The Federal Lawyer – immigrationcourtside.com

TWO-FER: Billy Barr Assaults First & Fifth Amendments In Frivolous Attack On NAIJ — Seeks To Harass, Silence Immigration Judges’ Union For Fearlessly Speaking Out Against Demise Of Due Process, Improper Political Influence, Gross Mismanagement In America’s Most Unfair & Dysfunctional “Courts!”

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) — Judge Amiena Khan Executive Vice President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)

Judge Dorothy Harbeck, an immigration judge in New York City, is the secretary/treasurer of the NAIJ — Judge Dorothy Harbeck Secretary/Treasurer of the NAIJ

Immigration TFL_Mar-Apr2020

Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck (in their capacities as NAIJ Officers) write in the Federal Lawyer:

DOJ Tries to Silence the Voice of the Immigration Judges—Again!

The Second Attempt to Decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges

by Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck

Immigration Law

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and serves as the co-chair of the NAIJ Vulnerable Populations Committee. Judge Khan was appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder in December 2010. She is seated at the New York Immigration Court and is a member of the New York State Bar. Judge Khan is the programs chair of the FBA Immigration Law Section and is also a member of the National Association of Women Judges.

Judge Dorothy Harbeck, an immigration judge in New York City, is the secretary/treasurer of the NAIJ. She is also an adjunct professor of law at Columbia and Rutgers. She
is a fellow of the Federal Bar Foundation, is on the Executive Board of the FBA Immigration Law Section, and is a member of the bar in New Jersey and New York.

The 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification
In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—origi

The 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification

In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—originally certified in 1979 as the recognized representative for collective bargaining for all U.S. IJs—is a voluntary association that represents and speaks for the interests of the nation’s 440 IJs. The NAIJ was formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the immigration courts. DOJ asserts that IJs should be reclassified as “management officials.” This would mean IJs could no longer union- ize, be part of a collective bargaining unit, or speak independently.

NAIJ serves as the only voice of the IJs who cannot speak out without prior express permission of DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).2 NAIJ serves to afford transparency and accountability. The immigration courts are not independent courts under Article I or Article III of the Constitution. They are wholly contained within DOJ. Without a union,

IJs have no protection against the politicization of the process and their decisions. Without transparency,

the integrity of the process is in jeopardy. Without a union, the IJs cannot protest policy measures, such as the imposition of quotas and performance measures; the IJs cannot contest the numerous policies enacted by EOIR that encroach upon and undermine the inde- pendent decision-making ability of the IJs; and the IJs will not be able to rally against the effective speedup of the workforce, placing due process and fundamental fairness of the proceedings at risk.

How the Process Works

The burden to show that IJs are management officials is on the moving party (i.e., DOJ). The FLRA regional director (RD) has opened an investigation into the

NAIJ, seeking information about its responsibilities. DOJ can submit factual and legal arguments in support of its petition. The RD can then issue a decision or request a hearing to solicit more information. Either party can appeal the RD’s decision to the full FLRA board.

The Unsuccessful 2000 Attempt to Decertify

the Immigration Judges’ Union

This current effort follows a similar, and unsuccessful, strategy pursued by DOJ to decertify the immigration judges’ union approximately 20 years ago. In Septem- ber 2000, the FLRA’s RD rejected DOJ’s argument, and the full FLRA upheld the RD’s decision on appeal. In that prior decertification attempt,3 the FLRA reject- ed DOJ’s argument that IJs make policy through the issuance of decisions, noting that the trial court level IJs do not set precedent and that their rulings are often appealed and reviewed. The FLRA also said that the immigration court system was established specifically so that IJs do not maintain any management duties to enable them to focus on hearings.

