Hon. Jeffrey Chase – Page 11 – immigrationcourtside.com

ROUND TABLE STRIKES ANOTHER BLOW IN SUPPORT OF JUSTICE⚔️🛡: Immigration Detainees Have a Right to Due Process in Bond Hearings — PADILLA RAUDALES V. DECKER, 2D CIR.

CHRISTOPHER T. CASAMASSIMA
Partner
Wilmer Hale
Los Angeles

SOUVIK SAHA
Counsel
Wilmer Hale
Washington, D.C.

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Amici curiae have served as Immigration Judges and as members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Amici are invested in the resolution of this case because they have dedicated their careers to improving tghe fairness and

2

efficiency of the U.S. immigration system. Through their centuries-long collective experience, amici have adjudicated hundreds—if not thousands—of immigration detention hearings. Amici have substantial knowledge of immigration detention issues, including the practical impact of the burden of proof in such hearings.

INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT SUMMARY

Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person” shall “be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This liberty is so fundamental that the law tolerates its restraint only in limited circumstances.

1

Amici are invested in the resolution of

2

efficiency of the U.S. immigration system. Through their centuries-long collective experience, amici have adjudicated hundreds—if not thousands—of immigration detention hearings. Amici have substantial knowledge of immigration detention issues, including the practical impact of the burden of proof in such hearings.

INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT SUMMARY

Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person” shall “be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This liberty is so fundamental that the law tolerates its restraint only in limited circumstances.

1

Amici are invested in the resolution of this case because they have dedicated their careers to improving the fairness and

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).

Amici have filed substantially similar briefs in other cases involving burden of proof issues in proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, no party or party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor contributed money to preparing or submitting this brief. Only amici or their counsel contributed money to prepare or submit this brief. The parties have consented to the filing of this brief.

2

A complete list of amici is included in this brief’s addendum.

Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page13 of 56

Such restraint violates the Due Process Clause “unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, or, in certain special and narrow nonpunitive circumstances, where a special justification, such as harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. Yet, federal law provides far greater protections to criminal defendants than it does to noncitizens in civil proceedings—even though the distinctions between criminal and non-criminal proceedings mean very little to a person sitting behind bars.

Accordingly, noncitizens already face significant hurdles in detention proceedings brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). At issue in this appeal is whether another, even higher and more fundamental, barrier to due process can be erected in this Circuit: do noncitizens bear the burden of justifying their freedom from detention? For noncitizens, the answer to this question is no mere technicality—it can mean the difference between freedom and confinement. This burden’s allocation, therefore, “reflects the value society places on individual liberty.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979).

Given their collective experience in adjudicating immigration bond hearings, amici are particularly well-suited to address the monumental question in this case. To that end, amici wish to share the following observations for this Court’s benefit:

-2-

Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page14 of 56

First, noncitizens already enjoy fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. We contrast the procedural rules for detaining criminal defendants and noncitizens to underscore the challenges that noncitizens face in immigration bond hearings, and to highlight the need for a presumption against detention as one of the last remaining bulwarks to protect noncitizens’ liberty.

Second, detention of noncitizens consumes the government’s already- limited administrative and judicial resources. Amici highlight the staggering costs that are associated with immigration detention, as well as the strain on immigration courts resulting from the unnecessary detention of noncitizens.

Third, contrary to the government’s position, placing the burden of proof on the government would not generate fiscal or administrative hardship. Amici advance that position with confidence because the government previously shouldered that exact burden over a fifteen-year period. Several of the amici served as Immigration Judges within that period and found that this older system did not cause additional costs or administrative hurdles.

Fourth, in amici’s experience, detaining noncitizens actually increases the burden on the immigration court system. While in detention, noncitizens face significant challenges in adequately preparing their cases. Further, the Executive Branch now utilizes “performance metrics” to encourage Immigration Judges to accelerate the fact-finding process in detention proceedings. With less time for

-3-

Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page15 of 56

individualized fact-finding, noncitizens will have even less opportunity to marshal the facts needed to satisfy the burden to avoid detention. Reallocating the burden of proof in immigration bond hearings, therefore, would reduce costs.

Fifth, and finally, amici offer alternatives to noncitizen detention that would inject much-needed resources to the immigration court system. The government’s aversion to such alternatives rest on a single statistic suggesting that the vast majority of noncitizens abscond upon release on bond. That statistic, however, is misleading and inconsistent with other available data, and bears little resemblance to the reality that amici encountered in years of adjudicating immigration cases.

Together, these observations should lead this Court to conclude that due process requires the government to make some sort of individualized showing before it may place noncitizens under lock and key.

. . . .

Read the full brief here: AS FILED No. 19-3220 Amici Br. Padilla Raudales v. Decker (2d Cir.)

*****************************

Thanks again not only to the signatory members of our Round Table, but especially to CHRISTOPHER T. CASAMASSIMA, SOUVIK SAHA, and the other members of their pro bono team over at WILMER HALE. Without assistance like yours, the “Voices of the Round Table” would not be heard in support of justice in so many cases throughout our nation!

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

06-04-20

⚖️👍🏼SUPREMES UPHOLD JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CAT DENIAL, 7-2 — NASRALLAH v. BARR, Opinion By Justice Kavananaugh — Round Table ⚔️🛡 Files Amicus For Winners!

NASRALLAH v. BARR, No. 18-432, June 1, 2020

SUPREME COURT SYLLABUS:

OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

NASRALLAH v. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 18–1432. Argued March 2, 2020—Decided June 1, 2020

Under federal immigration law, noncitizens who commit certain crimes are removable from the United States. During removal proceedings, a noncitizen who demonstrates a likelihood of torture in the designated country of removal is entitled to relief under the international Conven- tion Against Torture (CAT) and may not be removed to that country. If an immigration judge orders removal and denies CAT relief, the noncitizen may appeal both orders to the Board of Immigration Ap- peals and then to a federal court of appeals. But if the noncitizen has committed any crime specified in 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(C), the scope of judicial review of the removal order is limited to constitutional and legal challenges. See §1252(a)(2)(D).

