"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“I don’t know how much longer I’ll be alive, but my children will always thank you”
Friends,
Our client A-A, from Venezuela, who won asylum in 2020, is sadly suffering from advanced breast cancer. We are organizing a fundraiser to help this family, including their two young sons, as they go through a difficult time. Please check out our bio to donate. A personal note: The immigration judge teared up after A-A thanked her.
Honorable Elizabeth Young Assistant Chief Immigration Judge
My good friend Professor Alberto Benitez @ GW Immigration Clinic reports:
Friends,
I’m pleased to share the news that our friend, colleague, and alum Elizabeth L. Young was appointed an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the US Department of Justice. While at GW Judge Young was a student in my Immigration Law I course, a student-attorney in the Immigration Clinic, and later interim director of the Immigration Clinic during my leave. The press release link follows.
Many congrats to Assistant Chief Judge Young. Significantly, Judge Young has a 72% asylum grant rate that has remained consistent even during the Trump-era meltdown of due process and institution of the “asylum denial culture” and anti-asylum precedents and procedures in the Immigration Courts. That assault on justice, humanity, and the rule of law drove a once higher than 50% nationwide grant rate down to an artificially-low and intentionally unfair 33%.
As all NDPA warriors know, asylum adjudication at EOIR over the past four years has become a deadly national disgrace, as yet largely unaddressed by Judge Garland, whose dozens of inexplicably lackluster appointments to the Immigration Courts to date have drawn ire and fire from human rights experts.
Assistant Chief Judge Young immediately becomes one of the few “beacons of due process, best practices, and proper asylum adjudication” in a leadership position at EOIR. Hopefully, there will be more to follow! Make no mistake, EOIR is in “meltdown mode.”
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Many congrats to my friends Professor Alberto Benitez, Professrial Lecturer Paulina Vera, and the GW Immigration Clinic on all of their achievements and the well-deserved recognition!
STUDENT-ATTORNEYS RISE TO CHALLENGES, INNOVATE ALONG THE WAY
Public Justice Advocacy Clinic (PJAC)
“[I]t really felt like we were first-year associates!” Laura Saini, JD ’21, a student-attorney in the Public Justice Advocacy Clinic (PJAC) commented about her clinic experience. A student team represented the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless and filed a lawsuit under D.C.’s Freedom of Information Act to retrieve emails and other documents reflecting concerns with the Department of Human Services’s (DHS) homeless shelter service program. The lawsuit prompted DHS to locate over 20,000 pages of documents, but DHS was not going down without a fight.
“We were researching, drafting, and editing legal arguments under tight deadlines,” the student further explained. DHS refused to disclose most of the documents on the ground that they contained personal and private information. When Judge Puig-Lugo of D.C. Superior Court ordered DHS to redact information and release the documents, DHS countered with a motion to reconsider and a motion for an in-camera review. When denied, DHS filed another motion to stay the production of the emails pending appeal. Under the supervision of Professor Jeffrey Gutman, the student-attorneys drafted a brief urging the court to deny DHS’s motions. Based on their brief, the court ultimately rejected both DHS motions to reconsider and to allow an in-camera review. During a particularly challenging time for D.C.’s homeless population, this was a first step in creating accountability and ensuring programs are benefiting those who need them most.
Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic (VILC)
For the first time in the history of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic (VILC), every student was assigned to the same case. A case that had been pending for eight long years finally culminated in a three-day trial. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the case presented unique logistical and technical challenges. The trial was conducted entirely online. The student-attorneys were in their homes, and experts were worldwide, from Delaware to California to Israel. Alexandra Marshall, Class of ’22, commented, “The breadth of matters that we had a chance to work on is more than some lawyers experience in a decade.” Each student rose to the challenge admirably.
Ms. Marshall worked on literature research, the prehearing brief, and the technical glossary for the court. Rebecca Wolfe, Class of ’22, delivered opening statements. Giavana Behnamian, Class of ’22, and Alfonso Nazarro, Class of ’22, conducted the direct examination of VILC’s expert. Ms. Wolfe and Kimberly Henrickson, Class of ’22, conducted the direct examination of VILC’s client. Ji Young Ahn, Class of ’22, delivered the closing argument, reminding the court of the human element. Ms. Behnamian expressed her gratitude for having this experience “with a great team of other GW student-attorneys.”
Though each student appreciated the learning experience, what meant the most to them was the difference they could make. Ms. Wolfe remarked, “After I gave the opening statement at [our client’s] hearing, she sent me a text telling me that she appreciated it.” Ms. Henrickson added, “Hearing her describe her experience in her own words was a salient reminder that beyond the briefs, motions, medical records, and filings that make up our everyday tasks are the real people for whom we advocate.”
Family Justice Litigation Clinic
The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the world—and by extension the courts—into some chaos. The D.C. Superior Court estimates that 25 percent of all family law filings are currently stalled for lack of service, while hundreds of litigants are awaiting resolution of custody and divorce filings. To combat the backlog of cases this year, the Family Justice Litigation Clinic (FJLC) launched an innovative partnership with D.C. Superior Court to train student-attorneys to become mediators. The goal of this partnership was to help litigants resolve cases by consent and short-circuit the lengthy process of waiting for a court date. Using the court’s Webex technology, student-mediators met with pro se parties and mediated their matters in breakout rooms. Though mediation could not resolve some cases, the initiative successfully helped reduce the backlog of cases and facilitated access to justice for litigants.
