"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“[W]ithout having knowledge, we’ll go directly to the slaughterhouse!” Creative Commons License“Do you still want to talk to a lawyer, or are you ready to take a final order?” “Justice” Star Chamber StyleEmma Winger Staff Attorney American Immigration Council PHOTO: Immigration Impact
“Ben G.” is a 35-year-old veterinarian from Nicaragua who fled to the United States after he was beaten and tortured by police. When he crossed the border into the United States, he requested asylum. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) eventually transferred Ben to the Winn County Correctional Center, an ICE detention facility in rural Louisiana located four hours away from the nearest metropolitan area. It is also the facility with the fewest immigration attorneys available in the entire country.
Despite passing the government’s initial screening and having a credible fear of persecution, Ben was still unable to find a lawyer. As a fellow detained person noted, “without having knowledge, we’ll go directly to the slaughterhouse.”
Ben’s story illustrates the monumental barriers that detained immigrants face in finding lawyers to represent them. As described in a letter sent October 29 by the American Immigration Council, the ACLU, and 88 legal service provider organizations to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, ICE detention facilities have systematically restricted the most basic modes of communication that detained people need to connect with their lawyers and the rest of the outside world, including phones, mail, and email access.
This must change. The immigration detention system is inherently flawed, unjust, and unnecessary. The best way to eliminate these barriers to justice is to release people from detention.
Although immigrants have the right to be represented by lawyers in immigration proceedings, they must pay for their own lawyers or find free counsel, unlike people in criminal custody who have the right to government-appointed counsel. In many cases, detained immigrants cannot find lawyers because ICE facilities make it so difficult to even get in touch and communicate with attorneys in the first place.
The importance of legal representation for people in immigration proceedings cannot be overstated. Detained people with counsel are 10 times more likely to win their immigration cases than those without representation. Yet the vast majority of detained people — over 70% — faced immigration courts without a lawyer this year.
ICE has set the stage for this problem by locating most immigration detention facilities far from cities where lawyers are accessible. Each year, ICE locks up hundreds of thousands of people in a network of over 200 county jails, private prisons, and other carceral facilities, most often in geographically isolated locations, far from immigration attorneys.
Even when attorneys are available and willing to represent detained people, ICE detention facilities make it prohibitively difficult for lawyers to communicate with their detained clients, refusing to make even the most basic of accommodations. For example, many ICE facilities routinely refuse to allow attorneys to schedule calls with their clients.
As described in the letter, the El Paso Immigration Collaborative reported that staff at the Torrance County Detention Facility in New Mexico have told their lawyers that they simply don’t have the capacity to schedule calls in a timely manner, delaying requests for more than one week or more.
The University of Texas Law School’s Immigration Law Clinic attempted to schedule a video teleconferencing call with a client at the South Texas ICE Processing Center. An employee of the GEO Group, Inc., which runs the facility, told them that no calls were available for two weeks.
. . . .
***********************
A “Jim Crow Mentality” of never being held accountable for abuses of law or human morality permeates the politicos, legislators, and Federal Judges of both parties responsible for enabling and upholding this toxic system.
Nowhere is this more obvious than at the DOJ Civil Rights Division. While pontificating on racially abusive local police policies and actions, these folks go to great lengths to overlook the DOJ-run “Star Chamber Courts” embedded in DHS’s “New American Gulag” that disproportionally harm persons of color and deny them basic legal, civil, and human rights every day.
This system is thoroughly rotten! Yet, Garland’s DOJ “defends the indefensible” in Federal Court almost every day.
The BIA’s blunders in trying to help out their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement can sometimes seem almost comical. But, they are no laughing matter to those facing persecution or torture as a result! Why is Garland indifferent to life-threatening injustice in his courts? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Given the strength and rigor of the IJ’s underlying opinion, along with the BIA having exceeded its proper scope of review, we will vacate the BIA’s final order of removal and remand with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s opinion.
******************
There is the good, the bad, the ugly, and the absurdly horrible. This latest BIA travesty falls in the latter category.
Not surprisingly, the Circuit opinion quotes liberally from the BIA’s insipid, mealy-mouthed “bureaucratic double-speak” language! To paraphrase my BIA colleague the late Judge Fred Vacca, thank goodness the 3rd Circuit finally put an end to this “pathetic attempt at appellate adjudication.”
Interesting that rather than remanding to give the BIA a chance to deny again on some newly invented specious basis, the court just reinstated the IJ opinion. There should be a message here! But, Garland and his lieutenants aren’t “getting it!”
This case illustrates deep systemic and personnel problems that Garland has failed to address. Instead of summarily dismissing the DHS’s frivolous appeal with a strong warning condemning it, these types of bad BIA decisions contribute to the unnecessary backlog and both encourage and reward frivolous actions by the DHS.
Additionally, reversing, for specious reasons, a well-done and clearly correct IJ decision granting relief, just to carry out the wishes of DHS Enforcement and political bosses, is intended to discourage respondents and their attorneys while unethically steering Immigration Judges toward a “norm of denial.”
Abused women of color from the Northern Triangle have been particular targets of the EOIR’s seriously skewed anti-immigrant adjudications. This makes the Garland DOJ’s claims to be a “champion of racial justice” ring all the more hollow and disingenuous in every context. There will be no racial justice in America without radical EOIR reform!
What ever happened to our first ever woman of color Veep? Hypothesize that one of the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges responsible for this mess had come before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation. Wouldn’t you have had some questions about judicial qualifications? So, why is it OK to continue to employ them in untenured Executive Branch quasi-judicial positions where they exercise life or death power over many of the most vulnerable among us, overwhelmingly persons of color, many women, lots of them unrepresented! Kamala Harris, where are you?
It’s all part of an improper “culture of denial” at EOIR, led and “enforced” by the BIA. Garland has disgracefully failed to come to grips with the “anti-due process” that he fosters every day that the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” remains in their appellate positions.
For heavens sake, with unnecessary “TV Adjudication Centers” coming out EOIR’s ears, reassign these purveyors of bad law and appellate injustice to those lower “courts” where they can do less cosmic damage and real, better qualified appellate judges can “keep on eye” on them!
I keep thinking (or perhaps hoping) that eventually Circuits will tire of continually redoing the BIA’s sloppy work product and then having the cases come back again, sometimes years later, denied on yet another bogus ground!
On the flip side, Judge Garland seems to have infinite “patience” with well-documented substandard performance and painfully obvious anti-immigrant, pro-DHS bias on the part of his BIA.
Wrongful denial of CAT costs lives and can improperly condemn individuals to gruesome and painful death! This is no way to run a court system! I guess it’s easier to “tolerate” lousy judicial performance when you aren’t the one being unfairly and illegally condemned to torture!
They raped women, burned homes and killed dozens of people, including children, chopping up their bodies with machetes and throwing their remains to pigs.The gruesome massacre three years ago, considered the worst in Haiti in decades, was more than the work of rival gangs fighting over territory. It was organized by senior Haitian officials, who provided weapons and vehicles to gang members to punish people in a poor area protesting government corruption, the U.S. Treasury Department announced last year.
Since then, Haiti’s gang members have grown so strong that they rule swaths of the country. The most notorious of them, a former police officer named Jimmy Cherizier, known as Barbecue, fashions himself as a political leader, holding news conferences, leading marches and, this week, even parading around as a replacement for the prime minister in the violent capital.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of this gruesome, yet telling, report at the link.
Over 21 years on the Immigration Bench as both a trial and appellate judge, I adjudicated thousands of asylum claims. The circumstances described on this article undoubtedly would give rise to many potentially valid asylum and withholding claims, based on actual or implied political opinion and/or family or gender-based “particular social groups” and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) grants based on torture with government acquiescence or actual connivance!
So, how do Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, and Garland, who to my knowledge have never represented an asylum applicant or adjudicated an individual asylum case among them, “get away” with simply suspending the rule of law, under false pretenses, for those entitled to seek asylum?
