"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.
In my Georgetown Law Immigration Law & Policy class, we recently talked about the racist roots of naturalization policy set forth in the Naturalization Act of 1790 with my friend and colleague Professor Cori Alonso Yoder.Obviously, the racism of our “Founding Fathers” went well beyond the institution of slavery.
Professor Cori Alonso Yoder PHOTO: Google Scholar
Naturalization was a “whites only” proposition that transcended status as free or enslaved. White foreign nationals who had resided here for two years could be citizens. Free African Americans, Native Americans, and other free people of color could not become U.S. Citizens even if they had been born here and lived here for their entire lives. Yup, you don’t have to think too deeply to recognize the overt racism there!
Not to mention that America was literally built on the backs of enslaved African Americans whose free labor also supported a number of the white Founding Fathers, their white families, their often lavish lifestyles, and their sometimes endemic fiscal irresponsibilities. See, e.g., T. Jefferson, drafter of the Declaration of Independence whose estate had to sell off slaves to pay his debts.
No wonder White Supremacists, including many ignorant and dishonest pols, don’t want the truth of our nation’s history taught. The truth isn’t always pretty. And, it often has little to do with the various White Nationalist myths and skewed narratives foisted upon us.
Since those bogus myths exclude or distort the roles of the majority of today’s Americans, the “truth deniers” are going to have a tough time shoving their “whitewashed” version of American history down our throats in the long run! (That’s true, even though the “forces of ignorance, racism, bias, and thought suppression” on the right have been quite active lately and, shamefully, have succeeded in writing some of their racist nonsense into state and local laws). An honest reckoning with our past, including our past mistakes, is necessary for us to move forward into a better future.
One has only to look at Justice Alito’s mythologized version of America set forth in his recent majority opinion suppressing the voting rights of African Americans and other minorities, and to read Justice Kagan’s cogent rebuttal of his legal sophism, to see that “Dred Scott” is still alive at the Supremes! Sad, but true and something we all have to deal with. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/voting-rights-arizona-court/
It’s not the first time our legal system has refused to carry out the clear mandate of the 15th Amendment against attacks by states trying to suppress the political power of their African-American citizens. One would like to think it will be the last. But, that’s unlikely given the current composition of the Supremes, Congress, and many state legislatures.
There might be no immediate solution for the Supremes, Congress, and state legislatures. The political process simply takes time, and the forces of regression have found and exploited all of the “anti-democratic seams” in our institutions that give them political power beyond their numbers.
However, there is one potentially powerful court system out there that progressives could reform and reconstitute NOW into a judiciary committed to due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and equal justice for all persons in the United States regardless or race, creed, or status. So far, the Biden Administration and AG Garland have been both tone deaf and remarkably inept at transforming the Immigration Courts into the better judiciary needed for our future! Progressives need to “raise hell” until the Biden Administration fixes the one now-dysfunctional Federal Court system that they actually control!
The future will belong to those unafraid to face the sometimes unattractive realities of our collective past, to respect and honor those who fought through the mistreatment and injustice inflicted upon them, and learn from our history rather than denying or rewriting it! It will also belong to those wise, courageous, and bold enough to take advantage of opportunities for improving American justice that are staring them in the face. So far, Dems have shown themselves not up to the job in the Immigration Courts. Until they are, racial justice and sustained progress in America are likely to remain illusions.
NPR: In a pair of decisions announced Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland is vacating several controversial legal rulings issued by his predecessors — in effect, restoring the possibility of asylum protections for women fleeing from domestic violence in other countries, and families targeted by violent gangs.
AP: A pending federal court case in Texas is challenging whether the program’s creation was legal. If the challenge is successful, it could end protections, adding urgency to those pressing Congress for a more lasting solution.
Axios: The policy known as Title 42 has resulted in tens of thousands of migrant family members, including asylum seekers, being sent away — as well as thousands of kids then separating from their families to cross into the United States alone.
Reuters: As the U.S. military completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan in the coming weeks, the Biden administration says it is adding staff to hurry up the visa process for Afghans who worked for the U.S. government and want to flee to avoid Taliban reprisals.
CityLimits: As they continue on the campaign trail, contenders of both parties who remain in the race speak openly about citizens’ concerns, such as crime, police reform, affordable housing, education, health, jobs and the Big Apple’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Latino voters, however, still feel that they have not heard concrete proposals regarding immigrants.
Intercept: Internal ICE records and emails, as well as a deposition by an ICE officer in a court case, show the agency referring to an advocacy group as a “known adversary” and closely surveilling the immigration and civil rights activists’ activities, both online and in person.
NYT: Health and consumer protection agencies have repeatedly warned that several of these treatments, as well as vitamin infusions and expensive injections of “peptide therapies” sold at alternative wellness clinics for more than $1,000, are not supported by reliable scientific evidence.
AIC: Although not every proposed rule put on the agenda will end up being finalized, the agenda signals an administration’s priorities and its goals for pursuing changes to our immigration system through executive action.
DOJ vacated Matter of A-B- and Matter of A-B-II and stated that immigration judges and the BIA should no longer follow these decisions when adjudicating pending or future cases. Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21061639
DOJ vacated Matter of L-E-A- II in its entirely and immigration judges and the BIA should no longer follow Matter of L-E-A- II when adjudicating pending and future cases. Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021)AILA Doc. No. 21061640
AAG: Please review any pending cases that may be affected by the Attorney General’s vacatur of L-E-A-II, A-B-I, and A-B-II and take appropriate steps in light of that development, including seeking remands in appropriate cases to allow the Board to reconsider asylum claims based on this change in the law.
The court certified to New York State Court of Appeals the question of whether an intent to “appropriate” property requires an intent to deprive the owner of property permanently or under circumstances where their property rights are substantially eroded. (Ferreiras Veloz v. Garland, 6/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061635
Law360: A split Third Circuit panel on Thursday refused to halt deportation proceedings for a Jamaican woman who pled guilty to defrauding the elderly in a lottery scam, ruling in a precedential decision that she didn’t prove she was likely to face retribution from the scam’s ringleader if sent back to her native country.
The court held that although the defendant, a former military officer, refused to shoot civilians during the Salvadorian Civil War, the fact that he “assisted” and “participated in the commission of” extrajudicial killings permitted his denaturalization. (United States v. Vasquez, 6/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061737
The court concluded that 8 CFR §212.7(e)(4)(iii), together with 8 CFR §§1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), gives IJs and the BIA the authority for administrative closure to permit noncitizens to apply for and receive provisional unlawful presence waivers. (Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 6/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061634
The court found that while the Memphis Immigration Court violated procedural rules in transferring the petitioner’s hearing to the Louisville Immigration Court, that violation was a procedural question relating to venue, not jurisdiction to hear the case. (Tobias-Chaves v. Garland, 6/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061636
The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. (Lorenzo Lopez v. Garland, 6/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061643
The court held that the BIA erred by reviewing the IJ’s decision de novo rather than for clear error, and found that the record established that the petitioner had met her burden to show it was more likely than not she would be tortured if removed to Mexico. (Soto-Soto v. Garland, 6/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061644
Law360: A split Tenth Circuit panel on Tuesday reversed a Utah federal judge’s order finding that American Samoans are birthright U.S. citizens, holding that the issue belongs in the hands of Congress, not the courts.
Law360: In a decision that established several court precedents, the Eleventh Circuit has revived a Sri Lankan man’s bid for asylum, ruling that both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to properly reconsider his asylum application after allowing him to stay in the United States.
Law360: The D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that it lacks jurisdiction to revive asylum-seekers’ challenge to how border officers carry out a policy that requires migrants to seek protections in other countries they pass en route to the U.S.
AILA: DHS filed a motion for partial summary judgment in district court on all the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the 30-day timeline repeal rule, which was published on June 22, 2020.
Law360: The Biden administration has asked a Maryland federal judge to keep intact a Trump-era asylum work rule that gives the U.S. Department of Homeland Security more time to process work permits, saying the increased flow of asylum-seekers justifies the change.
Law360: Three Mexican nationals have asked a Colorado federal court to declare that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services unlawfully denied their green card applications by finding them inadmissible under a 10-year bar on reentering the United States up to 20 years after they left the country.
USCIS provided guidance in the Policy Manual on employment authorization and deferred action for principal petitioners for U nonimmigrant status and qualifying family members with pending, bona fide petitioners. Comments and feedback is due by July 14, 2021. AILA Doc. No. 21061433
DHS and DOS issued a joint statement on the second phase of the Central American Minors (CAM) program’s reopening. Eligibility now includes legal guardians and parents and U.S.-based parents or legal guardians with pending asylum application or pending U visa petition filed before 5/15/21. AILA Doc. No. 21061631
Thanks Elizabeth!As previously noted, I remain skeptical of Biden Administration plans to “reform” asylum law without bringing in the progressive human rights experts who can handle the job!
Most needed “reforms” — like bringing in progressive judges, replacing the BIA, bringing in progressive managers and executives, slashing the largely self-created EOIR backlog, working with NGOs to provide universal representation to asylum seekers and other vulnerable individuals, eliminating unnecessary detention, issuing positive precedents to guide IJs and Asylum Officers, bringing on more Asylum Officers and offering them better training (see, e.g., VIISTA @ Villanova), restoring Administrative Closing, implementing e-filing at EOIR, expanding the Central American Minors Program and other refugee programs in Central America, and many others are “hiding in plain sight.”
The “blueprints” are already about there — in bulk! All that’s missing is the dynamic new progressive leadership to implement them and insure compliance.
Also, as I’ve pointed out before, no Administration in history has had the benefit of so much empirical data, practical scholarship, and “ready for prime time” workable solutions for such well-documented and glaring problems. The asylum and EOIR “fixes” are both highly doable and can produce immediate positive results with more to follow!
But, not necessarily the way the Biden Administration is going about it, with far too many of those needed to turn “rhetoric into reality” still on sidelines in the private sector. In the meantime, folks who have already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they can’t fix the system remain in key positions.
For Pete’s sake, several of my Georgetown Law students rattled off some of these solutions in class yesterday, and asked me why nobody was working on them. I told them I couldn’t figure out why the Biden Administration was so “slow on the uptake” with so many resources and experts out here in the private sector!
One of my most obvious ideas — hire my three colleagues, Georgetown Professors Phil Schrag, Andy Schoenholtz, and Temple Associate Dean Jaya Ramji-Nogales who recently wrote “instant immigration classic” The End of Asylum and earlier wrote the classic “bad government” expose Refugee Roulette — on a six month consulting contract to come in and fix EOIR and the Asylum Office.
It’s not so much regulatory reform that’s needed (although to be sure improvements can be made), but rather bringing in progressive leadership and better judges in key positions at DHS, DOJ, and EOIR to insure that due process is maximized, best practices are instituted, and recalcitrant personnel still committed to the Trump/Miller White Nationalist agenda are placed in other jobs where they can’t overtly damage our justice system.
Not “rocket science!” 🚀 But, it’s not going to be solved by a “regulatory agenda” either!
“We have not revamped our legal immigration categories, including business immigration, since 1990. Some of those categories are out of alignment with our needs in the United States today,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, who was not involved with the NAE study. “The pandemic has exacerbated those inconsistencies because people who are desperately needed to restart various businesses have been unable to enter the United States,” Yale-Loehr said.”
****************************
We should be expanding legal immigration opportunities in all three categories that currently feed our “green card system:”
Family visas;
Work visas; and
Refugee and asylum admissions.
We have seen during the pandemic that “essential workers” we depend upon and whose presence enriches our society and helps us build for a better future come in all types of statuses, including so-called “undocumented.” Those coming in the family, refugee, and asylum categories contribute valuable job skills, experiences, and enrichment to our society just as much, and in some cases, even more than those whose visas are based on work skills. We need to draw on and expand all three categories.
My Georgetown Law Immigration and Refugee Policy students did their own research and pointed these things out in our class just this week. They “get it!” But, our current Government immigration policy makers, not so much!
Again, to state the obvious, the Biden Administration is “missing the boat” by not restarting our asylum system at the border, running it in an appropriately generous and fair manner with experts, and expanding and getting our refugee programs functioning again. Many of those with skills we need and can use are literally “dying to get in” while we ignore both their humanity and our collective best interests.
Progressive legislative reforms to our legal immigration system are long, long overdue. But, we already have the legal authority to run far more robust and fairer legal refugee and asylum systems that would benefit America and the world, a well as saving lives and ending the ongoing squandering of Government resources on failed, illegal, cruel, and counterproductive “enforcement schemes.”
