process “clown show” @ EOIR?🤡☠️

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Lady Injustice
“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Public Realm

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-13-22

☠️🤮  BIDEN BETRAYS ASYLUM SEEKERS! — Scofflaw, “Miller Lite” Policy Will Use Bogus “Legal Rationale” To Return Venezuelan Refugees To Squalid, Dangerous Conditions In Mexico  – Minuscule “Apply in Advance” Program Another Inept “Built To Fail” Gimmick!

Stephen Miller Monster
The Biden Administration thinks carrying out his policies is A-OK.  Many of those who,helped put them in office disagree.  Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/us/politics/biden-venezuela-migrants-humanitarian-parole.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

By Eileen Sullivan and Zolan Kanno-Youngs @ NYT:

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration will expand its use of a public health rule to start expelling to Mexico thousands of Venezuelans who illegally cross the U.S. border and announced a new humanitarian parole program to provide a narrow legal pathway to the United States for up to 24,000 Venezuelans.

The administration hopes that Venezuelans will apply for the parole plan remotely and fly to the United States rather than making the dangerous trek to the southwest border.

But the reliance on a Trump-era pandemic rule to deny entry to many others crystallized the Biden administration’s balancing act in both helping refugees and tightening border restrictions in the face of Republican attacks on President Biden’s immigration policy and record numbers of illegal border crossings. And there is no guarantee that just 27 days before the midterm elections, it will have the desired effect.

Until now, the majority of Venezuelans who crossed into the United States have not been expelled under the public health authority, known as Title 42. Instead, they were screened and released into the country temporarily to face removal proceedings in immigration court, where they have the option to apply for asylum.

. . . .

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

In addition to being cruel and illegal, the new policy won’t please anyone on the immigration issue. Biden is selling his erstwhile supporters “down the river,” while neither mollifying critics on the right nor winning over independents. 

Expect refugees to suffer and die. I also predict that extralegal entries aiming for “do it yourself” refuge in the interior will increase. And, our immigration and asylum systems will remain a dysfunctional mess.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-13-22

⚖️ HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE ON LOZADA/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL— Reviving My “Rivera Dissent,” While Highlighting More Than A Decade Of EOIR/DOJ Failure To Provide Effective Guidance!

Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

 

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/10/11/amending-lozada

Amending Lozada?

October 11, 2022

In 1984, the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington announced the standard for determining when the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires the overturning of a criminal conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Strickland involved a death penalty case; on its winding path to the Supreme Court, a circuit court panel found in the defendant’s favor. That ruling was later overturned; the defendant was executed two months after the Supreme Court’s decision established a standard that the defendant could not satisfy.

A commentator writing years later could find no record of a malpractice claim or disciplinary complaint of any type having been filed against the attorney impugned in that case.2 The commentator cited this example in making the point that attorneys who are found to be Constitutionally deficient in criminal defense cases very rarely face disciplinary complaints.3 And the standard for establishing ineffective assistance laid out in Strickland does not require the filing of any such complaint.4

By contrast, the requirements for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings were set forth by the Board of Immigration Appeals in its 1988 decision Matter of Lozada.5 As immigration proceedings are civil in nature, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was found not to apply; the Board determined that a right to counsel in the removal context “is grounded in the fifth amendment guarantee of due process.”6The BIA thus created its own standard in Lozada that requires (1) filing an affidavit attesting to the relevant facts; (2) informing prior counsel of the allegations, and providing any response received; and (3) if claiming “a violation of ethical or legal responsibilities” by prior counsel, indicating “whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities regarding such representation, and if not, why not.”7

A practice advisory of the American Immigration Council points out that requirement number three “on its face…does not require filing a bar complaint in all circumstances.”8 The AIC advisory cites circuit decisions excusing the filing of disciplinary complaints, including Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 156-57 (3d Cir. 2007) (allowing no bar complaint “where counsel acknowledged the ineffectiveness and made every effort to remedy the situation”), and Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that Lozada only requires an explanation of whether a bar complaint was submitted, not proof that the complaint was filed).9

Nevertheless, a 1996 BIA precedent, Matter of Rivera,10 underscores the risk of not filing a bar complaint. In that case, the requirements of Lozada were satisfied. As to the third requirement, new counsel indicated that a disciplinary complaint was not filed against prior counsel because “if any error was made in this case it was a postal error or an error of inadvertence by [former counsel].”11 Although this explanation accorded with Lozada, as it was explained both whether a bar complaint was filed and why, the Board rejected the explanation as insufficient.

