"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.
“Little Shop of Horrors:” Another human life devoured by the “due process eating plant” hidden away in the bowels of the BIA! PHOTO: Little Shop of Horrors at Grafton High School 14.jpg, Creative Commons License
Faiza Sayed Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the Safe Harbor Project Brooklyn Law School PHOTO: Brooklyn Law Website
ABSTRACT—Each year, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)—the Justice Department’s appellate immigration agency that reviews decisions of immigration judges and decides the fate of thousands of noncitizens—issues about thirty published, precedential decisions. At present, these are the only decisions out of approximately 30,000 each year, that are readily available to the public and provide detailed reasoning for their conclusions. This is because most of the BIA’s decision-making happens on what this Article terms the “immigration shadow docket”—the tens of thousands of other decisions the BIA issues each year that are unpublished and nonprecedential. These shadow docket decisions are generally authored by a single BIA member and consist overwhelmingly of brief orders and summary affirmances. This Article demonstrates the harms of shadow docket decision- making, including the creation of “secret law” that is accessible to the government but largely inaccessible to the public. Moreover, this shadow docket produces inconsistent outcomes where one noncitizen’s removal order is affirmed while another noncitizen’s removal order is reversed—even though the deciding legal issues were identical. A 2022 settlement provides the public greater access to some unpublished BIA decisions, but it ultimately falls far short of remedying the transparency and accessibility concerns raised by the immigration shadow docket.
The BIA’s use of nonprecedential, unpublished decisions to dispose of virtually all cases also presents serious concerns for the development of immigration law. Because the BIA is the final arbiter of most immigration cases, it has a responsibility to provide guidance as to the meaning of our complicated immigration laws and to ensure uniformity in the application of immigration law across the nation. By publishing only 0.001% of its decisions each year, the BIA has all but abandoned that duty. This dereliction likely contributes to well-documented disparities in the application of immigration law by immigration adjudicators and the inefficiency of the immigration system that leaves noncitizens in protracted states of limbo and prolonged detention. This Article advances principles for reforms to increase transparency and fairness at the BIA, improve the quality, accuracy and
893
N O RT H WE S T E RN U N I V E RS I T Y L A W RE V I E W
political accountability of its decisions, and ensure justice for the nearly two million noncitizens currently in our immigration court system.
AUTHOR—Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. I am thankful to Matthew Boaz, Richard Boswell, Jason Cade, Stacy Caplow, Pooja Dadhania, Elizabeth Isaacs, Kit Johnson, Anil Kalhan, Elizabeth Keyes, Catherine Kim, Shirley Lin, Medha Makhlouf, Hiroshi Motomura, Prianka Nair, Vijay Raghavan, Philip Schrag, Andrew Schoenholtz, Sarah Sherman- Stokes, Maria Termini, Irene Ten-Cate, and S. Lisa Washington for thoughtful conversations and comments on drafts. This Article benefitted from feedback at the New Voices in Immigration Law Panel at the 2022 AALS Annual Meeting, the 2021 Clinical Law Review Writers’ Workshop at NYU, and the junior faculty workshop at Brooklyn Law School. I am grateful to Benjamin Winograd and Bryan Johnson for helpful conversations about the Board, unpublished decisions, and FOIA, and to David A. Schnitzer and Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran for discussions about the Andrews and Uddin cases. Thank you to Emily Ingraham for outstanding research assistance and to the editors of the Northwestern University Law Review for excellent editorial assistance. Financial support for this Article was provided by the Brooklyn Law School Dean’s Summer Research Stipend Program.
**********************
Professor Sayed has written an “instant classic” that should be a staple for future historians assessing the legal career and impact of Merrick Garland and how the Democratic Party has failed humanity time again on immigrant justice when the stakes were high and the solutions achievable!
Here’s my “favorite” part:
In 1999, Attorney General Janet Reno attempted to deal with the BIA’s rapidly increasing backlog of appeals by implementing “streamlining rules” that made several changes to the way the Board operated.41 Most importantly, certain single permanent Board members were now permitted to affirm an IJ’s decision on their own and without issuing an opinion.42 The Chairman of the BIA was authorized both to designate certain Board members with the authority to grant such affirmances and to designate certain categories of cases as appropriate for such affirmances.43 Finally, Attorney General Reno increased the size of the Board to twenty-three members.44 Evaluations of the reforms found that they “appear to have been successful in reducing much of the BIA’s backlog” and “there was no indication of ‘an adverse effect on non-citizens.’”45
Despite the documented success of Attorney General Reno’s reforms, in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced controversial plans to further streamline the BIA’s decision-making.46 These rules “fundamentally changed the nature of the BIA’s review function and radically changed the composition of the Board.”47 To support the reforms, Ashcroft cited not only the backlog but also “heightened national security concerns stemming from September 11.”48 The reforms included making single-member decisions the norm for the overwhelming majority of cases and three-member panel decisions rare, making summary affirmances common, and reducing the size of the Board from twenty-three members to eleven.49 A subsequent study found that Attorney General Ashcroft removed those Board members with the highest percentages of rulings in favor of noncitizens.50 As a result of the reforms, outcomes at the BIA became significantly less favorable to noncitizens,51 and the federal circuit courts received an unprecedented surge of immigration appeals.52
In the wake of harsh criticism of immigration adjudications by federal circuit courts, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the DOJ to conduct a comprehensive review of the immigration courts and the Board in 2006. Based on this review, Attorney General Gonzalez announced additional reforms “to improve the performance and quality of work” of IJs and Board members.53 The most significant change was the introduction of performance evaluations, which include an assessment of whether the Board member adjudicates appeals within a certain time frame after assignment.54 Scholars have explained that “the performance evaluations give an incentive to affirm rather than reverse IJs by emphasizing productivity, and because immigrants file the overwhelming number of appeals with the BIA . . . the incentive to affirm means outcomes that favor the government.”55
The Trump Administration once again transformed Board membership. Board members whose appointments predated the Trump Administration were reassigned after refusing buyout offers,56 and the Administration expanded the Board to add new members.57 Most of the new Board members appointed under the Trump Administration had previously served as IJs,
where they had some of the highest asylum denial rates in the country.58
Garland has failed to replace the asylum denying judges who were “packed” onto the BIA during the Trump era with qualified real judges who are experts in asylum law, unswervingly committed to due process, and able to set proper precedents and enforce best judicial practices. That’s a key reason for the “prima facie arbitrary and capricious inconsistencies’ in EOIR asylum grant rates — 0% to 100% — a rather large range!
The latter read like a compendium of legally and factually questionable “how to deny asylum and get away with it” instructions. Absent is any hint of the properly fair and generous treatment of asylum seekers required by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and once echoed in BIA precedents like Mogharrabi, Kasinga, Chen, Toboso-Alfonso, A-R-C-G-, and O-Z- & I-Z- .
Some well-reasoned grants that could be widely applied to recurring situations are also buried on the “shadow docket.” At the same time, as cogently described by Professor Sayed, cases with almost identical facts that resulted in denial are also hidden there. This system is simply NOT functioning in a fair, reasonable, and legally sound manner. Not even close! Yet, Garland has not brought in competent expert judicial administrators and managers at EOIR who recognize the problems and would make solving them, rather than aggravating them, “priority one!” Why?
Contrast that with the enlightened movement among American Law Schools to promote immigration “practical scholars” and clinicians to administrative positions in recognition of their inspirational leadership and superior “real life” problem-solving skills! It’s as if Garland and the rest of Biden’s inept immigration bureaucracy operate in a “parallel universe” where immigration, human rights, and racial justice don’t exist!
Not surprisingly, some of the BIA’s best and most useful guidance on asylum came before the “Ashcroft purge.” But, they still remain “good law” that Immigration Judges can use, despite the “any reason to deny” culture reflected by today’s “Trump holdover” BIA. Curiously, this negative asylum “culture” is tolerated and enabled by Garland, even though it directly contradicts promises made by Biden and other Dem politicos during the 2020 campaign! Why?
The Obama Administration also did not act to undo the damaging changes made during the Bush Administration. Thus, the ambivalent attitude of Dem Administrations toward justice for immigrants and building a fair, functional BIA has much to do with the current dysfunctional, unfair, and horribly administered mess at EOIR!
I was one of those BIA judges removed during the “Ashcroft purge,” essentially for “doing my job,” ruling fairly, and upholding the rule of law.Notably, many of the views of the “purged” judges were eventually reflected in Court of Appeals, and even a Supreme Court, reversals of the BIA.
Once “exiled” to the Arlington Immigration Court, except where bound by contrary BIA precedent, I ruled the same way that I had in many of the cases coming before me at the BIA. Guess what? I was seldom reversed by my former colleagues! I used to quip that “I finally got the ‘deference’ that I never got as Chair or a BIA judge.”
ICE appealed relatively few asylum and/or withholding grants; surprisingly often, their “closing summary” actually echoed what likely would have been in my final oral opinion, had it been been necessary to issue one. A number of BIA reversals by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during my Arlington tenure made points that I, and/or my ”purged colleagues,” had raised in vain during my time on the BIA. A few even involved poorly-reasoned attempts by the BIA to reverse some of my decisions granting relief!
And, oh yes, there were the gross inconsistencies in unpublished “panel” decisions. Once, an Arlington colleague and I came down with opposite conclusions on whether a particular Virginia crime, on which there was then no BIA precedent, involved “moral turpitude.” Within a week of each other, we both received an answer from different BIA panels. We BOTH were reversed! As we joked at lunch, the only consistent rationale from the BIA was that “the IJ was wrong!”
The current BIA is a continuing blot on American justice, The same information and resources available to Professor Sayed in writing this article were available to Garland. How come she “gets” it and he (and his lieutenants) don’t? Why didn’t Garland hire Professor Sayed and a team of other experts like her to straighten out and rejuvenate EOIR?
And, let’s not forget that the increased public access to the “shadow docket,” even if still inadequate, is NOT the result of EOIR wanting to provide more transparency or any enlightened reforms stemming from Garland. No, it required aggressive litigation by the New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”) against EOIR to force even these improvements!
Does the public REALLY have to sue to get basic services and information that a properly functioning USG agency should already be providing? Merrick Garland seems to think so! How is this the “good government,” promised but not delivered by Biden in the critical areas of immigration, human rights, and racial justice?
Vulnerable asylum seekers and others whose lives depend on a just, professional, expert EOIR deserve better! Much, much better! The inexplicable and disastrous failure and refusal of Garland and the Biden Administration to deliver on the promise of due process and equal justice at EOIR will likely haunt the Democratic Party and our nation well into the future. As my friend Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow would say, “It didn’t have to be this way!”
“At the heart of this case is an effort by advocates to learn about the circumstances of an asylum-seeker’s tragic death in federal custody. The Freedom of Information Act exists for just such a purpose—to ensure an informed citizenry, promote official transparency, and provide a check against government impunity. Yet here the advocates’ FOIA requests met first with silence and then with stonewalling; only after the advocates filed suit did the government begin to comply with its statutory obligations. Our task is to discern whether the government’s belated disclosure was “adequate” under FOIA. We conclude that it was not. … REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.”
As Andrew Free ;pointed out to me, the 9th Circuit suggested some potential “bad faith” at work here in footnote 2 (p. 22):
2 Our conclusion is strengthened by evidence that the Government withheld information under this exemption in an overbroad manner. For instance, ICE redacted a portion of Hernandez’s credible fear interview under Exemption 7(E), but when TLC received an unredacted version from the CoreCivic production, the redacted text read as follows: “I left because my life was threatened by the Maras gang. A group of Maras raped and tried to kill me I was afraid for my life and left Honduras.” This statement from Hernandez could not possibly fall under the category of techniques, procedures, or guidelines. Such a redaction suggests that the agencies may have invoked Exemption 7(E) in an effort to shield prejudicial information. See Pulliam v. EPA, 292 F. Supp. 3d 255, 260 (D.D.C. 2018).