The partnership allowed students to explore how they could use new technologies to resolve issues in the modern age. The project also allowed students to collaborate across law schools and train with student-mediators in Catholic University’s Families and the Law Clinic, led by Professor Catherine Klein. The clinic’s efforts did not end with the school year, however. Dean Laurie Kohn, Director of the FJLC, in collaboration with Professor Andrew Budzinski, Co-Director of the General Practice Clinic at University of the District of Columbia (UDC) Clarke School of Law, continued working with the court and local law schools to look for solutions for pro se litigants. Out of these efforts, the Family Law Access to Justice Project was born, a collaborative effort between GW Law, UDC Clarke School of Law, and Catholic University Columbus School of Law. Through this program, students will continue consulting with litigants about their options and provide them with required paperwork and support to navigate the court system in this trying time. (Pictured: Top: (left to right) Dean Laurie Kohn and Moheb Keddis, Class of ‘22; Bottom: Dana Gibson, Class of ‘22)
Immigration Clinic
Student-attorneys in the Immigration Clinic were hard at work this academic year, helping clients seeking asylum and improving services for asylum-seekers. Educational efforts came from a team of two student-attorneys, Tessa Pulaski, JD ’21, and Sarah Husk, JD ’21. The students addressed residents at the George Washington University Medical School. They taught residents in the psychiatric program about asylum law and the role psychiatric evaluations play for asylum seekers in the United States. It was a meaningful opportunity to teach physicians how they can help fight for justice and create a dialogue between schools and disciplines.
Thanks to the efforts of the clinic, a family of five will get to stay in the United States. When the mother, P.M., was a child, her stepfather worked for an African country’s embassy. At age 11, her stepfather brought P.M. and her mother to live in the United States. P.M.’s stepfather began isolating P.M. and sexually abusing her in their home and even inside the embassy. He would threaten to send P.M. back to Africa to live by herself if she told anyone what he was doing. The abuse continued for two years.
As a result of the sexual abuse P.M. faced as a child, she suffered from eating disorders and suicidal ideation as an adult. In 2019, with the support of her husband, A.M., P.M. reported her stepfather to the police. As a result, he was sentenced to eight years in prison. With her stepfather finally facing judgment and with the assistance of the Immigration Clinic, P.M. was granted a T-visa as a victim of trafficking.
The fight does not end here, however. A.M. is currently facing removal proceedings of his own. The clinic will move to terminate these proceedings based on A.M.’s derivative T-visa status. If successful, this will mean P.M., A.M., and their three small children will all get to stay in the United States together. (Pictured front row: Professorial Lecturer in Law Paulina Vera and Ann Nicholas, JD ’21. Back row: Sebastian Weinmann, JD ’21; Colleen Ward, JD ’21; Rachel Sims, JD ’21; and Professor Alberto Benitez)
In the spring semester, Professor Benitez received the Silver Anniversary Faculty Award. The award is given to those professors in the George Washington University community who have completed 25 years of continuous full-time service.
Professor Gutman’s article, “Are Federal Exonerees Paid?: Lessons for the Drafting and Interpretation of Wrongful Conviction Compensation Statutes,” was published in the Cleveland State Law Review. Professor Gutman also was involved in two significant cases this semester. The first was Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless v. D.C. Department of Human Services, where the court in a D.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case ordered the disclosure of thousands of 2019 emails reflecting complaints and concerns with the D.C. shelter housing program. The other was Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, where a federal court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment in a federal FOIA case seeking records related to the Trump administration’s defunding of organizations fighting white nationalism. The court also ordered two new searches for potentially responsive documents.
Director, Small Business and Community Economic Development Clinic
n February 2021, Professor Jones presented her paper “The Case for
Leadership Coaching in Law Schools: A New Way to Support Professional Identity Formation” (48 Hofstra Law Review 659 2020) at the Santa Clara University School of Law Symposium “Lawyers, Leadership, and Change: Addressing Challenges and Opportunities in Unprecedented Times.” The symposium was co-sponsored with the Association of American Law Schools’ (AALS) Section on Leadership Institute for Leadership Education. In May 2021, Professor Jones was a panelist at the AALS Clinical Conference concurrent session “Building the Future Through the Development of Leadership and Professional Identity in Clinical Programs.” Professor Jones continues to serve on the AALS Leadership Section Executive Committee. Her co-edited book Investing for Social & Economic Impact is forthcoming in 2022 from ABA Publishing.
In January 2021, the faculty voted to appoint Dean Kohn as the Jacob Burns Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs. Dean Kohn had served in this position on an interim basis since 2019. Dean Kohn organized and moderated a panel at the January 2021 meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) titled “How the Pandemic Made Me a Better Teacher. In May 2021, the California Court of Appeals Fourth Appellate District relied on Dean Kohn’s scholarship regarding the credibility of domestic violence survivors.
Professor Meier was a featured commentator in parts 3 and 4 of HBO’s 4-part docuseries Allen v. Farrow, which ran in April 2021 and can be streamed on HBO Max. She is a co-author with Danielle Pollack of Allen v Farrow: Child Sexual Abuse is the Final Frontier. She was the keynote speaker of the New Jersey Family Division and Domestic Violence Education Conference, where she presented “Vicarious Trauma and Resilience.” She was a panelist for the Learning Network, Center for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children at Western University in Canada, where she presented “Family Court Outcomes in U.S. Custody Cases with Abuse and Alienation Claims.” She was a panelist for the GW Law Association for Women, where she presented “Paving Public Interest and Pro Bono.” She was also a panelist at the American Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting, where she presented “Dynamic Pedagogy in the Family and Juvenile Law Classroom: Experiential and In-Class Exercises.” Professor Meier has been featured on the episode “Testimony” of GW Law Dean Matthew’s podcast. She was featured with Sara Scott in the webinar “The Trauma We Carry” for the Center for Legal Inclusiveness and in the webinar “Family Court Outcomes in U.S. Cases with Abuse and Alienation Claims” for the N.Y. State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Recently, Professor Meier’s manuscript, which she calls her “piece de resistance” on what is wrong in family courts and what can fix it, was accepted by Georgetown University Law Journal. Professor Meier also was appointed to the N.Y. Governor’s Blue-Ribbon Commission on custody evaluators as the only non-New York-based expert.