The majority opinion in Rivera went on to provide a list of reasons why it considered “[t]he requirement of a bar complaint” important in ineffective assistance claims. A dissenting opinion written by then-BIA chair Paul Schmidt addressed the issue far more sensibly:

I do not need a Lozada motion or a state bar complaint to find that ineffective assistance has occurred here. The respondent’s affidavit and that of former counsel are sufficient to establish that former counsel’s duties to the respondent were not properly discharged. There is no hint of collusion between former counsel and the respondent. Under these circumstances, I see no basis for making the filing of a state bar complaint the determinative factor…12

Thus, in Rivera (and in a subsequent precedent, Matter of Assaad,13 the Board reframed the need to file a disciplinary complaint as a categorical requirement under Lozada. But in its circumstance-specific approach, Judge Schmidt’s dissent raised the question of whether this requirement is really necessary.

Nearly six years after Rivera, the answer to that question came from an unlikely source. Matter of Lozada was briefly vacated in the final days of the Bush Administration by then Attorney General Michael Mukasey.14His decision reframed ineffective assistance claims from a due process right into a discretionary agency action, and in doing so, created a new, tougher standard for establishing ineffective assistance that far fewer respondents would be able to satisfy. But interestingly, the A.G.’s decision felt the need to rethink the Board’s disciplinary complaint requirement:

By making the actual filing of a bar complaint a prerequisite for obtaining (or even seeking) relief, it appears that Lozada may inadvertently have contributed to the filing of many unfounded or even frivolous complaints. See, e.g., Comment filed by the Committee on Immigration & Nationality Law, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Sept. 29, 2008), in response to the Proposed Rule for Professional Conduct for Practitioners—Rules and Procedures, and Representation and Appearances, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,178 (July 30, 2008) (“Under the Lozada Rule, an ineffective assistance of counsel charge is often required in order to reopen a case or reverse or remand an unfavorable decision. The practice of filing such claims is rampant, and places well-intentioned and competent attorneys at risk of discipline.”). Such unfounded complaints impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys, and make it harder for State bars to identify meritorious complaints in order to impose sanctions on lawyers whose performance is truly deficient. The new approach is intended to avoid these problems by requiring only that the [noncitizen] submit to the Board a completed and signed but unfiled complaint…15

In light of these concerns, the new Compean standard still required the preparation of a disciplinary complaint against prior counsel, but (perhaps in a bizarre nod to Moses E. Herzog) added that the respondent “need not actually file the complaint with the appropriate State bar or disciplinary authorities, as Lozada had required.”16

Less than five months after its issuance, Compean was vacated by Mukasey’s successor, Attorney General Eric Holder, thus restoring the Lozada standard, along with its mandatory bar requirement.17 Holder’s decision further directed EOIR to draft proposed regulations on the topic for public comment “as soon as practicable.”18

When the agency finally published those proposed regulations more than seven years later, they retained Rivera’s mandatory complaint requirement.19 In its comments to the proposed rule, the American Immigration Lawyers Association opined that the mandatory complaint requirement should be eliminated, stating that “rather than centering on attorney discipline, the rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel should focus on assisting and protecting the noncitizen victim…” The comment continued that “EOIR already has ample existing procedures to police the immigration bar without requiring the filing of a formal complaint.”20As no final rule was ever published, we don’t know EOIR’s reaction to the comment.