The Government sought to remove petitioner Nidal Khalid Nasral- lah after he pled guilty to receiving stolen property. Nasrallah applied for CAT relief to prevent his removal to Lebanon. The Immigration Judge ordered Nasrallah removed and granted CAT relief. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals vacated the CAT relief order and ordered Nasrallah removed to Lebanon. The Eleventh Circuit declined to review Nasrallah’s factual challenges to the CAT order because Nasrallah had committed a §1252(a)(2)(C) crime and Circuit precedent precluded judicial review of factual challenges to both the final order of removal and the CAT order in such cases.

Held: Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizen’s factual challenges to a CAT order. Pp. 5–13.

(a) Three interlocking statutes establish that CAT orders may be re- viewed together with final orders of removal in a court of appeals. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes noncitizens to obtain direct “review of a final order of re-

2

NASRALLAH v. BARR Syllabus

moval” in a court of appeals, §1252(a)(1), and requires that all chal- lenges arising from the removal proceeding be consolidated for review, §1252(b)(9). The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA) implements Article 3 of CAT and provides for judicial review of CAT claims “as part of the review of a final order of removal.” §2242(d). And the REAL ID Act of 2005 clarifies that final orders of removal and CAT orders may be reviewed only in the courts of appeals. §§1252(a)(4)–(5). Pp. 5–6.

(b) Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) preclude judicial review of factual challenges only to final orders of removal. A CAT order is not a final “order of removal,” which in this context is defined as an order “con- cluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation,” §1101(a)(47)(A). Nor does a CAT order merge into a final order of re- moval, because a CAT order does not affect the validity of a final order of removal. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 938. FARRA provides that a CAT order is reviewable “as part of the review of a final order of removal,” not that it is the same as, or affects the validity of, a final order of removal. Had Congress wished to preclude judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, it could have easily done so. Pp. 6– 9.

(c) The standard of review for factual challenges to CAT orders is substantial evidence—i.e., the agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” §1252(b)(4)(B).

The Government insists that the statute supplies no judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, but its arguments are unpersua- sive. First, the holding in Foti v. INS, 375 U. S. 217, depends on an outdated interpretation of “final orders of deportation” and so does not control here. Second, the Government argues that §1252(a)(1) sup- plies judicial review only of final orders of removal, and if a CAT order is not merged into that final order, then no statute authorizes review of the CAT claim. But both FARRA and the REAL ID Act provide for direct review of CAT orders in the courts of appeals. Third, the Gov- ernment’s assertion that Congress would not bar review of factual challenges to a removal order and allow such challenges to a CAT order ignores the importance of adherence to the statutory text as well as the good reason Congress had for distinguishing the two—the facts that rendered the noncitizen removable are often not in serious dis- pute, while the issues related to a CAT order will not typically have been litigated prior to the alien’s removal proceedings. Fourth, the Government’s policy argument—that judicial review of the factual components of a CAT order would unduly delay removal proceedings— has not been borne out in practice in those Circuits that have allowed factual challenges to CAT orders. Fifth, the Government fears that a

Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus

decision allowing factual review of CAT orders would lead to factual challenges to other orders in the courts of appeals. But orders denying discretionary relief under §1252(a)(2)(B) are not affected by this deci- sion, and the question whether factual challenges to statutory with- holding orders under §1231(b)(3)(A) are subject to judicial review is not presented here. Pp. 9–13.

762 Fed. Appx. 638, reversed.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined.

*****************

Score at least a modest victory for the NDPA over the “Deportation Railroad.”

Once again the Round Table 🛡⚔️ intervened with an amicus brief on the side of justice. Here’s a report from Judge Jeffrey Chase:

Hi All: Our Round Table filed an amicus brief in Nasrallah v. Barr. The Supreme Court issued it’s 7-2 decision in the case today, and we were on the winning side.

Kavanaugh wrote the decision, and was joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Alito.

The decision reverses the 11th Cir. and holds that federal courts may review factual issues as well as legal and constitutional issues in CAT appeals filed by noncitizens with criminal convictions falling under 8 C.F.R. section 1252(a)(2)(C).

Gibson Dunn assisted us with the drafting of the brief.

Best, Jeff

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

And, of course, as Jeffrey notes, we couldn’t have done it without help from our pro bono heroes 🥇 over at Gibson Dunn! Many, many thanks!

Great that Justice Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Gorsuch “saw the light” on this one! Not sure how often it will happen in the future, but gotta take what we can get.

Also, given the “haste makes waste” policies thrust on EOIR by the DOJ under Trump, and the significant number of fundamental legal and factual errors made by the BIA, judicial review is likely to turn up additional instances of substandard decision-making.

PWS

06-01-20

LAW YOU CAN USE: THE DEVIL👹 IS IN THE DETAILS: JEFFREY S. CHASE — OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW: “Just One More Thing…”

HTTPS://WWW.JEFFREYSCHASE.COM/BLOG/2020/5/27/JUST-ONE-MORE-THING

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog

Archive

Press and Interviews

Calendar

Contact

“Just One More Thing…”

When reviewing asylum applications of late, I find myself thinking of the popular 1970s TV show “Columbo.” After interviewing a suspect, it’s title character, a disheveled homicide detective, would famously stop on his way out to ask “just one more thing.” What he asked next was always critical to proving the case.

Asylum claims are increasingly reliant on nuance. For example, in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, the Petitioner’s statement that she had resisted an attempted rape by one of the gang members “because [she had] every right to” was a significant reason for the Second Circuit’s conclusion that her subsequent persecution was on account of an imputed political opinion.

Similarly, in Lopez-Ordonez v. Barr, the Fourth Circuit’s finding of imputed political opinion relied largely on the Petitioner, while a soldier in the Guatemalan army, uttering a warning that he would “call the human rights right now” if a fellow soldier carried out his intent of harming a baby.

And in Orellana v. Barr, the Fourth Circuit found support for the Petitioner’s assertion that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to provide protection from her domestic partner in her testimony that she would call the police when her partner would become abusive and lock herself in a room with her children while the partner paced outside with a machete, but that the police would not show up for hours, and sometimes not show up at all.