The FLRA also ruled that there is a distinct differ- ence between the trial level IJs and the appellate level Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members.4 The description of the duties of the IJ were described in the 2000 decertification attempt:

The daily routine of an Immigration Judge involves hearing and deciding cases that arise from the operation of the INS.5 A court’s juris- diction to decide these cases is determined at the time a case is filed. After filing, the cases are randomly assigned by the court administrator to an individual Judge and placed on a Judge’s calendar on his or her master calendar day. At that time, the Judge hears presentations from the parties and their attorneys, identifies the is- sues, and advises individuals as to their right to

March/April 2020 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 9

representation. The Judge also sets time frames and briefing schedules, as well as the date for trial.6

The nature of the IJs’ decisions and their position in the hierarchy of binding the EOIR was also set forth:

During a trial, the parties are represented by counsel and the rules of evidence are observed. Thereafter, in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigra- tion statutes, applicable regulations, published decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal appellate courts, and other foreign and state laws. After the trial, the Judge issues his or her decision, almost always orally, and advises the parties of their appeal rights. Oral decisions are not tran- scribed unless they are appealed; are not published; and are final and binding only with respect to the parties to the case. With limited exception, decisions of the Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and review of their decisions is de novo. Certain cases may also be appealed to the appropriate U.S. circuit court.7

Citing its precedential case on the managerial status of BIA members (hereinafter “the BIA Management Case”),8 the FLRA specifically stated that the BIA appellate judges were management officials within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11) of the statute and, therefore, could not be included in the existing bargaining unit. In particular, it concluded that “the incumbent Board Member directly influences activity policy through his participation in the interpreta- tion of immigration laws and the issuance of decisions and, thereby, meets the definition of a management official set forth in section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute.”9

In the 2000 decertification attempt, the RD applied the BIA Management Case and concluded that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are

not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review.”10 The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the judges do not in- fluence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the BIA.

The FLRA concurred that the RD’s definition of a management official is defined as “an individual employed by an agency in a posi- tion the duties and responsibilities of which require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the agency.”11

Critically, the full FLRA also found that management officials are individuals who: “(1) create, establish or prescribe general princi- ples, plans or courses of action for an agency; (2) decide upon or settle upon general principles, plans or courses of action for an agen- cy; or (3) bring about or obtain a result as to the adoption of general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency.”12

The FLRA distinguished the trial court IJs from the BIA appellate judges by specifically holding that IJs do not “make policy through the issuance of their decisions … that in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigration laws and reg- ulations, that their decisions are not published and do not constitute precedent.” Finally, the RD observed that the decisions are binding only on the parties to the case, are “routinely” appealed, and are subject to de novo review.13 There is no difference in this now.

The FLRA specifically agreed with the RD’s rejection of the EOIR’s claims that “the sheer volume of decisions issued by the [immigration] Judges and the finality of their decisions, unless they are appealed,” affect the EOIR’s policy. This is because “no matter the volume of decisions issued, or number of appeals filed, the fact remains that when an Immigration Judge issues a decision [,] he or she is applying and following established Agency law and policy.”14 Again, there is no difference in this now.

While IJs have some authority to control practice in their own courtrooms, they have no authority to set overall policy as to how the courts as a whole will operate. Nor, critically, do they have the authority to direct or commit the EOIR to any policy or course of action. The IJs are highly trained professionals with the extremely important job of adjudicating cases.15 This organizational structure and supervisory delegation was established specifically so that the IJs are unencumbered by any supervisory and management obligations and are free to concentrate on hearings.16 Aspirationally, this is still the position of the IJs.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link. Many thanks to Judge Khan and Judge Harbeck for courageously speaking out and informing us in such a well-documented and scholarly manner.

It’s disgraceful that political leaders who are supposed to be committed to our Constitution and the rule of law instead misuse government funds and abuse their authority to cover up their wrongdoing and mismanagement. In a functional government, Barr and his toadies would be facing impeachment or referral for criminal investigation from Congress for their abuses of authority and attacks on our Constitution. Most certainly, a competent Congress would long ago have removed EOIR from the clutches of the DOJ politicos and placed it where it belongs: as an independent court system under either Article I or Article III.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-23-20

ELIZABETH J. (“BETTY”) STEVENS IN “THE FEDERAL LAWYER” (FBA) – Why We Need An Article I Immigration Court Now! — “A close read of the GAO’s report provides a chilling window into a system in chaos.”

http://www.fedbar.org/Publications/The-Federal-Lawyer/Columns/Immigration-Law-Update.aspx?FT=.pdf