Another six years later, the question first raised in the Rivera dissent, and to which a Bush Administration Attorney General and leading bar groups seem in agreement on the answer, remains unresolved.Recently, immigration law experts have revived the issue.21As those experts again point out, the purpose of reopening a proceeding in which attorney error occurred is to remedy a harm that was beyond the respondent’s ability to control. The focus on correcting the harm (as opposed to punishing the lawyer) is why in the criminal context bar complaints rarely if ever accompany ineffective assistance claims. The lack of sucha requirement allows attorneys to admit to their occasional errors without fear of retribution.

In its unique approach to the contrary, the BIA discourages attorneys from being forthcoming about their errors, and further forces counsel to turn on their own colleagues for acts that would not warrant the extreme action of a bar complaint in any other context. It seems remarkable that even an Attorney General decision issued during the Bush Administration acknowledged that most bar complaints filed pursuant to Lozada are “unfounded” and “impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys,” while also hampering state bars from identifying and disciplining genuine incidents of malpractice.

According to one proponent of amending the standard, attorney Rekha Sharma Crawford, the current Lozada requirement pits members of the private bar against one another in a very destructive way, and adds unnecessary stress on the immigration removal defense counsel who are often at the forefront of these claims-many which are meaningless and done only to comply with Lozada.22

Hopefully, this will be the year that the agency finally gets around to resolving this issue by removing the mandatory complaint requirement of Lozada, and thus bringing the standard in immigration proceedings into alignment with those required in other civil and criminal courts and tribunals.

Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase.All rights reserved.

Notes:

  1. 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
  2. Joseph H. Ricks, Raising the Bar: Establishing an Effective Remedy against Ineffective Counsel, 2015 BYU L. Rev. 1115, 1120 (2016).
  3. Id.
  4. The Strickland standard requires a finding that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different if not for counsel’s inadequate performance.
  5. 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).
  6. Id. at 638.
  7. Id. at 639.
  8. American Immigration Council, Practice Advisory, “Seeking Remedies For Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Immigration Cases,” (Jan. 2016), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/seeking_remedies_for_ineffective_assistance_of_counsel_in_immigration_cases_practice_advisory.pdf, at 11.
  9. Id.
  10. 10.21 I&N Dec. 599 (BIA 1996) (en banc).
  11. 11.Id. at 606.
  12. 12.Id. at 608. It bears noting that Judge Schmidt, and two of the three Board Members who joined in his dissent (Lory Rosenberg and Gustavo Villageliu) are presently members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.
  13. 13.23 I&N Dec. 553 (BIA 2003).
  14. 14.Matter of Compean, Bangaly, & J-E-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. Jan. 7, 2009).
  15. 15.Id. at 737-38.
  16. 16.Id. at 737. Moses E. Herzog, the fictional protagonist of Saul Bellow’s novel Herzog, authored numerous strongly-worded letters that he never sent.
  17. 17.Matter of Compean, Bangaly, & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. June 3, 2009).
  18. 18.Id. at 2.
  19. 19.81 Fed. Reg. 49556, 49565 (July 28, 2016), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/28/2016-17540/motions-to-reopen-removal-deportation-or-exclusion-proceedings-based-upon-a-claim-of-ineffective.
  20. 20.Comment filed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Sept. 26, 2016), in response to the Proposed Rule for Motions Reopen Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion Proceedings Based Upon a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 81 Fed. Reg. 145 (July 28, 2016).
  21. 21.See, e.g., an October 3 AILA Roundtable, “Changing the Bench: A New Narrative on Lozada and Bar Complaints.”
  22. 22.Private email to the author.

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

Republished by permission.

As “Sir Jeffrey points out,” in Matter of Compean, Bangaly, & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. June 3, 2009), AG Eric Holder directed EOIR to promulgate new regulations providing guidance on ineffective assistance of counsel. More than seven years later, in 2016 — essentially the entire Obama Administration — DOJ/EOIR issued flawed “proposed” regulations. Not surprisingly, no final regulations were ever issued. A dozen yers after the AG directed EOIR to take action — a big “nothingburger.”