Stephen Miller must be on “Cloud Nine” as Biden & Co. carry out his White Nationalist plans to eradicate asylum, particularly when it protects women and people of color! This is even as Miller and his neo-Nazi cohorts (a/k/a “America First Legal”) are gearing up to sue the Biden Administration to block every measure that might aid immigrants, particularly those of color.
He’s delighted with Biden’s abuse of asylum seekers of color! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
NGOs don’t share the Biden Administration’s vision of what a “safe” Haiti looks like. Neither do kidnapped American missionaries! PHOTO: Marcelo Casal, Jr., Creative Commons License
Angering and alienating your potential allies and supporters to aid the far-right program of your enemies who are determined to do whatever it takes to undermine, discredit, and destroy your Presidency! Obviously, I’m no political expert. But, sure sounds like an incredibly stupid, “designed to fail” strategy to me!
So far, defending this guy and his cruel policies is about the only thing that Judge Garland has done well at a DOJ that continues to treat “justice” for migrants of color as a joke! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.comUnlike Miller, the “losers” under Garland’s unconscionable policies often aren’t in a position to complain — at least in this world! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
On Thursday, a federal appeals court allowed the continued use of the Title 42 policy, pushed initially through the previous administration by Stephen Miller, that’s used the novel coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to quickly deport asylum-seekers, including thousands of Haitians who have arrived at the southern border in search of help.
The Biden administration was set to be blocked from using the policy against families, following a federal judge’s order earlier this month. That lower court order was set to go into effect Thursday. But the policy was saved by the Biden administration, which had shockingly appealed the lower court’s decision. To be clear, the administration could have let the lower court decision stand. But it decided to protect this scientifically unsound order for continued use.
“It’s troubling to see the court grant the government’s motion to reinstate Title 42 just days after the district court ruled that its policy violates U.S. law,” Oxfam America global policy lead Noah Gottschalk told NBC News. The group is among the organizations that have led lawsuits against the policy. “We all saw the horrific images of the abuse faced by Haitian asylum-seekers subjected to Title 42, and we cannot allow people to face further harm because of this xenophobic policy.”
Department of Homeland Security Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas has claimed it is continuing Title 42 “out of a public health need.” Meanwhile, White House Press Sec. Jen Psaki has defended the policy as “a public health requirement.” That’s complete bullshit. “Vice President Mike Pence in March directed the nation’s top disease control agency to use its emergency powers to effectively seal the U.S. borders, overruling the agency’s scientists who said there was no evidence the action would slow the coronavirus,” The Associated Press (AP) reported last October.
The previous administration got its way by twisting arms. There was no science involved, only anti-immigrant and anti-asylum animus. “That was a Stephen Miller special. He was all over that,” a former Pence aide told the AP.
And, as vaccines have become readily available, the supposed rationale to keep Title 42 in place has only gotten more flimsy. If this is truly all about public health, why not rescind the policy and offer families the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine? “Let me also remind the Biden administration that over 300,000 people cross the border from Mexico every day through ports of entry,” American Immigration Council Policy Counsel Aaron Reichlin-Melnick tweeted in July. “None are given COVID tests, unlike migrants who all get tested and nearly all get vaccinated.”
. . . .
************************
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color — Progressive human rights experts and migrants of color haven’t been welcome at Garland’s DOJ “Happy Hours” where Stephen Miller’s policies, his judicial appointments, and his dysfunctional “star chamber” immigration courts are celebrated, defended, and even “enhanced!”
Read more about this legal, moral, and political travesty perpetrated by the Biden Administration with Garland’s support at the link.
When it comes to things like defending ending the reprehensible “killer-program” known as “Remain in Mexico” or protecting the DACA program, Garland’s litigation team has fared poorly.
They also have drawn raised eyebrows, even if not yet any ethical complaints, from Article III Judges for their questionable representations and disingenuous defense of wrongfully issued BIA final orders of removal.
Perhaps, part the problem is that after four years of “anything goes” often misleading, sometimes downright dishonest, defense of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist xenophobic, often misogynistic, dehumanizing agenda, their hearts aren’t in it. The other glaring problem is the obvious lack of commitment to progressive humanitarian values, due process for all, and “cleaning house” at a broken and dysfunctional DOJ that has been shown by Garland.
Obviously, Garland’s DOJ lawyers are more at home and more successful when when arguing for intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional dehumanization (or “Dred Scottification”) of “the other,” primarily individuals of color who are the most vulnerable among us.
What a totally disgraceful legacy for a guy that was once just “one Moscow Mitch” away from the Supremes! On the other hand, it now appears that the GOP right wingers wouldn’t have had much to fear from a guy who won’t stand up for liberal American democratic values or even simple human decency! I doubt that he would have presented much threat to the far-right, anti-American agenda!
The Slippery Slope of Systemic Racism in Immigration Law – Del Rio by Carrie Rosenbaum
When Senator Maxine Waters proclaimed that what we witnessed in Del Rio, Texas last week, Customs and Border Protection officers on horseback whipping black men, harkened back to slavery, she drew an age-old, but still relevant connection between slavery, Jim Crow, and anti-immigrant racism. In a press briefing, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated, “[w]e know that those images painfully conjured up the worst elements of our nation’s ongoing battle against systemic racism.” Yet, if both are right, where are our equality, anti-racism principles and why haven’t they been enough to dismantle systemic racism? Should U.S. anti-discrimination law inhibit anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, in the U.S. and at the border? Does it? Is there a slippery slope, such that undeterred discrimination against immigrants at the border seeps beyond the immediate individuals at the border?
Senator Waters was right to blur the boundaries of citizenship and rights in her speech. Racism begets racism, and racism towards black Haitians at the border translates to anti-black racism within the United States, just as anti-Mexican racism does not confine itself to noncitizens, and never has. Examples abound including obvious examples, like Latinx lynching of the late 1840s through 1920s (which coincided with lynching of Blacks), mass expulsion or “repatriation” of persons of Mexican descent that included U.S. citizens in the early 1920s and 1930s again via “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s and more subtle ones like exploitation and expropriation of Mexican and Central American farm workers and laborers, whether authorized or not, and colorblind or race neutral policies that fall most heavily, even if not completely, on persons from Mexico and Central America, like border jails.
While the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not limit itself to citizens, it falls vastly short in protecting racialized people of color, especially immigrants. The U.S. treatment of Haitians in Del Rio implicates the problem of anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, and is indicative of the express and implicit bias that continues to evade remedy. It runs much deeper than the disturbing images of CBP agents on horseback, and its impacts have ripple effects.
At the same time that DHS Secretary Mayorkas decried systemic racism, he spelled out the government’s potential argument that the exclusion of Haitians, and Central Americans, and Mexicans that accompanies such brutal treatment was not discriminatory pursuant to the current state of immigration equal protection. He stated, “if we are able to expel them under Title 42 … we will do so” and announced that its application was “irrespective of the country of origin, irrespective of the race of the individual, irrespective of other criteria that don’t belong in our adjudicative process and we do not permit in our adjudicative process.”
Yet this is precisely how systemic racism flourishes. The reality is, this provision has been used to exclude the same racialized immigrants who have been subject to the worst treatment under immigration law. However, because the law is colorblind, Mayorkas can suggest that there was no discrimination. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1977 Arlington Heights decision, discriminatory impact has to be accompanied by proof of discriminatory intent. Just by saying that wasn’t his (or implying it was not Congress’) intent, he can erase what too many know to be real. A new immigration priorities memo by the Agency released today stated that ““We must ensure that enforcement actions are not discriminatory and do not lead to inequitable outcomes.” It is a step in the right rhetorical direction, but does little to meaningfully address the colorblind racism that plagues enforcement.