Professor Steinberg published “Judges and the Deregulation of Lawyers” (89 Fordham Law Review 1315 (2021) (with Anna Carpenter, Colleen Shanahan, and Alyx Mark) and presented the paper as part of Fordham Law School’s Colloquium on Judging. In addition, Professor Steinberg received the Alfred McKenzie Award from the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights for “dismantling injustice” for prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic by founding the compassionate release clearinghouse along with several partner agencies. She was quoted in The Washington Post article “Sick, Elderly Prisoners Are At Risk for Covid-19. A New D.C. Law Makes it Easier for Them to Seek Early Release,” which detailed the impact of the District of Columbia’s new compassionate release law, authored by Professor Steinberg.
Professor Vera was selected by the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) as one of 26 attorneys nationwide to receive the HNBA 2021 Top Lawyers Under 40 Award in March 2021. The award recognizes legal achievement, integrity, commitment to the Hispanic community, and a dedication to improving the legal profession.
JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
In October 2020, the clinics launched a Facebook group page. Through this forum, current clinic students and alumni can now gather to exchange information, share campus events, and discuss employment opportunities. Please join us.
It’s no surprise to me and other members of the NDPA that clinics are leading the way in modern legal education. And, immigration clinics have been at the forefront of clinical education (“practical scholarship”). While academia is often slow to adjust to “marketplace changes,” it’s encouraging to see the long-overdue recognition that clinical teaching is finally getting as the “core” of modern legal education.
Hats off to Alberto, Paulina, my Georgetown CALS colleagues, and all the other amazing clinical professors out there! Clinical professors and other progressive practical scholars and litigators are the folks who belong on the Federal Bench at all levels, from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes, and who should be the political and private sector leaders of the future!
Immigration, human rights, and due process have for some time now been the “seminal fields” of Federal Law — the essence of what our 21st Century Justice system is all about and the key to our survival and future prosperity as a democratic republic. Unfortunately, the political, judicial, and legal “establishments” have been slow on the uptake. That’s a primary reason why our legal and political systems are now in crisis.
Hopefully, the “best and the brightest” who have been courageously serving on the front lines of protecting our democracy and advancing racial and gender justice will in the next generations assume the leadership positions that they have earned and that will be key to our nation’s survival and advancement!
Congrats to Professors Benitez and Vera and GW Law!
“Is there some problem here?” “Random violence?” “Mere common crime?” “Reasonable state protection?” Does Attorney General Merrick B. Garland share the views of one of his predecessors, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions that lives of of brown-skinned refugee women don’t matter? Is that why Garland hasn’t revoked Matter of A-B-? Is that why Trump/Miller “plants” with notorious records of anti-asylum misogyny directed at Central American women continue to serve as “Appellate Judges” on Garland’s BIA even as refugee women continue to be turned back to “death without due process” at our borders? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
If YOU were a refugee woman pleading for YOUR LIFE in Immigration Court, who would YOU want as the Judge?
This Stephen Miller clone holdover from the Trump Administration:
“Appellate Immigration Judge” approved by Stephen Miller to find the “final solution” for female refugees of color Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
Or these internationally-renowned practical scholar-experts in gender based asylum:
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings LawProfessor Deborah Anker Director, Harvard Law Immigration & Refugee Clinic PHOTO: Harvard Law
This might also be a good time to watch (or re-watch) the following video short featuring the “real” Ms. A-B- (and her lawyers) who was arbitrarily targeted by White Nationalist “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions to receive an unwarranted “death sentence” in violation of due process!
So why is Judge Garland retaining the “Trump-Miller-Sessions-Barr BIA” rather than replacing them with much better qualified immigration/human rights experts dedicated to due process like, for example, Alberto Benitez and Paulina Vera?
👍🏼🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For Refugee Women! Tell Judge Garland To End Institutionalized Misogyny @ EOIR!☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻Remove Anti-Asylum Zealots & Those Unwilling To Stand Up For Due Process For All Asylum Seekers From The BIA! Appoint Real Judges To Restore Due Process!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
***********************
Thanks to Professors Benitezand Vera for the great work for the NDPA that they are doing and the values they are instilling in their students. Just think what due process could look like in the Immigration Courts if all judges, trial and appellate, reflected those same values!
The concepts are actually very straightforward.
The Attorney General is a litigant before the Immigration Court. He or she can insert themselves in the process if they choose, to represent the Government as a litigant. But, the Attorney General should be treated as any other litigant — at arm’s length.
Individuals appearing before the Immigration Court are entitled to a fair and impartial independent adjudicator. As long as the Attorney General exercises control over the selection of judges, evaluates their performance, and can review and arbitrarily change their decisions, on his or her own whim, the system will remain unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair.
Interesting that law students see so clearly, recognize, and can articulate what Federal Judges, all the way up to the Supremes, legislators, and our Attorney General all fail to acknowledge and act upon. Hope for the future! But without better-qualified legislators, judges, and Executive Branch officials, will our justice system survive long enough to get to the future? Not without some very fundamental changes!
Every day, individuals have their constitutional, statutory, and human rights stomped upon, mocked, and abused by the broken Immigration Courts. Sometimes, Circuit Courts intervene to provide some semblance of justice in individual cases; other times they turn a blind eye to injustice and fundamentally unfair decision-making in the totally dysfunctional Immgration Courts.
But, nobody, but nobody, except members of the NDPA appears to be willing to recognize and act on the overall glaring constitutional and operational defects in the current Immigration “Courts” — that don’t resemble “courts” at all. That’s something that should concern and outrage every American committed to racial justice, equal justice for all, fundamental fairness, and constitutional due process!
EOIR and the U.S. Immigration Courts are an ongoing national disgrace — a festering sore upon democracy!🤮 Every day, they inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on those humans being abused by their fundamental unfairness and institutionalized chaos.!
How many ruined human lives ⚰️ and futures ☠️is it going to take for someone in the “power structure” to wake up and take notice!
fl-undocumented-minors 2 – Judge Denise Slavin, former executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges in an immigration courtrrom in Miami. Mike Stocker, Sun Sentinel — Judge Slavin is a member of the Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesGW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina VeraDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)MeYilun Cheng Writer PHOTO: Twitter
From “For Undocumented Immigrants, a Shot at Lawful Residency Requires Risking It All” by Yilun Cheng in Borderless Magazine:
. . . .
The risk has become even higher in recent years as the Trump administration filled the immigration court system with hardline judges, according to Paul Schmidt, a former judge at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia. For years, legal groups have urged the government to hire judges from diverse backgrounds to guarantee fairness in the courts, but the situation has only deteriorated in recent years, Schmidt said.
. . . .
“The Obama administration was just negligent,” Schmidt said, suspecting that former president Barack Obama left dozens of vacant immigration judgeships when he left the White House. “The new administration got a chance to fill those positions with a far-right judiciary.”
. . . .
“It’s very much a law enforcement-oriented and not a due process-oriented judiciary,” Schmidt said. “It’s just a bad time to be an individual with a case in the immigration court right now, with a bunch of unsympathetic judges, political hacks pulling the strings, and inconsistent COVID policies.”
. . . .
*******************
Read Yilun’s full article at the link.
In the article, my friend and Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Denise Slavin gives an excellent description of how “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” operates in a bogus “court” system run by political hacks with enforcement (and in the defeated “regime” racist) motivations.
“Ready to try” cases, many of which could be granted or should be closed, are shuffled off to the end of the docket, some without any notice on the day of trial when the respondent, his or her lawyer, and often witnesses who have taken the day from work arrive only to find out that their case has been “orbited” into the “outer space” of the EOIR backlog.
Meanwhile, cases of individuals who haven’t had time to get lawyers or been granted the preparation time required by due process are put at the front of the docket to make denial of their cases easier for “judges” who have been told that they are basically functionaries of DHS enforcement. Sometimes, the very same lawyers who have had their years-old prepared cases arbitrarily reset to oblivion are then improperly pressured and required to go forward with cases they haven’t had a chance to properly prepare or document.
Often, individuals whose cases are improperly “accelerated” recieve inadequate notice, resulting in carelessly issued, illegal “in absentia” orders that could result in improper removal or at least require heroic efforts by lawyers to get the case reopened and restored to the docket. Meanwhile, the bogus “no-show” statistics caused by the Government’s improper actions are used to build an intentionally false narrative that asylum seekers don’t show at their hearings.
The truth, of course, is the exact opposite: When given a chance to get competent representation and when the system is explained to them in understandable terms, asylum seekers show up for the overwhelming majority of their hearings, regardless of the ultimate result of their cases.
As cogently studied and stated by highly-respected “practical scholar” Professor Ingrid Eagly of UCLA Law and her colleague UCLA empirical researcher Steven Shafer, in a recent published study:
Contrary to claims that all immigrants abscond, our data-driven analysis reveals that 88% of all immigrants in immigration court with completed or pending removal cases over the past eleven years attended all of their court hearings. If we limit our analysis to only nondetained cases, we still find a high compliance rate: 83% of all respondents in completed or pending removal cases attended all of their hearings since 2008. Moreover, we reveal that 15% of those who were ordered deported in absentia since 2008 successfully reopened their cases and had their in absentia orders rescinded. Digging deeper, we identify three factors associated with in absentia removal: having a lawyer, applying for relief from removal (such as asylum), and court jurisdiction.
I’d be willing to bet that at least an equal number of individuals with in absentia orders are illegally deported because they aren’t knowledgeable enough to reopen their cases, or their reopening motions are wrongfully denied but they lack to resources to pursue appeals, which often involve prolonged periods of dangerous and abusive detention.
Obviously, an Administration actually interested in solving problems (presumably “Team Garland”) would “can the false narratives and bogus enforcement gimmicks” and concentrate on getting asylum seekers represented and increasing and raising the quality of judicial review of detention decisions. The regime’s immigration kakistocracy, of course, has moved in exactly the opposite direction.
Cooperation and coordination with the private, often pro bono, bar, essential to any well-functioning court system, has become non-existent. In fact, it is actively discouraged by DOJ politicos and their “management toadies” at EOIR, who often have mischaracterized the private bar as “the enemy” or out to “game” the system. Perversely, of course, the exact opposite is true. The regime’s immigration kakistocracy has tried over and over to use illegal methods and bogus narratives to illegally and unconstitutionally “game” the system against legitimate asylum seekers and their hard-working attorneys (actually, the only “players” in this sorry game trying to uphold “good government” and the rule of law.)
As a result, the only way for the private bar to be heard is by suing in the “real” Article III Federal Courts. This has resulted in a string of injunctions and TROs against EOIR and DHS misconduct, illegal regulations, and unlawful policies throughout the country, further adding to the chaos and inconsistencies. It also has clogged the Federal Courts with unnecessary litigation and frivolous, often disingenuous or unethical, “defenses to the indefensible” by DOJ lawyers.
This is how a dysfunctional “court system” that actually is a veneer for out of control enforcement and institutionalized racist xenophobia builds backlog. The corrupt “leaders” of this dysfunctional and unconstitutional mess then blame their victims for the delays caused by gross Government mismanagement. In turn, they use this “bogus scenario” to justify further unconstitutional restrictions of immigrants’ rights, due process, and judicial independence.
It’s a “scam” of the highest order! One that actually harms ☠️ and kills ⚰️ people, harasses lawyers, undermines the rule of law, and wastes taxpayer resources. One that has brought disgrace upon the DOJ and undermines the entire U.S. Justice system🏴☠️. One that Judge Garland and his incoming team at the DOJ must immediately end and totally reform, while holding accountable those responsible for this gross miscarriage of justice, fraud, waste, and abuse.
This is not “normal Government” or a question of “differing philosophies.” It’s outright fraud, intentional illegality, abuse of Government resources, and instititutionalized racism. It must be treated as such by the Biden Administration.
Paulina is a former Arlington Immigration Court intern and yet another “charter member of the NDPA” who is doing great things and changing the future of American Justice for the better. Educator, litigator, practical scholar, leader, inspirational humanitarian, all around nice person, and future Federal Judge, that’s Paulina!
“Tune in” tomorrow night and compare the bright future of due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice for all, ethical behavior, and practical applied scholarship with the ugly tone-deaf, intolerant, and ethics-free rant delivered to the Federalist Society by Justice Sam Alito last week. Alito accurately represented the unjustified grievances of the unreasonably embittered dark forces currently promoting a dysfunctional Federal Judiciary that failed as a body to stand up to the cruel, unconstitutional, racist-driven, authoritarianism of the now-defeated Trump regime.
Those are judges who shirked their constitutional and ethical duties and disgracefully embraced the regime’s White Nationalist driven invitations to “Dred Scottify” (dehumanize) large segments of society including African American and Latino voters, immigrants, asylum applicants, children, union members, etc. There is no excuse for such performance from judges who are supposedly insulated from political pressures by the unique privilege of life tenure.
Life tenure is life tenure. So, Alito & his arrogantly out of touch, anti-democracy, far-right buddies aren’t going anywhere soon.
But, it is essential to start putting the faces of a elitist, intentionally unfair, backward-looking, and intolerant society like him “in the rear view mirror” and start actively cultivating for our Federal Judiciary the large pool of much better qualified, smarter, fairer, more ethical, more diverse, more courageous, and more humane talent like Paulina and many of her colleagues out there in the private sector.
Not surprisingly given the groups who have fought to preserve democracy for all of us over the past four years, a disproportionate amount of that talent is in the immigration/human rights bar. As a nation, we can no longer afford the gross under-representation of this consistently “over performing” and courageous segment of the legal community on our Article III and Immigration Judiciaries!
Build a better Federal Judiciary for a better America!
NDPA NEWS: Even In Times Of Systemic Dysfunction, Fairness, Scholarship, Timeliness, Respect, & Teamwork Among Conscientious Immigration Judges, Fair-Minded ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, & Caring, Well-Prepared Advocates From the NDPA Continue to Save Lives of the Most Vulnerable Among Us! — “I don’t know how much longer I’ll be alive, but my children will always thank you,” Says Critically Ill Respondent to Arlington Immigration Judge Cynthia S. Torg, Who Had Just Granted Her Asylum!
Paulina Vera Professorial Lecturer in Law GW Law
NDPA stalwart (and former Arlington Immigration Court Intern) Professor Paulina Vera reports:
Good afternoon,
The above is what our client said to Immigration Judge Cynthia S. Torg after she granted her asylum claim this afternoon. A-A-‘s husband was politically involved in their home country of Venezuela, actively protesting against Nicolas Maduro. Because of his political involvement, both A-A- and their 11-year-old son were targeted by security forces and threatened with their lives should the political opposition continue. Additionally, A-A- has been diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer and feared that she would not be able to get medical treatments in her home country due to a shortage of medical supplies there.
After a 15 minute hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) agreed to grant relief, which the trial attorney did not oppose. Both the IJ and trial attorney commended student-attorney, Halima Nur, JD ‘20, for her preparation. The IJ commented that because of the amount of documentation and the legal arguments presented, she was able to issue a decision quickly. In addition to their 11-year-old son, the couple has a 1.5 year old son, who was born in the United States. With this grant, the family will remain together in the U.S.
Please join me in congratulating Halima Nur, JD ‘20, and Madeleine Delurey, JD ‘20, for all their hard work on the case.
Best,
—-
Paulina Vera, Esq.
Acting Director, GW Law Immigration Clinic (Academic Year 2019-2020)
Legal Associate, Immigration Clinic
Professorial Lecturer in Law
*********************************
These are the moments that everyone, judges, lawyers, interpreters, respondents, families, “live for” in Immigration Court. It’s what “kept me going” for 13 years on the trial bench. “Building America, one case at a time,” I used to say!
It’s the “polar opposite” of the “haste makes waste gimmicks” that unqualified politicos and administrators who don’t handle regular dockets have forced on judges and parties in a system where “docket control” has effectively been disconnected from its proper objectives of achieving due process and fundamental fairness.
Unfortunately, as Miller and the restrictionists seek to farther skew the regulations to screw asylum seekers, just results like this are likely to be even harder to achieve. That means that more and more asylum applicants will have to appeal to the Article III Courts, flawed as they have become, for any chance whatsoever of achieving a fair and unbiased outcome. I also discussed this unhappy likely future development in my post at the preceding link.
Thanks again to Judge Torg, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, Paulina, and GW Clinic Student AttorneysHalima Nur, JD ‘20, and Madeleine Delurey, JD ‘20, for being inspiring examples of how the Immigration Court system could work to achieve “due process and fundamental fairness with efficiency” under “different management” and an “independent structure” in the future.
I am excited to announce two recent Immigration Clinic wins!
1) On December 4th, Judge Deepali Nadkarni of the Arlington Immigration Court granted administrative closure in an Immigration Clinic case. The client, A-M-, and his wife, P-M-, are both represented by the Clinic in their respective cases. P-M- has pending U and T visa applications before USCIS, which are for victims of crimes and trafficking victims, respectively. P-M-‘s applications are based on horrific childhood sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her stepfather. A-M- is a derivative on P-M-‘s application; however, A-M- is in removal proceedings and Immigration Judges do not have jurisdiction over these types of applications.
Judge Nadkarni commented on student attorney, Samuel Thomas, JD ’20, “very large” filing and issued a written decision a few weeks after a brief hearing. A-M- will now be able to stay in the U.S. with P-M- and their three small U.S. citizen children while they wait for a decision on the U and/or T visas.
Please join me in congratulating student-attorneys Samuel Thomas, who filed the motion for admin closure, and Madeleine Delurey, JD ’20, who filed the U and T visas for P-M-!
2) On December 23, 2019, I won a hearing for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents for our client, M-D-C-. M-D-C-, born in Chile, has been a permanent resident for over 29 years but was put into removal proceedings because of several criminal convictions in his record, the last of which took place 15 years ago. M-D-C- is currently on a heart transplant list and has very close relationships with his U.S. citizen wife and daughter. In fact, his daughter, C-D-C-, stated in her affidavit, “I owe a lot of the woman I have become and am to [my dad] and I love him with my whole heart.” Immigration Judge Wynne P. Kelly called the case “close” and said that he was “granting by a hair” after a three-hour hearing where both wife and daughter testified.
Please join me in congratulating Clinic alum, Chris Carr, JD ’17, and student-attorney, Amy Lattari, JD ’20, who both worked on the case with me. A special shout-out goes to Clinic alumna, Anam Rahman, JD ’12, who assisted in mooting M-D-C- and family.
Best,
—
Paulina Vera, Esq.
Professorial Lecturer in Law
Acting Director, Immigration Clinic (Academic Year 2019-2020)
Legal Associate, Immigration Clinic
The George Washington University Law School
2000 G St, NW
Washington, DC 20052
********************************************
Many congrats Paulina, Samuel, Madeline, Chris, Amy, and Anam! Due Process is indeed a team effort!
As a number of us in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges have observed, even under today‘s intentionally adverse conditions, justice is still achievable with 1) access to well-qualified counsel, and 2) fair, impartial, and scholarly Immigration Judges with the necessary legal expertise.
Unfortunately, the Trump Regime, in its never-ending “War on Due Process,” has worked tirelessly to make the foregoing conditions the exception rather than the rule.
Hats off once again to Judge Deepali Nadkarni who resigned her Assistant Chief Judge position to go “down in the trenches” of Arlington and bring some much-needed fairness, impartiality, scholarship, independence, and courage to a system badly in need of all of those qualities!
This also shows what a difference a courageous Circuit Court decision standing up against the scofflaw nonsense of Jeff Sessions and Billy Barr, rather than “going along to get along,” can make. One factor greatly and unnecessarily aggravating the 1.3 million + Immigration Court backlog is the regime’s mindlessly filling the docket with re-calendared and other “low priority/high equity” cases that should be closed and remain closed as a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Sessions’s Castro-Tum decision, soundly rejected by the 4th Circuit inZuniga Romero v. Barr, is one a number unconscionable and unethical abuses of authority by Attorney Generals Sessions and Barr.
Hundreds more undocumented immigrants are being rounded up by U.S. law enforcement and processed for deportation. But the United States is not the only country dealing with these issues.
In 2015 and 2016, a wave of migrants and refugees sought asylum in Europe as they fled wars in Syria and Iraq. Thousands more have died, or have been rescued at sea, as they tried to reach Europe from Africa. And, Italy is taking a tough stance on migrants by closing reception centers and trying to prevent rescue boats from docking at Italian ports. Meanwhile Australia has long had some of the toughest asylum policies in the world, as it tries to prevent migrants and refugees from entering its country.
To discuss all of this:
Daniel Ghezelbash is a senior lecturer at Macquarie Law School and author of “Refuge Lost: Asylum Law in an Interdependent World.”
Reuven Ziegleris an associate professor in international refugee law at the University of Reading.
Paulina Vera is a lecturer in law at The George Washington University Law School.
Matthew O’Brien is director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Wow! O’Brien is a shameless liar. Hopefully, his descendants will view this video and see for posterity just what a racist apologist opportunist and vile White Nationalist he is.
Unfortunately, this isn’t a “debate.” It’s a question of O’Brien’s lies, fabrications, and false narratives versus truth. Even DHS’s OWN studies refute many of O’Brien’s White Nationalist talking points!!
It’s sad that in an attempt to present “ both sides” of a picture that has only one legitimate side, the media has to dredge up guys like O’Brien and give them a forum for their ugly, callous, and demonstrably untrue false narratives. Very much like the debate about climate change where lying “pseudo scientists” get equal time with those stating the truth, while the world disintegrates.
In the end, elections and political pandering can determine who holds power, but they can’t change truth. Contrary to Trump and his lackeys, there are no “alternative facts” and Trump himself is a living example of “fake news” and its toxic effects on our country and humanity. In this case, the truth is that under Trump and with support from folks like FAIR, our world is spiraling downward toward chaos and destruction.