This by no means is the only example of EOIR/DOJ’s unsuitability to the task facing it. It’s reminiscent of the tortured history of the “gender based asylum” regulations ordered by former AG, the late Janet Reno, but issued only as a badly flawed proposal and never finalized.

Additionally, incoming President Joe Biden made issuing “gender based regulations” one of his Administration’s highest priorities, ordering action by October 2021. A year later — nothing! 

Meanwhile, EOIR Judges’ applications and interpretations of the governing precedent on gender-based asylum — Matter of A-R-G-G- — are wildly inconsistent. Beyond that, the 5th Circuit has taken the right-wing misogynistic “liberty” of simply ignoring the law on gender-based asylum. 

“Lozada reform” is long overdue. But, so is meaningful EOIR reform! 

Ultimately, America needs and deserves an independent U.S. Immigration Court with exceptionally well-qualified judges, at all levels, who are recognized experts in asylum law and unswervingly committed to due process and best judicial practices.

Until then, those appearing in Immigration Court — disproportionately individuals of color and women — and their hard-working attorneys — will continue to receive grossly substandard “justice” from “Justice!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-12-22

🏴‍☠️ HOW THE “ANYTHING GOES” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT REGIME — ENABLED BY POOR QUASI-JUDICIAL & JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT — ERODES ALL OF OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!

Eisha Jain
Eisha Jain
Associate Professor of Law
UNC Law
PHOTO: Twitter

Eisha Jain on Lawfare: 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/beyond-deportation

Border enforcement once again dominates contemporary immigration law debates. Yet many legal practices commonly linked to border control—including policing, relocation, and exclusion—actually have little to do with immigration enforcement. Instead, immigration control provides a justification for surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties deep inside the United States. For instance, the governor of Texas issued an executive order this June, asserting the legal authority to arrest people suspected of unlawfully crossing the border or committing “other violations of federal law.” This executive order is framed as being about expanding the pipeline to deportation and, in particular, shoring up federal efforts to promote border security. Yet the reach of the order goes well beyond issues relating to deportation. It raises the central questions: Who decides who appears to be present in the United States without lawful immigration status, and on what basis?

More recently, certain lawmakers have employed the rhetoric of border control to justify busing or flying migrants to locations inside the United States. Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) tweeted at the time: “We’re sending migrants to [Vice President Kamala Harris’s] backyard to call on the Biden Administration to do its job & secure the border.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) employed similar rhetoric to justify sending approximately 50 adults and children to Martha’s Vineyard without any apparent prior notice. This relocation may have violated criminal laws. The individuals who were relocated may have been given false information to induce them to board planes. Lawmakers who frame these relocations as a means of border control make the unjustified assumption that the targeted individuals had no claims to remain in the United States. This approach not only ignores laws permitting people to seek asylum but also treats certain U.S. residents as lacking basic civil liberties inside the United States. When government officials claim the ability to lure people from one state to another on false pretenses, they also claim virtually unlimited power to intrude on individual liberty in stated service of immigration control.

. . . .

In a variety of settings, ranging from politically motivated relocations of migrant communities to jailhouse immigration screenings, lawmakers present actions that curtail civil liberties as related to deportation. But a deportation-centric perspective, which centers whether and how certain practices might lead to removal, offers too limited a lens to understand the reach and impact of enforcement practices done in stated service of immigration control. It ignores the full costs of enforcement, including unjustified surveillance and policing. Rather than protecting the polity from a foreign threat, government actions purportedly aimed at immigration control undermine core liberties that ought to be protected within the American political community. If the ultimate aim of immigration law is to create an integrated political community, then we need to consider how law could operate to promote integration and inclusion, rather than treating all enforcement actions as a means to deportation.

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

Read the complete article of the link.

This is why it’s such a disgraceful mistake for Garland and the Biden Administration to allow the racially-charged, anti-due-process travesty at EOIR to continue, largely unabated!  The misguided idea that migrants are not “real persons” under the Constitution — and to a large extent the related view that their lawyers aren’t entitled to the common professional treatment and courtesies extended in most other parts of our legal system — definitely has  “carryover” into the dehumanization of various categories of the “other” and ignoring the compelling evidence of abuse amassed by those lawyers working to keep the system honest.