Recently, the White House announced that it sought to reduce the current immigration court backlog by requesting appropriations for additional immigration judges and instituting performance metrics for all immigration judges.1 Sen. Claire McCaskill and Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Zoe Lofgren, and Trey Gowdy asked the General Accountability Office (GAO) the following questions: 1. What do Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) data indicate about its caseload, including the backlog of cases, and potential contributing factors and effects of the backlog according to stakeholders? 2. How does EOIR manage and oversee immigration court operations, including workforce planning, hiring, and technology utilization? 3. To what extent has EOIR assessed immigration court performance, including analyzing relevant information, such as data on case continuances? 4. What scenarios have been proposed for restructuring EOIR’s immigration court system and what reasons have been offered for or against these proposals?2

A close read of the GAO’s report provides a chilling window into a system in chaos.

. . . .

Moving the immigration courts out of the executive branch
would help alleviate the perception that they are not independent tribunals with DHS and the respondents as equal participants. This would also cure the perception that the immigration courts have become so politicized that decisions change not with the law but with the politics of the current administration. Moreover, due to
the number of immigration judges who are former DHS attorneys and the co-location of some immigration courts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices, a broad perception exists that immigration judges and DHS attorneys are working together. This perception leads to significant lapses in perceived due process; for example, individuals don’t appear because they think the system is rigged, don’t appeal a bad decision because they lack resources after the long wait for a merits hearing, or don’t pursue potential relief for which they might be eligible. Plus, such a move would allow DHS the opportunity to appeal the Article I appellate division’s decisions to the circuit courts of appeals—providing those courts with a broader, more balanced view of issues and decisions of the trial-level immigration court.21 EOIR’s FY 2016 Statistics Yearbook indicates that one quarter of the initial cases decided were grants—none of which were ever reviewed by the courts of appeals.22

With a move to an Article I court, both trial level and appellate di- vision judges would have fixed terms of office and tenure protections that would facilitate judicial decisions without fear or favor. (If one believes that current members of the Board of Immigration Appeals are truly independent, one should research the “streamlining” of
the board down to just 11 members.23) Current board members and immigration judges are arguably government attorneys with the same client as DHS attorneys.24 They are subject to case completion goals—with or without express reliance on numerical goals—and may be subject to discipline by the attorney general.25 The currently proposed performance metrics are not new—most have been in place in one form or another since 2002.26

Last but not least, removing the immigration courts from the Department of Justice should speed the courts’ ability to regulate itself. First and foremost, the individual immigration judges would have control over their dockets and not be subject to decisions by headquarters to prioritize case A over case B (and then back again)—or send trial judges off to border courts to handle a few cases when their backlogged dockets have to be re-scheduled.27 The Article I court as a whole would be able to issue rules and regulations without the current byzantine requirements for consultation with a number of different offices and agencies. And, finally, hiring an immigration trial judge would not take two years.28

Other options exist; all have flaws. None of the options will single-handedly fix the backlog. We all have strong opinions about whether our nation’s immigration laws need a complete overhaul or a quick x—and how to go about either or both—but as we look to implement changes in our current immigration system, we must also aspire to lift the immigration courts from “halfway there” not-quite- courts to true Article I courts. 

[Text of Footnotes Omitted]

Elizabeth J. Stevens is
the chair of the Federal
Bar Association’s Immi-
gration Law Section.

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

Read Betty’s highly cogent and incisive full article in The Federal Lawyer at the link! You’ll also be able to get all of Betty’s terrifically informative footnotes.

Betty is not just “any” lawyer. In addition to being the head of the FBA’s highly regarded and very active Immigration Law Section, Betty’s distinguished career in the Department of Justice has touched on all aspects of the Immigration Court practice.

While in law school at George Mason, Betty interned at the Board of Immigration Appeals during my tenure there. When I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court, Betty was serving as the sole Judicial Law Clerk for all six Immigration Judges.

Betty then began a distinguished career at the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) where her primary job was to defend the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. She had a meteoric rise through the ranks of OIL, culminating in position as a Senior Supervisor and a trainer of newer OIL attorneys.