Progressive experts with the needed skill sets to fix the migration problems are out here. Obviously, Professor Yale-Loehr is just one of many. Yet, for the most part, the Biden Administration ignores their expertise and turns a deaf ear to their solutions. Doesn’t make sense to me!
Unfortunately, we appear to appear to lack the will, imagination, courage, and most of all progressive expertise in the Executive Branch to use currently available tools and legal authorities to fix migration problems.
My students continually give me hope that the next generations will provide enlightened leadership and build a more just society and a better world for the future. But, in the meantime, my generation continues to squander opportunities for improvement. There will be a cost, of that I’m sure!
The first 17 hires to the court system responsible for determining whether migrants get to remain in the country is filled with former prosecutors and counselors for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as a few picks with little immigration experience.
Almost none have made their career representing migrants in court.
The Thursday announcement from the Department of Justice (DOJ) initially perplexed immigration attorneys, advocates and even some former immigration judges who wondered why the group so closely mirrored the jurists favored by the Trump administration.
. . . .
It’s also a surprising move for a president that has otherwise sought to quickly reverse a number of Trump immigration policies while calling for a more humane response to migration.
“This is a list I would have expected out of Bill Barr or Jeff Sessions, but they’re not the attorney general anymore. Elections are supposed to have consequences,” said Paul Schmidt, now an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School after 21 years as an immigration judge. That included time serving as the chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative body dealing with immigration cases.
“No one on that list is among the top 100 asylum authorities in the country, and that’s the kind of people they should be hiring — not prosecutorial re-treads,” he added.
. . . .
DOJ pushed back against criticism that the new judges would contribute to a pattern of rulings that favor government attorneys over immigrants, saying it “takes seriously any claims of unjustified and significant anomalies in adjudicator decision-making and takes steps to evaluate disparities.”
“Note also that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) continually evaluates its processes and procedures to ensure that immigration cases are adjudicated fairly, impartially and expeditiously and that its immigration judges uniformly interpret and administer U.S. immigration laws,” the spokesperson said.
But Schmidt said diversifying the attorneys on the bench is what will be needed to have a greater impact.
“You need to get some progressive immigration experts into the system who recognize what good asylum claims are who can establish precedent for granting cases and then move those cases through the system,” he said.
“I haven’t seen much evidence to back up their initial claim they want to be fair and just to asylum seekers. It’s just Stephen Miller Lite.”
*************************
The DOJ’s response is preposterous, further evidence Garland is the wrong person to bring “justice” back to “Justice!” No, and I mean NO, progressive immigration expert in America would call the DOJ’s judicial hiring practices under the Trump Administration fair and merit-based! These lists and the selection process were tainted by the Trump kakistocracy at DOJ. What kind of Attorney General perpetuates this utter nonsense!
Numerous detailed reports have criticized the Trump hiring plan that Garland mindlessly and insultingly furthered! Garland has access to all of these criticisms, most of which were delivered to the Biden Transition Team in one form or another. No excuses for Garland’s atrocious handling of EOIR to date!
The claim that EOIR takes claims of glaring discrepancies “seriously” is equally ridiculous and intellectually dishonest! Current TRAC Immigration data shows asylum grant rates for currently sitting Immigration Judges varying from more than 90% to 1% with a number of Immigration Judges, including several “rewarded” with appointments to the BIA under Barr, denying 98% or 99% of claims. Duh, you don’t need to be a statistician or have an Ivy League law degree to know that there is a skunk 🦨 in these woods!
These are major, unacceptable discrepancies first highlighted by my colleagues Professor Andy Schoenholtz, Professor Phil Schrag, and Professor and now Associate Dean (Temple Law) Jaya Ramji Nogales in their seminal work “Refugee Roulette” written more than a decade ago at Georgetown Law. The system is actually immeasurably worse now than it was then, as Sessions and Barr filled the Immigration Bench and packed the BIA with unqualified judges notorious for their lack of knowledge of asylum law and their anti-asylum bias. In some cases, they combined those shortcomings with allegations of rudeness and unprofessional behavior lodged by the private bar.
The NY Times figured out exactly what is wrong with the Immigration Courts — that they are not really “courts” at all by any normal measure and are operated by individualswho place immigration enforcement above due process and equal justice. Garland is certainly smart enough to have figured out what the NYT Editorial Writers had no difficulty in documenting and describing!
Neither Biden nor Garland would be in their current jobs without the efforts of progressive immigration litigators and scholars over the past four years and the energy and resources they injected into the Biden-Harris campaign when the chips were down! Progressives can’t allow the Biden Administration and Garland to continue to treat them as “chopped liver” while coddling Stephen Miller, Billy Barr, and, outrageously, even “AG for 5 minutes” “Monty Python” Wilkinson’s clearly unjustified and highly inappropriate judicial picks!
These are NOT bureaucratic jobs. “Conditional offers” aren’t “jobs,” particularly when made in the “excepted service” on the eve of or even after a hotly contested election where immigration and human rights were major issues! Immigration Judge positions are important life or death judicial positions in what is now America’s worst and most broken judiciary. In that context, Garland’s inappropriate judicial selections are totally outrageous and set a tone of continuing disrespect and disregard for some of the Democratic Party’s most loyal supporters, their expertise, and the important communities they represent!
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Gender-based asylum experts like Professor Karen Musalo, who successfully argued the landmark case Matter of Kasinga before the “Schmidt BIA,” and her protégées are among the many progressive immigration/human rights experts systematically excluded from the “Immigration Judiciary” over the past two decades. Now Garland further demeans these experts by appointing “Billy Barr/Stephen Miller Lite unqualified bureaucrats” @ EOIR rather than reaching out and seeking help from Musalo and other progressive experts in long overdue reforms of the Immigration Courts to end institutionalized racism and a culture of misogyny in asylum adjudication @ EOIR! He then has the audacity to defend his error in judgment with unadulterated BS! Whatever happened to Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta, as Garland’s gross mishandling of EOIR turns loyal Biden supporters into vocal, energized opponents?
It’s time for the Biden Administration to pay attention to the progressive immigration/human rights/due process bar! Otherwise, perhaps it’s time for progressives to turn their energies and talents to opposing an Administration that neither represents their views nor values their expertise and tireless efforts in support of American democracy and equal justice for all!
I, for one, did not go to the polls last fall to help more “Billy the Bigot” picks off tainted, exclusionary lists, developed in a culture that actively discouraged progressives and minority attorneys from applying, get jobs as Immigration Judges for which there is no way that they are the best candidates available! And, I’ll bet that neither did other members of the NDPA! Enough is enough! End the EOIR Clown Show!☠️🤡 And, if Garland can’t or won’t do that, then Biden needs a new AG before Garland irrevocably splinters the Democratic base with his gross mishandling of EOIR!
Check out this week’s digest of news, resources, faith reflections, and analysis of international migration and refugee protection, brought to you by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS).
Haga clic aquí para la versión en español de la Actualización de Política.
Last month, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported more than 41,000 encounters with Hondurans along the US-Mexico border, an increase of 12,000 over the same period in 2019. Eugenio Sosa, a sociologist at the National Autonomous University in Honduras, said that pervasive violence, deep-seated corruption, lack of jobs, and the devastation of two hurricanes in November 2020 have contributed to hopelessness among Hondurans. “The people don’t go just because it’s really bad,” Sosa said. “The people go because it’s bad and because they are certain that it is going to continue to be bad and that the country has rotted forever.” The Biden administration continues to expel adults arriving at the border under Title 42, which permits immigration authorities to bar foreign nationals for public health reasons and to prevent them from seeking asylum. The policy has not stopped Hondurans from arriving at the US-Mexico border. According to Sosa, small, positive changes in Honduras would encourage some to stay in their home country.
On April 16, 2021, the White House released a memorandum reallocating the 15,000 refugee admission spots for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021.The historically low admissions ceiling was set by the Trump administration. In the early days of his presidency, Biden promised to raise the cap via a presidential determination (PD) to 125,000 for FY 2022 and a February Department of State report recommended an increase in FY 2021 to 62,500 admissions. Friday’s memo reallocated admissions but did not increase the admissions cap. After backlash from Democratic lawmakers, refugee advocates, and human rights groups, the Biden administration issued a statement saying that its memorandum opened up refugee resettlement to regions that had previously been blocked under the Trump administration. The administration said it will raise refugee admissions for the current fiscal year on May 15th. The fiscal year ends on September 30, 2021. It is uncertain what the new cap will be for FY 2021.
Scalabrini International Migration Institute (April 19, 2021)
In an interview sponsored by the Scalabrini International Migration Institute (SIMI), Fr. Marvin Ajic, c.s., reflects on the situation on the US-Mexico Border, differences between Trump- and Biden-era policies, and the important work of Casa del Migrante Nazareth in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, which he directs. The interview is in Spanish.
The United States government continues to deport from 200 to 500 migrants daily across its southern border under Title 42. Title 42 of the US Code gives US immigration authorities broad power to expel migrants it deems a danger of spreading COVID-19. It has severely curtailed access to asylum. Meanwhile, migrants continue to arrive at the US-Mexico border with the mistaken belief that they will be able to cross the border and receive asylum. The result is a “grim situation,” according to some immigrant advocates. Fr. Pat Murphy, Director of the Casa del Migrante Tijuana, says that US immigration authorities “keep sending more and more people under Title 42, and that means the pressure is on here in Mexico. We’re completely overwhelmed.” Tijuana’s 30 migrant shelters are all full, and approximately 2,000 migrants are camping outside a Mexican immigration facility waiting for the asylum process to resume. Fr. Murphy said that ending Title 42 and a resumption of the asylum process in Mexico would improve the situation. “All people are looking for is a chance,” he said.
The Biden administration is continuing efforts started by the Trump administration to deport about two dozen Indonesian Christians who have been living in Central New Jersey for decades. The Obama administration protected them from deportation and gave them work authorization, but the Trump administration sought to deport them. In February 2018, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, which is still in effect but the order could be lifted any day. Advocates are surprised that the Biden administration is trying to deport the Indonesian asylum seekers because they do not fit the administration’s revised enforcement priorities. Senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez of New Jersey along with members of the New Jersey congressional delegation submitted a letter to the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro Mayorkas asking that the group not be detained or deported. The letter states, “For nearly 30 years, these Christian refugees have raised families, bought homes, attended church services, and volunteered countless hours to aid neighbors. . . . These New Jerseyans exemplify the best qualities of our state. Their ability to continue living and working safely in New Jersey is critical to the well-being of their U.S. citizen children and to the benefit of their church communities and neighbors they serve.”
New policy will allow up to 90,000 workers and international graduates to obtain permanent residency.
CBC News (April 14, 2021)
Canadian Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino announced the creation of a new pathway to permanent residence for up to 90,000 foreign nationals. The program is geared toward workers and international graduates with temporary visas and in designated “essential jobs.” Minister Mendicino said, “Since COVID-19 first arrived on our shores, we have charted a course guided by one north star — that immigration is key to Canada’s short term economic recovery and long term prosperity. . . . Fundamentally, we know that by attracting and retaining the best and the brightest … we will add more jobs, growth and diversity to our economy.” To qualify as an essential worker, a foreign national must have at least one year of work experience in one of 40 health-care jobs or 95 other “essential jobs.” Some listed essential occupations include electricians, metal workers, farmworkers, cashiers, home childcare providers, and French immersion teachers. For international graduates to qualify, they must have completed an eligible Canadian post-secondary program within the last four years. Minister Mendicino hopes that the program will encourage immigrants to put down roots in the country. The application period will be from May 6, 2021 through November 5, 2021. The Canadian government will accept up to 20,000 applications from temporary workers in healthcare, 30,000 from temporary workers in essential jobs, and 40,000 from international students.
In mid-March, the Venezuelan military launched a campaign against Colombian guerrillas operating in the jungle of the western Venezuelan state of Apure. The guerrilla group, the 10th Front, became a target for interfering in the Venezuelan government’s profitable narco-trafficking business. The Venezuelan government reports that nine camps have been destroyed, 32 people arrested, and nine people killed during the offensive. Thousands of Venezuelans have fled the offensive, crossed into Colombia, and are in makeshift shelters in the border town of Arauquita. As of the beginning of April, nearly 5,000 refugees, 40 percent of them children, arrived in Arauquita. UNHCR employees are providing the refugees with tents, mattresses, hygiene kits, and face masks. Jose Miguel Vivanco, Director for Human Rights Watch’s Americas division, claims that there is “credible evidence” that the Venezuelan military carried out extrajudicial killings of three men and a woman during the offensive. The Venezuelan government, however, claims that every person killed during the offensive is a terrorist.