This raises the additional questions of 1) why is this going on in a Dem Administration that promised to restore the rule of law toimmigration; and 2) why is Garland’s DOJ defending this nonsense and incredibly shoddy process in Federal Court?
No institution welcomes scrutiny. Maintaining internal cohesion and operational focus demands informational boundaries against the rest of the world. This wish deserves respect, but not automatic submission, especially when matters of vast public consequence are at stake.
That’s why news media take it as a duty to ignore organizational secrecy rules — except when disclosure would cause unwarranted harm — and insist that public awareness must outweigh institutional convenience. A document leaked from most any federal agency that upended longstanding policy would unquestionably be legitimate news, even if it was preliminary, even if exposure would gum up a cozy internal process, even if the leak broke agency rules.
But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.
Of all our governmental institutions, it is unique in the awe and deference with which our news media, for all their endless claims to seek truth aggressively, treat it.
To be sure, secrecy has a place in the judicial system. Grand juries, for example, are prosecutorial contrivances where untested evidence is presented and people suspected of wrongdoing have weak adversarial protections. Damaging the innocent by publicizing unrebutted claims is a strong possibility. Secrecy makes sense.
But the issue here is altogether different. The leak was of a 98-page draft opinion with 118 footnotes, not a filched personal email or the secondhand account of an overheard chat. It was deeply researched and carefully composed and was distributed internally nearly three months ago, and it signals a major change in an explosive area of public policy. Publishing it doesn’t endanger national security and puts no innocent lives at risk.
So should the Supreme Court, virtually alone among core public institutions, be entitled to say, “We’ll show it to you when we’re ready for you to see it?”
At best, that exceptionalist claim rests on a carefully nurtured myth of the court as a scholarly sanctuary in which big questions of public purpose are engaged through reflection, historical inquiry and quiet, reasoned debate, a process of ripening that must take place behind the sealed doors of an intellectual greenhouse.
That fiction lost credibility a long time ago, at least for anybody who was paying attention in the year 2000 when the court, with the flimsiest of pretexts, awarded the presidency to the candidate with fewer votes but of the same party as its majority.
Indeed, what standards of accountability govern the court? Its members serve life terms free from disciplinary oversight. To get aboard, nominees routinely lie before Congress — about their personal behavior and their judicial philosophy — rendering the Senate’s authority to approve candidates meaningless. Serving justices are not held to any discernible standard of independence. Their right to rule on matters in which close family have personal stakes, or on which they have clear prior leanings, is completely unregulated.
And then there’s the recent sharp increase in furtive rulings reached off-season without full briefing or oral argument — known as the shadow docket — which has further narrowed the window of public visibility. Last summer the court issued 11 such rulings, up from three in 2016, in a slapdash and opaque workaround beloved of the conservative majority that produces jurisprudence that “every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” as dissenting liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.
Perhaps the Roe leak will inaugurate a new era for the court. Maybe there will be more impertinent reporting that exposes the reasoning, bargaining, trade-offs and personal dynamics that drive constitutional lawmaking at the highest levels. Rather than something to be dreaded, such transparency would leave us all better informed and more fully empowered to play the role the system prescribes for us — to shape our collective future.
Edward Wasserman is professor of journalism and former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley.
**************************
Read Wasserman’s full article at the link.
He says, “No institution welcomes scrutiny.” Very true. Any leader or group of leaders who claim the contrary are probably lying.
Scrutiny sometimes brings accountability. And, as our system deteriorates before our eyes, that’s something that has become rare in today’s politics and public life.
Subject: Victory for Immigrants and Their Advocates!
All,
I am proud to share that NYLAG and co-counsel Public Citizen reached a historic settlement in NYLAG v. Board of Immigration Appeals (18 Civ. 9495 (S.D.N.Y.)). Under the settlement entered last night, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) will for the first time make the vast majority of its decisions available to the public by publishing them online, helping to level the playing field for immigrants.