What is the solution? Aside from a more expansive interpretation of the Equal Protection doctrine in line with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Trump era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals case, and modest progress at the district court level in the crimmigration context, Congress could take steps to stop racial harm inflicted via immigration law and policy. By creating a path to legal status for those who not only have been here, but who have suffered the greatest harms of systemic racism, Haitian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, and others, Congress could start to undo the damage. It could also stop the relatively new practice of detaining or imprisoning migrants at the southern border, who happen to be almost entirely from Mexico and Central America, or abolish immigration prisons entirely. The policies that result in the imprisonment of Mexicans and Central Americans at the southern border now started with expulsion and imprisonment of Haitians in the 1980 and 1990s. Instead of expulsions and rumored potential imprisonment at the notorious Guantanamo Bay as was done in response to Haitians fleeing violence after the U.S. supported overthrow of democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the U.S. could re-evaluate both its involvement in foreign affairs, and treatment of those who flee here after our interventions cause disruption and civil strife. The largest number of Black migrants come from Haiti and their mistreatment is rooted in anti-Black racism. Racializing anti-immigrant demonization does not confine itself to noncitizens, nor should the remedies. Immigration reform, and a more robust application of the Equal Protection doctrine to all those inside the country, and at our borders, is necessary to move towards meaningfully dismantling systemic racism.
Access my law review articles and scholarship on SSRN
*******************************
Very eloquently said, Carrie!
Compare this with the racist blather and White Nationalist nonsense of nativist pols like Abbott, DeSantis, Cruz, Cotton, and others who glorify Jim Crow and seek to force a sanitized, whitewashed version of American history down the throats of the public!
Also, compare this with the intellectually dishonest actions by Biden Administration officials. They disingenuously claim to be champions of racial equality and racial justice.
But, in reality, they operate “star chamber courts,” “New American Gulags,” and implement discredited, outmoded, and ineffective “Stephen Miller Lite” border enforcement policies that basically dehumanize people of color and deny them the due process and equal protection to which they are entitled under law. Also, think about the many Federal Judges who spinelessly enable that which most first year law students could tell you is illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention totally immoral!
What exactly does Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke do every day at the Civil Rights Division if unraveling the White Nationalist, racially tone deaf policies of her own Department, the DHS, and the “star chambers for people of color” being operated by her “boss” aren’t first and foremost on her “to do” list?
“Floaters” — The ugly reality of Biden’s “Miller Lite border strategy.” It’s mostly people of color floating face-down in the river, being illegally returned to danger zones, rotting in the “New American Gulag,” and being railroaded through Garland’s biased and dysfunctional “star chamber courts.” Right now, Garland and and the rest of of the Biden Administration have “zero (0) credibility” on racial justice and voting rights!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
The biggest failure of the Biden Administration to date is their willful blindness to the obvious connection between lack of overall racial justice in America and running star chambers, gulags, and border enforcement policies that are unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and racially demeaning to individuals of color. Sadly, and tragically we seem to have gone from “zero tolerance” under Trump to “zero credibility” under Biden! “When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?”
Heidi Altman Director of Policy National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: fcnl.org
Haiti has been in turmoil for many years and the recent assassination of the Haitian president, political and economic insecurity, devastating storms, and an earthquake have further destabilized the nation.
Yet, Haitians seeking protection in the United States face treacherous journeys, racial abuse, violence from border patrol agents, detention, and deportation and expulsion back to the life-threatening situation they fled in Haiti.
All people—including Haitian migrants and asylum seekers—need freedom, shelter, dignity, and compassionate welcomes.
In the past couple of weeks, the Biden administration has expelled more than 4,600 people to Haiti. And they continue to deport and expel even more people.
The Biden administration has the authority to grant humanitarian parole and stop the deportations to Haiti. We at the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) are teaming up with other organizations to urge them to do just that.
Thousands of Haitian migrants removed from a makeshift camp near Texas have been sent back to Haiti. Now we’re getting our first up-close look at what they are facing upon their arrival. NBC’s Jacob Soboroff reports for TODAY from Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Sept. 30, 2021
Eleanor Acer Senior Director for Refugee Protection, Human Rights First
Human Rights First debunks myth that seekers present a COVID health threat:
ASYLUM DOES NOT THREATEN PUBLIC HEALTH
The last week saw more of the Biden administration’s despicable deportation of Haitians and use Title 42 to deny their right to seek asylum. The administration perpetuates the false claim that their use of Title 42 is not an immigration policy, but a public health one, despite the vehement disagreement of public health experts.
Courtesy Washington Times
Migrants, many from Haiti, wade across the Rio Grande
river to leave Del Rio, Texas to avoid possible deportation.
Human Rights First also responded to the administration’s plans to use Guantanamo Bay as a migrant detention facility.
“Sending people who are seeking protection to a place that is notorious for being treated as a rights-free zone is the last thing that the Biden administration should do,” Eleanor Acer, Senior Director of Refugee Protection at Human Rights First told NPR. “It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to evade oversight, due process, human rights protections and the refugee laws of the United States.”
Maria Sacchetti Immigration Reporter, Washington Post
Even in rolling out otherwise more reasonable enforcement priorities for ICE, Mayorkas insisted on making the bogus claim that recent border arrivals present a “national security threat,” as reported by the WashPost’s Maria Sacchetti:
Mayorkas said in his memo Thursday that migrants who cross the border illegally, particularly those who arrived unlawfully over the past year or so, remain a “threat to border security” and a priority for removal. But the ACLU has argued in its lawsuit that migrants have a legal right to seek asylum.
************************
“Courtside’s” rating of Mayorkas’s claims: 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥
Who would have thought that more than eight months into the Biden Administration, we’d still be arguing about basics like “migrants have a legal right to seek asylum in the US?” See, INA section 208.
131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest
The judges failed to recuse themselves from 685 lawsuits from 2010 to 2018 involving firms in which they or their family held shares, a Wall Street Journal investigation found
By James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones and Joe Palazzolo
Sept. 28, 2021 9:07 am ET
More than 130 federal judges have violated U.S. law and judicial ethics by overseeing court cases involving companies in which they or their family owned stock.
A Wall Street Journal investigation found that judges have improperly failed to disqualify themselves from 685 court cases around the nation since 2010. The jurists were appointed by nearly every president from Lyndon Johnson to Donald Trump.
About two-thirds of federal district judges disclosed holdings of individual stocks, and nearly one of every five who did heard at least one case involving those stocks.
Alerted to the violations by the Journal, 56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves. That means new judges might be assigned, potentially upending rulings.
When judges participated in such cases, about two-thirds of their rulings on motions that were contested came down in favor of their or their family’s financial interests.
. . . .
******************
Read the full article at the link.
This is seriously bad stuff that should never have happened.
Admittedly, Federal conflict of interest rules can be both complicated and annoying. But, complicated legal issues are these judges’ “specialty.” “Ignorance is no excuse” is a common judicial cliche!
Even at EOIR, judges got decent training in these types of ethical requirements, including examples that covered the types of conflicts uncovered by the WSJ; they were fairly rare at EOIR given the subject matter at issue in most cases and the relatively modest financial circumstances of most Immigration Judges, many of whom were career civil servants.
Other types of potential conflicts or “appearance” issues did arise more frequently at EOIR. We were advised “When in doubt, sit it out!”
Obviously, the Administrative Office for U.S. Courts (“AOUSC”) isn’t doing its job here! It appears that using the same public information available to the WSJ reporters, the AOUSC could have not only discovered these conflicts much earlier (perhaps before decisions were rendered) but also set up an automated system for discovering potential conflicts in advance. Jones Day had such a system when I was there three decades ago!
Chief Justice John Roberts must insist that all Article III Judges take their ethical obligations more seriously and that they become thoroughly familiar with the requirements applicable to them. And, he should demand that the AOUSC provide the necessary training and monitor compliance with an automated conflicts identification system!