I well remember Betty shepherding numberous groups from OIL over to the Arlington Court to introduce them to immigration litigation at the “retail level of our justice system.” Since her retirement from Federal Service, Betty has been an energetic, well-informed, and steadfast voice for better legal education of attorneys on both sides practicing immigration law and for Immigration Court and BIA reform.

“Chilling” is exactly the right word to describe the utter chaos in our U.S. Immigration Courts today, as the backlog approaches 700,000 cases with no end in sight. It’s “chilling” to the individual Constitutional rights of all Americans, as well as “chilling” as to the fantastic degree of “malicious incompetence” of the DOJ’s pathetic attempt to administer the Immigration Courts under Jeff Sessions.

Betty is someone who has “looked at life from both sides now!” When Betty Stevens says the system is broken and “in chaos,” you’d better believe it’s true! Thanks again Betty for all you do! It’s an honor and a privilege to work with you on the “Due Process Team.”

PWS

04-01-18

“IMMIGRATION COURTS — RECLAIMING THE VISION” — Read My Article In The Latest Federal Bar News!

Here is the link:

immigration courts

And, here’s an excerpt:

“Our immigration courts are going through an existential crisis that threatens the very foundations of our American justice system. I have often spoken about my dismay that the noble due process vision of our immigration courts has been derailed. What can be done to get it back on track?

First, and foremost, the immigration courts must return to the focus on due process as the one and only mission. The improper use of our due process court system by political officials to advance enforcement priorities and/or send “don’t come” messages to asylum seekers, which are highly ineffective in any event, must end. That’s unlikely to happen under the Department of Justice—as proved by over three decades of history, particularly recent history. It will take some type of independent court. I think that an Article I Immigration Court, which has been supported by groups such as the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association, would be best.

Clearly, the due process focus has been lost when officials outside the Executive Office for Immigration Review have forced ill-advised “prioritization” and attempts to “expedite” the cases of frightened women and children from the Northern Triangle (the Central American countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala) who require lawyers to gain the protection that most of them need and deserve. Putting these cases in front of other pending cases is not only unfair to all, but has created what I call “aimless docket reshuffling” that has thrown our system into chaos.

Evidently, the idea of the prioritization was to remove most of those recently crossing the border to seek protection, thereby sending a “don’t come, we don’t want you” message to asylum seekers. But, as a deterrent, this program has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Not surprisingly to me, individuals fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle have continued to seek refuge in the United States in large numbers. Immigration court backlogs have continued to grow across the board, notwithstanding an actual reduction in overall case receipts and an increase in the number of authorized immigration judges.”

I encourage you to read the entire article.

Additionally, this entire issue of The Federal Lawyer is devoted to Immigration Law. Kudos to Judge Lawrence O. Burman of the Arlington Immigration Court and Judge Robin Feder of the Boston Immigration court for their key roles in FBA leadership and for inspiring this effort. There are four other great articles that will help you understand what is happening today in this most important area. Check them all out at this link:

http://www.fedbar.org/magazine.html

Finally, if you aren’t currently a member of the Federal Bar Association (“FBA”), please join the FBA and the Immigration Section today! The price is very reasonable, you get access to The Green Card (the Immigration Section newsletter, Edited by Judge Burman) and some other great educational materials, and you support the effort for due process, collegiality, and badly needed U.S. Immigration Court Reform, which the FBA advocates. The current “powers that be” are not going to fix the broken U.S. Immigration Court System without outside involvement and, ultimately, Congressional action. This won’t happen by itself. So, if like me, you are appalled and dismayed by what has happened to due process in our U.S. Immigration Court system, now is the time to get involved and work to change it!

Also, check out my previous blogs on the recent FBA Immigration Seminar in Denver.

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-O1

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-Oa

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-OU

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-P4

PWS

06-05-17

Experts Share Secrets Of Effective Cross Examination In Immigration Court!

My good friend and former colleague Judge Dorothy Harbeck of the United States Immigration Court, Newark New Jersey and Dr. Alicia Triche have written a terrific short article on cross examination in Immigration Court, “Terms so Plain and Firm as to Command” for the upcoming January/February 2017 Edition of The Federal Lawyer, published by the Federal Bar Association.