On March 18, 2021, the US House of Representatives passed HR 6, the American Dream and Promise Act by 228 to 197 votes. The bill proposes a pathway to citizenship for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients as well as for certain immigrant youth. In the Senate, there are two separate bills that would open a pathway to citizenship for TPS holders, DACA recipients, and certain immigrant youth. The DREAM Act would legalize DACA recipients and immigrant youth. The SECURE Act would legalize TPS beneficiaries. Each bill needs 60 votes in the Senate to pass, and thus will require bipartisan support. For 20 years, the Dream Act has been introduced in Congress, but has never become law. Although many people were excited by HR 6’s passage, many DACA recipients were not. Instead, their past experience has given them a sense of déjà vu. They are tired of the same story of a bill that progresses and does not become law. DACA recipients have been in limbo with no path to legalize. They continue to fight for a pathway to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants.
On Friday, April 16, President Biden issued a long-awaited “Memorandum for the Secretary of State on the Emergency Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021.” The presidential determination opened up refugee admissions to regions blocked by the Trump administration but did not raise the historically low cap of 15,000 for the current fiscal year. The White House later stated it would decide on a new admissions ceiling by May 15. In this CMS essay, Susan Martin — Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration Emerita for Georgetown University — outlines how the Biden administration can prepare to admit more refugees and how the United States will benefit from welcoming them.
As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate the DACA program, CMS released a paper offering detailed estimates of DACA recipients, their economic contributions, and their deep ties to US communities. The paper, which also features testimonies of several DACA recipients, was published in CMS’s Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS). In this episode, Daniela Alulema — who is author of the JMHS paper, CMS’s Director of Programs, and herself a DACA recipient — describes the paper’s findings, shares the stories of the DACA recipients, and outlines potential policy directions for the DACA program.
On April 16, 2021, President Biden signed an emergency presidential determination that keeps in place the Trump administration’s historically low refugee admissions cap of 15,000 for FY 2021 but returns to allocating refugee admissions based on region. The next day the Biden administration released a statement saying it expects to increase the 2021 refugee ceiling next month but did not specify the number. In February 2021, President Biden proposed welcoming 62,500 refugees to the United States in 2021. Under former President Trump’s directive, stringent restrictions were placed on accepting refugees from certain African and majority-Muslim countries and priority was given to Christians who faced religious persecution and Iraqis who worked for the US military. The new allocations include 7,000 slots for Africa, 1,000 for East Asia, 1,500 for Europe and Central Asia, 3,000 for Latin America/Caribbean, 1,500 for Near East/South Asia, and 1,000 slots that are unallocated.
On April 14, 2021, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed a bill that will ban for-profit detention centers in the state. Under the bill, one of the largest for-profit immigrant detention centers, the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, will be shut down by 2025 when its contract with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expires. Washington is one of the first states to pass legislation that bans private prison companies, including immigration facilities, from operating.
On April 13, 2021, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that Texas and Missouri filed a lawsuit demanding that the Biden administration reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program to reduce the influx of migrants at the southwest border. MPP was established by the Trump administration in January 2019. It allowed border officers to send non-Mexicans who sought asylum at the US southern border to Mexico to await their immigration hearings. In January 2021, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suspended the MPP program and the Biden administration began admitting program enrollees into the United States in February. The lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration’s decision to suspend the program led to a surge of Central American migrants coming to the southwest border to make asylum claims.
On April 12, 2021, President Biden nominated Chris Magnus to lead Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Ur Jaddou to head United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Magnus is currently the police chief in Tuscon, Arizona, and Jaddou was head counsel of USCIS under the Obama administration. Biden also nominated John Tien, the former senior director for Afghanistan and Pakistan of the National Security Council, as deputy director of DHS.
On April 12, 2021, the Biden administration secured agreements with Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to tighten their borders and stem the flow of migration to the United States. Under the agreements, the countries will put more troops at their own borders to monitor migration and prevent traffickers and cartels from taking advantage of migrants and unaccompanied minors. CBP apprehended a record number of 18,890 unaccompanied minors last month and more than 172,000 people attempting to cross the US-Mexico border. In March 2021 President Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with coordinating efforts with Central American countries to address the root causes of migration.
ACTUALIZACIÓN DE POLÍTICA
El 16 de abril de 2021, el presidente Biden firmó una determinación presidencial de emergencia que mantiene el límite de admisiones de refugiados históricamente bajo de la administración Trump de 15.000 para el año fiscal 2021, pero vuelve a asignar las admisiones de refugiados según la región. Al día siguiente, la administración de Biden emitió un comunicado diciendo que espera aumentar el límite de refugiados de 2021 el próximo mes, pero no especificó el número. En febrero de 2021, el presidente Biden propuso dar la bienvenida a 62.500 refugiados a los Estados Unidos en 2021. Según la directiva del ex presidente Trump, se impusieron estrictas restricciones a la aceptación de refugiados de ciertos países africanos y de mayoría musulmana y se dio prioridad a los cristianos que enfrentaban persecución religiosa e iraquíes. que trabajaba para el ejército de los EE. UU. Las nuevas asignaciones incluyen 7.000 espacios para África, 1.000 para Asia Oriental, 1.500 para Europa y Asia Central, 3.000 para América Latina / el Caribe, 1.500 para Cercano Oriente / Asia Meridional y 1.000 espacios sin asignar.
El 14 de abril de 2021, el gobernador de Washington, Jay Inslee, firmó un proyecto de ley que prohibirá los centros de detención con fines de lucro en el estado. Según el proyecto de ley, uno de los centros de detención de inmigrantes con fines de lucro más grandes, el Centro de Detención del Noroeste en Tacoma, se cerrará para el 2025 cuando expire su contrato con el Servicio de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE). Washington es uno de los primeros estados en aprobar una legislación que prohíbe el funcionamiento de las empresas penitenciarias privadas, incluidas las instalaciones de inmigración.
El 13 de abril de 2021, el fiscal general de Texas, Ken Paxton, anunció que Texas y Missouri presentaron una demanda exigiendo que la administración Biden restableciera el programa de Protocolos de Protección a Migrantes (MPP) para reducir la afluencia de migrantes en la frontera suroeste. El MPP fue establecido por la administración Trump en enero de 2019. Permitió a los oficiales fronterizos enviar a personas no mexicanas que buscaban asilo en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos a México para esperar sus audiencias de inmigración. En enero de 2021, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) suspendió el programa MPP y la administración Biden comenzó a admitir inscritos en el programa en los Estados Unidos en febrero. La demanda alega que la decisión de la administración Biden de suspender el programa provocó un aumento de migrantes centroamericanos que llegaron a la frontera suroeste para presentar solicitudes de asilo.
El 12 de abril de 2021, el presidente Biden nominó a Chris Magnus para dirigir la Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP) y a Ur Jaddou para dirigir el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS). Magnus es actualmente el jefe de policía en Tuscon, Arizona, y Jaddou fue el abogado principal de USCIS bajo la administración de Obama. Biden también nominó a John Tien, ex director senior para Afganistán y Pakistán del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional, como subdirector del DHS.
El 12 de abril de 2021, la administración Biden aseguró acuerdos con México, Honduras y Guatemala para reforzar sus fronteras y detener el flujo migratorio hacia Estados Unidos. Según los acuerdos, los países pondrán más tropas en sus propias fronteras para monitorear la migración y evitar que los traficantes y los carteles se aprovechen de los migrantes y los menores no acompañados. CBP detuvo a un número récord de 18,890 menores no acompañados el mes pasado y más de 172,000 personas que intentaban cruzar la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México. En marzo de 2021, el presidente Biden encargó a la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris que coordinara los esfuerzos con los países centroamericanos para abordar las causas fundamentales de la migración.
The CMS Migration Update is a weekly digest produced by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), an educational institute/think-tank devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. CMS is a member of the Scalabrini International Migration Network – an international network of shelters, welcoming centers, and other ministries for migrants – and of the Scalabrini Migration Study Centers, a global network of think tanks on international migration and refugee protection, guided by the values of the Missionaries of St. Charles Borromeo. If you wish to submit an article, blog, faith reflection, or announcement for the CMS Migration Update, please email cms@cmsny.org.
Biden and Harris campaigned, quite logically and convincingly, on a pledge to do away with the illegality, cruelty and stupidity of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, racist immigration program.
But, following the inauguration, Biden supporters working at the “retail level” of our failed immigration system have seen few meaningful changes, little if any honest dialogue, and most disturbingly, far, far too few progressive experts who can solve problems in key positions!
Encouraging Northern Triangle countries notorious for corruption and human rights abuses to stop their nationals from fleeing to safety is NOT a solution. It’s the moral equivalent of having encouraged the Soviet Union and East Germany to machine gun those attempting to flee to the West during the (not so) Cold War!
Basically, the Biden Administration is encouraging and funding some of the most corrupt and repressive nations in the Hemisphere to violate human rights, just as the Trump Administration did. See, “Policy Update,” above. That’s NOT the way to establish positive international leadership on human rights and migration issues!
Two other nuggets particularly worthy of note:
“According to [Eigenio] Sosa, small, positive changes in Honduras would encourage some to stay in their home country.” This contradicts the “conventional wisdom” that addressing the roots of the problem in sending countries is either futile or such a long-term project that it can’t be part of addressing today’s flow of forced migrants.
“In this CMS essay, Susan Martin — Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration Emerita for Georgetown University — outlines how the Biden administration can prepare to admit more refugees and how the United States will benefit from welcoming them.” Professor Susan Forbes Martin is a long-time friend and a brilliant “practical scholar.” Her point that we should welcome refugees, rather than fearing them, is well taken and the key to better, far more robust, legal immigration laws and policies.
Georgetown LawProfessor Philip G. Schrag Georgetown Law Co-Director, CALS Asylum ClinicProfessor from Practice; Director, Human Rights Institute; Director, Center for Applied Legal Studies PHOTO: GeorgetownLawProfessor Jaya Ramji-NogalesAssociate Dean for Academic Affairs I. Herman Stern Research Professor Temple Law PHOTO: Temple Law
WASHINGTON – On Thursday, April 15, 2021, three law professors from Georgetown Law and Temple University will discuss their new book, The End of Asylum, the Trump administration’s legacy on asylum policy, and where the Biden administration goes from here.
WHAT
Migration at the southern border and asylum are again front page news. The Biden administration claims that mounting numbers of children and families in immigration detention facilities and shelters is attributable to the Trump administration’s destruction of the asylum system. In their new book, The End of Asylum, three law professors analyze the nature, scope, and lawlessness of that destruction and the end of the promise that Congress made, in the Refugee Act of 1980, to welcome migrants who feared persecution abroad. They also propose steps that the Biden administration can take, both alone and in cooperation with Congress, to restore and improve a robust system of asylum in America.
The event is co-sponsored by Online and On Topic, Georgetown School of Foreign Service; Migration and Refugee Policy Initiative, Georgetown McCourt School of Public Policy; Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of International Migration; and Temple University Beasley School of Law.
WHO
Philip G. Schrag
Georgetown Law Delaney Family Professor of Public Interest Law; Co-Director, Center for Applied Legal Studies (Georgetown Law’s asylum clinic)
Andrew I. Schoenholtz
Gerogetown Law Professor from Practice; Director of the Human Rights Institute and Co-Director of Center for Applied Legal Studies at Georgetown Law
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and the I. Herman Stern Research Professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law
Al Bertrand (moderator)
Director of Georgetown University Press
Georgetown University Law Center is a global leader in legal education based in the heart of the U.S. capital. As the nation’s largest law school, Georgetown Law offers students an unmatched breadth and depth of academic opportunities taught by a world-class faculty of celebrated theorists and leading legal practitioners. Second to none in experiential education, the Law Center’s numerous clinics are deeply woven into the Washington, D.C., landscape. Close to 20 centers and institutes forge cutting-edge research and policy resources across fields including health, the environment, human rights, technology, national security and international economics. Georgetown Law equips students to succeed in a rapidly evolving legal environment and to make a profound difference in the world, guided by the school’s motto, “Law is but the means, justice is the end.”