“Adel Ghanem, a former lawful permanent resident of the United States, seeks to avoid removal to Yemen, from which he fled to avoid persecution on account of political opinion. He pursues three forms of relief that were denied by the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA): asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Ghanem was kidnapped and tortured before being convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for political opposition to the Houthi regime. We will therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA. … We begin by reviewing the agency’s determination that Ghanem was ineligible for asylum under the INA because he was not persecuted “on account of” political opinion. We perceive two errors in its analysis: First, the Board’s conclusion ignores overwhelming evidence that Ghanem was persecuted on account of political opinion. Second, it erroneously treated familial relationships as disqualifying and failed to give the proper weight to the substantial record evidence that a protected ground remains one central reason for Ghanem’s persecution. … Illustrating “gross, flagrant [and] mass violations of human rights” that he would be unable to escape, the record evidence not only fails to support but directly contradicts the BIA’s conclusions that Ghanem is not likely to be tortured with the government’s acquiescence, if returned to Yemen. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(iii).8 The denial of relief under CAT therefore cannot withstand even our most deferential review. … For the foregoing reasons, we will grant Ghanem’s petition, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
How is the BIA’s grotesque misapplication of asylum and CAT law and intentional distortion of the record evidence acceptable adjudication from a Federal Court, even a “quasi-judicial administrative tribunal?” Lives are at stake are here! But, Garland remains indifferent to the deadly ☠️ daily injustices and stunning judicial incompetence and bias he promotes, coddles, defends, and enables at his dysfunctional EOIR!
And what is his OIL doing defending this garbage before the Circuits? Garland’s DOJ is an ethical cesspool and a slimy mess of legal incompetence! Where’s the long overdue “thorough housecleaning” of this gross abuse of taxpayer dollars and walking talking insult to the Canons of Legal and Judicial Ethics!
These aren’t just “honest legal mistakes!” No way! They are the product of an anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, anti-due process, anti-people of color “culture” which was actually encouraged and promoted at EOIR during the Trump regime and still endures!
It starts, but doesn’t end, with aBIA “packed” with a number of Trump/Miller appointees who were nationally renowned for their unsuitability to fairly adjudicate ANY asylum case, let alone to be “elevated” to the highest immigration tribunal. But, it’s not like any BIA Appellate Judge has the guts and integrity to stand up and speak out for immigrants’ rights, human rights, and constitutional due process!
It’s outrageous that the BIA as currently comprised is charged with setting precedents, maintaining consistency, and guaranteeing fairness for asylum applicants, particularly women and people of color. Of course this type of misconduct and incompetence will continue to generate huge, uncontrolled backlogs! THIS national, even international, disgusting disgrace will be Garland’s lasting legacy!
The proposed “asylum reform regulations” and all other immigration and racial justice reforms put forth by Biden will fail without a better, progressive, expert BIA totally committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice! Why hasn’t Congress demanded an accounting from Garland for his jaw-dropping mismanagement of the Immigration Courts and his failure to make obvious administrative reforms?
Demand better from Garland and the Biden Administration! This disgraceful, dysfunctional, deadly mess at EOIR is NOT OK!🤮👎🏽
Finally, Defendants argue that “[a]ny time [the government]
is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by
representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable
injury.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 76 at 38 (quoting Maryland v.
King, 133 S. Ct. 1, 3 (2012)). But, as explained above, the
Title 42 Process is likely unlawful, and “[t]here is generally
no public interest in the perpetuation of an unlawful agency
action.” Newby, 838 F.3d at 12.
*********************************“
“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of an unlawful agency action.” Yup! Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Who knows if this will stand. Both the DC Circuit and the Supremes have too often been willing to allow continued Government abuse of the rights of “mere migrants,” mostly of color, because they can’t really see them as fellow human beings, entitled to due process, justice, and human dignity!
But, at least for this moment in time, it’s a victory for due process, humanity, and judicial integrity.
Torture? What torture? It’s merely “enhanced fact-finding!”
Public realm“They all want to voluntarily waive further hearings and take final orders!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The phrase appears in multiple 9/11 volumes, usually uttered by top officials adamant that they were going to get things done, laws and rules be damned. Anti-terrorism efforts were always “lawyered to death” during the Clinton administration, Tenet complains in “Bush at War,” Bob Woodward’s 2002 book on the debates among the president and his national security team. In an interview with Woodward, Bush drops the phrase amid the machospeak — “dead or alive,” “bring ’em on” and the like — that became typical of his anti-terrorism rhetoric. “I had to show the American people the resolve of a commander in chief that was going to do whatever it took to win,” Bush explains. “No yielding. No equivocation. No, you know, lawyering this thing to death.” In “Against All Enemies,” Clarke recalls the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush snapped at an official who suggested that international law looked askance at military force as a tool of revenge. “I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass,” the president retorted.
The message was unmistakable: The law is an obstacle to effective counterterrorism. Worrying about procedural niceties is passe in a 9/11 world, an annoying impediment to the essential work of ass-kicking.
Except, they did lawyer this thing to death. Instead of disregarding the law, the Bush administration enlisted it. “Beginning almost immediately after September 11, 2001, [Vice President Dick] Cheney saw to it that some of the sharpest and best-trained lawyers in the country, working in secret in the White House and the United States Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the government’s power in waging war on terror,” Jane Mayer writes in “The Dark Side,” her relentless 2008 compilation of the arguments and machinations of government lawyers after the attacks. Through public declarations and secret memos, the administration sought to remove limits on the president’s conduct of warfare and to deny terrorism suspects the protections of the Geneva Conventions by redefining them as unlawful enemy combatants. Nothing, Mayer argues of the latter effort, “more directly cleared the way for torture than this.”
To comprehend what our government can justify in the name of national security, consider the torture memos themselves, authored by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 to green-light CIA interrogation methods for terrorism suspects. Tactics such as cramped confinement, sleep deprivation and waterboarding were rebranded as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” legally and linguistically contorted to avoid the label of torture. Though the techniques could be cruel and inhuman, the OLC acknowledged in an August 2002 memo, they would constitute torture only if they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or death, and if the individual inflicting such pain really really meant to do so: “Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent.” It’s quite the sleight of hand, with torture moving from the body of the interrogated to the mind of the interrogator.
After devoting dozens of pages to the metaphysics of specific intent, the true meaning of “prolonged” mental harm or “imminent” death, and the elasticity of the Convention Against Torture, the memo concludes that none of it actually matters. Even if a particular interrogation method would cross some legal line, the relevant statute would be considered unconstitutional because it “impermissibly encroached” on the commander in chief’s authority to conduct warfare. Almost nowhere in these memos does the Justice Department curtail the power of the CIA to do as it pleases.
In fact, the OLC lawyers rely on assurances from the CIA itself to endorse such powers. In a second memo from August 2002, the lawyers ruminate on the use of cramped confinement boxes. “We have no information from the medical experts you have consulted that the limited duration for which the individual is kept in the boxes causes any substantial physical pain,” the memo states. Waterboarding likewise gets a pass. “You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm,” the memo states. “Based on your research . . . you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard.”
You have informed us. Experts you have consulted. Based on your research. You do not anticipate. Such hand-washing words appear throughout the memos. The Justice Department relies on information provided by the CIA to reach its conclusions; the CIA then has the cover of the Justice Department to proceed with its interrogations. It’s a perfect circle of trust.
Yet the logic is itself tortured. In a May 2005 memo, the lawyers conclude that because no single technique inflicts “severe” pain amounting to torture, their combined use “would not be expected” to reach that level, either. As though embarrassed at such illogic, the memo attaches a triple-negative footnote: “We are not suggesting that combinations or repetitions of acts that do not individually cause severe physical pain could not result in severe physical pain.” Well, then, what exactly are you suggesting? Even when the OLC in 2004 officially withdrew its August 2002 memo following a public outcry and declared torture “abhorrent,” the lawyers added a footnote to the new memo assuring that they had reviewed the prior opinions on the treatment of detainees and “do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.”