As a former trial judge, there were few things more frustrating than spending an afternoon with an attorney who was unable to present his or her case in a concise, effective manner so that it kept my attention (and made it easy for me to follow the story and take notes). You also have to think about the interpreter; a convoluted compound question in English will be virtually incomprehensible after translation.

So thanks to Judge Harbeck and Dr. Triche for helping to make judicial afternoons shorter, more productive, and, hopefully, more enjoyable for all.

The full article is reproduced below (alas without pictures and some of the fancy formatting) by permission from judge Harbeck.

PWS

01/11/17

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

Terms so Plain and Firm as to Command

Assent: Preparing and Conducting Optimal

Direct Examination of the Respondent
by Hon. Dorothy Harbeck and Dr. Alicia Triche
Immigration Law Update
Hon. Dorothy Harbeck is the eastern regional vice president of the National Association of Immigra- tion Judges (NAIJ) and a federal Immigration Judge stationed in Elizabeth, N.J. Dr. Alicia Triche is sole proprietor at Triche Immigration Law, a Memphis, Tenn. based private practice that focuses on appeals, research support for fellow attorneys, and refugee cases. In 2013, Dr. Triche received a D.Phil. in international refugee law from Oxford University.
[T]o place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to com- mand their assent.—Thomas Jefferson, describing the purpose of the Declaration of Independence1

Courtroom drama is a mainline artery in U.S. culture. From Atticus Finch to the ill-fitting glove, legendary trial-tales etch themselves into our blood- streams, solidifying the core value of the rule of law. The centerpiece of these trials is direct examination, during which the skillful attorney is expected to draw the best possible answers from a story-filled witness. Immigration Court is also a part of this landscape. “Individual calendar hearings” go forward with great frequency, and, though often truncated compared to their federal counterparts, they do usually feature that great legal classic—direct examination. Still, despite its legendary importance, nothing in immigration trial practice is more overlooked than direct examination.

It is well known that the federal rules of immigra- tion do not apply in immigration proceedings. Instead, “immigration judges have broad discretion to conduct and control immigration proceedings and to admit
and consider relevant and probative evidence.”2 As a practical matter, however, certain types of evidence should be avoided as much as possible—most notably, leading questions. The basic tools of direct examina- tion are open-ended, non-leading questions that call for a narrative response. The lawyer should effectively blend into the background, allowing the witness to be the featured act. It is the respondent, not the attorney, who must present the coherent and logical statement of facts that is essential to the court’s decision.

In order to make that happen, both the attorney and the witness must be utterly prepared. Both must know the story that is being elicited—including the weak parts of the claim, which should be brought forward and addressed upfront. The attorney should have a list of every required element of the claim and know which facts are material to each. The witness must understand their own story and the trial process,
be ready to work with an interpreter, know how
to listen to the question posed and how to answer (truthfully) no more than the questioned asked, and be ready to remain calm on stand. All of this takes specific practice and thorough preparation. Simply telling the witness that they will be questioned on the stand is not enough. The attorney must ensure that everyone is thoroughly prepared.

When both attorney and witness know and under- stand the story to be told, questions can be formatted properly for direct examination. A leading question
is one that suggests an answer; contains an answer within it; or, in the strictest application of the category, calls for a “yes or no” response. Non-leading questions are open-ended and begin with “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and “why,” as opposed to “are,” “did,” “will,” “won’t,” and “isn’t.” Here is an example of the same
set of standard opening questions, in both leading and non-leading form:

Non-Leading:

What is your name?

Anna Ahmatova.

What is your birthday?

Sept. 19, 1962.

Where were you born?

Leningrad, USSR. Now, it’s St. Petersburg, Russia, again, just like when my grandmother was born there.

Are you a citizen of any country or countries?

Yes.

What country are you a citizen of?

Russia. Used to be a Soviet citizen.

Are you a citizen of any other country?

USSR.

Leading:

Your name is Anna Ahmatova, right?

Yes.

And were you born on Sept. 19, 1962?
January/February 2017 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 13
Yea.