Only one major problem: Phil, Andy, Jaya, and others like them should be running EOIR & the BIA by now, putting their “practical scholarship” and organizational skills into action to reform this disgracefully dysfunctional, life and democracy-threatening system and to restore due process, professional competence, and the rule of law to the U.S. Immigration Courts where it has disappeared!
As I’ve said many time before: It’s not rocket science, 🚀 but it has (quite avoidably) become “mission impossible” with the indolent, tone-deaf, approach that Judge Garland and his team have exhibited at the DOJ to date. Par for the course in Dem Administrations. But, bad news for those of us who believe in due process, social justice, and equal justice for all persons in America. (Hey, isn’t that right out of the Constitution?)
It’s like nobody in the Biden Adminhistration ever toured the “St. Louis Exhibit” or the exhibits in the “German Judiciary” sections of the Holocaust Museum. Perhaps Judge Garland and others need a “VIP Tour,” after hours!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!
DISCLAIMER: My views as expressed above are solely my own and do not represent the position of any of the panelists, Georgetown Law, or any person or entity, living or dead, of any importance whatsoever!
Asked repeatedly (by me and others) what accounts for Biden’s delay, White House officials have struggled to answer. Sometimes they try to blame Trump, complaining that his administration left a system in “disrepair” that requires “rebuilding.” No doubt, Trump wrought a lot of damage upon the immigration system, and more resources would be necessary to reach the much higher refugee admissions that Biden claims he wants for the next fiscal year (125,000); currently, there aren’t enough people sufficiently far along in the refugee-screening pipeline to meet that goal.
But none of this explains why the few thousand already fully vetted and deemed “travel-ready” by the State Department as of early March have not been allowed in. The only thing preventing their entry is Biden — who refuses to do the right thing and sign a simple document.
The only explanation I can fathom for what’s going on is that the White House fears ordinary Americans will confuse the refugee resettlement system with the surge of migrants at the southern border. “Refugees” and “asylum seekers” might sound synonymous, but the groups are subject to different sets of laws, screening procedures and executive authorities. One key difference is that refugees apply from abroad and are screened for eligibility before they arrive; asylum seekers apply from within our borders or at a port of entry.
In other words, refugees are doing precisely what both Biden and Republicans urge those fleeing persecution and violence to do: staying abroad, and not crossing into the United States unlawfully; proving to U.S. and international officials that their lives are indeed in danger, and that they meet the legal requirements for resettlement; enduring extensive screening to prove they don’t threaten national security or public health; and then patiently waiting their turn for admission, a process that usually takes years.
And how is Biden rewarding them? The same way Trump did: by slamming the door.
*********************
Read Catherine’s complete article at the link.
[The Biden Administration] fears ordinary Americans will confuse the refugee resettlement system with the surge of migrants at the southern border.
Wow. In 50 years of “hanging around” the migration/human rights/political scene in D.C., I’ve heard plenty of insanely lame, cowardly excuses for not doing the right thing. But, this is “Top Five” material!
I have ideas on how to solve this problem, quickly:
Invest the “big bucks” to hire Catherine as the Biden Administration’s “Head Immigration Flackie.” She can explain the situation in terms that the American people will understand. That’s what Catherine does! Brings clarity, humanity, and common sense to complicated situations that flummox politicos and press offices.
Alternatively, get a “Loaner Law Student” from the Georgetown Law CALS Asylum Clinic. In two decades of working with CALS students in court, the classroom, and elsewhere, I’ve never run into one who doesn’t have a deeper understanding of, and better ability to explain, refugee and asylum policy than any of the “inept talking heads” the Biden Administration has thrown into the fray so far.
Georgetown Law
Another alternative: Hire Don Kerwin, currently the Executive Director of the Center for Migration Studies (“CMS”) to fix and explain the Administration’s (so far) mind-boggling failure to re-establish our refugee and asylum programs — actually both legal and moral obligations (although you wouldn’t know that by listening to the mindless negative natter from politicos of both parties). Don probably knows more than any living person about the amazing, quantifiable, benefits that refugees and asylees bring to our nation and is an expert at puncturing all of the White Nationalist myths and fear-mongering that have driven these essential programs into complete failure over the past few years.
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
It’s also worthy of note that because of the Trump Administration’s “malicious incompetence” combined with the Biden Administration’s “willful incompetence,” against the background of an Attorney General unwilling to speak out and stand up for the legal rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and people of color in general, (just what is the purpose of an Attorney General who won’t stand up for the people — some of us thought, erroneously I guess, that we had voted that “model” out of office last November) we have no refugee program in Latin America and we have illegally closed ports of entry to legal asylum seekers.
So there is no regular system for asylum seekers to apply in an orderly fashion in accordance with our international, statutory, and Constitutional (not to mention moral) obligations. In violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 33 of the U.N. Convention, incorporated by the Refugee Act of 1980, every day we return legitimate refugees to danger, torture, or death without any inquiry at all. The “law violators” here aren’t the desperate folks vainly, yet gamely, trying to apply for asylum under our lawless system. It’s us!
Maybe, that’s why the Biden Administration doesn’t want anyone to understand what they really are doing and how wrong-headed it is!🤮👎🏴☠️
With the U.S. “on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years,” as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement March 16, immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border has emerged as one of the toughest challenges facing the Biden Administration. Last week, President Biden put Vice President Kamala Harris in charge of “stemming” the flow of migrants, Biden was questioned about the immigration situation at his first official press conference, immigrant detention centers began to fill up once again, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle made trips to the border to publicize the issue and propose solutions.
Biden’s attempts to address immigration may be new, but the issue is one that has dogged his predecessors for decades. Since the 1970s, Republicans and Democrats alike have tried to address undocumented immigration by constructing ever more draconian policies of border control, deportation and detention—border theater that grabs headlines and sometimes leads to short-term change, but never actually solves the problem.
There’s a reason why the U.S. government has failed for so many years to “control” the border: none of these policies have addressed the real reasons for migration itself. In migration studies, these are known as “push” and “pull” factors, the causes that drive migrants from one country to another.
Today, the countries sending the most migrants to the U.S.-Mexico border–especially the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador–are experiencing a combination of push factors that include poverty and inequality, political instability, and violence. And while the current situation may be unique, it is also deeply rooted in history.
Many countries in Central America have struggled with poverty since the time of independence from Spain in the early 19th century. While they are beautiful countries that are rich in culture and history, that colonial past has meant they have historically been home to large, landless, poor, rural populations, including many indigenous people of Mayan descent. In the years after Spanish control, they were typically ruled by small oligarchies that disproportionately held wealth, land and power, and their economies were primary export-dependent, which brought great riches to landowners but also exacerbated and perpetuated inequality and the poverty of the majority. Those dynamics have carried forward to today. More recently, climate change–in particular, drought and massivestorms–has forced the vulnerable rural poor out of the countryside.
. . . .
And while many Central Americans could indeed qualify for asylum based on their experiences of persecution, the previous administration made every effort to limit their ability to obtain it. Now the Biden Administration must decide whether to restore the asylum framework, which has become the only possible path to legal migration (as well as safety and security) for Central Americans and other migrants who—due to these combined push and pull factors—are desperate to come to the United States.
Given the complicated and deep-rooted reasons behind migration, lawmakers cannot control or “solve” the ongoing crisis at the border by simply pouring money and resources into ever more militaristic border theater. It’s no wonder that decades of such policies have done little to change the underlying dynamics.
Instead, if Americans are serious about changing the situation at the border, we need to address the push and pull factors behind Central American migration. We need to acknowledge the reality of the U.S. economy (in particular, that it demands immigrant labor to work low-wage jobs) and work to construct new legal frameworks that reflect that reality. We need to target financial and logistical support to encourage Central American countries to address the poverty and inequality that fuel migration, rather than cutting foreign aid, as the Trump Administration did. We need to do all we can to end the pervasive gang violence that pushes so many migrants out of their homelands. And of course, we must continue to evaluate our own historical and contemporary role in creating the longstanding problems that are pushing Central Americans to migrate.
**************
Read the rest of Julia’s article at the link. One key truth: many more Central American migrants would qualify for asylum and be legally admitted to our society under a fair application of our asylum laws directed and supervised by real expert judges who scrupulously enforce due process and best practices on a now biased, unfair, and dysfunctional system!
“Stemming the tide” might be neither realistic nor possible at this time. But, controlling it, managing it humanely and legally, and regularizing it, while lessening the “push” factors should be achievable.
It would, however, require bold actions:
Recognizing the primacy of humanitarian protection laws and insisting on due process in implementing them;
Putting experts in humanitarian situations, due process advocates, diplomats, labor economists, and demographers in leadership positions; and
Embracing much larger levels of legal immigration, particularly from Latin America.
Vice President Kamala D. Harris Vice President of the United States (Official Senate Photo)
Unfortunately for Vice President Harris and the rest of us who want humane, realistic immigration policies, there are reasons for our half-century of overall failure on the border.
Bloated government bureaucracies, powerful corporate interests, nativist politicians, and even foreign leaders are heavily invested in expensive and guaranteed to fail “uber enforcement” gimmicks. Failure basically creates a never-ending demand for more: more enforcement agents, “civil prisons,” jailers, deporters, cars, trucks, guns, boats, ammo, walls, fences, technology, courts, judges, prosecutors, lobbyists, “baby jails,” processing centers, foreign aid that goes largely into the pockets of corrupt leaders and their cronies, and a never-ending supply of underground, low-wage, politically neutered workers.
Additionally, we now have an entire political party with an agenda of overt institutionalized racism, dehumanization of the other, and fear-mongering White Nationalist myths driving its bogus populist narrative.
None of these “architects and enablers of border failure and institutionalized racism” are going “quietly into the night.” They will fight tooth and nail to defend their sinecures, profitable empires, and politically useful White Nationalist myths.
The politician who finally breaks the deadly cycle of failure and human misery at our border, while harnessing and realizing the positive power of human migration, will become a hero for future historians and undoubtedly merit a chapter in a new edition of Profiles in Courage.
Sadly, such recognition and adulation is likely to come long after she is gone from the scene. Long term vision and moral courage are not necessarily rewarded with short-term political popularity. Just ask the few Republicans who voted in accordance with the overwhelming, basically uncontested, evidence of Trump’s “high crimes and misdemeanors!”
That’s why it’s a tough challenge even for someone of Vice President Harris’s undoubted intelligence and abilities. It’s up to those of us who believe in a better America to keep her from getting sidetracked and co-opted by the vested interests of failure and White Nationalist myth-makers and purveyors.
President Biden’s top advisers promise “long-needed systemic reforms” to address a backlog of more than 1 million asylum cases in the immigration court system, which often keeps people applying for asylum waiting years to resolve their cases. That could mean some big changes to how asylum cases are processed at the southern border.
The plan the Biden administration is considering to speed up the process would take some asylum cases from the southern border out of the hands of the overloaded immigration courts under the Department of Justice and instead handle them under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, where asylum officers already process tens of thousands of cases a year, two people familiar with the discussions who were not authorized to speak about administration plans told NPR exclusively.
Those familiar with the discussions say one outcome could be discouraging unauthorized migration. That’s because those who can argue for a certain fear of persecution are able to gain temporary residence and often a work permit as they wait out their cases.
. . . .
Advocates say they welcome a more efficient system, provided changes are not used as a way to expedite removals as the Trump administration did.
Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First says there are a host of reasons to allow asylum officers to conduct the first set of interviews and reduce the numbers, but she says it’s important that applicants have a chance to appeal to the court before being removed.
“The massive backlog must be dealt with,” she said. “But the answer to that problem is not to deprive asylum seekers of due process and a fair hearing, or to weaponize the asylum process to try to deter other people from seeking U.S. protection.”
The Biden administration has already ended two of the Trump administration’s programs, the Prompt Asylum Case Review and the Humanitarian Asylum Review Program, that were designed to quickly return Mexican and Central American asylum seekers suspected of having invalid claims.
Department of Homeland Security officials declined to discuss plans to shift border cases to the asylum division.
But an administration official said last week they are now working on a number of policies and regulations to create “a better functioning asylum system.”
That includes establishing refugee processing in the region and strengthening other countries’ asylum systems.
Biden also resurrected the Central American Minors program that reunited children with parents who are in the United States legally.
The Biden administration is now seeking to “pick up the pieces” after the Trump administration, with a different set of policies that abide by U.S. law but also international obligations, Meissner said.
“We need to have access to asylum,” Meissner said, “but it needs to be done in a way that can be prompt and fair, not in a way that leads to waits of years and years and court backlogs.
*****************
Read the complete article at the link.
Why it could work:
Granting relief at the lowest level of the system is cost effective;
It’s easier to hire, train, and assign Asylum Officers than Immigration Judges;
Immigration Court time should be reserved for those cases where there is a real issue as to whether relief can be granted.
Why it probably won’t work:
Leadership is critical. Right now, there are only a few experts in government with the knowledge, proven leadership ability, organizational skills, and courage to lead this program.
Two obvious names that come to mind are Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, currently USCIS Chief Counsel, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of the “founding mothers” of U.S. asylum law and pioneer of the well-founded fear standard. Both are past Presidents of the NAIJ. Neither has yet been tapped for this assignment.
By contrast, there are a number of experts in the private/NGO sector who could lead this effort. Obvious choices would be Judge Paul Grussendorf, former Immigration Judge, Asylum Officer, UN Representative, and professor; Professor Karen Musalo, Director, Center for Refugee & Gender Studies, UC Hastings Law; Eleanor Acer, Senior Director, Refugee Protection, Human Rights First (quoted in this article); Professor Michele Pistone, Creator and Founder of the VIISTA asylum training program at Villanova Law; Professor Phil Schrag, Co-Director of the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law and author of Baby Jails and the upcoming release The End of Asylum; Michelle Mendez, Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations at CLINIC; or Judge Ilyce Shugall of our Round Table. But, nobody of that caliber has been tapped either.
Without creative, dynamic, expert leadership, and a different approach to personnel, the program will be yet another bureaucratic failure. In case nobody has noticed, after four years of never ending abuse, gross mismanagement, and intentional misdirection by the Trump kakistocracy, the USCIS Asylum & Refugee program is also in shambles — demoralized, disorganized, leaderless, incredibly backlogged. An obvious untapped source is retired Asylum Officers and Adjudicators who could be brought back on a limited-term basis, intensively trained by experts from a “Better EOIR,” and who often are in a position to travel frequently and on short notice.
It’s not about deterrence. Already, this article speaks of “possible deterrent effect.” WRONG!The purpose of an asylum adjudication system is to provide fair, timely, generous adjudications of asylum eligibility in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol on which it is based, and the due process clause of our Constitution. We have never had such a system, which inevitably would be more orderly and efficient, but also result in many more grants.
The main reason why we don’t currently have a functioning asylum system, and never have had the system that asylum seekers need and deserve, is that the system is at the mercy of a bogus Executive-controlled “court” system that time and time again has been compromised by politicos seeking who use it as an enforcement tool rather than an independent court of justice.
In 2014, the last year that I taught Refugee Law & Policy at Georgetown Law I “graded” the U.S. Asylum system at “B-.” Not as good as it should be, but not as bad as it could be.
Now I’d give it an “F.” Completely dysfunctional, highly arbitrary, and a tool of institutionalized racism and White Nationalism.
The system is ineffective as a deterrent. There is no known basis to believe that quick and often arbitrary and wrongful “rejections” are an effective deterrent. That’s particularly true because rejections are seldom explained in a reasonable, understandable manner. So, to the extent that there is a “message” it’s that you got the wrong officer or the wrong judge on the wrong day or that the U.S. legal system is inherently unfair and should be avoided by hiring a smuggler to get you to the interior of the U.S. where, as a practical matter, you have a better chance of obtaining “de facto refuge.”
The only “efficiency and leverage” that comes from the Asylum Officer system is in quickly identifying and consistently granting a substantial number of applications. That, and only that, does actually relieve the Immigration Court system of unnecessary cases. Otherwise, “non-grants” still have to go to the Immigration Courts for de novo review. I probably granted the majority of asylum cases “referred” from the Asylum Office. That leaves plenty of room to believe that a better trained and operated system with some positive guidance and effective supervision by better Immigration Judges and a truly expert BIA would achieve substantially higher grant rates and higher efficiency at the Asylum Office, thereby keeping many cases out of court and speeding the process for asylees to obtain permanent residence and eventually U.S. citizenship!
Some assumptions appear invalid. This article also repeats the unproven assumption that a fair, just, and efficient asylum system would result in rejection of the majority of cases. I doubt that.
Prior to the Trump disaster, approximately 75-80% of asylum applicants at the Southern Border passed “credible fear.” That the majority of them never achieved asylum was due less to the lack of merit in their claims than to factors such as: 1) lack of a system to match asylum seekers with qualified counsel; 2) wrong-headed anti-asylum precedents from the BIA that were specifically directed against asylum seekers from Latin America — basically institutionalized racism in the guise of “enforcement;” 3) poor selection, training, and motivation of Immigration Judges some of whom simply did not treat asylum seekers fairly, nor were they given any incentive to do so.
I granted asylum or other protection to many refugees from the Northern Triangle. I probably could have granted twice that number had the BIA precedents actually fairly and reasonably interpreted asylum law to specifically cover gender-based claims and claims arising from persecution by gangs basically operating “in lieu of government authorities” in most of the Northern Triangle.
Additionally, an honest interpretation of the CAT by the BIA would have allowed life-saving protection to be extended to many others who lacked nexus but had a high probability of torture with Government acquiescence upon return. I believe that a return to the original Acosta-Kasinga line of asylum analysis and adoption of proper CAT interpretationsalong the lines set forth by the (exiled) dissenting judges in Matter of J-E- would result in grants of some type of protection (asylum, withholding, or CAT) in the majority of Southern Border cases coming from the Northern Triangle that passed credible fear or reasonable fear.
Asylum, along with refugee status, is a key form of legal immigration to the U.S. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s NOT a “loophole.” It’s the law! Studies by groups of experts such as CMS have shown the huge benefits that refugees confer on the U.S. I have no reason to believe that asylum seekers as a group are any different.
As long as we keep treating the reality of human migration and the strengths and humanity of asylum seekers as a negative rather than a positive, we will continue to fail, as we have for decades, to fully comply with either our own laws or international conventions.
A broken, dysfunctional, unfair EOIR will continue to drag American justice down. There must be de novo review of denials by EOIR and far, far more competent review and direction in the review of credible fear denials by EOIR. A better BIA could actually set binding precedents on “credible fear” and “reasonable fear.”
Currently, EOIR is incapable of producing either consistently fair results (particularly for asylum seekers) or the inspired legal scholarship and leadership for the asylum system to be functional and held accountable. It’s going to require all new leadership, an all new BIA, elimination of all of the Trump-eraprecedents that impede fairness for asylum seekers, new merit-based selection criteria for Immigration Judges, professional administration from judicial experts, and an immediate slashing of the largely self-created “backlog” of 1.3 million cases by closing and removing from the docket every case more than a year old that doesn’t relate to a priority (most are folks who would be covered by Biden’s legalization program anyway; many are eligible for relief that USCIS could grant) to get EOIR in a position to provide the necessary legal guidance and system accountability for the Asylum Office. The absurdist notion that we could or would want to remove every one of the 10-11 million undocumented residents (many performing essential services that propped us up through the pandemic) is one of the “big lies” that has prevented rational reforms of our immigration system.
In plain terms, EOIR needs an immediate “rebuild” with a new progressive, humanitarian judiciary of experts. There is no early indication that Judge Garland either understands that “mission-critical” need or has a plan for achieving it.
As we say in the business the “devil is in the details.” Right now, I can see neither the details nor theleadership in place or “in the pipeline” to solve the debilitating problems in our asylum system that actually are undermining the entire U.S. justice system.
Biden could fix it. But, I wouldn’t count on it. That means that the only real fix in the offing will be for the NDPA to force the Administration to “get it right” through aggressive, never-ending litigation as well as continuing to seek better legislators. Highly inefficient. Yet, sometimes it’s the only way to get the attention of those in power.
If nothing else, we’ll continue to make an important historic record of the cruelty and stupidity with which the current asylum system is being administered. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can always choose to follow our “better angels.” It just takes the courage and the good judgement to get the right folks in the right jobs to make it happen.
The answer to the question posed is actually simple. As of today, DHS Enforcement and politicos at the DOJ “own” the so called Immigration “Courts” lock, stock, and barrel!
That’s an overt violation of the clear Fifth Amendment requirement that those whose lives and property are at stake be judged by a fair and impartial adjudicator — by definition one who is an expert in asylum law, human rights, and has demonstrated the ability to conduct fair hearings.
That’s also bad news for the Hispanic Community, because for the last four years those wholly owned “courts” have been operating with a clear bias against the civil and human rights of people of color, with Hispanic migrants and asylum seekers being a particular target — one that has adversely affected, even terrorized, Hispanic communities throughout the U.S. Hispanics are also grossly underrepresented among the “Immigration Judiciary” at both the trial and appellate levels, as well as on the Article III Bench — despite there being scores of Hispanic and other lawyers of color out here who would be head and shoulders above many of those currently holding these critical “life or death” judgeships!
The real questions are:
1) What can we do about it, and
2) How can we get Judge Garland and others in the Administration to listen, put an end to “Dred Scottification,” and get started on the task of bringing due process and fundamental fairness to a totally dysfunctional and dangerously biased system?
Tune in on April 7 to join the dialogue on how we can finally force the U.S. Government to make good on its unfulfilled, even mocked, Constitutional promise of due process for all persons!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
CELEBRATING WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH WITH THE BOYS FROM THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT!
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
PANEL: SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Arnold
Because you have to “see it to believe it” that these three guys actually graduated from law school and got promoted to the Federal Judiciary, the opinion is set forth in full here:
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 20-2248 ___________________________
Yeemy Guatemala-Pineda
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States1
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________
Submitted: February 17, 2021 Filed: March 26, 2021 ____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
After Yeemy Guatemala-Pineda entered the United States unlawfully, she applied for asylum so she wouldn’t have to return to her home country of El Salvador.
1Merrick B. Garland is serving as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).
She feared that if she returned there gangs would persecute her because of her religious activities. After a winding course of immigration proceedings that began more than ten years ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals ultimately denied her request for asylum. We deny the petition for review since we think substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision.
Guatemala-Pineda, whom we will call Pineda as her real name is Yeemy Michael Pineda, attempted to enter the United States in 2010 at age 22 but was apprehended by immigration authorities and charged with being inadmissible as an alien without proper documentation. See U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). She conceded that the charge was true but applied for asylum, which protects, among others, refugees present in the United States who are unable or unwilling to return to their home country because they have a well-founded fear that others will persecute them on account of their religion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A). Pineda testified before an immigration judge that she was a practicing Christian who had participated in a church project of door-to-door evangelization that specifically targeted gang members. She related that a handful of gang members had at one time “cornered” and “grabbed” her during a church function and tried to recruit her to their gang, explicitly telling her that they did not want to see her working with the church. Though they also threatened to “take [her] by force” and find her wherever she went, they did not otherwise physically harm her.
After that incident Pineda stopped attending church, opting instead to participate in religious services at other people’s homes. During one of these home services, Pineda testified, gang members appeared outside and demanded that the group stop singing. She believed they were the same gang members who had threatened her before; they specifically called her by name and said they were “coming for” her. Two weeks later, at another home gathering, gang members again appeared outside, announced they were armed, and demanded that she come outside
-2-
or “they were going to get” her. The people inside threw themselves on the ground and waited about two hours until the gang members departed.
At that point, Pineda testified, she obtained a job selling clothes in San Salvador, which was about ninety minutes from her home. She explained that gang members did not bother or threaten her while at work, though one time she had to crouch down when she heard gunshots directed toward another person.
The immigration judge concluded that, even though Pineda had not demonstrated past persecution, she did have a well-founded fear of future persecution, and so granted her application for asylum. When the government appealed to the BIA, the BIA remanded the case to the immigration judge to consider, among other things, whether Pineda could reasonably relocate within El Salvador to avoid future persecution. On remand, Pineda testified that, if forced to return to El Salvador, she would return to her mother’s house because she had no other place to go. She noted that her entire family lives in the same city and that she could not relocate to another city as a single Christian woman. She also elaborated on her time working in San Salvador, explaining that she commuted alone and worked three to five days a week for a few months before leaving for the United States. Pineda also testified that, though she did not experience difficulties from gang members in San Salvador or while commuting, thieves did steal her paycheck three or four times and her cell phone twice, often while she was riding on a bus.