In these documents, lawyers enable lawlessness. Another May 2005 memo concludes that, because the Convention Against Torture applies only to actions occurring under U.S. jurisdiction, the CIA’s creation of detention sites in other countries renders the convention “inapplicable.” Similarly, because the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is meant to protect people convicted of crimes, it should not apply to terrorism detainees — because they have not been officially convicted of anything. The lack of due process conveniently eliminates constitutional protections. In his introduction to “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable,” David Cole describes the documents as “bad-faith lawyering,” which might be generous. It is another kind of lawyering to death, one in which the rule of law that the 9/11 Commission urged us to abide by becomes the victim.
Years later, the Senate Intelligence Committee would investigate the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation program. Its massive report — the executive summary of which appeared as a 549-page book in 2014 — found that torture did not produce useful intelligence, that the interrogations were more brutal than the CIA let on, that the Justice Department did not independently verify the CIA’s information, and that the spy agency impeded oversight by Congress and the CIA inspector general. It explains that the CIA purported to oversee itself and, no surprise, that it deemed its interrogations effective and necessary, no matter the results. (If a detainee provided information, it meant the program worked; if he did not, it meant stricter applications of the techniques were needed; if still no information was forthcoming, the program had succeeded in proving he had none to give.)
“The CIA’s effectiveness representations were almost entirely inaccurate,” the Senate report concluded. It is one of the few lies of the war on terror unmasked by an official government investigation and public report, but just one of the many documented in the 9/11 literature.
. . . ,.
****************************
Sound painfully familiar? It should, to those of us “DOJ vets” who lived through this period. The use of the “third person,” “double and triple negatives,” “weasel words” like “you have given us to understand that,” “decision by committee” where a memo is routed through so many layers of bureaucracy that the original author or authors don’t even appear on its face — are all “devices” to diffuse and obscure responsibility and avoid clear accountability for controversial(and too often wrong) decisions!
During our time at the BIA, my fellow U.W. Badger, Judge Mike Heilman and I were often at odds on the law, particularly when it came to asylum. Anybody who doubts this should read Mike’s remarkable and famous (or infamous) “rabbi dissent” in Matter of H-, 21 I&N Dec. 337, 349 (BIA 1996) (Heilman, Board Member, dissenting). Nevertheless, one thing we agreed upon was requiring any decisions written for us to use the first person to reflect whose decision it actually was!
“Lawyers enable lawlessness.” How true! In 2002, DOJ lawyers (hand-chosen by the politicos) “tanked” and enabled, even encouraged, gross law violations by the CIA.
Fast forward to 2018. Then, White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions exhorted his wholly-owned “judges” at EOIR not to treat DHS enforcement as a party before the court, but rather as a worthy “partner” in combatting the largely-fabricated “scourge” of illegal immigration (that actually, as we can now see, was propping up Trump’s economy). Is it surprising that precedent decisions by Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr favored DHS nearly 100% of the time and the BIA thereafter issued almost no precedents where the individual prevailed (not that there were many of those following “the Ashcroft purge,” even before Sessions)?
Asylum grant rates in Immigration Court tumbled precipitously, while both the trial, and particularly appellate, levels at EOIR were “packed” with judges whose main qualification appeared to be an expectation that they would churn out large numbers of removal orders without much analysis or consideration of the factors favoring the individual. Misogyny and anti-asylum, anti-private-lawyer attitudes (those “dirty lawyers”) were encouraged by Sessions as part the “culture” at EOIR, sometimes visibly rewarded by “elevation” to the BIA.
Interestingly, at the same time in 2002 that the group of DOJ attorneys was furiously working in secret to justify torture, in clear violation of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), another group in the DOJ, the BIA, was struggling to make the CAT work in “real world” litigated cases. A number of us dissented from the majority of our BIA colleagues’ wrong-headed and rather transparent attempt to “neuter” CAT protection from the outset. Unlike the “secret lawyers” at the DOJ, our work was public and had consequences not only for the humans involved, but for those of us who had the audacity to stand up for their rights under domestic and international law!
Here’s an excerpt from my long-forgotten dissenting opinion in Matter of J-E-, 22 I&N Dec. 291, 314-15 (BIA 2002) (Schmidt, Board Member, dissenting):
The majority concludes that the extreme mistreatment likely to befall this respondent in Haiti is not “torture,” but merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The majority further concludes that conduct defined as “torture” occurs in the Haitian detention system, but is not “likely” for this respondent. In short, the majority goes to great lengths to avoid applying the Convention Against Torture to this respondent.
We are in the early stages of the very difficult and thankless task of construing the Convention. Only time will tell whether the majority’s narrow reading of the torture definition and its highly technical approach to the standard of proof will be the long-term benchmarks for our country’s implementation of this international treaty.
Although I am certainly bound to follow and apply the majority’s constructions in all future cases, I do not believe that the majority adequately carries out the language or the purposes of the Convention and the implementing regulations. Therefore, I fear that we are failing to comply with our international obligations.
I conclude that the respondent is more likely than not to face officially sanctioned torture if returned to Haiti. Therefore, I would grant his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and the implementing regulations. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.
Within a year of that decision, my dissenting colleagues and I were among those “purged” from the BIA by Ashcroft because of our views. I’d argue that EOIR has continued to go straight downhill since then, and is now in total free fall! Surely, any “facade” of quasi-judicial independence at the BIA has long-since crumbled. Yet, AG Garland pretends there is no problem. Garland’s apparent belief that this is still Judge Bell’s or Ben Civiletti’s or even Ed Levi’s DOJ is simply, demonstrably, wrong.
Today’s DOJ has been part and parcel of a highly inappropriate “weaponization” of the law and “Dred Scottification” directed against individual civil rights, migrants, voters, women, people of color, and a host of “others” who were on the far right “hit list” of the Trump kakistocracy. Nowhere has that been more evident than at the dysfunctional and institutionally biased EOIR. The problems plaguing American justice today have increased since 9-11. They will continue to fester and grow unless and until Garland faces reality and makes progressive leadership and judicial changes at EOIR to addresses the toxic culture of complicity and abusive use of the law to degrade individual and human rights. And, some real accountability at the rest of the badly-damaged DOJ should not be far behind.
“A federal judge declared unlawful the U.S. government’s turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry along the U.S southern border. The court ruled that the United States is required by law to inspect and process asylum seekers when they present themselves at ports of entry, and condemned the practice of denying access to the asylum process through metering and similar practices.
The decision came after oral arguments were held before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern District of California on Tuesday.
The case, Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, was brought 4 years ago by Al Otro Lado and a group of 13 individuals seeking asylum in the United States whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection turned back. The Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center, American Immigration Council, and the law firm Mayer Brown challenged the policy.
Nicole Ramos, Border Rights Project Director of Al Otro Lado, said, “After over four years, a U.S. federal court concluded what our team at Al Otro Lado has known all along, that CBP’s turning away of asylum seekers from ports of entry and metering are illegal and violate the rights of the individuals and families most in need of our protection. Despite DHS’s lies about their capacity to process asylum seekers, the reasons behind why metering exists, and the agency’s destruction of evidence in the case, today the rule of law and justice prevail.”
Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “This is such an important victory for our heroic partners at Al Otro Lado, who have fought for asylum seekers for years against every variation of government lie, denial, and abuse of power. The decision will protect thousands of vulnerable people at the border.”
Melissa Crow, Senior Supervising Attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said, “This decision affirms what people fleeing persecution and immigrant rights advocates have argued for years: the U.S. government’s denial of access to the asylum process at ports of entry is blatantly illegal. The Court properly recognized the extensive human costs of metering, including the high risk of assault, disappearance, and death, when CBP officers flout their duty to inspect and process asylum seekers and instead force them to wait in Mexico.”
“Turning back asylum seekers at ports of entry unconstitutionally stripped people of their right under U.S. law to access the asylum process in the United States. Ports of entry are a critical part of our nation’s asylum system and serve as the front door for arriving asylum seekers. Today’s decision underscores that the government may not simply shut that door and deny asylum seekers this right. The law protects asylum seekers arriving at our doorstep as it does those who stepped over the threshold. CBP must inspect and process arriving asylum seekers,” said Karolina Walters, senior attorney at American Immigration Council.
“Today’s decision is not just a victory for justice and the rule of law, it takes a significant step towards ending a troubling chapter in our nation’s history,” said Stephen Medlock, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP. “Under the turnback policy that was at issue in this case, the very government officials that should have been welcoming and assisting victims of persecution and torture were told to turn them away from the United States. The district court found that to be unequivocally illegal.”
Maria Frausto at the American Immigration Council, mfrausto@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7526; Marion Steinfels at SPLC, marion.steinfels@splcenter.org or 202-557-0430; Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, 212-614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org; Melissa Flores, Al Otro Lado, melissa@alotrolado.org, 213-444-6081.”
*******************
Not surprisingly to those of us who understand the system, this illegal, inane, and unnecessary policy instituted by the Trump kakistocracy and inexplicably continued under Biden has fueled illegal entries, as we effectively gave asylum seekers no legal avenue to make their applications.
As noted above, the Trump Administration also lied to the court and the public about the justification for the program, which clearly was fabricated.
But, to be fair, the Biden Administration has done little to re-establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at the Southern Border. Obviously, this case demands a long overdue investigation into the DOJ attorneys who handled and defended the indefensible, and the misconduct of those attorneys and CBP officials in hiding or destroying evidence and creating bogus scenarios to “justify” their illegal actions. But, don’t hold your breath for Garland, who seems largely indifferent to misconduct at the DOJ or anywhere else in Government, to take any action.
Legal asylum seekers suffer severe consequences for the Government’s concerted attack on their legal rights and humanity. The “perps on our payroll” — not so much. No wonder our legal system is in free fall!
It isn’t clear to me how this case interacts with Biden’s continuation of Title 42 which illegally bars many asylum seekers from pursuing their claims in any manner. There are exceptions, but they appear to be somewhat arbitrary and depend mostly on what CBP feels like doing on any particular day.
For those allowed to pursue claims in the U.S., the Biden Administration still doesn’t have a functioning way of promptly and fairly determining their cases. “Dedicated Dockets” at EOIR are just another “designed to fail” gimmick, almost certain to increase backlogs without promoting fairness and efficiency.
That which would make the asylum system functional for all — immediate EOIR reform, including new progressive leadership, a progressive BIA, much better asylum precedents, some progressive IJs well-qualified to handle asylum cases fairly and efficiently (e.g., getting them right initially, insisting that Asylum Officers do likewise, and cracking down on frivolous behavior by DHS in Immigration Court, rather than the haste makes waste “any reason to deny culture” that drives EOIR’s incredibly poor and inept performance on asylum cases today) and working agreements with the private bar for representation and reasonable scheduling — has been of little visible interest to Garland and his lieutenants to date.
With Congress more or less living on another planet, that’s likely to leave reshaping the asylum system to the Federal Courts. There, as this case shows, there is still a smattering of Article III Judges committed to due process and the rule of law for asylum seekers. But, there are now enough right wing extremists put on the bench by the GOP to make it highly likely that any hard won progressive judicial reforms will eventually be undone.
The one place where progressive reforms could actually take place, and be made to endure, at least for the balance of this Administration — EOIR — has been mishandled by Garland to date.
What an awful, disgraceful mess — with no viable plans for improvement on the horizon!
Proposed asylum regulation changes that rely heavily on a currently broken, dysfunctional, non-expert EOIR to protect the rights of asylum seekers — after years of intentionally bashing them on behalf of their nativist overlords — is an obvious non-starter that fails to “pass the straight face test” as those who actually are condemned to practice before EOIR know all to well. Of course, the regulatory proposal wasn’t drafted by those actually familiar with the human trauma of litigating asylum cases at EOIR.
Ah, Casey, “why can’t anyone out there in ‘Bidenland’ play this game?”
“Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland. The rest of us not so much.” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
ELIE MYSTAL, Justice Correspondent, writes in The Nation:
. . . .
The opinion is thorough and well-reasoned, and Judge Du’s arguments are so obvious in retrospect that it’s kind of amazing they aren’t a staple of the immigration debate in this country. But this is where Judge Du’s background perhaps becomes important.
DONATE NOW TO POWER THE NATION.
Readers like you make our independent journalism possible.
Miranda Du was born in Ca Mau, Vietnam, in 1969. Her family fled the nation after the Vietnam War when she was 9, first to Malaysia, before eventually making its way to Alabama. She went to Berkeley for law school and was an employment lawyer in Nevada when Harry Reid and Barack Obama made her a federal district judge in 2011. I would imagine that Judge Du looks at the US immigration system with a fresh perspective, at least as compared to a person like me, who was born here and has been taught to just accept a background level of bigotry as an immutable fact of immigration law. One of the more striking parts of her opinion in this case is the section in which she calls out other courts for not doing this sooner. She essentially says that courts in other jurisdictions that have looked at Section 1326 have blindly accepted the government’s reasoning that the 1952 reauthorization cleansed the statute of its racial bias, without really looking at the 1952 Congress.
The opinion is brilliant, and I’m going to print it out so I’ll still have a copy of it when Justice Samuel Alito and the other conservatives on the Supreme Court reverse it and order Du’s opinion to be nuked from orbit. There is, practically speaking, no chance this ruling survives Supreme Court review. The high court will skate over the disparate impact analysis by saying that any person, regardless of race, who crosses the southern border will experience the same over-enforcement. Or the court will reverse the ruling of racist intent by finding, as other courts have, that the 1952 Congress did cleanse the statute of racism. Or they’ll find that the government does have a legitimate and permissible interest in discriminating against southern border crossers. After all, the Supreme Court found bigotry to be okay in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the Muslim ban, so finding a reason to uphold Section 1326 will be child’s play for the conservatives who like a little bigotry in their immigration rulings.
And that’s if the case even makes it to the Supreme Court, which it probably won’t. Judge Du’s ruling will first be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and I could see it getting reversed there. It’s unlikely that other liberal judges will even want to open this can of worms. As I said, Judge Du relies on a disparate impact analysis, and I can think of at least three Supreme Court justices who might be in the mood to overturn disparate impact analysis altogether.
Judge Du is right about the bigotry inherent in our immigration laws, but conservatives like the bigotry and liberals will be afraid that trying to stop it will just piss off the conservatives.
But at least this opinion exists now. It’s out there, and future lawyers and judges can read it and maybe think differently about the core assumptions at the heart of our immigration system. A lone federal judge cannot stop 100 years of bigoted policies, but if you want to know what a truly progressive legal analysis looks like, Judge Du just spelled one out.
Now, President Biden just needs to read it and go out and nominate 100 judges who agree.
***************
Read the full article at the link.
Biden could start by telling Garland to “redo” the U.S. Immigration Courts with well-qualified, expert, progressive judges in the “ Chief Judge Miranda Du” image!
Different backgrounds and new, “real life” perspectives! That’s why two decades of appointments of almost exclusively prosecutors and government bureaucrats, to the exclusion of human rights experts and advocates, to the Immigration Judiciary has produced such unfair and disastrous results for humanity and American law! Similar to other “blind spots” in American law, it has also created misery and cost innocent lives.
For the most part, judges of all philosophies hate being confronted with “ugly truths” about the system they are a part of. Consequently, the impetus to sweep historical truth and logical legal reasoning under the carpet when it produces uncomfortable, unpopular, and highly controversial results is overwhelming on all sides of the judicial spectrum, with the exception of a few “brave souls” like Chief Judge Du.