NYLAG brought this case to challenge the BIA’s longstanding failure to make its judicial decisions publicly available, which meant that neither immigrants nor their attorneys could access these crucial documents to help them defend their cases and seek relief. This gave an unfair advantage to the government’s lawyers, who could access these same decisions to advocate for removal of NYLAG’s clients and immigrants across the country, in proceedings already stacked against them. To challenge this practice, NYLAG made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that BIA post all of its final orders in immigration cases in its electronic reading room– which FOIA has required since 1996 for all federal agencies.
Last February, NYLAG and co-counsel Public Citizen won a critical victory in the case, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that people can sue to enforce the FOIA requirement that federal agencies post certain documents online so that they are accessible to the public.
Last night, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement agreement between NYLAG and the BIA, under which the BIA has agreed to place nearly all its opinions into an online reading room. This will ensure that immigrants and immigration advocates across the country (including NYLAG’s own Immigrant Protection Unit’s staff and clients) will have access to these opinions within six months of when they are issued. The Board also must post prior decisions dating back to 2016.
This victory is a testament to NYLAG’s ability to create large-scale change. Kudos to the NYLAG attorneys involved in this case – Danielle Tarantolo, Jessica Ranucci, and Jane Stevens (before her retirement) of SLU; and Jodi Ziesemer and Melissa Chua of IPU –and our dedicated co-counsel at Public Citizen. This victory could not have been achieved without their partnership, diligence, and hard work.
Beth
***************************
Congrats to all concerned! As noted in Beth Goldman’s last paragraph, while Garland has been reluctant to make progressive changes and to bring much needed management and substantive reforms to EOIR, advocacy groups have been able to force some systemic improvements through litigation.
It seems like a wise AG would “clean out the deadwood” @ EOIR and bring in dynamic experts who can solve problems and make the necessary changes to restore due process to his ridiculously broken system. But, that apparently would be an AG “other than Garland.”
“Willian Rubio Barahona petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal, based on a finding that serious reasons exist to believe Barahona committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States. We hold that the “serious reasons for believing” standard requires a finding of probable cause before an alien can be subject to the mandatory bar set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii), and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). Because no such finding was made below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
“Plaintiff-Appellant New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”) seeks access to non-precedential “unpublished opinions” issued by Defendant-Appellee the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in immigration cases. NYLAG wants to consult the opinions, which are not routinely made available to the public, to aid in its representation of low-income clients in removal and asylum proceedings. NYLAG asserts that the BIA’s failure to make the opinions publicly available violates the agency’s affirmative obligation under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), to “make available for public inspection in an electronic format final opinions . . . [and] orders, made in the adjudication of cases.” In this action under FOIA’s remedial provision, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), which authorizes district courts “to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant,” NYLAG seeks an order requiring the BIA to make available to the public all unpublished opinions issued since November 1, 1996, as well as future unpublished opinions. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Paul A. Crotty, J.) dismissed the case, concluding that FOIA’s remedial provision does not authorize district courts to order agencies to make records publicly available. We conclude that FOIA’s remedial provision authorizes the relief NYLAG seeks. FOIA’s text, read in light of its history and purpose, empowers district courts to order agencies to comply with their affirmative disclosure obligations under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), including the obligation to make certain documents publicly available. We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
********************
Why would the BIA even want to withhold unpublished decisions or bar someone from asylum based on less than probable cause? Why would anyone want to further impede the already difficult task of representing the most vulnerable in Immigration Court? What if the resources wasted on litigation to diminish due process were “repurposed” to working with NYLAG and other pro bono all-stars to achieve universal representation? Much of what EOIR does these days makes little or no sense unless looked at from a White Nationalist nativist perspective.
When will it end? The Biden Administration proclaimed a “new day” on immigration and human rights issues. But, you sure can’t tell from the junk continuing to come out of the BIA and being defended in court by OIL. No matter how welcome the change in tone from the President is, it requires concerted action and getting better judges, administrators, and litigators in place to actually change policies, produce fairer results, and save lives!
Congrats to Allison Heimes and the good folks at Fair Trials Americas.
Also, congrats to my former Georgetown Law superstar, Arlington Intern, & NY JLC, Elizabeth Gibson (“The Gibson Report”) and her colleagues at the NY Legal Assistance Group!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! We need “a little less talk and a lot more action!”