In St. Petersburg, Russia?

No, in Leningrad, USSR.

But you told the ICE officer it was St. Petersburg, right?

Yes.

And Russia is the only country you are a citizen of, right?

Right.

Leading questions cannot be avoided altogether, but they must be avoided whenever possible because they compromise the accuracy of the evidence and the fundamental fairness of proceedings. And, even among non-leading questions, some are better than others. In particular, there is a difference between a “narrative” and a “specific” approach. Consider the following two sets of questions.

The first set:

Have you ever been convicted of a crime?

Yes.

What happened?

I had a DUI.

When was this?

June 15, 2003.

Where was the conviction?

Sevierville, Tenn.

What happened?

I was out drinking at a bar with my friends after work. This was before I met my girlfriend. I got pulled over because I was speeding, and I got a DUI. I went to jail for a few days, but I paid all my fines now.

Here is the second set:

Have you ever been convicted of a crime?

Yes.

How many times?

One.

What month and year did this conviction occur?

June 2003.

In what county and state did this conviction occur?

Sevierville, Tenn.

What sort of penalty, if any, did you receive?

A few days of jail time.

Was any person injured as a result of your drinking and driving that night?

No.

The first is the “narrative” approach, allowing the witness to tell her own story about how the DUI occurred. The second approach asks mostly non-leading, but highly specific questions designed to make sure the essential facts of the claim are elicited with efficien- cy. From a persuasive standpoint, the narrative approach is usually preferred. However, not every witness is able to tell their story effectively in that context. It is up to the attorney to be flexible and make sure that all essential facts are elicited in the manner that best works for the individual.

Direct examination should also be crafted so as to avoid ob- jections. Though there are no set rules of evidence, immigration regulations do specifically require that all testimony be “material and relevant.”3 In addition, proceedings must be fundamentally fair
and comport with due process.4 Objections in immigration court are generally guided by those two standards. Information must not be more prejudicial than probative, and a “relevant” statement has a tendency to make the existence of a fact “more or less probable.”5 Objections to relevancy are common (if not commonly sustained) and counsel should be ready to articulate the materiality of any ques- tion being asked. Other immigration court objections include: calls for an unqualified opinion; compound question; calls for speculation; mischaracterizes earlier testimony; calls for a legal conclusion; and coaching of the witness. If a witness is being harassed, that objection can also be stated for the record, with a specific description of the objectionable conduct.

When direct examination metes out its purpose, the respondent’s story is clear, complete, and, above all, persuasive. Says clinical pro- fessor David Chavkin: “If we think about the stories that have stayed with us over time, about the stories that have been most persuasive, these stories do not focus solely on a single critical event or a single moment in time…. Instead, they ordinarily represent a detailed, chronological narration of interrelated events with a beginning point, a connected point, and a termination point.”6 But, most importantly, to be legally effective, that chronology must be presented in its prop- er legal format: in terms so plain and firm, as to command assent. 

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice, the attorney general, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent the author’s personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of the NAIJ. This article is solely for educational purposes, and it does not serve to substitute for any expert, professional and/or legal representation and advice.

Endnotes

1Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825, available at tjrs.monticello.org/letter/436 (last visited Oct. 10, 2016).
This column is based upon a trials skills presentation by Judge Harbeck, “Probative and Fundamentally Fair: Testimony in U.S. Immigration Court” (Seton Hall Law School and New Jersey State Bar Association) and Judge Harbeck’s article, “The Commonsense of Direct and Cross Examinations in Immigration Court,” New Jersey Lawyer Magazine #296, expected publication Jan. 2017.

2Matter of Interiano-Rosa, 25 I&N Dec. 264, 265 (BIA 2010), citing § 240(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(l) (2006); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.36, 1240.1(c), 1240.7(a) (2010).
38 C.F.R. § 1240.7(a) (2016).
4See, e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596-598 (1953).
5FED. R. EVID. 401.8.
6DAVID F. CHAVKIN, CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: A TEXTBOOK FOR LAW SCHOOL CLINICAL PROGRAMS 97 (LexisNexis 2002).
14 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • January/February 2017

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: