"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.
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Immigration Clinic client, R-A-, from Nigeria, and his student-attorneys, Olivia Russo, LinLin Teng, Kennady Peek, Lea Aoun, and Megan Elman. The client’s asylum application was filed on December 3, 2018, his interview at the Asylum Office was on September 3, 2021, and he was granted asylum on May 18, 2022. We received the approval notice yesterday. The above-captioned is what R-A- said upon learning about his asylum grant.
R-A- is a gay man and LGTBQ+ activist. Throughout his entire life, R-A- experienced bullying and threats and had to keep his dating life a secret. However, things got even worse for him once he started an LGTBQ+ online magazine that received international attention. His family disowned him. A former classmate also set him up and he was physically beaten, sexually assaulted, called derogatory names, blackmailed, and outed. Since coming to the U.S., R-A- has continued to work on his online publication and volunteer for other LGBTQ+ initiatives. He hopes to one day attend law school in the U.S.
Thanks for the update and for all you and your student attorneys do for American justice! Once again this shows the effect of expert representation of asylum seekers and the critical importance of winning cases at the first possible level, in this case the USCIS Asylum Office. Who knows what might have happened if this had been sent over to the “EOIR roulette wheel,” where life or death justice for immigrants has become a “high-stakes game of chance?” 🎰
Perhaps even more remarkably, most of the folks who participated in that “intentional misdirection” remain on the agency payroll under Garland, a number in their same positions.
The lack of an Attorney General who “gets it” (apparently a staple of Dem Administrations) and who is willing to clean house and make the necessary aggressive progressive reforms to restore due process at EOIR and throughout the Immigration bureaucracy is yet another reason why the work of clinics and other battalions of the NDPA remains so critical! With a Government whose contempt for Due Process is amply illustrated by foot-dragging on Title 42 revocation, bogus, justice-denying “Dedicated Dockets,” and an appellate body that cuts corners while eschewing positive asylum guidance that would save lives, advocates for respondents are the only folks seriously interested in carrying out our Constitution and insuring that the rule of law is honored.
If that sounds like an indictment of Garland’s “leadership” on human rights, racial justice, and immigrant justice, that’s because it is!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Immigration Clinic client, T-Y-, from China, and his student-attorneys, Gisela Camba, Esder Chong, Jordan Nelson, Tessa Pulaski, and Julia Yang. The client’s asylum application was filed on April 6, 2018, his interview at the Asylum Office was on November 8, 2021, and he was granted asylum on May 17, 2022. We received the decision today. The above-captioned is what T-Y- said upon learning about his asylum grant.
T-Y- is a Muslim Uyghur, an ethnic and religious minority in China. Due to his decades-long work as an Uyghur activist, he was persecuted by the Chinese government. T-Y- was falsely imprisoned, sentenced to a ‘re-education camp’, physically and psychologically tortured, and had his movements restricted and monitored. Despite everything he has endured, T-Y- continues his Uyghur advocacy work from within the United States and has even consulted with U.S. politicians and government agencies about the treatment of Uyghurs in China.
Congratulations! Another job REALLY well done by Professors Benitez and Vera and their band of NDPA recruits at GW Law.
As Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow says, lots of winnable cases out there if folks can get well-qualified representation and actually reach a merits determination before the Asylum Office or EOIR — no mean feat in such a backlogged system!
That raises the point of why wouldn’t a clearly well-prepared and grantable Uyghur case like this one be moved to the “front of the line” for expedited processing instead of sitting around for more than four years?
For years, both USCIS and EOIR have been “expediting” the wrong cases (known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) in an ill-advised and failed attempt to use the legal asylum system as a “deterrent” by maximizing and prioritizing “anticipated denials.” Instead, they should be putting protection and excellence in preparation and advocacy first. It would actually free up more representation resources if advocates weren’t forced to “babysit” “ready for prime time” cases for years!
During that time, records must be constantly updated, memories fade, and witnesses can become unavailable. Attorneys on both sides move on. Judges retire. There are all sorts of “below the radar screen” costs to creating and maintaining a huge backlog. Unfortunately, it promotes the “refugee roulette” image of what is supposed to be a fair, expert, timely system (but isn’t).
In addition, many of the “haste makes waste” attempts to cut corners by prejudging and denying certain cases, or creating “defective in absentias” end up being reopened or remanded because of sloppy, substandard work.
What is the Government’s “vision” of how this system can be made to work in a fair and timely manner for all concerned?