In the above examples, the critical statements came out during testimony in court. But under pressure to meet unrealistic case completion goals, immigration judges are increasingly suggesting that respondents forego testimony and rely on their written applications, or waive direct examination and reserve the right to redirect. In some instances, judges have imposed time limits on testimony. There has been even greater pressure to forego the testimony of other witnesses and instead rely on their written submissions alone.

This pressure to make asylum adjudication more administratively efficient conflicts with the process through which such claims develop. While the written evidence explains the claim, an unanticipated response to a probing question may provide a eureka moment that alters the legal analysis. In my first year on the bench in 1995, a response from a female asylum seeker uttered with a certain degree of conviction caused me to make a connection to a 1993 decision of the Third Circuit in Fatin v. INS. That decision, authored by then-circuit judge Samuel Alito, recognized a particular social group consisting of both gender and a refusal to conform to the government’s gender-specific laws. After weeks of subsequent research and analysis, the case before me ended in a grant of asylum, a result that never would have occurred without the extensive testimony that elicited that one critical utterance.

While EOIR management’s present focus is on efficiency, it bears noting that claims for asylum and related reliefs have life-or-death consequences. For example, a February report of Human Rights Watch documented 138 Salvadorans who were murdered after being deported from the U.S., and 70 other deportees who were subjected to beatings, sexual assault, or extortion. And those are just the statistics for one country.

It is therefore extremely important to find a way to anticipate the details that might turn a case from a denial to a grant, and to include those details in the written asylum application. And this can be best achieved through the Columbo method of asking “just one more thing.”

Examples:

Domestic violence claims

Typically, applications describe the brutal mistreatment suffered by the asylum-seeker. But in Matter of A-B-, the Attorney General claimed a lack of evidence that the persecutor “was aware of, and hostile to” a particular social group. The A.G. rather attributed the motive for the attack to the persecutor’s “preexisting personal relationship with the victim.”

In such cases, ask “just one more thing” to establish that the abusive partner was at least partially motivated to harm the asylum seeker because of her gender (which should in turn be argued to constitute her particular social group). For example, the respondent in A-B- described how her ex-husband believed “a woman’s place was in the home, like a servant.” This statement established (1) that the persecutor was aware of a particular social group, consisting of women, and (2) his own hostility towards such group, through his relegating its members to a subservient role in society.

Additional “Columbo” questions would inquire whether the persecutor’s verbal abuse included gender-specific derogatory terms; how he generally spoke of or treated other women in his life; and whether he would have inflicted the same forms of abuse on e.g. his brother, a close male friend, or a male roommate. The answers may well establish that the asylum seeker’s inclusion in a social group defined by her gender was at least “one central reason” for her being targeted for abuse.

“Just one more thing” should also be asked to flesh out imputed political opinion as a possible motive, as in the above-cited Hernandez-Chacon case.

Family-based claims

These claims often arise in the gang context, when gang members unable to target a particular individual target family members of that individual instead. Although courts for decades have held family to be the quintessential example of a particular social group for asylum purposes, two recent administrative decisions have complicated these claims. First, the BIA in Matter of L-E-A- dismissed the threat to the family member as being motivated by financial considerations and not by an actual animus towards the family. The Attorney General then weighed in, questioning whether a family enjoys the required distinction in the eyes of society to constitute a particular social group.

Regarding nexus, the “Columbo” questions should focus on circumstantial evidence of intent. Keep in mind the BIA’s decision in Matter of S-P–. One of the factors set out in that decision for determining when purported criminal prosecution might actually be political persecution is where the abuse is “out of proportion to nonpolitical ends.” For example, if someone accused of jaywalking is sentenced to ten years in prison and subjected to torture and interrogation sessions, it’s safe to assume that it isn’t really about the jaywalking.

With this in mind, the “just one more thing” issue in such cases is to elicit details about the purported motive vs. the seriousness of the threatened harm. Where the issue is extortion, and the Board might therefore view the motive as economic, ask exactly how much money was involved. Under the S-P- test, a threat to rape and kill someone because their family member neglected to pay $20 in renta probably isn’t about the money. The same might be found even where a larger sum is involved where the threats are directed at, e.g., a teenage child who lacks any realistic ability to pay. Or where the family has managed to avoid paying for years, is there a point where a dispute that began purely over money starts to take on some animus towards the family as well?

Regarding social distinction, “just one more thing” should be asked to establish how the asylum-seeker’s family was viewed in the society in which they lived, as well as the general distinctions that all families enjoy in such society. Was it known throughout the community that MS-13 is targeting the client’s family? If so, might that knowledge have caused the family to achieve social distinction? It is also worth asking whether the institution of family is addressed in the country’s constitution, or how kinship is treated regarding the country’s inheritance and guardianship laws.

Unwilling/unable issues:

As in Orellana v. Barr above, ask “just one more thing” about how many times your client turned to the police, and how many times they actually responded. Also, how long did it take them to respond, and what did the response consist of? How did the authorities treat the abuser? Did they take the position that the issue was a “personal matter” not proper for police intervention?

If the client did not bother to call the police because they viewed it as futile, ask “just one more thing” about what caused them to form such a view. Do they know of relatives, friends, or neighbors whose experiences with the authorities support such a view? Can they cite examples in which there were repercussions for those who called on the authorities for protection? Have the authorities asked for bribes, or made statements exhibiting bias or corruption? Or have they gone as far as to admit that they are unable to provide effective protection?

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Reprinted by permission.

(Disclaimer: The foregoing is meant as “food for thought,” and is not to be interpreted or relied upon as legal advice, or to create an attorney-client relationship. And as the law changes, by the time you read this, the information contained therein might not be up to date.)

MAY 27, 2020

*********************************

Thanks, Jeffrey, my friend!

I’ve always said about asylum litigation in Immigration Court: The Devil 👹 is in the details. And, if you don’t find that Devil, the Assistant Chief Counsel will. And, YOU will burn🔥!

PWS

05-27-20

DUE PROCESS: Round Table ⚔️🛡 Files Amicus Brief in Yanez-Pena v. Barr (5th Cir.) Cert. Petition — Pereira Issue

Richard W. Mark, Esquire
Partner
Gibson Dunn
New York

Amer S. Ahmed, Esquire
Partner
Gibson Dunn
New York

Read the entire brief here:

Yanez-Pena Amicus Brief TO FILE

Here’s the summary from the brief :

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

It is an axiom of due process that a party charged to defend against a legal proceeding must receive notice of the time and place of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. This Court’s ruling in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), reflects that axiom in the context of initiating removal proceedings by “notice to appear.”

This petition presents a straightforward question of enormous practical significance that has divided the five courts of appeals to have considered the issue: Must the initial written notice served on noncitizens to commence their removal proceedings provide—in

1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and that no person or entity other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

2 The appendix provides a complete list of signatories.

2

one document—the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held” (along with charges and other specified information) in order to satisfy the require- ments of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), or does the statute allow the government to cobble together the required elements of a “notice to appear” from multiple documents, issued at different times, none of which alone contain all of the statutorily required information?

Resolution of this issue will affect thousands of people in the immigration system. For noncitizens applying for cancellation of removal, service of a valid “notice to appear” triggers the so-called “stop-time” rule, which terminates the period of continuous pres- ence required for cancellation eligibility. For noncitizens ordered removed in absentia, whether that se- vere penalty is proper depends on whether the notice served on the noncitizen satisfied the requirements of § 1229(a).

This Court should grant review to resolve the accelerating circuit split over this issue. The Fifth Circuit, agreeing with the Sixth Circuit, held that a defective “notice to appear” lacking the statutorily required time-and-place information could be “cured” by a subsequent “notice of hearing” containing that information, such that the separate documents considered together become “a notice to appear,” with the stop- time rule being triggered upon later service of the “curative” notice of hearing. See Yanez-Pena v. Barr, 952 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2020); Garcia-Romo v. Barr, 940 F.3d 192 (6th Cir. 2019). The Third and Tenth Circuits, based on the plain language of § 1229(a) and this Court’s decision in Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2105, have reached the opposite conclusion. See Guadalupe v. Atty. Gen., 951 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2020); Banuelos v. Barr, 953 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2020). A divided panel

3

of the Ninth Circuit was in accord with the Third and Tenth Circuits, before that court granted rehearing en banc. See Lopez v. Barr, 925 F.3d 396, 405 (9th Cir. 2019), vacated and reh’g en banc granted, 948 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2020).

This Court should bring harmony to federal law by granting certiorari, reversing the Fifth Circuit, and restoring the common-sense interpretation of § 1229(a) as requiring one document that satisfies the statute’s requirements.

I. The question presented affects many thousands of people across the country. As the government told this Court in 2018, “almost 100 percent” of putative notices to appear omit the required time-and-place in- formation. Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111. Hundreds of thousands of notices to appear are served each year; a dispute about validity is embedded in every proceed- ing initiated with a notice that lacks time-and-place information. Indeed, tens of thousands of cancellation applications remain pending, each one requiring an IJ to determine whether the stop-time rule was triggered by § 1229(a) notice. Similarly, tens of thousands of in absentia removal orders are issued every year, each one dependent on whether proceedings began with the noncitizen’s being served a notice to appear that com- plies with § 1229(a).

This case involves the application of § 1229(a) in both the cancellation of removal and in absentia removal contexts, thus presenting an optimal vehicle to address the question presented. See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (“Pet.”) at 22-24.

II. Deciding the question presented will also pro- mote uniformity in the nation’s immigration laws. Uniformity in this sphere is a foundational principle

4

of American law, with the Constitution explicitly directing Congress “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4. But there can be no uniform law if basic questions affect- ing the right of an individual to remain in the country get an answer that varies among the circuits. Such a regime would result in divergent outcomes based on geography alone, not the merits of any particular noncitizen’s case.

This unfairness may be exacerbated by the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) discretion to select the venue for a removal proceeding, and thus the law that governs the case. DHS’s ability to choose the venue, coupled with its ability to transfer detainees wherever it sees fit, opens the door to unfair forum shopping for the circuit law it prefers.

III. Requiring DHS to work with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to obtain time-and-place information before serving a notice to appear—and including such information in that document, as § 1229(a) and Pereira require—is practical and will reduce administrative inefficiency and error. Doing so will also achieve the legislative purpose of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, of which § 1229(a) was a part, by instituting a “single form of notice” to “simplify procedures for initiating removal proceedings.” H.R. Rep. 104-469(I), 1996 WL 168955 at *159.

***************************

Many thanks to our GOOD friends Richard W. Mark and Amer S. Ahmed and their team over at the NY Office of Gibson Dunn for their extraordinary pro bono assistance in drafting our brief.

Due Process Forever!👍🏼

PWS

05-12-20

HERE’S MY ARTICLE FROM LAW360: “Justices’ Fleeting Unanimity In Free Speech Immigration Case”

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1272443/justices-fleeting-unanimity-in-free-speech-immigration-case

Justices’ Fleeting Unanimity In Free Speech Immigration Case

By Paul Schmidt

Law360 (May 11, 2020, 6:09 PM EDT) —

Paul Schmidt

On May 7, the U.S. Supreme Court‘s so-called Bridgegate decision got the attention, but the decision released that day in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith is also notable.

In a unanimous decision by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court pummels a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for overreaching on a constitutional overbreadth issue not argued by the parties below.

Observers expecting a blockbuster resolution of the tension between the First Amendment and criminal sanctions for “inducing or encouraging” extralegal immigration undoubtedly were disappointed.

Nevertheless, I find three significant takeaways from the ruling in Sineneng-Smith.

First, an ideologically fractured court desperately seeks common ground on something relating to immigration enforcement.

Second, the judicial restraint preached by Justice Ginsburg in her opinion conflicts with the U.S. attorney general’s use of the immigration courts to advance his restrictionist policy agenda.

Third, and ironically, Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion calls not for judicial restraint, but solicits a conservative judicial assault on the overbreadth doctrine that generally protects individuals from government overreach.

Facts

Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, a California immigration lawyer, filed labor certification applications for clients to help them get U.S. green cards. She charged each client more than $6,000, netting $3.3 million.

Smith knew that particular path to a green card involving filing for labor certification and adjusting status without leaving the country had been eliminated by statute, except for those in the country on Dec. 21, 2000, who had applied for a labor certification before April 30, 2001.

Smith’s clients did not satisfy that grandfathering criteria. However, Smith apparently did not tell them that the applications they paid her to file could not lead to successful adjustments of status.

A criminal prosecution followed which included, but was not limited to, charges that Smith had unlawfully induced or encouraged her clients to reside in the U.S. in violation of law. Smith, represented by counsel, argued at trial that the criminal statute penalizing inducing or encouraging unlawful immigration did not apply to her specific situation of filing immigration applications for clients.

She also asserted that interpreting the statute to include her particular situation as a lawyer representing clients seeking immigration status would violate the right to petition and free speech clauses of the First Amendment, specifically as applied to her.

She did not claim that all applications of the criminal inducing or encouraging unlawful immigration statute were unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

A U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected all of Smith’s defenses and convicted her on the inducing or encouraging charge, as well as some additional charges of filing false tax returns and mail fraud that were not contested by the time the case reached the Supreme Court.

Smith appealed her encouraging-or-inducing conviction to the Ninth Circuit.

Ninth Circuit Proceedings

On appeal, Smith advanced the same statutory and constitutional arguments, based on the specifics of her situation, that had failed at trial.

The Ninth Circuit panel basically pushed aside both Smith’s and government counsel. Instead, they appointed three amici — friends of the court — principally to argue the case. According to Justice Ginsburg, this essentially made bystanders out of counsel for the actual parties.

Even more egregiously says Justice Ginsburg, the panel reframed and restated the issues for the amici to address. Instead of the narrow issues argued by the parties on the specific facts of the case, the panel posited three new and much broader issues.

The first was “whether the statute of conviction is overbroad or likely overbroad under the First Amendment.”

Faced with a new theory of the defense suggested by the panel itself, Smith’s lawyer, who was allowed but not required to participate in the supplemental briefing by the amici, merely adopted the amici’s overbreadth argument without discussion.

The panel then overturned Smith’s conviction solely on the basis that the statute was overbroad under the First Amendment.

The solicitor general petitioned the court which took the case because it invalidated a federal statute on constitutional grounds.

The court reversed and remanded, instructing the panel to ditch the overbreadth issue and concentrate on the narrower issues relating to Smith’s specific conduct under the statute, as actually argued by the parties at trial and on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Analysis

Misleading “Togetherness”

The court’s unanimous rebuke of the panel below provides insight without much useful guidance. It probably could, and should, have been a two sentence, unsigned vacate and remand, referencing the court’s previous jurisprudence on the essential role of cases and controversies in Article III judging.

Notwithstanding some commentators touting the number of unanimous decisions, this court is riven by a deep ideological split between five conservative GOP-appointed justices moving sharply right and four moderate to liberal Democrat-appointed justices trying to hold the line on important individual rights in the face of government overreach.

Nowhere has this gap been more apparent than in the executive’s aggressive efforts to rewrite, and effectively annihilate, previous American immigration laws and human rights policies.

The court’s recent 5-4 decision vacating a stay in Wolf v. Cook County illustrates this. There, five conservative justices accepted the solicitor general’s invitation to interfere with litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, involving the administration’s rewrite of the so-called public charge rules applicable to immigrants.

The majority’s failure to even explain its decision earned an unusually sharp rebuke from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Unlike this case that involves one individual, the administration’s rule changes, green-lighted by Cook County, have been cited as deterring many individuals legally in the country from seeking medical advice in this pandemic.

So much for judicial restraint as a norm. Here, by contrast, the justices bridged the gap only by finding a common enemy in the panel below. Don’t expect this agreement to carry over into the merits of more controversial immigration issues.

Immigration Courts Don’t Follow This Standard

My colleagues, former mmigration judges Jeffrey Chase and Susan Roy, pointed me to the dissonance between the court’s admonitions here and the attorney general’s legislate-by-decision approach to the immigration courts.

Both former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Attorney General William Barr eagerly have reached down into the immigration court system they respectively controlled to implement restrictive immigration policies by precedent decision without invitation from the actual parties to litigation.

In two of the best known instances, Sessions acted unilaterally to change established rules concerning domestic violence asylum claims for women and to eradicate nearly four decades of precedent allowing judges to administratively close low priority or dormant cases on their burgeoning dockets.

Notwithstanding their expressed concerns about uninvited judicial activism, the court has effectively overlooked the glaring operational and constitutional problems embedded in an immigration “court” system run by the chief prosecutor. Will they pay attention when future litigants raise this disconnect?

Justice Thomas’ Ironic Concurrence

Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion attacks the overbreadth doctrine and solicits future challenges to it, presumably from right-wing advocates and activist conservative judges who agree with him.

Right-wing activists like Thomas customarily harken back wistfully to the golden age of American jurisprudence when the exclusively white, male, nearly 100% Christian federal judiciary was perfectly happy to look the other way and bend the rules to favor ruling elites.

Those disfavored were often African Americans, women, children, the poor and others who weren’t part of the club. How would Justice Thomas himself have fared in the past world he longs to re-create?

Conclusion

The substantive constitutional issue unanimously ducked by the court might eventually reappear, particularly if Justice Thomas has his way. But, don’t expect repeats of the court’s manufactured harmony in more controversial aspects of the administration’s attacks on the rights and humanity of migrants, like, for example the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals case.

I also wonder if this court can continue ignoring the glaring constitutional deficiencies and clear biases in the current immigration court system, defects they would never accept from any Article III judges?

Paul Wickham Schmidt is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He is a retired U.S. immigration judge, and a former chair and judge at the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals.

********************

Many thanks and much appreciation to my good friends and “Round Table” colleagues Judge Jeff Chase and Judge Sue Roy for their ideas and contributions to this article.

Due Process Forever!

PWS😎

05-12-20

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: 1ST CIRCUIT CORRECTS BIA ON GENDER-BASED ASYLUM DENIALS: De Pena Paniagua v. Barr – The Recurring Failure Of Scholarship By The AG & The BIA Again “Outed” By Article IIIs: So Why Do Federal Courts Continue “Deferring” To Politicized, Non-Expert, Sloppy Adjudications By Enforcement Officials Working For The Executive Branch?

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog

Archive

Press and Interviews

Calendar

Contact

Gender Per Se

In De Pena Paniagua v. Barr, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit made several corrections to the Trump administration’s application of the law of asylum as it applies to victims of domestic violence. The court’s precedent decision provided validation to the longstanding views of asylum advocates that the administration has worked hard to ignore.

As background, after an 18-year legal battle, the BIA in a 2014 decision, Matter of A-R-C-G-, finally recognized that the particular social group of married Guatemalan women unable to leave their relationship warranted asylum where its members are targeted for persecution due to their group characteristics.

In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions vacated A-R-C-G-, claiming that it lacked the rigorous legal analysis expected of such a decision. Sessions stated that while his new decision did not bar all such claimants from asylum, he believed few victims of domestic violence would manage to qualify. In particular, Sessions decided that “women unable to leave their domestic relationship” could not form the legitimate particular social group needed under the asylum laws, on the ground that such groups cannot be defined even in part by the persecution the group fears. In support of this view, Sessions concluded that the asylum-seeker’s inability to leave her relationship in the case in question was due to persecution, although he provided no insight as to what facts supported his belief.

Many similar cases were pending when Sessions issued his fateful decision. But instead of remanding all pending cases to allow the opportunity to respond to the sudden change in the law, the BIA instead began denying those cases on the grounds that Sessions had rejected the concept, without bothering to actually analyze the specific facts of each case to see if they still merited asylum under the law.

In De Pena Paniagua, the First Circuit called shenanigans. It began by noting that nothing in Sessions’ decision created a categorical rule precluding any and all applicants from succeeding on asylum claims as members of the group defined as women unable to leave their relationships. The BIA had thus erred in categorically denying such a claim.

The court next turned to Sessions’ error in concluding that the inability to leave a relationship necessarily results from persecution, calling Sessions’ statement to the contrary “arbitrary and unexamined fiat.” But the court continued that even if persecution was the cause, the threatened abuse that precludes someone from leaving a relationship “may not always be the same…as the physical abuse visited upon the woman within the relationship.” Finally, the court held that even if the harm was the same, there is no reason such abuse can’t do “double-duty, both helping define the group and providing the basis for a finding of persecution.”

It bears noting that in a 2007 precedent decision, Matter of A-M-E- & J-G-U-, the BIA had only held that a particular social group cannot be defined “exclusively by the fact that its members have been subjected to harm.” And the group in De Pena Paniagua (and in A-B- and A-R-C-G-, for that matter) was not exclusively defined by the inability to leave, but also by its members’ gender, nationality, and domestic relationship status. Of course, the inability to leave a relationship can be due to social, religious, economic, or other factors having nothing to do with persecution. But even if the inability to leave is interpreted as resulting from persecution, the fact that such harm would only partially define the group would not invalidate it under A-M-E- & J-G-U- (which borrowed the “exclusively defined” language from particular social group guidelines issued by UNHCR in 2002, which the Board had cited in an earlier decision).

In a 2014 case, Matter of M-E-V-G–, DHS had argued for a requirement that a particular social group “must exist independently of the fact of persecution,” a stricter requirement that would seemingly forbid a group from being even partially defined by persecution. Strangely, the BIA responded to DHS’s argument in a footnote, claiming that DHS’s proposal “is well established in our prior precedents,” a statement that was clearly untrue. And in support of its claim, the BIA cited to Matter of A-M-E- & J-G-U-, which as discussed only precludes groups defined exclusively by persecution.

In his decision in A-B-, Sessions relied in part on the footnote in M-E-V-G- mischaracterizing prior case law to support his claim that a particular social group must exist independently of the harm asserted, thus perpetuating the Board’s prior falsehood. As in fact no prior BIA precedent had ever held that a particular social group cannot partially be defined by persecution, the First Circuit was correct to call out the unsupported legal conclusion. As merely looking up the citation in the BIA’s footnote would have revealed the error, one could argue that Sessions’ decision lacked the rigorous legal analysis expected of such a decision.

In remanding the record back to the BIA, the First Circuit also held out the possibility of considering a more concise group defined by an asylum applicant’s gender per se. This group was suggested in the amicus brief filed in the case by Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. While leaving it to the BIA to decide whether gender alone may constitute a cognizable particular social group for asylum purposes, the court provided very strong reasons why it should. The BIA’s recognition of gender per se would constitute a historical correction to U.S. asylum law, putting it in line with long recognized international standards. The same 2002 UNHCR Guidelines recognized gender as falling “properly within the ambit of the social group category, with women being a clear example of a social subset defined by innate and immutable characteristics, and who are frequently treated differently to men.”

Attorneys Jonathan Ng and Robert F. Ley of the Law Offices of Johanna Herrero represented the petitioner. Our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is proud to have been among the distinguished amici filing briefs in the case, which included the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, a distinguished group of immigration law professors, and a group of faith-based organizations. Our heartfelt thanks to attorneys Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed, Indraneel Sur, Timothy Sun, Grace E. Hart, and Chris Jones of the law firm of Gibson Dunn for their outstanding efforts on our brief.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Republished with permission.

**************************************

The biased, substandard performance and deficient scholarship of both the Attorney General and the BIA is matter of public record. The AG is not a qualified quasi-judicial official; he’s a prosecutor, with vengeance, who harbors a very clear enforcement bias against migrants. The BIA is structured to facially look like an expert body of quasi-judicial adjudicators. But, the frequent mistakes in their decisions and the clear bias in their hiring and supervision by the Attorney General expose the unhappy truth: they are nothing of the sort. So, what’s the excuse for the Article IIIs “deferring” to decisions on questions of law from these unqualified enforcement officials masquerading, not very convincingly, as “fair and impartial adjudicators?”

Looks like “judicial task avoidance” and “abdication of duty” to me!

Article III Judges are paid to determine what the law is (and not much else). They should do their jobs rather than hiding beyond the “doctrine of false deference.”

Here’s my previously posted “take” on De Pena Paniagua: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/04/24/due-process-gender-based-asylum-wins-1st-cir-slams-bia-sessionss-matter-of-a-b-atrocity-remands-for-competent-adjudication-of-gender-based-asylum-claim-de-pena-paniagua-v-ba/

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-11-20

Suzanne Monyak @ Law360: FEDERAL COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT BILLY BARR’S BIA IS A FRAUD! — So Why Do They Let The Unconstitutional Abuse Of Persons Seeking Justice Continue Under Their Noses?

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1271825/immigration-board-picks-under-trump-to-set-lasting-policy

Suzanne writes in Law360:

U.S. Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook didn’t mince words earlier this year when sharing his thoughts on a recent decision by the immigration courts’ appellate board: “We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again.”

The Seventh Circuit judge, a Reagan-appointee, said the board had ignored the court’s directions to grant protection to an immigrant fighting deportation, instead ruling against the immigrant again. The rebuke wasn’t the first time the Board of Immigration Appeals has been reprimanded by the federal judiciary for seemingly prejudiced decisions under the Trump administration.

Just a month earlier, a judge on the Third Circuit tackling an appeal from the BIA wrote in a concurring opinion that it didn’t appear the board “was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring [an immigrant’s] removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be.”

“That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly,” U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore McKee wrote.

While President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees and U.S. Supreme Court picks grab headlines for rtheir potential to shape the judiciary for years to come, the administration is staffing the lesser known BIA with former immigration judges who have high asylum-denial rates and individuals with backgrounds in law enforcement. Some of the picks have prompted advocates for immigrants and lawmakers to claim the hiring process is too politicized.

Documents newly obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Trump administration has aimed to fast-track the hiring process while giving the director of U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, James McHenry, and the U.S. attorney general more say in who gets the nod.

Unlike the federal and appellate courts, the BIA, an administrative appellate board that hears appeals from immigration trial courts, is not independent but rather is housed with the EOIR.

Yet the board can issue precedential decisions that shape immigration policy — and the lives of immigrants facing deportation — well into the future.

“That the reasonably ordinary citizen has not heard of the BIA does not take away from the fact that it is the most important agency establishing immigration jurisprudence in the country, and when you politicize that, you’re obviously politicizing immigration jurisprudence,” said Muzaffar Chishti, head of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute’s New York office.

A spokesperson for EOIR told Law360 that the office sped up the hiring process as part of “commonsense changes” and in response to criticism from Congress.

She also said that EOIR “does not choose board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics, and it does not discriminate against applicants based on any prohibited characteristics,” and that “all board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.”

During the most recent hiring cycle, every panelist evaluating candidates was a career employee, not a political appointee, according to the spokesperson.

“Individuals who assert that such changes make the hiring process less neutral are either ignorant or mendacious,” the spokesperson said.

High Rates of Asylum Denials

Since August, the Trump administration has installed nine of the 19 current permanent members of the BIA, and most of the newcomers have asylum-denial rates above 80% and backgrounds in law enforcement or the military.

All but one of the nine were previously immigration judges, and according to data collected by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, the average asylum-denial rate among those eight judges was just over 92%. The denial rate for each of those eight judges ranged from 83.5% to 96.8%.

The average asylum-denial rate for immigration courts nationally is 63.1%, according to TRAC.

Asylum-denial rates aren’t perfect metrics; controlling asylum law varies by circuit, and the viability of asylum claims can vary based on location. New York’s immigration courts for instance, tend to see more asylum claims from Chinese citizens fleeing political oppression, which are more frequently successful, while courts near detention centers may see harder-to-win claims from longtime U.S. residents with less access to counsel.

However, Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360 that no one deciding cases fairly could have a 90% asylum denial rate.

“You’re looking to deny cases at that point,” he said.

The one recent Trump administration BIA hire who wasn’t previously an immigration judge had been a trial attorney at the Justice Department, while many of the other former judges had prior experience at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or its predecessor agency.

One, V. Stuart Couch, was previously a senior prosecutor for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“There’s overall just a lack of diversity on the immigration judge bench, which is deeply concerning,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I think the mark of justice is the idea that decision makers come from a diverse background.”

A hire to the BIA announced earlier this month, Philip J. Montante Jr., has come under fire not only for a sky-high asylum-denial rate — 96.3% — but for a history of ethics complaints.

In 2014, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Judge Montante’s handling of an immigration case was “inappropriate” after an attorney accused him of showing bias when deciding a client’s case.

In March, not long before his promotion to the BIA was announced, the New York Civil Liberties Union accused Judge Montante in a proposed class action in federal court of denying detained immigrants’ bond requests nearly universally.

According to the advocacy organization, Judge Montante rejected 95% of bond requests between March 2019 and February 2020, bringing him within the top five lowest bond grant rates among the more than 200 immigration judges nationwide.

. . . .

**************************

Read the rest of Suzanne’s excellent article, with more quotes from my fellow members of the NDPA, Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Laura Lynch, at the above link. I have been told that this article is “outside” the Law360 “paywall,” so you should be able to read it even if you don’t have a subscription.

I find the Article III Courts’ recognition of the Due Process travesty going on in individual cases, while they ignore the systemic unfairness that makes a mockery out of the Due Process Clause of our Constitution, the rule of law, our entire justice system, and humanity itself, perhaps the most disturbing institutional failure under the Trump regime. While Article III Judges are “shocked and offended” by contemptuous actions directed at them in particular cases, they remain willfully “tone deaf” to the reality of our dysfunctional and biased Immigration Courts and their impact on “real human lives.” ☠️

This is how individuals seeking justice and the courageous lawyers representing them, many serving at minimal or no compensation to inject a modicum of integrity into our system, are treated every day. Not every wronged individual has the ability to reach the Article IIIs.

And, given the Article IIIs failure to take the courageous, systemic steps necessary to stop abuses of migrants, the Trump regime has “taken it to a new level” by coming up with various illegal schemes and gimmicks to keep individuals seeking asylum from even getting a hearing in Immigration Court. Due Process? Fundamental Fairness? Rule of Law? No way!

Yet, this unfolds before us daily as the Article IIIs basically “twiddle their collective thumbs” 👎🏻 and “nibble around the edges” of a monumental Constitutional disaster and blot on the humanity and integrity of our nation and our own souls. The complicity starts with the Supremes who have “passed” on a number of critical opportunities to “just say no” to blatant violations of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Refugee Act of 1980, international human rights conventions, and misuse and clear abuse of “emergency authority” to achieve a White Nationalist, racist agenda.