ANYBODY, like O’Brien, who claims that “sound judicial practices” are being followed in today’s unfair and dysfunctional Immigration Courts should not be taken seriously by the media or anyone else.
Many congrats to Paulina, a courageous graduate of the “Arlington Immigration Court Internship Program” and a “Charter Member of the New Due Process Army” for taking a stand and speaking truth to the lies and liars who currently hold power.
I am pleased to report that at tonight’s GW Latinx Excellence Awards ceremony – https://mssc.gwu.edu/latinx-leader-awards – our friend, colleague, and alum Professor Paulina Vera, pnvera@law.gwu.edu, won the Alma Award. Please see below. The nominees for this award are charismatic individuals who continuously make a difference and lead by example, not only within the Latinx community, but also throughout our broader community. These individuals, often unsung heroes of our community, inspire others to make a difference and assume their leadership potential.
Alberto Manuel Benitez
Professor of Clinical Law
Director, Immigration Clinic
The George Washington University Law School
650 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052
(202) 994-7463
(202) 994-4946 fax abenitez@law.gwu.edu
THE WORLD IS YOURS…
**************************************************
Paulina is a former Legal Intern at the Arlington Immigration Court. So proud of her and her many achievements. Paulina is totally brilliant and could have done anything; she has chosen to devote this part of her career to helping humanity, inspiring aspiring lawyers to “be the best that they can be,” and serving as a role model for others.
Thanks, Paulina, for all you do. You are truly inspiring others and bringing out the best in America!
HomeFind an Event Panel Discussion: Freedom from Fear: Young Women and Asylum
Panel Discussion: Freedom from Fear: Young Women and Asylum
Alberto Manuel Benitez, Paulina Vera, and Gisela Camba
GW law professors Alberto Benitez and Paulina Vera will interview GW alumna Gisela Camba, JD ’18, and her client K-A-, who was granted asylum to the United States. Their discussion will review the arduous journey to freedom, and importantly, the reason asylum was granted. A collaboration with GW’s Law School. Free; no registration required.
When
Wed, March 20, 2019
2:00pm
Where
GW Law School
2000 H Street, NW, Washington, DC
1st Floor
Room: GW Law School Jacob Burns Moot Court Room
Paulina Vera, Esq.; Professor Alberto Benitez; Rachel Petterson
Friends,
Please join me in congratulating S-P-G-G, from El Salvador, whose asylum application was granted by IJ David Crosland on February 26. We received the decision today. When told of the grant, S-P-G-G screamed. She can start the process of bringing her minor son to the USA. Please also join me in congratulating Rachael Petterson, Julia Navarro, Solangel González, Chen Liang, Xinyuan Li, Abril Costanza Lara, Allison Mateo, and Paulina Vera, who worked on this case.
The IJ found that S-P-G-G warranted humanitarian asylum because she established compelling reasons arising from the severity of her persecution. Among other things, she had been raped by her sister’s ex-boyfriend, which resulted in her becoming pregnant, and giving the child up for adoption. S-P-G-G testified that she experiences recurring nightmares, suicidal feelings, a sense of hopelessness, and fear as a result of her persecution.
FYI. The client’s initial hearing was on December 18, 2012, IJ Crosland denied asylum, she appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which remanded to the IJ, he denied asylum again, she appealed to the BIA, which denied asylum, she appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded to the IJ, and he finally granted asylum on February 26.
**************************************************
Alberto Manuel Benitez
Professor of Clinical Law
Director, Immigration Clinic
The George Washington University Law School
************************************
Congrats to SPGG and her wonderful team at the GW Immigration Clinic! More than six years of litigation, two wrongful denials, two appeals to the BIA, one incorrect BIA decision, and a remand from the Fourth Circuit before justice was finally done.
Illustrates four things:
The absolute BS of those like Sessions and other restrictionists who say asylum cases can be raced through the system on an assembly line;
The further BS of claiming that asylum applicants and their lawyers are “gaming” the system when many delays, like this, are caused by poor anti-asylum decision-making within EOIR combined with the DOJ’s incompetent administration of the Immigration Courts;
The importance of full appellate rights, including review by a U.S. Court of Appeals that is actually an independent, fair, and impartial court, not a Government agency masquering as a court;
The absurdity of claiming that unrepresented asylum seekers can receive anything approaching Due Process in the EOIR system, particularly when they are held in inherently coercive “civil immigration detention.”
What if we had a fair, expert Immigration Court system that made every effort to do right by asylum seekers in the first instance by interpreting and applying the law in the generous and humanitarian manner to protect those in need as originally intended in the Refugee Act of 1980 and described by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca?
What if we had a Government that cared about Due Process and worked to promote it rather than attempting to whack it out of shape to screw the most vulnerable among us at every opportunity?
What if the emphasis in the Immigration Courts was on fairness, scholarship, respect, and teamwork with all concerned (not just “partnership” with the prosecutor and politicized Administration goals) rather than on “haste makes waste” methods and gimmicks.
Hey, we could have a working court system where justice was served and more things got done right in the first place, instead of the disgraceful mess that EOIR has become under DOJ’s highly politicized mismanagement!
ABA Hispanic Commission CLE: Future Legal Issues Facing the Hispanic Community
American Bar Association, 1 PM EST
4-Part Seminar – Future Legal Issues Facing the Hispanic Community
An in-depth look at the future of Hispanic rights, Immigration, Healthcare, and Children’s Rights; advice regarding career strategies and navigating the workplace.
Here are the links to the agenda and registration information:
GW Law Professor and Clinic Director Alberto Benitez will be on the program and says:
“I’ll be on a ABA panel Friday, March 8. You are invited. The entire program is free for law students.”