Pineda also presented testimony from an expert on Central American gangs. He testified that El Salvador is “the most violent country in the world for women” and that four things put Pineda “at not only high but very predictable risk” of harm should she return to El Salvador: her religious practices and activities, her past refusal to comply with gang demands, her flight from El Salvador to escape gang threats, and the ability of gangs to learn of her return. Further, he opined, Pineda would be at high risk anywhere in El Salvador because she is a young, single woman with no
-3-
protective family network, making “internal relocation a very, very difficult proposition.”
The immigration judge again granted Pineda’s request for asylum, concluding that she had carried her burden to show that internal relocation was unreasonable, as “[s]he is a young single woman returning to a country the size of Massachusetts where abuse and violence against women is one of the principal human rights problems.” The judge acknowledged that Pineda had worked in San Salvador for three months without interference from gangs but pointed out that during that time she had been robbed of her paycheck or cell phone at least five times and “did not proselytize in the streets.” In sum, there were simply no other parts of the country “that are any better than the area that gave rise to [Pineda’s] original claim.” On appeal, however, the BIA pointed out that Pineda was able to avoid gang persecution while working in San Salvador. It also noted that, even though Pineda was the victim of crimes during her commute, it was unclear whether she could have avoided these and similar crimes by moving to San Salvador instead of commuting from her hometown. The BIA therefore remanded for the immigration judge “to reconsider the overall reasonableness of any relocation by the respondent throughout El Salvador.”
On remand, Pineda’s case was assigned to a different immigration judge. The new judge concluded, after receiving additional arguments from the parties and what he termed “extensive country condition evidence,” that Pineda had failed to shoulder her burden to show that she could not relocate elsewhere in El Salvador since she was able to avoid gang persecution while working in San Salvador. The BIA upheld that determination.
In her petition for review from that holding, Pineda challenges the determination that she failed to show she could not safely relocate to another part of El Salvador. We review both the BIA’s decision and the immigration judge’s decision to the extent the BIA adopted the findings or reasoning of the immigration judge. See
-4-
Degbe v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir. 2018). We will uphold the decision so long as substantial evidence supports it. See Cinto-Velasquez v. Lynch, 817 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 2016). When applying that “extremely deferential” standard, we will not reverse “unless, after having reviewed the record as a whole, we determine that it would not be possible for a reasonable fact-finder to adopt the BIA’s position.” See Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir. 2004).
Since Pineda does not contend that she has shown past persecution, she must show she has a well-founded fear of future persecution to prevail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). But “[a]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Because Pineda has not demonstrated past persecution, and the gangs she fears are not government or government sponsored, she bears the burden to show that relocation would not be reasonable. See id. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). In these circumstances relocation is presumed to be reasonable. See id. § 1208.13(b)(3)(iii).
We hold that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pineda could relocate to another part of El Salvador if forced to return. We believe that a reasonable factfinder could give substantial weight to the lack of gang harassment Pineda suffered while working in San Salvador for a number of months. Even if gangs generally have significant reach throughout the country and are able to locate people like her quickly, as Pineda maintains, the fact that they did nothing to her for months as she worked in San Salvador is hard to overlook. And even though the first immigration judge to preside over Pineda’s proceedings found that internal relocation would not be reasonable, that does not necessarily mean that substantial evidence did not support the second immigration judge’s decision. It might just go to show that the reasonableness of relocation in this case is one on which reasonable people could disagree.
-5-
To bolster her case, Pineda emphasizes that she suffered other serious harm in San Salvador when she had paychecks and cell phones stolen from her. Pineda is right that, to prevail, she need not show that she suffered other serious harm on account of a protected ground, such as religion. See Hagi-Salad v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1044, 1048 n.5 (8th Cir. 2004). But that other harm must rise to “the severity of persecution” for her to carry the day. Id. “Persecution is an extreme concept,” involving things like death or the threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom. See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 380 (8th Cir. 2013). Pineda did not describe anything that occurred to her during her commutes to and from San Salvador or her employment there that approaches this high standard.
We therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination, considering that Pineda worked for months in San Salvador without trouble from gangs. Though we recognize that Pineda’s expert opined that she was at risk, we think the BIA did not unreasonably focus on there being no evidence that she was persecuted during the months she worked in San Salvador. We have upheld a decision on this kind of question based on less, as, for instance, where an asylum seeker had stayed in another part of a country without being harmed for five weeks. See Molina-Cabrera v. Sessions, 905 F.3d 1103, 1106 (8th Cir. 2018).
Though we sympathize with Pineda’s subjective fear of returning alone to a different part of El Salvador, we cannot say that the BIA’s relocation determination is unsupported by substantial evidence. Because we uphold this portion of the BIA’s decision, we do not consider whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the government of El Salvador was unwilling or unable to control the gangs that Pineda feared.
Petition denied.
______________________________
-6-
***************************
No, it’s not, as Judge Arnold disingenuously claims “something on which reasonable people could disagree.” No reasonable adjudicator qualified in asylum law and due process could reach this ridiculously wrong result!
Naturally, not understanding asylum law (why would that be a requirement for an Article III Judge, just because it’s probably the #1 and certainly most hotly contested topic in Federal Civil Litigation these days), Judge Arnold and his “boys club” out on the Great Plains fail to give this credible respondent “the benefit of the doubt” to which she is entitled under UNHCR guidance.
Indeed, as I used to tell my former BIA colleagues, usually to little avail before launching another dissent, “if reasonable people could differ, the result should be clear — the respondent wins because she gets ‘the benefit of the doubt.’” Sadly, even at a time when the BIA functioned at a much much higher level than it does today, it was the Immigration Judge and immigration enforcement who often in practice got the “benefit of the doubt” from many of my former colleagues, not the asylum applicant.
As my friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Legal Community summed up: “Proves the point that ‘the only true refugee is a dead refugee.’” Unlike the various BIA Judges and Circuit Judges involved in this deadly travesty, Dan actually understands asylum law, due process, and human values.
One might fairly ask the question of why “practical scholars” like Dan are on the “outside” and lesser talents are on the Federal Bench at all levels? The answer has much to do with why there is an “institutionalized racism crisis” in today’s American justice system. “Trial By Ordeal,” really isn’t that great a “look” for 21st Century American Justice! (Any more than is institutionalized racism and “The New Jim Crow”).
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Conveniently, this “gang of three” CJs showed little real understanding of 8 C.F.R. 208.13 as it existed at the time of the BIA’s second decision, which states:
adjudicators should consider, but are not limited to considering, whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties. Those factors may, or may not, be relevant, depending on all the circumstances of the case, and are not necessarily determinative of whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.
Just on the information regurgitated in their opinion, Ms. Guatemala-Pineda showed by expert witness testimony and by her own credible testimony and experiences that there is no “reasonably available relocation alternative” in El Salvador. There clearly is “ongoing civil strife” in El Salvador. And, anyone with even minimal knowledge of the country would know that (to put it charitably) the “administrative, economic, and judicial infrastructures” are somewhere in the zone between dysfunctional to non-existent. She also credibly pointed out why it would not be reasonable under the circumstances to require her to leave her mother’s home and move to San Salvador.
Forcing someone to commute to a job 90 minutes away, for 3-5 days per week work, in what is perhaps the most dangerous city in the country, during which she already suffered “three or four paycheck robberies and a cell phone robbery” in about three months — that’s a total of five robberies” in a relatively short span — is by no means a “reasonable internal relocation alternative” based on all relevant factors!
Additionally, that she felt unable to proselytize in accordance with her religious beliefs in San Salvador also indicates that relocation there is unreasonable. Freedom to carry out reasonable religious commitments without fear of harm is a fundamental human right.
Very interesting to compare how GOP Circuit Judges treated very clear interference with Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s ability to fulfill her religious beliefs in this case with how many GOP judges in the U.S. swoon over every minor interference with right wing religious beliefs — even those grounded in obvious bigotry — in the U.S. Here, by contrast, the GOP Circuit Judges fobbed off the interference with Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s evangelical activities — at one point she felt unable to worship publicly at her church — as of no particular concern.
Not to mention that Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s expert confirmed that:
El Salvador is “the most violent country in the world for women” and that four things put Pineda “at not only high but very predictable risk” of harm should she return to El Salvador: her religious practices and activities, her past refusal to comply with gang demands, her flight from El Salvador to escape gang threats, and the ability of gangs to learn of her return. Further, he opined, Pineda would be at high risk anywhere in El Salvador because she is a young, single woman with no protective family network, making “internal relocation a very, very difficult proposition.”
In plain terms, it’s only a matter of time before Ms. Guatemala-Pineda is persecuted, seriously harmed, or killed if returned to El Salvador. But, her life, as a woman of color, is obviously of little concern to the “gang of three.”
Let’s look at it another her way. Suppose we were tell Judges Smith, Arnold, and Staus that they had to relocate in a way that meant every third or fourth paycheck would be stolen and that they would be robbed of their cellphone every three months, with no recourse to a functioning police system. (Note that these dudes would be much better able to absorb such losses of income and expensive property than Ms. Guatemala-Pineda.) Or, that we were going to relocate their cushy ivory tower jobs to a place where they would be required to commute 90 minutes by public transportation every day. Or, that they might occasionally have to get down behind the bench to avoid rampant gunfire. Or, that they no longer could worship at their church of choice or openly engage in religious activities in their communities, but must limit themselves to “in-home worship” — not just during the pandemic, but permanently. Or, they had to live in a place where “GOP-Judiciacide” was at the highest level in the world and the police offered little or no protection, indeed were often involved themselves in abuse and killings of judges or turned a blind eye to the perpetrators.
Think our “tone-deaf group of guys in robes” would take a different view of “reasonable” if they put themselves in Ms. Guatemala-Pineda’s place and it were happening to them? You betcha!
A few other things to note about this gross miscarriage of justice:
Two panel members were appointed by Bush II, one by Trump;
Ms. Guatemala-Pineda originally won her case before the Immigration Judge, who after hearing all the evidence and carefully considering relocation found that Ms. Pineda has shown that there was no “reasonably available relocation alternative” in El Salvador;
The BIA baselessly remanded the case on ICE’s appeal to a new IJ to get the “preferred result” — a denial of relief and potential death sentence for a woman of color (See, e.g., Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions & Matter of A-B-);
In a functioning system staffed by asylum experts, this case could easily have been granted at the Asylum Office rather than kicking around the dysfunctional EOIR system for a decade — two merits hearings before the IJ — two appeals to the BIA — and Circuit Court review — all to REACH A CLEARLY INCORRECT AND UNJUST RESULT THAT NO TRUE ASYLUM EXPERT I KNOW WOULD AGREE WITH!
And, we wonder why EOIR has more than doubled the number of IJs yet still almost tripled their uncontrolled backlog to a mind-boggling 1.3 million cases! Ten years to turn an easy asylum grant into a denial (yet other cases are rushed through to denial on an assembly line without any real deli]beration or analysis) might give us a hint of why the system is totally dysfunctional and completely unfair (not to mention patently unconstitutional)!
Since EOIR is known for its incompetent record keeping, I’m willing to bet that there are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of additional “lost in space” files, warehoused somewhere that are simply “off docket” and unaccounted for.
Cases like this aren’t “academic exercises” — the judicial attitude that “screams off the pages” of this gross miscarriage of justice. They have real life, potentially deadly consequences for real humans beings, the most vulnerable of human beings, like Ms. Guatemala-Pineda. She has the same right to live as do the Circuit Judges, the BIA Judges, and the second Immigration Judge who got her case wrong!
After a decade, this monstrosity is the best our “justice system” can offer? Gimme a break! I think I could choose any three students over at the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law who would run circles around the cavalier analysis of these three supposedly “senior jurists” in this case! Cases like this basically are indictments of our Article III system, not to mention the ongoing mockery of justice at EOIR.
The anti-asylum, anti-immigrant bias, incompetent adjudication, and systemic mis-management at EOIR are of monumental proportions! The gross inconsistencies, lack of overall immigration, human rights, sensitivity to racial justice, and “practical due process” expertise at the appellate level of the U.S. Courts and particularly at the Supremes is very disturbing and threatens the very existence and legitimacy of our legal system.