For example, the Supreme’s dismissive treatment of women’s rights and humanity is definitely related to the degrading treatment of women’s claims in Immigration Court — an overt misogyny encouraged by Sessions, Miller, and their nativist acolytes!  That Democrats as a whole have failed to “pick up” on the serious attacks on equal justice and due process in Immigration Courts and their carryover effect to other parts of our legal system is a bad sign for the future of American democracy. Once a “person” is treated as “less than a full person” under the Constitution, there is no limit to who can become a “legal nonperson.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-10-22

🤮DREAMER DISASTER: America’s Future Hung Out To Dry By GOP Nativists In All Three Branches — From Ridiculous Legislative Roadblocks, To Mindless Executive Attacks, To Absurdist Righty Judges Who Ignore Established Law On Prosecutorial Discretion, Dreamers & American Society Suffer The Consequences Of 21st-Century Insurrectionist Republicanism!

Catherine Rampell
Catherine Rampell
Opinion Columnist
Washington Post

Catherine Rampell @ WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/06/daca-court-ruling-congress-must-protect-dreamers/

. . . .

Many immigration issues are divisive. Protecting dreamers is not. Virtually every poll conducted on the subject finds that Americans of all political persuasions favor granting dreamers some form of permanent legal status, including a path to citizenship. Even Trumpers are on board, surveys show. Faith groups, law enforcement officials, employers, national security experts and other major constituencies besides typical bleeding-heart immigration advocates have urged Congress repeatedly to grant these young immigrants greater legal certainty.

Unfortunately — as is the case on so many issues — Congress has abdicated its responsibility to act. Instead, the executive branch has been tasked with devising temporary workarounds.

In 2012, the Obama administration announced a sort of Band-Aid solution, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA offers some of these young immigrants access to (temporary) work permits and protections from deportation, which must be frequently renewed. Eligibility extends only to those who meet certain age and educational requirements, have lived here continuously since 2007 and pose no threat to public safety, among other conditions.

This program was generally expected to be a stopgap while Congress worked on broader immigration reforms or at least a pathway to citizenship for dreamers; so far, neither has materialized.

[As DACA immigrant program turns 10, legal challenges persist]

In the decade since it was introduced, DACA has weathered multiple legal challenges — including from a coalition of red states led by Texas, as well as attempted repeal by President Donald Trump. For now, the program remains mostly intact while the red-state challenge wends its way through the courts. But DACA’s days look numbered.

. . . .

This is hardly the only immigration issue on which Republican politicians have complained about executive overreach yet been reluctant to exercise their own powers. Other vulnerable, sympathetic populations of immigrants — such as the Afghan allies who were temporarily “paroled” into the United States — are stuck in their own legal limbo unless and until Congress acts.

But it’s always easier for politicians to grandstand over everyone else’s immigration policy choices than to produce solutions of their own.

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

Read Catherine’s complete article at the link.

How stupid and cruel is the GOP’s assault on Dreamers? It’s not like most “Dreamers” are going anywhere. After all, there are already about 2 million individuals (not to mention family members, employers, etc.) backed up on Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts. And, under Garland’s misguided leadership, more judges are actually building more backlog!

But, without DACA’s work authorization, those not eligible for other forms of relief (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal) will lose their authorization to work. Since many are in critical or essential jobs with employers who can’t afford to be out of compliance with Federal laws, it’s reasonable to assume that Dreamers would lose those jobs. That means that many will have to take lesser jobs in the substantial “underground economy” operating in the U.S., largely as a result of the GOP’s obstinance on sensible immigration policy.

If that appears stupid, it’s because it is! But, what else is new with the GOP’s cruel, xenophobic, and unrealistic approach to immigration.