*******************************************
IN NY CITY:
Description
The 2019 New York Asylum & Immigration Law Conference will take place on Friday, March 8th, 2019, at New York Law School. Designed to engage new attorneys as well as more experienced lawyers, academics, and students, the conference features panels ranging from introductory presentations on asylum law to more specialized and advanced sessions. Three tracks allow participants to engage in diverse topics including constructing narrative, detention, discussion of mandatory bars to asylum, and advanced issues such as new developments in particular social group formation. Earn up to 7.5 CLE credits, including Ethics as well as Diversity, Inclusion & Elimination of Bias credits.
This year, our conference is on International Women’s Day. Our plenary session and other events will commemorate and celebrate acts of courage and determination by women who have played extraordinary roles – as artists, as activists, and as advocates.
This conference is organized by the Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section and New York Law School’s Asylum Clinic.
Registration closes on Wednesday, March 6th. No walk-in registrations, please.
“New Due Process Army” stalwart, Professor Alberto Benitez of the George Washington Law Immigration Clinic, reports:
Friends,
Please join me in congratulating Immigration Clinic student-attorney Megan Elman, and her clients, R-G, his wife, J, and their two kids, ages 10 and 5 respectively, R and L, from El Salvador. This afternoon, after a two and a half-hour hearing, IJ Cynthia S. Torg granted the clients’ asylum application.
R-G was a maritime police officer, and because of that status, he and his family were threatened with death by mara gang members. During an outing at the beach, the family had a gun pointed at them while being threatened. One of the maras told R-G that his order was only to tell him to move away, but he wished he had been given the order to kill him, because he would have preferred to cut off R-G’s head and hang it from a tree. Afterward, R and J tried to file a complaint with their local police, but were advised by the police not to bother and instead flee the country. That night, unknown, masked, armed men appeared outside their house. Eventually the men left, but the family decided to flee to the USA.
Congratulations also to Sarah DeLong, Jonathan Bialosky, Solangel González, and Sam Xinyuan Li, who previously worked on this case.
**************************************************
Alberto Manuel Benitez
Professor of Clinical Law
Director, Immigration Clinic
The George Washington University Law School
650 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052 (202) 994-7463 (202) 994-4946 fax abenitez@law.gwu.edu
THE WORLD IS YOURS…
**************************************************
Contrary to what the Trump Administration and EOIR Management would have you believe, these types of cases are neither unique nor extraordinary in their factual setting. I encountered lots of “slam dunk” Northern Triangle asylum, withholding, and/or CAT cases at the Arlington Immigration Court.
What is unusual is that these individuals; 1) got access to the hearing process, 2) had access to competent pro bono counsel, 3) had sufficient time in a non-detained setting to gather evidence in support of their applications, 4) were given sufficient time to fully present their cases in court, 5) didn’t have to wait many years for their final hearing, and 6) and perhaps most significantly, were fortunate enough to have a fair, impartial, and scholarly Immigration Judge like Judge Cynthia S. Torg, to decide their cases. I’d also infer from this description that the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel played a constructive role in critically, yet fairly and professionally, developing the facts so that the Immigration Judge could make an immediate decision and appeal could be waived.
Imagine how this case might have come out had it occurred in Atlanta, Charlotte, or El Paso where the Immigration Judges are notorious for prejudging asylum cases against the applicants and merely providing the “trappings of due process.” Or, if these individuals had been forced to “represent” themselves in a godforsaken so-called “detention court” unprepared, traumatized, and within a short time after arrival. Or, if the Immigration Judge had insisted on truncating the process to complete her “quota” of four cases per day. Or, if under the Trump regime, they had never been given access to the Immigration Court hearing process in the first place. Or, if the Assistant Chief Counsel had appealed to the BIA where delays are common and panels vary widely as to their commitment to a fair, impartial, and overall generous view of asylum law in accordance with their own (often cited, not always followed) precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi! Or, if after the fact, a political hack like Jeff Sessions had arbitrarily and unethically intervened to deny relief to satisfy his White Nationalist restrictionist “agenda.”
The truth is that many, perhaps the majority, of the Northern Triangle asylum cases could be efficiently and promptly granted by the USCIS Asylum Office. With the “reinstatement” of A-R-C-G- (recognizing domestic violence) and some positive precedents (when’s he last time you saw one of those from the BIA on asylum?) covering recurring situations such as this one, many more Northern Triangle asylum cases could be granted by stipulation of counsel following short hearings before the Immigration Judges.
On the flip side, in a fairer system, it would be easier for everyone to recognize situations that didn’t merit protection under the law after fair hearings. My experience in Arlington was that when I listened carefully and issued a clear and reasoned explanation of why protection could not be granted, the applicants often (not always) would waive appeal and accept my order as final. Actual, as opposed to cosmetic, fairness helps both sides to accept the decisions below.
That’s precisely what the biased Jeff Sessions has “disempowered” in this now inherently unfair court system. A system run by political officials in the Trump Administration (or any other Administration for that matter) can never be perceived as fair.
Issuance and enforcement of more positive precedents by the BIA (without the current political interference by the DOJ) would also lead to greater uniformity, as judges in places like Atlanta, Charlotte, El Paso, Stewart, etc., would be required to follow the asylum laws and apply them in the generous manner required by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca, rather than acting on their enforcement biases against asylum seekers and trying to “lead the league” in producing rote unfair removal orders to the delight of the DOJ politicos.
If restructured into an independent court system with Due Process as the one and only goal and a merit selection system for judges going forward, the Immigration Courts have the potential to make justice with efficiency the norm, rather than the exception. But, that’s not going to happen in the current politically compromised and incompetently administered structure of EOIR within DOJ.
America needs an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court. The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution demands it!
IN WASHINGTON D.C. —