Judge Garland has the power to start fixing this, today! He must vacate all the bogus Trump-era anti-immigrant precedents; toss the entire BIA, and replace them with real judges who possess the required subject matter expertise and overriding commitment to due process and fundamental fairness; establish merit-selection criteria for Immigration Judges honoring experience representing asylum applicants in court, immigration knowledge, human rights expertise, commitment to due process for individuals under law, sensitivity to racial justice, and demonstrated practical problem solving experience.
Then, apply those criteria to new Immigration Judge selections as well as to retention decisions for all current Immigration Judges. And, for Pete’s sake, “can” the incompetent bureaucracy and get some real professionals in there who can run an independent court system — starting with a functioning nationwide e-filing system and some competent judicial training as well as assisting IJs in managing their own dockets rather than constantly interfering and trying to “micromanage” from Falls Church and the 5th Floor of the DOJ (a process known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” honed by the Trump kakistocracy @ DOJ).
When you’re done, Judge Garland, you’ll have: 1) many fewer bad decisions heading off the the Courts of Appeals; 2) a functioning Immigration Judiciary of experts who can help keep order and provide helpful expert guidance to the rest of the now out of control system; and 3) a great source of “battle trained and proven” well-qualified, progressive judicial talent who can change the trajectory of the now often moribund (yeah, even some of the younger Trump appointees are basically “brain dead,” so the term fits) and dilatory Article III Judiciary and who are also available to fill other high-level policy positions with competence, common sense, and humanity.
You’d also go down in history as a judge who got out of the ivory tower and actually solved pressing problems, implemented our Constitution, and built a better, fairer court system that made a difference in human lives and the future of our nation. Perhaps, even something like “thorough teamwork and innovation, built the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” That’s quite a legacy for future generations.
I can only hope Judge Garland finally pays attention to what’s happening across the river in Falls Church and takes immediate action to end the deadly and debilitating clown show 🤡🦹🏿♂️ @ EOIR. Otherwise, I fear he will find himself buried in immigration litigation and his tenure mired in the muck of responsibility for grotesque racial injustice and “running” the worst, most incompetent, unfair, and blatantly unconstitutional “court” system in America!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! Hey Hey, Ho Ho, The Deadly EOIR Clown Show ☠️🤡 Has Got to Go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Hey, maybe next year, we could all celebrate Women’s History Month with some decisions incorporating serious scholarship by progressive women judges that actually recognize, honor, and institutionalize relief from the unfair struggles faced by refugee women and people of color.
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19 & Closures
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, April 16, 2021. (It is unclear when the next announcement will be. EOIR announced 4/16 on Fri. 3/5, 3/19 on Wed. 2/10, 2/19 on Mon. 1/25, 2/5 on Mon. 1/11, and 1/22 on Mon. 12/28.) There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.
Pew: To better understand the existing U.S. immigration system, we analyzed the most recent data available on federal immigration programs. This includes admission categories for green card recipients and the types of temporary employment visas available to immigrant workers. We also examined temporary permissions granted to some immigrants to live and work in the country through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Temporary Protected Status programs.
TRAC: As of the end of President Biden’s first full month in office, the number of individuals arrested by ICE and booked into civil immigrant detention fell sharply from 5,119 ICE book-in arrests during January 2021 to just 1,970 during February 2021. According to the latest ICE figures, this was a drop of 62 percent just in a single month.
NPR: The U.S. government had 4,276 unaccompanied migrant children in custody as of Sunday, according to a Department of Homeland Security document obtained by NPR. The children are spending an average of 117 hours in detention facilities, far longer than the 72 hours allowed by law.
NBC: Restrictions on what border agents can share with the media were passed down verbally, say officials. Some have released videos of the border surge anyway. See also How Border Patrol Manipulates Media.
CNN: Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said Sunday that he thinks he is “close” to securing the Republican votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster to advance a key immigration measure that would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.
USCIS: USCIS stopped applying the Public Charge Final Rule to all pending applications and petitions on March 9, 2021. USCIS removed content related to the vacated 2019 Public Charge Final Rule from the affected USCIS forms and has posted updated versions of affected forms. See also Withdrawal of USCIS Proposed Rule on Affidavit of Support Requirements.
Law360: The House on Thursday approved two major immigration proposals that would provide a path to lawful status and eventual citizenship for several million “Dreamers” brought to the country as children and farmworkers working without authorization in American agriculture.
The court vacated and remanded the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, finding that alleged discrepancies between the petitioner’s interview account and his hearing account failed to support the adverse credibility finding. (Cuesta-Rojas v. Garland, 3/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031737
Where the petitioner cited two post-2006 events as evidence of changed country conditions, the court held that the BIA’s failure to assess whether those changes were sufficient was arbitrary and capricious, and reversed the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. (Lucaj v. Wilkinson, 3/10/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031732
Law360: The First Circuit on Wednesday refused to disturb a Massachusetts federal court’s decision denying bail to several immigration detainees convicted of violent crimes, finding that it was reasonable to decide the detainees still belonged behind bars in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Where the Guatemalan petitioner’s Notice to Appear (NTA) was delivered in English, the court rejected her argument that the NTA violated her due process rights because it did not detail in her native language the consequences of failing to attend her proceeding. (Lopez v. Garland, 3/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031733
Law360: The Seventh Circuit on Monday squashed an attempt by 14 states led by Texas to revive the Trump administration’s public charge policy, which penalizes immigrants for using certain public benefits, after the Biden administration decided not to defend it.
The court held that the categorical approach does not require a petitioner seeking cancellation of removal to show that there is a realistic probability the state prosecutes people for the conduct that makes the state offense broader than the federal offense. (Gonzalez v. Wilkinson, 3/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031738
The court held that the BIA did not err in determining that the petitioner’s conviction for second-degree felony assault in Minnesota was a particularly serious crime barring statutory withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. (Jama v. Wilkinson, 3/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031739
The court remanded petitioner’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim to the BIA for reconsideration in light of the fact that the IJ took judicial notice of, and relied upon, DOS’s Country Report, yet the BIA’s decision did not take it into account. (Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 3/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031744
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reopen after determining that the petitioner had failed to present evidence demonstrating that country conditions in Mexico had changed since his 2003 removal order. (Rodriguez v. Garland, 3/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031741
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the Salvadoran petitioner had failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution, and concluded that her proposed social groups were not cognizable. (Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 3/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031740
The court held that Matter of G-G-S- was not arbitrary or capricious, and that BIA applied the correct legal standard in determining that petitioner’s convictions were for particularly serious crimes rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal. (Birhanu v. Wilkinson, 3/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031745
Law360: A federal judge on Thursday ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to facilitate vaccinations of immigrants detained at the agency’s Buffalo Service Processing Center in upstate New York.
Law360: Three nonprofit organizations have sued Arizona’s attorney general in federal court seeking the cancellation of an agreement requiring the state’s input in federal immigration policies, saying the Trump administration official who made the arrangement lacked the authority to do so.
ASISTA: Safe Horizon and ASISTA File Lawsuit Against USCIS and DHS, Seeking Information on Policy Change Making it More Difficult for Victims of Serious Crime to Obtain Relief Under the U-Visa Program.
On March 11, 2021, HHS ORR and ICE and CBP signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding consultation and information sharing in matters relating to unaccompanied children. The April 13, 2018, MOA among the agencies dealing with UAC matters has been terminated. AILA Doc. No. 21031235
Law360: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will no longer rule out petitions for special status from mistreated youth based on state courts’ failure to assess whether they have ties to gangs, a policy change stemming from a class settlement last year.
EOIR issued a policy memo (PM 21-16) rescinding and cancelling PM 20-01, Case Processing at the Board of Immigration Appeals. Upon this rescission, the BIA returns to the case management system established by regulation that was effective on 9/25/02 to manage the Board’s caseload. AILA Doc. No. 21031748
Advance copy of USCIS and EOIR interim final rule further delaying until 12/31/21 the effective date of the final rule “Security Bars and Processing” (85 FR 84160) which had been scheduled to become effective on 3/22/21. Public comment is also sought on whether the rule should be revised or revoked. AILA Doc. No. 21031930
Advance copy of USCIS final rule extending the expiration date of the temporary final rule on interpreters at asylum interviews published at 85 FR 59655, which was originally scheduled to expire on 3/22/21, for 180 days. The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on 3/22/21. AILA Doc. No. 21031932
CBP issued a notification of the continuation of temporary travel restrictions limiting travel of individuals from Mexico into the United States at land ports of entry along the United States-Mexico border through 4/21/21 due to COVID-19. (86 FR 14813, 3/19/21) AILA Doc. No. 21031934
USCIS notice extending the designation of Syria for TPS for 18 months, from 3/31/21 through 9/30/22, and redesignating Syria for TPS for 18 months, effective 3/31/21 through 9/30/22. (86 FR 14946, 3/19/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012930
Check out item #7 under “Top News,” the story from the WashPost of Agnes Lee, the new Editor-in-Chief of the Georgetown Law Journal. In addition to being a brilliant and accomplished student, she happens to be an undocumented resident of the U.S. Congrats to Agnes, the Law Journal, and the entire Georgetown Law community!
⚖️Shout Out for Georgetown Law Students:
Of course, never missing an opportunity to “self-promote,” I heartily encourage current Georgetown Law students who wish to learn and engage in active dialogue about immigration, social justice, and racial justice in America today, as well as to pick up pointers on how to actually practice law, to register for my “compressed semester, 2-credit course Immigration Law & Policy” to be given this June (in person, and virtual options).
Thanks to the great group of students, it’s always a lively, engaged, and diverse group researching, presenting, and discussing perhaps the most important (and misunderstood) current topic for America’s and the word’s future — one on which, sad to say, the myths, false narratives and misinformation are rampant, spreading even as I write this.
While I provide an outstanding “practice oriented” text, the class topics, abundant study questions, a challenging but very “doable” final exam, along with the inevitable anecdotes and “war stories” from my nearly 50-year career, the students actually control the substance though their own research on current and historical events and sharing of personal experiences with the immigration system (everybody has some, whether they realize it or not). It’s also a chance to “network and bond” with a group of wonderful colleagues who can “be there for you” throughout your careers.
Indeed, I hope to put together a panel of “young superstars”🌟 of the New Due Process Army,🌟 including former students/and or court interns, who can share their career experiences on “why they chose to make a difference in human lives and how they have accomplished it.” Additionally, one of the best “up and coming” minds in the business, my friend Professor Cori Alonso Yoder, currently a Visiting Professor at Georgetown Law, has offered to meet with the class to share some of her knowledge and real life experiences with “Life-saving 101.” So, it should be a vibrant an exciting month. Don’t miss it!
Also, despite the seriousness of the topic, we always have some fun doing it!
Also, remember, NDPA superstar🌟 Liz Gibson, of “The Gibson Report,” is one of my former Georgetown Law students, a CALS Asylum Clinic veteran, a former Arlington Immigration Court intern, a former Judicial Law Clerk at the NY Immigration Court, and an alum of the prestigious Immigrant Justice Corps! In a relatively short time, Liz has used her skills, knowledge, and training to make a lifetime’s worth of “real life positive impact” on the lives and futures of our fellow humans!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” 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)Gabe Gutierrez NBC News Correspondent Atlanta, GA
Reminds me of the essay I recently posted from my friend, Don Kerwin at CMS:
The number of unaccompanied children and asylum-seekers crossing the US-Mexico border in search of protection has increased in recent weeks. The former president, his acolytes, and both extremist and mainstream media have characterized this situation as a “border crisis,” a self-inflicted wound by the Biden administration, and even a failure of US asylum policy. It is none of these things. Rather, it is a response to compounding pressures, most prominently the previous administration’s evisceration of US asylum and anti-trafficking policies and procedures, and the failure to address the conditions that are displacing residents of the Northern Triangle states of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), as well as Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and other countries…
The real immigration crisis is not at the border, but in the failure to respond effectively to the conditions driving forced migration, to establish orderly and viable legal immigration policies, to legalize the increasingly long-tenured undocumented population, and to reform and invest sufficiently in the US asylum and immigration court systems.
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
It also echoes the words of veteran journalist Marc Cooper, posted by my friend Dan Kowalski over on LexisNexis Immigration Community:
When I was in Mexico reporting on the exodus, I would talk with dozens of migrants who were just a an hour or two away from starting their trek and, to a person, not one of them said they paid any attention to new US laws and regs as they were determined to cross no matter what. And no matter the sacrifices.