Mary Kenney, Deputy Director, National Immigration Litigation Alliance (“NILA”) writes:
Hello all –
NILA, NWIRP, AIC and the Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin are thrilled to announce that the district court just granted declaratory and injunctive relief in our nationwide class challenge to A-File FOIA delays, Nightingale v. USCIS. The court orders:
Declaratory relief due to Defendants DHS, USCIS and ICE’s pattern or practice of failing to make timely A-File FOIA determinations;
Injunctive relief permanently enjoining Defendants from further failing to adhere to the statutory deadlines for A-File FOIA requests;
That Defendants to make determinations on all backlogged FOIA requests within 60 days; and
That Defendants submit quarterly compliance reports to the Court and class counsel going forward.
Here are some great findings from the Court:
Defendants’ “delay in processing A-File FOIA requests . . . . undermines the fairness of immigration proceedings, particularly for the vast number of noncitizens who navigate our immigration system without assistance of counsel.”
“A comprehensive remedy is needed and is long overdue.”
“[S]ince 2017 these defendants have employed aggressive immigration enforcement policies that made an increasing [A-File FOIA]workload predictable and expected. The unfortunate reality is that FOIA is the only realistic mechanism through which noncitizens can obtain A-Files. Given the critical importance of the information in A-Files to removal defense and legalizing status, it is not at all surprising that the number of A-File FOIA requests have increased along with this increase in immigration enforcement.”
“USCIS also complains that it recently tried to increase its fees through a new regulation that could have added more resources to its FOIA budget, but that effort is currently preliminary enjoined in this District. . . . . This argument is particularly troubling as it insinuates that FOIA processing is entirely dependent on the fees paid by the very people who are harmed by the defendants’ delays.
Congrats to Mary and everyone else involved in this extraordinary “team effort” to hold the immigration bureaucracy (now “kakistocracy”) accountable after years of unacceptable and illegal conduct which has directly undermined the rule of law and immigrants’ rights!
So, let’s summarize the absurdity, and not let the “malicious incompetents” at EOIR off the hook, either:
With well over 1 million backlogged cases, many pending for years, EOIR chooses to “expedite and prioritize” “not quite ready for prime time” recent cases, without giving the private parties adequate time to prepare, or even get lawyers in many cases;
In “cahoots” with DHS, EOIR insures that cases will be scheduled without regard to the delays in getting the necessary file material from DHS via FOIA requests;
EOIR fails to impose reasonable discovery rules on DHS, nor do they insist, as any ”real” court would, that no case will be scheduled for a merits hearing until DHS complies with respondents’ reasonable requests for file materials;
USCIS, once a “self-funding agency,” improperly diverts resources to bogus racist inspired, enforcement activities;
As a result of this gross mismanagement, USCIS falsely claims “bankruptcy,” and illegally tries to increase FOIA fees, a move properly blocked by Federal Courts;
USCIS then falsely blames respondents for the discovery delays caused by its own misappropriation of resources and racist policies.
The solution:The Biden Administration must immediately oust the White Nationalist kakistocracy ☠️ at DHS and EOIR and replace it with competent experts from the NDPA who will restore order, rationality, professionalism, efficiency, and integrity to a dysfunctional system that has undermined the public interest and common good.
It’s not rocket science! Just competence, morality, and humanity.
Congrats to my friend Zachary Nightingale, Partner at Van Der Hout LLP, in San Francisco, who was the “lead named plaintiff” in this “sure to be famous” case. The “Nightingale rule” and “getting the Nightingales” are likely to become synonymous with what passes for “discovery” in Immigration Court, at least until we get Article 1.
Job Opportunity:Clock Repair Technicians Wanted. Start Date: January 21, 2021. Location: DHS & EOIR. Duties: Fix broken “asylum work authorization clock 🕰” to account for reality that most major delays in completing asylum hearings consistent with due process are caused by the Government’s incompetence, elevation of racist enforcement initiatives over due process and fundamental fairness, and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” NOT by asylum applicants and their (often pro bono or “low bono”) representatives. Draft legislation to repeal this irrational, unnecessary, and counterproductive statute.