One of the most obvious and disgraceful of these “dodges,” is the abject failure of the Article IIIs to confront head on the clear Fifth Amendment unconstitutionality of the Executive’s “captive Immigration Courts,” particularly as currently staffed and still operating in “Miller Lite, White Nationalist mode.”
But, courageous decisions like this will be a part of our permanent legal history and come back to haunt today’s go along to get along Federal Judges, at all levels!
Our allies were given a promise, and leaving them to die will be an unforgivable act of cowardice.
BY ODAY YOUSIF JR.
AUG. 20, 2021 4:54 PM PT
Yousif Jr., J.D., is a graduate of California Western School of Law and an American Constitution Society Next Generation Leader. He lives in Rancho San Diego.
Twenty years ago, the American military marched into Afghanistan with the declared intent of hunting down Osama bin Laden and ridding the country of Taliban extremists. Led by government leaders working in bad faith, thousands of civilians and soldiers were led to their deaths for a war now universally considered a failure. However, the most vulnerable population susceptible to death in Afghanistan are those Afghan allies who risked their lives to work for the foreign forces. They served as translators and services workers and any role that required the help of the local population. Now, with the Taliban back in power, they will be the first to face death.
When local Afghans agreed to work for coalition forces, they were made a promise: work for us and we will give you a visa to the U.S. They put their safety on the line working for the military forces but did so in order to give them and their families the chance for a better future outside Afghanistan. They worked anywhere service members went, from battlefields to bases. Often, they were the people who saved the lives of the soldiers they worked for. They were not just local Afghans but critical allies necessary for the ongoing mission in their country. At that point, we had nothing short of a deep-seated moral obligation to make sure they were protected.
. . . .
***********************
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
Amen! It’s not rocket 🚀 science! But, it does require expertise, guts, and a sense of urgency!
USAToday: Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, directed the Biden administration to reinstate the program, saying the administration “failed to consider several critical factors” when ending the program. Kacsmaryk delayed his order for seven days to give the administration a chance to appeal.
Reuters: Mayorkas, speaking at a news conference in south Texas, did not provide details about which asylum seekers would be eligible to use the online system, but said further asylum changes would be announced in the coming days.
WaPo: The number of migrants detained along the Mexico border crossed a new threshold last month, exceeding 200,000 for the first time in 21 years, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforcement data released Thursday.
NYT: By this week, at least 1,000 migrants were housed at the teeming camp, erected by the nearby city of McAllen as an emergency measure to contain the spread of the virus beyond the southwestern border. About 1,000 others are quarantined elsewhere in the Rio Grande Valley, some of them in hotel rooms paid for by a private charity.
Politico: Thousands of lawsuits on every aspect of immigration policy are pending from the Trump years — from challenges to the government’s moves to block asylum for specific individuals to roughly 100 lawsuits filed by the government to gain access to or seize land near the southern border for Trump’s border wall.
Newsweek: [S]ix months in, Biden’s administration and his Democrat-led Congress are spending millions more taxpayer dollars to expand detention and surveillance of immigrants. A private prison company is profiting from both.
WaPo: Last week, the Biden administration began the expulsion flights from the United States to the southern Mexican city of Villahermosa in a bid to deter repeat border crossers. Mexico agreed to accept those flights and said it would allow those who feared persecution in their home countries to apply for asylum. But the migrants — mostly from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala — who have arrived in the remote Guatemalan border town of El Ceibo describe a chaotic series of expulsions, first from the United States in planes and then from Villahermosa to Guatemala by bus. They say they were not given an opportunity to seek refuge in Mexico.
CNN: The agency’s new policy, issued Wednesday, marks the latest effort by the Biden administration to pivot from the Trump administration and tailor enforcement priorities. Going forward, ICE will require agents and officers to help undocumented victims seek justice and facilitate access to immigration benefits, according to the agency.
WSJ: The situation complicates what has already been a yearslong wait for many of the 1.2 million immigrants—most of them Indians working in the tech sector—who have been waiting in line to become permanent residents in the U.S. and are watching a prime opportunity to win a green card slip away.
CBS: The death toll from a magnitude 7.2 earthquake in Haiti soared to at least 1,297 Sunday as rescuers raced to find survivors amid the rubble ahead of a potential deluge from an approaching tropical storm. Saturday’s earthquake also left at least 2,800 people injured in the Caribbean nation, with thousands more displaced from their destroyed or damaged homes.
TheCity: Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul, speaking publicly for the first time as New York’s governor-to-be, insisted Wednesday she’s “evolved” since fighting against driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants by threatening them with possible arrest and deportation.
AILA: The BIA dismissed the appeal after concluding that the respondent’s prior receipt of special rule cancellation of removal under the NACARA bars her from applying for cancellation of removal. Matter of Hernandez-Romero, 28 I&N Dec. 374 (BIA 2021)
Law360: The Third Circuit signed off Monday on an order from the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office barring law enforcement agencies from sharing certain information with federal immigration authorities, ruling in a precedential opinion that two federal statutes do not bar the directive since they regulate states and not private actors.
AILA: The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum to the Salvadoran petitioner, finding that his proposed particular social groups of “former members of MS-13” and “former members of MS-13 who leave for moral reasons” were overbroad and lacked social distinction. (Nolasco v. Garland, 8/2/21)
AILA: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s finding that the petitioner had not presented prima facie evidence of her eligibility for cancellation of removal pursuant to INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i). (Parada-Orellana v. Garland, 8/6/21)
AILA: The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reopen, where the evidence showed that the poor conditions facing homosexuals and Christians in Somalia have remained substantially similar since the time of her hearing. (Yusuf v. Garland, 8/9/21)
AILA: The court held that the BIA did not err in finding that the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Mexican mothers who refuse to work for the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación” was not sufficiently particularized or socially distinct. (Rosales-Reyes v. Garland, 8/4/21)
AILA: The court found that because petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption set out in the Attorney General’s decision in In re Y-L-, the BIA did not err in not considering her mental health as a factor in the particularly serious crime (PSC) analysis. (Gilbertson v. Garland, 8/2/21)
Law360: The Board of Immigration Appeals was wrong to deny administrative closure to a Mexican woman and her daughters while they had a U visa petition pending, an Eighth Circuit panel ruled, faulting the board’s reliance on now-vacated precedent.
AILA: Granting the petition for review, the court held that, because petitioner was not an applicant for admission, the BIA impermissibly applied the “clearly and beyond doubt” burden of proof in finding him inadmissible and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status. (Romero v. Garland, 8/2/21)
AILA: The court remanded for the BIA to consider in the first instance whether the petitioner was eligible for withholding of removal on account of his membership in the particular social group of “people erroneously believed to be gang members.” (Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8/5/21)
AILA: The court held that Hawaii’s fourth degree theft statute, a petty misdemeanor involving property of less than $250, is overbroad with respect to the BIA’s definition of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and is indivisible, and granted the petition for review. (Maie v. Garland, 8/2/21)
Law360: The Ninth Circuit denied a Mexican man’s appeal of his deportation order Wednesday, saying the Board of Immigration Appeals was correct in ruling that his past conviction for marijuana possession made him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
AILA: The court held that the petitioner’s conviction in Florida under Fla. Stat. §790.23(1)(a) for being a felon in possession of a firearm did not constitute a “firearm offense” within the meaning of INA §237(a)(2)(C) and its cross-reference to 18 USC §921(a)(3). (Simpson v. Att’y Gen., 8/4/21)
Law360: A Texas federal judge on Friday extended for an additional 14 days an emergency order temporarily blocking Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order restricting ground transportation of migrants detained at the border amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Law360: An American who has waited years for his Pakistani wife to have her green card application processed is suing the federal government, blaming their visa limbo on what they call an illegal national security vetting program.
AILA: ICE released ICE Directive 11005.3, Using a Victim-Centered Approach with Noncitizen Crime Victims, with guidance on how it will handle civil immigration enforcement actions involving noncitizen crime victims.