It’s remarkable that out of touch righty judges on the 5th Circuit, whose jobs and existence actually depend on the systemic non-prosecution of most Federal offenses, would actually have the gall to issue their off the wall ruling dumping on Dreamers! In reality, by necessity, only a small number of violations of Federal statutes are prosecuted. See. e,g., https://prisonprofessors.com/federal-crimes-to-prosecute-or-not/.

How vigorously did the Trump Administration pursue violations of environmental laws, civil rights laws, tax laws, ethics laws, or white collar crime laws, etc? Not very! Indeed, to give one egregious example, under Sessions and Barr, the policy was to turn a “blind eye” to serious Constitutional violations by law enforcement! See, e.g., https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/05/03/the-feds-are-investigating-local-police-departments-again-heres-what-to-expect

The Fifth Circuit’s “off the wall” apparent theory that Federal officials lack discretion to redirect prosecution resources toward the most serious offenders is pure “Federalist Society political poppycock!” It’s particularly out of bounds to critique the Feds for taking steps to insure that such discretion is exercised uniformly and reasonably, rather than arbitrarily and capriciously. 

I had lots of experience with “PD” programs over four decades in Federal service. The DACA program is far and away the premier “model” program for the effective and rational exercise of PD. 

The major impediment to the rational immigration law and policy adjustments America needs is today’s nativist-driven GOP. Unless and until enough American voters wise up and throw the GOP out at all levels, America will not achieve it’s full potential!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-09-22 Continue reading 🤮DREAMER DISASTER: America’s Future Hung Out To Dry By GOP Nativists In All Three Branches — From Ridiculous Legislative Roadblocks, To Mindless Executive Attacks, To Absurdist Righty Judges Who Ignore Established Law On Prosecutorial Discretion, Dreamers & American Society Suffer The Consequences Of 21st-Century Insurrectionist Republicanism!

🏴‍☠️🤮 HALLS OF INJUSTICE: Allegations Of Racism, Misogyny, Islamophobia, & Other Bias Have Been Swirling Around Garland’s Dysfunctional EOIR — Now, The Ohio Immigrant Alliance Is Seeking & Assembling Examples To Force Long Overdue Action!

Garland’s “vision of justice” for asylum seekers and other migrants at EOIR leaves something to be desired:

Four Horsemen
Folks with wrong-headed “take no prisoners” views on asylum law were “rewarded” with “ judgeships” at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR under the Trump Administration. Many continue to serve and discriminate against legitimate asylum seekers under Garland. Just check out the number of “sitting IJ’s” with outrageously high “asylum denial rates” near or in excess of 90%, according to TRAC Immigration. Why haven’t these important, non-life-tenured positions been “merit re-competed” to place the “best, brightest, and most qualified” on the Immigration Bench?
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Woman Tortured
Jaundiced attitudes about women (particularly those of color) and gender-based asylum claims among EOIR judges have neither been “rooted out” nor effectively addressed by Garland. As we can see, de-humanization of women and stripping them of dignity under asylum laws carries over into other legal arenas! Targeted, endemic. societal persecution of women is often intentionally minimized and mis-characterized as “random violence,” “personal disputes,” “mere jealousy,” or “not that serious” in Immigration Court! “Fictionalized accounts” of the ability of abused women to seek protection from authorities in countries where femicide and rape are rampant   are sometimes employed to deny legitimate asylum claims in Garland’s broken courts.
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Star Chamber Justice
Wrong , “unduly restrictive,” asylum precedents and discredited methods (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — on steroids under Garland — is a key example) continue to harm asylum seekers in Garland’s dysfunctional “courts.” — Public Realm

 

https://ohioimmigrant.org/2022/09/08/wanted-examples-of-racism-and-other-bias-in-us-immigration-court/

WANTED: Examples Of Racism And Other Bias In US Immigration Court

September 8, 2022tramontelaComments Off

on WANTED: Examples of racism and other bias in US immigration court

. . . .