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
The Immigration Clinic had another busy and productive semester. Professor Vera and I share that our eight student-attorneys (Alexandra Chen, Spoorthi Datla, Daniel Fishelman, José Hernández, Trisha Kondabala, Mir Sadra Nabavi, Mark Rook, and Ryan Sarlo) accomplished the following on behalf of their clients:
Filings:
Four work permit applications
Two affirmative asylum applications
Two motions to terminate proceedings
Two motions to schedule a final merits hearing (one was granted!)
Two appeals of USCIS erroneous denials of green card applications
One application for removal of conditions of a green card, with a waiver for a domestic violence survivor
One U visa application (for victims of crimes in the U.S.)
One motion to change venue (granted!)
One request for expedited processing of an asylee derivative application (granted!)
One family-based petition and green card application packet for the spouse of a current client
Representation:
Two hearings for procedural matters
One affirmative asylum interview
Public engagement:
One legal orientation presentation with parents of a local MD high school
One public comment on the newly proposed public charge rule
***************************************
Alberto Manuel Benitez
Professor of Clinical Law
Director, Immigration Clinic
The George Washington University Law School
650 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052
***************************
Congrats to Alberto, Paulina, and the eight above-named student-attorneys for saving lives, promoting justice, elevating the level of immigration practice, and being in the vanguard of the New Due Process Army!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
“I really do not find enough words to let you know how grateful I am to all of you for your wise and timely guidance at all times and for the dedication and commitment that you assumed from the first moment towards our asylum case.”
Please join me in congratulating Immigration Clinic client T-G and her son F-P, from Venezuela, and their student-attorneys Karoline Núñez, Samuel Thomas, Alexandra Chen, and Jeremy Patton. The clients’ asylum application was filed April 28, 2017, their interview at the Asylum Office was on November 1, 2021, and the grant was issued March 21, 2022. T-G received the grant yesterday.
T-G is a survivor of domestic violence at the hands of her husband. He’d punch T-G, force her to have sexual relations, infected her with a STD, and he blamed her for their daughter’s neurological issues. Their daughter contracted Zika but was unable to receive the appropriate treatment because T-G was not a supporter of the Maduro government. Their daughter died at age 14.
Many congrats to the GW Immigration Clinic and all the GW All-Stars! 🤮⚖️
Let’s get behind the intentional dehumanization and the chronically misleading “numbers” being thrown around by nativists, some so-called “moderate” Dems, and the DHS. Put a “human face” on our nation’s dereliction of legal duty and abandonment of values at out Southern border.
The Faces Of Human Suffering @ Our Border PHOTO: The Guardian
This case is a compelling example of the types of refugees, many women and children and most people of color, who are stuck at our Southern Border as illegal suspension of asylum laws, based on racially- motivated bogus “public health” grounds grinds on. With some legal assistance and a fair and orderly system in place, many of those waiting could qualify for asylum if given a fair chance under the law.
Access to the asylum system, representation, and fair and impartial adjudication are essential to success. Right now, the Biden Administration is denying all three.
Make no mistake, this disingenuous action would kill asylum for good! These guys don’t even have the guts to admit that they are now carrying out Stephen Miller’s xenophobic war on immigrants and refugees of color.
Biden ran on an elimination of Title 42 and restoration of the legal asylum process. If 18 months after the election they lack a “plan,” there is no reason to believe that 60 more days would make a difference. It’s now or never!
60 days would bring us even closer to the mid-terms. If Dems are scared to follow the law now, that’s not going to improve as the midterms get even closer.
You can be sure that once the midterms are past, particularly if Dems get “blown out” as they fear, they will claim that the time “isn’t right” for any immigration “reform” (although, following the law is hardly a real “reform”) in advance of the 2024 election. If the GOP wins in ’24, the effective elimination of legal immigration — with or without legislation — will be finalized.
This has nothing to do with COVID at this point. It never really did. It was always about finding a pretext to close the border and keep it closed — at least to non-White refugees. But, since COVID constantly mutates, there will always be some sort of “COVID emergency” out there for the foreseeable future.
Asylum applicants have NOT been a significant source of COVID.They are far less of a threat to our health, safety, and security than GOP “magamorons” who eschew vaccination and basic public safety precautions. The Biden Administration should have a plan in place to insure that asylum seekers are tested and if necessary vaccinated before admission.
If we have no legal asylum system at the border, no functional refugee system abroad, and no hope for the future, the only way for individuals to seek protection will be by using smugglers to enter illegally and then hoping to “lose themselves” in a burgeoning “extralegal population” throughout out America. Once we abandon any pretext of a legal system for asylum seekers, the border will get further and further out of control. That will add to the GOP’s claims that more and more cruel, draconian, and punitive measures are necessary. But, they won’t stop desperate people from attempting entry until they either succeed or die in the process.
Contrary to the misguided blather of some Dems, there will never be a better time for Dems to support asylum seekers. They are concentrated in border areas, and eager to have their claims heard. Orderly processing and admitting as many as qualify, in a period of artificially reduced migration, would help the economy, raise tax revenues, and address supply chain issues. If not now, when?
Restoring asylum law is a legal requirement, not a “strategy,” “policy,” or “political choice.” If Dems turn their backs on the rule of law, what makes them different from the GOP?
If this divisive nonsense and backsliding on basic constitutional, racial justice, and social justice issues continues, progressive Dems are going to be faced with having to make a decision about the party’s future.
Progressive Dems make up a key part of the party’s core base and a disproportionate amount of the “boots on the ground, grass roots enthusiasm.” Republicans aren’t going to vote for Dems, no matter how xenophobic, hateful, and racist Dems are toward migrants. So-called “independents,” are neither going to fill the Dems coffers nor pound the pavement and work the phone lines to “get out the vote.”
So, arrogant “Title 42 Dems” are assuming that they can “spit on” immigrant justice, racial justice, economic justice, and social justice and that their “core support” among progressives won’t diminish because they will always be preferable to “Trump Republicans.”
All in all, it’s a “big middle finger” to progressives and their social justice agenda. That’s an agenda that Biden actually successfully ran on.
If progressives really believe in a pro immigrant, pro rule of law, racial justice agenda, then they need to stand up to the backsliders and let them know that there will be real consequences of yet another “sellout of immigrants’ rights.” We’ll see whether progressive Dems have more backbone and courage than their “Title 42/Miller Lite wing.”
But, the Post badly missed the larger point — NO refugee can afford to wait, be they White Ukrainians, Black Haitians, Cameroonians, and Congolese, or Latinos from the Northern Triangle, Venezuela, and Nicaragua! Our obligations to asylees are not supposed to be “race-based!”
The U.S. has had a legal refugee and asylum system for more than four decades. During that time, Congress has made several amendments of the law to allow DHS to rapidly process and summarily remove those appearing at the border who, after prompt expert screening by Asylum Officers, cannot establish a “credible fear” of persecution.
Restrictionists and shamefully some so-called moderate Democrats, and sometimes CBP, seem to have conveniently “forgotten” that the law was designed to deal fairly and promptly with so-called “mass migrations” long before the advent of the bogus Title 42 charade.
For some periods during the 40 years since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. has run functional refugee and asylum programs. Not “perfect” or perhaps even “optimal,” but “functional.”
They have done this by employing experts, cooperating with NGOs (domestic and international), and building resettlement and support systems spearheaded by NGOs, using Government grants, and promoting teamwork and coordination with states and localities.
It has only been when Administrations of both parties have mindlessly turned away from human rights experts and followed the misguided and tone-deaf gimmicks advocated by nativists and apostles of “enforcement only deterrence” that the legal systems for refugees and asylees, and efficient, humane border enforcement, have fallen into disorder.
While refugee and asylum laws could undoubtedly be improved, contrary to the media blather and nativist grandstanding, we have the basic legal framework to deal with the current refugee and asylum situations at our borders and beyond. The question is whether the Biden Administration and Dems have the will, vision, competence, and willingness to cooperate with human rights experts to fix the mess intentionally created by Trump and return human decency, competence, and the rule of law to our borders! If not now, when?
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Professor Alberto Benitez at the GW Immigration Clinic reports:
Friends,
Our friend, colleague, and alum Paulina Vera shared this story. Congratulations Daniel!
“A current Immigration Judge shared that he spoke to his colleague, another Immigration Judge (“IJ”), about a recent virtual hearing handled by student-attorney, Daniel Fishelman ’22. IJ complimented the Clinic’s preparation and Daniel’s performance, stating that even though it was for a short matter, she was impressed by the Clinic. This was the Clinic’s first appearance before IJ. Please join us in congratulating Daniel on completing his first hearing and getting positive feedback from Immigration Judges!”
******************
Many congrats to student-attorney, Daniel Fishelman ’22 on his first engagement as a member of the NDPA!👍🏼😎
Also, congrats to my friends and “due process role models” Alberto and Paulina! So proud that part of Paulina’s “immigration justice journey” went through the Arlington Immigration Court, where she served as an intern.