Have an asylum case in Immigration Court and wondering what to do while the courts are closed? My friend David L. Cleveland has a suggestion: Get a copy of your file from the Asylum Office. David is a lawyer in Washington, DC. He has secured asylum or withholding for people from 48 countries. He can be reached at 1949.david@gmail.com.
In most cases, when an asylum applicant has their case denied at the Asylum Office, the case is referred to Immigration Court. There, Immigration Judges sometimes deny asylum because the applicant is deemed incredible. The applicant has told the Asylum Officer one thing, but then tells the Judge something different. There are many examples of Judges being annoyed by inconsistent asylum applicants–
In a New York case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the location of children and where she was raped. Kalala v. Barr,2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8320 (2nd Cir. 2020).
in a California case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the name of a police station. In this case, the Asylum Officer’s notes were shown to applicant for the first time during the Individual Hearing. Sun v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5397 (9th Cir. 2020).
In an Ohio case, the applicant testified to being beaten inside a church. When she asked about how many members of the church were present at the time, she first said 15. Later, she testified that six church members were present. Onoori v. Barr,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21310 (6th Cir. 2019).
David Cleveland ESQUIRE
Now that he has a copy of his client’s file, David Cleveland is finally able to relax.
More generally, Immigration Judges are very interested in what Asylum Officers do and write. In a case decided in 2019, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is used 32 times. Qiu v. Barr,944 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2019). In a 2018 case, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is mentioned 57 times, and “notes” (referring to the Officer’s notes from the asylum interview) was mentioned several times. Dai v. Sessions,884 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2018). In another case, from 2014, an Asylum Officer named “Kuriakose” is mentioned 15 times. Li v. Holder,745 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2014).
In these cases, asylum applicant’s were deemed not credible because their Court testimony was inconsistent with their testimony at the Asylum Office. Most likely, the applicants did not have a record of what they told the Asylum Officer, and of course, since years pass between an asylum interview and an Individual Hearing, it is difficult to remember what transpired at the Asylum Office.
How can I prevent surprise in Immigration Court?
When an Asylum Officer interviews an applicant, the Officer takes detailed notes. Often, these run to 10 pages or more. Later, in consultation with his supervisor, the Officer writes an “Assessment to Refer” or an “Assessment to Grant.” This document is usually three or four pages long. If the case is referred to Court, these notes do not go to the Immigration Judge. However, they are sent to the DHS attorney (the prosecutor), who can review them and look for inconsistencies. At the Individual Hearing, the DHS attorney can use the notes to impeach an applicant’s credibility (“At the asylum interview, you testified that there were 15 people present in the church when you were beaten, but now you say there were only six. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”).
Asylum Officers sometimes make mistakes or include unexpected information in their notes. They find some sources of information important and ignore other sources. In short, there is a subjective element to these notes that can sometimes work against the applicant and cause surprises in Immigration Court. And, as any attorney will tell you, surprises in Court are usually bad news.
To avoid a surprise in Court, and to find out what the officer wrote, the advocate should make a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for the notes and the Assessment. Asylum Officer notes are easily available via FOIA. To obtain this information, type your request on a single piece of paper: “Give me the notes and assessment of the asylum officer.” State your name, date of birth, place of birth, address, Alien number, and sign under penalty of perjury. You do not need a lawyer; you do not need Form G-639, although you are allowed to use that form. Send your request via email to: uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov
In January 2020, I received the entire Asylum Officer assessment for an asylum applicant from Congo. The client and I are now more relaxed and confident about the case. We will not be surprised in Immigration Court. You can read this assessment at the FOIA page of the Louise Trauma Center. A model FOIA request can also be found at the same page.
******************************
Take it from me, as someone who has presided over hundreds of asylum hearings, this is great advice from two of the best to set foot in my courtroom!
As I always said in my my “mini lectures” on “Presenting an Asylum Case in Immigraton Court:” “Beware and Be Prepared!” Preparation, preparation, preparation! It’s what wins cases (and appreciation from “the bench”).