The nation’s Immigration Courts have—thus far—flown under the public’s radar screen. Yet these are the places where life-or-death decisions are made, often for subjective and even racist reasons. That is why the Ohio Immigrant Alliance is collecting examples of racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, and other biased statements and decisions made by Immigration Judges from across the country. We are working with a research team to analyze the cases and produce a report in early 2023.  Here are a few examples.

Contact Lauren Hamlett (hamlett.15 AT buckeyemail.osu.edu) for more information or to share examples. This can be in the form of court documents and judges’ decisions or an interview with an immigrant or attorney. We will adhere to all privacy requirements requested by the immigrant and not publish anything without their consent.

The report, to be published in 2023, will shine a light on how racism shows up in Immigration Court using real-life examples. These findings will enrage anyone who believes the U.S. should work toward becoming a nation that guarantees “justice for all.”

See this testimony for more information, and contact Lauren to share your experiences.

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

I was struck by the undeniable truth — scandalously ignored by Garland, his lieutenants, and Biden Administration policy officials — contained in the January 20, 2022 statement by Lynn Tramonte, Ohio Immigrant Alliance, to the House Judiciary Committee considering the need for an independent, professionally-administered, merit-based Immigration Court. 

The U.S. Is Deporting People Who Qualify for Asylum

The current U.S. immigration system is not designed to function fairly, but to fail. There are many examples of this, but today I will focus on examples from the U.S. Immigration Court.

Lynn’s full statement is available at the “this testimony” link above. I’ve made this point over and over!

Because the current system is purposely biased against asylum seekers, particularly those of color arriving at our Southern border, the “statistics” purportedly showing that few will qualify for asylum are totally bogus! Then, they are inexcusably cited by so-called “mainstream media” who haven’t done their homework! This perpetuates the “nativist myth” of the “illegitimate asylum seeker” which is then used to dehumanize refugees and deny them their legal and human rights!

Fact is, because we don’t have a legitimate, expert asylum adjudication system, we don’t really know how many qualified refugees are being illegally turned away or denied. But, it’s a safe bet that a fair, expert, professionally administered asylum system would grant legal protection to many more — probably a majority — of those who pass credible fear! 

The problem is NOT, as Sessions and other nativists claimed, that too many individuals pass “credible fear.” It’s that a biased, anti-asylum, mal-administered, and constitutionally flawed system wrongfully denies far, far, far too many legitimate claims! And, Garland’s incredibly dysfunctional EOIR is at the heart of this problem!

Fixing EOIR is an essential first step in “re-legitimizing” our entire floundering justice system. But, Garland isn’t up to the job!

Asylum is an important form of legal immigration and an opportunity for America to put its best foot forward by properly, fairly, and timely screening and admitting those who can qualify for refuge and will be key contributors to our nation’s future. The babble of GOP nativists like DeSantis, Cruz, Abbott, and others about “illegals” is total BS! 

Asylum seekers have every right to be here and pursue fair, timely, and professional adjudication of their claims — something that’s elusive — highly unlikely to happen — under today’s “designed to fail” system! That includes the “new, designed to fail, improperly staffed and mindlessly operated asylum regulations.” See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/10/03/%f0%9f%98%b0asylum-programmed-for-failure-refugee-roulette-three-rr3-confirm-what-many-of-us-said-right-off-the-bat-about-biden-admin/

It’s an ongoing national disgrace that Garland has failed to reform his Immigration Courts, eliminate bias and invidious discrimination from his judiciary, install quality, expertise, and professionalism, and insist that the Biden Administration abandon “Miller Lite,” nativist policies and mis-interpretations of the law that are diminishing our nation and endangering our future; that he also has ridiculously chosen to “go to war” with experts, NGOs, attorneys, and others seeking to change and improve his disgraceful mess at EOIR!

What’s the purpose and function of an Attorney General who operates broken and biased “courts,” defends the indefensible, and refuses to stand up for the fair application of the law to some of the most vulnerable among us?

In the meantime, submit your “real life” examples of what really happens to vulnerable humans in “America’s worst courts” to Ohio Immigrant Alliance at the above link.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-07-22