AILA: USCIS SAVE issued guidance regarding Afghans who are eligible for Special Immigrant Visas and their special immigrant LPR status or special immigrant parole that meets the special immigrant requirement for certain government benefits.
AILA: USCIS stated that 8/12/21 through 9/30/21, it will extend the validity period for Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, from two years now to four years due to COVID-19-related delays in processing. Guidance is effective 8/12/21, and comments are due by 9/13/21.
AILA: Executive order issued 8/9/21, imposing sanctions on those determined to have contributed to the suppression of democracy and human rights in Belarus, including suspending the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of such persons. (86 FR 43905, 8/11/21)
AILA: On 8/5/21, President Biden issued a memo directing DHS to defer for 18 months the removal of Hong Kong residents present in the United States on 8/5/21, with certain exceptions. (86 FR 43587, 8/10/21)
The article by Anita Kumar in Politico should be an “eye opener” for those progressive advocates who think Garland is committed to due process, equal justice, and best practices in Immigration Court and elsewhere in the still dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy. This particular quote stands out:
“The Department of Justice really was a center of gravity for some of the most…hideous anti- immigrant policies that came out of the Trump administration and really was in some ways ground zero for the anti-immigrant agenda of Donald Trump,” said Sergio Gonzales, who worked on the Biden transition and serves as executive director of the Immigration Hub. “And this is why it’s so critical that DOJ moves swiftly and aggressively to undo that agenda.”
I dare any advocate to claim Garland has moved “swiftly and aggressively” to undo the Miller White Nationalist agenda! Yes, after a crescendo of outrage and public pressure from NGOs, he has vacated four of the worst xenophobic and procedurally disastrous precedents. But, there are dozens more out there that should have been reversed by now.
More important, returning the law to its pre-Trump state is highly unlikely to bring meaningful change and fairer results as long as far too many of the Immigration Judges and BIA Judges charged with applying that law are Trump-era appointees, some with notorious records of anti-immigrant bias and a number who have denied almost every asylum case that came before them. (And, it’s not like A-R-C-G- was fairly and consistently applied during the Obama Administration, which largely gave “the big middle finger” to progressives in appointments to the Immigration Judiciary).
Is an IJ who was denying nearly 100% of A-R-C-G- cases (and in some cases misogynistically demeaning female refugees in the process) even prior to A-B- suddenly going to start granting legal protection? Not likely!
Are BIA Judges who got “elevated” under Trump by being notorious members of the “Almost 100% Denial Club” suddenly going to have a “group ephifany” and start properly and generously applying A-R-C-G- to female refugees and insisting that trial judges do the same? No way!
Is a BIA where notorious asylum deniers are heavily over-represented and others have shown a pronounced tendency to “go along to get along” with Miller-type xenophobic White Nationalist policies now going to do a “complete 360” and start churning out “positive precedents” requiring IJs to fairly and generously grant asylum as contemplated in long-forgotten (yet still correct) precedents like Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, and Kasinga? Not gonna happen!
Will a few rumored, long delayed progressive expert appointments to the Immigration Judiciary “turn the tide” ofsystemic dysfunction, intellectual dishonesty, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum “culture,” lack of expertise, and dereliction of due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR? Of course not!
So, progressives, don’t kid yourselves that Garland has “seen the light” and is on your side. Judge him by his actions and appointments!
Note, that unlike Sessions and Barr, it’s actually hard to judge Garland on his rhetoric, because there isn’t much. He’s five months into running a nationwide system of dysfunctional “star chambers.”
But, to date, he hasn’t uttered a single inspiring pronouncement on returning due process, fundamental fairness, human dignity, decisional excellence, or professionalism to EOIR, connecting the dots between immigrant justice and racial justice, or given any warning that those who don’t “get the message” will be getting different jobs or heading out the door.
I still remember my first personal encounter with AG Janet Reno when she exhorted everyone at the BIA to promote “equal justice for all!” I still think of it, and it’s still “on my daily agenda” — over a quarter century later, even after the end of my EOIR career!
Where are Garland’s “inspiring words” or “statements of values” on immigrant justice and equal justice for all!Actions count, but rhetoric in support of those actions is also important. So far, Garland basically has “zeroed out” on both counts!
Yes, along with the entire immigration community, I cheered the appointment of Lucas Guttentag! But, Lucas isn’t deciding cases, nor has he to date brought the progressive experts to EOIR Management and repopulated the BIA with progressive expert judges who will end the due process abuses and grotesque injustices at EOIR and start holding IJs with anti-asylum, anti-migrant, anti-due-process agendas accountable.
Also unacceptably, progressive litigators haven’t been brought in to assume control of the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) and end wasteful, and often ethically questionable, defense of the indefensible in immigration cases in the Article IIIs.
We need bold, progressive, due process/fundamental fairness/racial justice reforms! It’s got to start with major progressive personnel changes! And, it should already have started at EOIR!
The best laws, regulations, precedents, and policies in the world will remain ineffective so long as far too many of those judges and senior executives charged with carrying them out lack demonstrated commitment to progressive values, not to mention relevant, practical expertise advancing human and civil rights!
Contrary to what many think, bureaucracy can be moved by those with the knowledge, guts, determination, and commitment to do it! Seven months after Biden’s inauguration, the DOJ remains a disaster with the situation at EOIR leading the way!
It didn’t have to be that way! It’s unacceptable! Foot dragging squanders opportunities, wastes resources, and, worst of all, actually costs lives and futures where immigration is at stake. This isn’t “ordinary civil litigation!” It’s past time for tone-deaf and inept Dem Administrations to stop treating it as such!
The following item from Angelika Albaladejo at Newsweek should also be a “clarion call” to advocates who might have thought this Administration (and even Congressional Dems) has a real interest in human rights reforms.
Here’s the essence:
President Joe Biden promised to end prolonged immigration detention and reinvest in alternatives that help immigrants navigate the legal process while living outside of government custody. These promises were part of Biden’s campaign platform and the reform bill he sent to Congress on his first day in the White House.
But six months in, Biden’s administration and his Democrat-led Congress are spending millions more taxpayer dollars to expand detention and surveillance of immigrants. A private prison company is profiting from both.
Meanwhile, community case management—which past pilot programs and international studies suggest is less expensive while more effective and humane—is receiving comparatively little support.
Same old same old! Election is over, immigration progressives who helped elect Dems are forgotten, and human rights becomes an afterthought —or, in this case, worse!
Progressives must continue to confront a largely intransigent and somewhat disingenuous Administration. A barrage of litigation that will tie up the DOJ until someone pays attention and, in a best case, forces change on a tone-deaf and recalcitrantAdministration, is a starting point.
But, it’s also going to take concerted political pressure from a group whose role in the Dem Party and massive contributions to stabilizing our democracy over the past four years is consistently disrespected and undervalued (until election time) by the “Dem political ruling class!”
Legislation to create an Article I Immigration Court and get Garland, his malfunctioning DOJ, and his infuriating “what me worry/care attitude” completely out of the picture has also become a legal and moral imperative, although still “a tough nut to crack” in practical/political terms. But, we have to give it our best shot!
Actions (including, most important, personnel changes) solve problems and save lives! Unfulfilled promises, campaign slogans, and fundraising pitches not so much!
Many who helped put Biden and Garland in office believed that “Americans Gulags” and “EOIR StarChambers” would be a thing of the past by now. But, outrageously, they are still alive, well, and thriving in the Biden Administration, even being expanded and defended by Garland’s team of morally and ethically challenged DOJ lawyers. “The Inspiring Words & Deeds of AG Merrick Garland on Immigrant Justice” would fill a book about as large as “The Combined Wisdom & Humanity of Donald Trump & Stephen Miller.” Oh well, at least the Grim Reaper must be happy with the way things are going! Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
😎Due Process Forever! Star Chambers and the New American Gulag, Never!