Alberto and Paulina tell me that after their “standard rigorous prep session” with Daniel, he definitely was “QRFPT” — “Quite Ready For Prime Time!” 😎 That’s as opposed to “NQRFPT” (“Not Quite Ready For Prime Time”) ☹️ — something to be avoided in Immigration Court or any other type of litigation!☠️
This case illustrates what I found on the bench: that “short cases” are almost always the result of superior scholarship, meticulous preparation, and informed dialogue by counsel for both parties before getting to court.
That’s why one grossly underutilized tool for reducing backlogs is investing in and encouraging more and better trained representation for individuals appearing in Immigration Court.
As statistics have shown time after time, universalrepresentation is also the key to achieving high appearance rates.
Additionally, constructing court dockets and scheduling cases locally with input from both counsel is a way of reversing the backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) produced by attempting to manage dockets from “on high.” ADR usually results from EOIR unilaterally attempting to satisfy DHS enforcement aims or to accommodate “disconnected political agendas and ill-advised gimmicks” generated by DOJ and White House politicos — invariably clueless about the realities of Immigration Court practice!
The three things always left behind by ADR: due process, fundamental fairness, and practical efficiency!
Please thank them all on my behalf. I’m extremely grateful for what each of them did on my case.” This is what our client, E-K- said upon receiving well wishes from several of his former student-attorneys after he was sworn in as a U.S. citizen yesterday. Please see the attached photo of E-K- with Prof. Vera after his oath ceremony. E-K- authorized our use of his picture.
E-K- became a Clinic client in 2009 after an unsuccessful interview at the Arlington Asylum Office. In February 2010, E-K-, a native of Cameroon, had his first Individual Calendar Hearing based on his political opinion and imputed political opinion following his involvement in a sit-in and his presence during a protest. DHS appealed the initial grant of asylum and on remand the Board of Immigration Appeals instructed the Immigration Judge to pay attention to credibility. However, the Immigration Clinic and E-K- prevailed again in 2013 and the asylum grant was finalized! The Clinic then assisted E-K- with his green card application, naturalization application, and naturalization interview. Next up: his wife’s green card application!
Please join me in congratulating Alexa Glock, Anca Grigore, Rebekah Niblock, Victoria Braga, Alex North, Jonathan Bialosky, and Paulina Vera, who all worked on the case.
Real life success stories from real life humans represented by well-trained law students in a “Surreal Immigration Court System!”
Brings to mind the disgraceful incident when former Trump-Era EOIR Director James McHenry created a bogus “Fact Sheet” with a ludicrous narrative in a dishonest attempt to show that lawyers and knowing individual rights in Immigration Court were irrelevant to success.
McHenry’s lies, myths, and intentional distortions were universally panned by immigration experts as reported by Courtside at the time.
Under Judge Garland, the DOJ claims to recognize and promote representation in Immigration Court. But, leaving aside the mushy rhetoric, their actions say otherwise:
“Dedicated Dockets” and sloppy mail-out notices established without consultation with the private bar;
Proposed asylum regulations almost universally opposed by the private bar;
Failure to slash the overwhelming, due process inhibiting, 1.5 million case backlog;
Continued “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” fueled by changing and misplaced administrative “priorities”that totally ignore the needs of the pro bono bar;
Continuing support for “imbedded Immigration Courts and TV Courts” established in or near DHS Detention Centers located in obscure places where attorneys are not easily obtainable;
Overly restrictive and widely inconsistent bond determinations in Immigration Court that inhibit effective representation;
Ridiculous backlog of Recognition and Accreditation applications that impedes new opportunities for well-qualified pro bono representatives in Immigration Court (See, e.g., VIISTA Program, Villanova Law);
Failure to “swap out” a legally substandardly performing BIA and some Immigration Judges for “real, well-qualified Judges with immigration and due process expertise;”
Long-delayed e-filing, making pro bono representation more difficultand less efficient;
Overall lack of dynamic court management and appropriate professional dialogue with the private bar;
Substandard EOIR “judicial training” that puts undue burden on private attorneys, particularly those operatingpro bono;
Lack of positive precedents, particularly on asylum, that would help parties and judges move many “grantable” asylum cases through Immigration Courts fairly, efficiently, and consistently with due process and “best practices;”
Continuing lawless use of Title 42 @ Southern Border causing diversion of legal resources that could otherwise be channeled into representation!
In other words, the DOJ under Garland has failed to deliver on the promise of restoring the rule of law and promoting representation in Immigration Court. Seems like nothing short of Article I will “get the job done!”
It’s painfully obvious that the politicos running the dysfunctional Immigration Courts @ DOJ have never actually had to practice before them, particularly pro bono! So, they just go on repeating many of the uninformed mistakes of their predecessors!
“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.
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.