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Even the WashPost editorial page writers “get” the reality of human migration in a way the nativist fear-mongers never will:
Yet despite fearmongering by Republicans, the current influx is neither a public health emergency nor a national security threat. The vast majority of those allowed to enter the country will join relatives here while their asylum claims plod along. That wait is too long — it can stretch to three years or more — and the administration insists it will shrink the backlog. It has also earmarked $4 billion in aid from the pandemic relief bill for Central America — with strings attached to prevent its misuse — to attack the conditions that make life miserable there and drive migrants to seek refuge in this country.
Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license
Still, sadly, facts and reality seem largely irrelevant here.
Despite denials from Secretary Mayorkas, the Biden Administration appears to be believing Kevin McCarthy’s BS on some level.
Thursday, the Administration basically negotiated a “lite version” of Trump’s “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” — essentially trading AstroZenica vaccine (which wasn’t approved for use in the U.S. anyway) for Mexico’s agreement to step up harsh enforcement measures against migrants crossing their Southern Border and to warehouse families arbitrarily rejected without due process by the U.S. under our bogus CDC directive. We already have seen how well that works out!
A girl peers out from an encampment at the U.S.-Mexico border where she and several hundred people waited to present themselves to U.S. immigration to seek asylum. / Photo by David Maung
Any way you cut it, the realities of human migration, the lives of the desperate individuals involved, the views of human rights experts and advocates, and our supposed commitment to international conventions, the rule of law, and Constitutional Due Process take a back seat when the “bogus border debate” shifts into high gear.
There is actually a very simple truth here: “Forced migration” is not “optional!” In fact, a number of forced migrants prefer “death in the attempt” to “death in place.”
Therefore, all the “deterrents,” “border militarization,” “Baby Jails,” and “stay home statements” won’t ultimately stop the inexorable flow (although they might temporarily divert, modulate, or vary it— usually just enough for the “powers that be” to declare “victory at sea” as a result of their failed policies while ignoring the human carnage and lost opportunities they leave behind).
Professor Philip G. Schrag Georgetown Law Co-Director, CALS Asylum Clinic, Author of “Baby Jails”
Sure, there is a timing factor. Weather, the “business plans” and propaganda of smugglers (Trump’s “enforcement only” policies have been a boon for them in more ways than one, not only boosting their fees, but diverting enforcement resources away from the “real” law enforcement problems at the border involving drugs and human exploitation), and Biden’s pledge to restore humanity and the rule of law to America all factor into the equation in some way.
But, they are not the the primary causes of forced migration, except to the extent that climatechange (ignored and worsened by Trump and the GOP) has aggravated the poverty and economic disorder in the Northern Triangle by destroying the livelihoods of many farmers and making their land essentially worthless.
Tone-deaf GOP politicos like McCarthy and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) apparently think the solution is to continue to mock the rule of law, violate the Constitution, and simply declare the Southern Border closed forever, al a Stephen Miller. Let families and children “die in place” in their home countries, die on the journey at the hands of other governments, or rot forever in Mexico — “Out of sight, out of mind.” As long as it isn’t happening in our country and being covered by our news outlets, who cares about human lives? That was certainly the Trump approach!
That’s hardly a “solution,” except in neo-Nazi or Soviet-era terms. The harshest and most inhuman approaches will, as they have in the past and continue to do, fail to stop desperate humans who want to survive from doing what’s necessary to save their lives and preserve their families’ futures, even when that interferes with the GOP’s “whitewashed” version of “American greatness.”
The solution involves following Constitutional due process, re-establishing the rule of law (including a radical “reform and replace” of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts), and adhering to our international obligations, both in letter and spirit. It also requires an expanded, much more robust, legal immigration system that reflects the demands of our economy, the needs of migrants, and the realities of human migration, particularly from Latin America. Like it or not, there will be more immigration.
As I have said before: “There are many ways in which we can diminish our own humanity, but none of them will stop human migration.”
Will G. Reaper Become The Lasting Image of America’s 21st Century Human Rights & Racial Justice Failures In The Eyes Of The Rest Of Humanity & Future Generations? Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
Contrary to the GOP blather, immigration, voluntary, forced, coerced, legal, extra-legal, white, non-white, Christian, non-Christian, is what the real America is all about, for better or worse. Overall, immigration is a positive force for America.
Here’s a great essay on the positive nature of immigration by Pedro Gerson on Slate. Pedro isthe director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the Louisiana State University Law Center, and a former immigration staff attorney at the Bronx Defenders. The latter organization has been home to a number of notable members of the NDPA.
Pedro Gerson Director, Immigration Law Clinic LSU Law Center SOURCE: Twitter
As Pedro says, human migration to America will continue notwithstanding GOP xenophobes. The only question is whether we will have the wisdom and courage to work with and take advantage of its power in constructive, creative, forward looking ways, rather than trying to “recreate Jim Crow!”
Or, will we continue, as GOP restrictionists urge, to squander resources, goodwill, and human potential on futile efforts to eradicate what is perhaps the oldest and most fundamental phenomenon of human existence?
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! Restore the rule of law! Fix The Disgraceful, Dysfunctional Immigration Courts, Judge Garland! End White Nationalist racism!
Courtside has learned that BIA Appellate Immigration Judge Edward F. Kelly has retired. Although his retirement will not become “official” until the end of this month, his “last day on the job” was yesterday, March 18.
He has been on the BIA since 2017, and with EOIR for 31 of his 34 years of Government service. He served in a number of management positions during my tenure as BIA Chair. He also was a Deputy Chief Immigration Judge immediately prior to his BIA appointment.
Judge Kelly will continue to teach “Refugee Law & Policy” (“RLP”) at Georgetown Law as an Adjunct Professor. That class has a long and distinguished history, having been taught in the past by,among others, Professor Andy Schoenholtz, Professor Susan Forbes Martin, the late Professor (and former EOIR Director and BIA Chair) Juan Osuna, and, of course me (2012-14).
Significantly, the students in RLP were the inspiration for the “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”). Many of them have gone on to make huge impacts on the law, human rights, and social justice literally worldwide (visiting foreign scholars were an integral part of the “RLP student body,” just as they have been in my current class “Immigration Law & Policy.”)
Congratulations and welcome to the wonderful world of retirement, Judge Kelly. Glad to have you as a faculty colleague at the Georgetown Law “Immigration Consortium” that includes, of course, CALS Asylum Clinic Co-Directors Professors Andy Schoenholtz, Phil Schrag, and others!
Here’s Judge Kelly’s bio from the Georgetown Law website:
Board Member, Board of Immigration Appeals, U.S. Department of Justice; Adjunct Professor of Law
Edward F. Kelly
B.A., Notre Dame; J.D., Notre Dame
Edward Kelly is currently an appellate immigration judge (Board Member) at the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative tribunal on immigration law in the United States and a component of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.
He has served in several immigration positions in the Executive Office for Immigration Review over the last thirty years, including tenures as Deputy Chief Immigration Judge, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Senior Counsel and Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, Acting Director of the Office of Administration, and senior legal advisor and attorney advisor to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
His experiences outside the agency include positions as an assistant counsel to the United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law, and as a high school teacher of humane letters at Trinity School at Meadow View, Falls Church, Virginia. Prior to his legal career, he served as a volunteer teacher with the United States Peace Corps in Gabon, Africa.
******
Let’s hope that Judge Garland does a better job with his initial Appellate Immigration Judge appointments than he did with his first Immigration Judge Appointment. It’s time to treat these appointments with the seriousness they deserve and to bring in the “best and the brightest” from the NDPA to turn the BIA around and return it to the noble mission of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
In a new essay for the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), CMS’s Executive Director Donald Kerwin writes:
The number of unaccompanied children and asylum-seekers crossing the US-Mexico border in search of protection has increased in recent weeks. The former president, his acolytes, and both extremist and mainstream media have characterized this situation as a “border crisis,” a self-inflicted wound by the Biden administration, and even a failure of US asylum policy. It is none of these things. Rather, it is a response to compounding pressures, most prominently the previous administration’s evisceration of US asylum and anti-trafficking policies and procedures, and the failure to address the conditions that are displacing residents of the Northern Triangle states of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), as well as Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and other countries…
The real immigration crisis is not at the border, but in the failure to respond effectively to the conditions driving forced migration, to establish orderly and viable legal immigration policies, to legalize the increasingly long-tenured undocumented population, and to reform and invest sufficiently in the US asylum and immigration court systems.
Thanks Don for speaking out against the scandalous GOP complete “border BS,” all too often parroted by the so-called “mainstream press.” Read the rest of Don’s essay at the link.
Don has spent his entire career solving migration and human rights problems. The Biden Administration and everyone who believes in American democracy should listen to “practical experts” like Don, rather than ignorant, racially-motivated GOP politicos and White Nationalist nativists spouting the “same old, same old” myths, fear-mongering, and unhelpful “non-solutions.”
If xenophobic rhetoric, cruelty, officially-sanctioned child abuse, evading our own legal and humanitarian responsibilities, and “enforcement only” were the “solutions,” the “problem at the Southern Border” — which has existed in one form or another for over a half century, would long ago have been solved. We can’t solve humanitarian situations that create forced migration with unilateral law enforcement gimmicks and cruelty toward the humans fighting for their lives. Human migration long pre-existed the formation of nation states and establishment of national boundaries.
Administration after administration, of both parties, have squandered time and taxpayer money on unsuccessful efforts to “enforce their way” out of forced migration situations. Contrary to GOP blather, Democratic Administrations have been almost as fixated as the GOP with unsuccessfully “detaining, deterring, and enforcing” their way out of human problems that demand more thoughtful human solutions.
All Administrations at some point prematurely claim that their efforts have “succeeded.” None actually have succeeded in addressing the causes of the migration. Therefore, none of these “false solutions” proves “durable.”
Significantly, Don is one of the few commentators to fully grasp the integral connection between the Trump regime’s complete destruction of the integrity of the Immigration Courts and its lawless, yet highly ineffective, border policies.
Real solutions don’t kill, harm, and maim refugees and forced migrants, encourage criminal cartels and corrupt foreign officials to prey on them, and stack up desperate humans in dangerous conditions just across the border because US Government officials were too biased and incompetent to operate under any semblance of the rule of law.
We can abide by our own laws, international norms, our Constitution, human decency, and common sense. It isn’t rocket science.
But, it does require a combination of expertise, courage, humanity, and practical problem solving that has been conspicuously absent from our governing structure since 2017, and severely undervalued before that.
Also, it’s certainly not that the Biden Administration has suddenly re-established due process and the rule of law at the border. Far from it!
The vast majority of those arriving at the border, even those who are applying at legal ports of entry, are unceremoniously and summarily removed without any process at all, let alone due process of law. This is all based on a largely bogus Trump-initiated exercise of authority by the CDC to use COVID-19 as a pretext to suspend the rule of law and constitutional due process at the border.
Moreover, we shouldn’t forget that even with the Biden Administration’s gradual efforts to re-establish a legal process for asylum seekers, unaccompanied children are still being held in Government detention for far longer than the 72-hours permitted under law. This problem won’t be solved, as some GOP nativists incredibly suggest, by dumping kids back across the Mexican Border, returning them to danger in their home countries without regard to their individual situations, or forcing them to turn to smugglers to make their way to relative safety in the interior of the U.S.
Nor will it be solved by long-term detention in disgraceful and inhumane “Baby Jails!” Ask my Georgetown Law colleague and author Professor Phil Schrag of the CALS Asylum Clinic about that!
Interestingly, some of the biggest complainers spreading the “open borders myth” are Greg Abbott and other Texas GOP politicos who have prematurely “reopened their state” in the middle of a pandemic in blatant contravention of best medical and public health advice. So, you can summarily dismiss their “crocodile tears” and bogus “hand wringing” about public health and safety.
That’s particularly true since the GOP is just coming off a massive example of how their incompetent mis-governance of Texascaused unnecessary misery and loss of life among Texas residents as a result of a highly predictable and long-foreseen “weather emergency.” Why does the mainstream media often continue to treat these “political hacks,” who couldn’t “govern” their way out of a paper bag, as credible spokespersons on anything, let alone human rights situations of which they have no expertise whatsoever?
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! Re-Establish The Rule Of Law, Including Full, Robust Humanitarian Protections At The Border& In Our Disgracefully Dysfunctional Immigration “Courts.”