In other words, the Supremes’ majority is knowingly and intentionally encouraging the regime’s program of “Dred Scottification” — dehumanization or “de-personification” before the law — of “the other.” This disgusting and fundamentally un-American “resurrection and enabling” of a “21st Century Jim Crow Regime” might be “in vogue” with the “J.R. Five” and their right-wing compatriots right now. But, they are squarely on the “wrong side of history.” Eventually, the “truth will out,” and they will be judged accordingly!👎🏻

That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-11-20

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: Some Uplifting News For Mothers’ Day Involving the Generosity Of The NDPA, Many From The “Arlington Brigade!”😎👍

Eileen Blessinger, Esquire
Blessinger Legal PLLC
Falls Church, VA

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/5/8/small-acts-of-thanks-2

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog

Archive

Press and Interviews

Calendar

Contact

Small Acts of ThanksI would like to share a nice story (for once). It illustrates how a postscript can sometimes prove far more meaningful than the main story.

A friend and colleague in the DC area, Eileen Blessinger of Blessinger Legal, planned a series of training lectures via Zoom during the pandemic. When I initially agreed to present one of the sessions on asylum law, I was told it would be for an audience of eighteen people.

Somehow, the number of attendees increased significantly. Because meetings of more than 100 people require an upgrade on Zoom, Eileen asked participants for a small donation. I believe the training went well, and that seemed to be the end of the story.

Later that night, Eileen informed me that because the number of attendees was well over 100, there was a surplus of donations beyond what was needed to cover the Zoom upgrade. After a brief exchange, we agreed that the surplus should go to pandemic first responders.

Realizing the virtue of what was initially an unintended consequence, the next speaker, Louisiana-based attorney Glenda Regnart, also agreed to open her session to a wider audience, who were invited to make a small donation to treat first responders. Subsequent speakers Kelly White, Himedes Chicas, Anam Rahman, Julie Soininen, Danielle Beach-Oswald, Heain Lee, and Jennifer Jaimes agreed to follow suit. Over $1300 was raised.

Eileen took over from there, inviting suggestions for recipients from her staff. So far, she has provided meals to nurses at Mass General Hospital in Boston; to employees at supermarkets in Louisiana and Virginia, and to preparers of meals for those in need in Alexandria, VA. Plans are also in the works to provide a meal for DC-area sanitation workers.

Those of us able to quarantine comfortably and work from home owe an unimaginable debt to those putting themselves at risk to keep our cities and towns running, keeping us all fed and safe. And as most of us read of infection and death rates as impersonal statistics, the nurses and other medical workers who are battling the disease on the frontlines on a daily basis, putting their own health at risk in the process, are far beyond our ability to properly thank.

It was a donation to another group that touched me in an unexpected way because of its connection to an earlier unspeakable tragedy. Eileen forwarded me the accompanying photo of FDNY firefighters enjoying the meal provided for them from the training surplus. Looking at the photo, I was suddenly transported back to the fall of 2001. My wife and I, who both worked in lower Manhattan, were physically very close to events on 9/11. What we saw still triggers traumatic memories. Among the horrible and tragic statistics is the heartbreaking fact that 343 firefighters died that day. More than 200 more have died as the result of illnesses they subsequently contracted in the rescue effort.

I walked past the firehouse on Duane Street every day on my way to and from work when I was an immigration judge. I remember the feeling of grief when passing by in the months following 9/11, and of stopping there one day in October to make a donation, and of words completely failing me as I tried to express my sadness and gratitude.

In the present pandemic, 15 firefighters in the unit pictured here (Engine 286/Ladder 135) had contracted COVID-19 as of last week. As early as April 7, 500 of New York’s Bravest had contracted coronavirus. Many more continue to be exposed as first responders to emergency calls from those stricken with the disease. And the firefighter who took the photo, Jerry Ross, was also a 9/11 responder.

So once again, we are reminded of the great debt we owe to so many. Thanks again to Eileen and all of the other speakers, and of course to all who contributed. Hopefully, these small acts of thanks will bring a little joy to these most essential and selfless heroes.

*************************

Go to Jeffrey’s blog at the above link for the accompanying photo of Engine 286/Ladder 135 enjoying their meal!

Thanks Jeffrey & Eileen!

So proud that in addition to Eileen, of course, so many of the wonderful pro bono attorneys highlighted in this article were “regulars” before us during my time at the Arlington Immigration Court: Kelly White, Anam Rahman, Julie Soininen, Danielle Beach-Oswald, and Jennifer Jaimes. Also, Jennifer is a former Legal Intern at the Arlington Immigration Court who was part of our daily “run the stairs challenge” (at the former Ballston location) with then Court Administrator Judges Bryant and Snow, and me. Ah, those were the days!

Jennifer Jaimes, Esquire — Jennifer Jaimes Esquire
Jaimes Legal, LLC
Baltimore, MD

Happy Mothers’ Day and Due Process Forever!😎👍🥇

PWS

05-10-20

LEE SUNDAY EVANS @ WATERWELL: “The Power of Transcripts”— “It wasn’t hard to recognize the power of each individual story, and the patterns revealed when reading two, three, ten testimonies were a disturbing depiction of how the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) were being violated.”

FYI, an essay by Waterwell Artistic Director Lee Sunday Evans on the company’s immigration law related work. Best, Jeff

https://howlround.com/power-transcripts

The Power of Transcripts

In July 2019, I sat down with a few people at the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School to discuss the possibility of bringing a performance of The Courtroom: a re-enactment of one woman’s deportation proceedings—a production by the New York City–based theatre company Waterwell, where I’m artistic director—to their campus. Fast forward thirty minutes and Elora Mukherjee—the director of the clinic, an immigration lawyer and professor—had our attention focused in a different direction.

Elora was describing her work as a monitor for the Flores Settlement Agreement—a court settlement that sets the time limit and conditions under which children can be held in immigration detention—over the past twelve years; two weeks earlier, she had provided testimony in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform about the deplorable conditions she and her colleagues had witnessed in two immigration detention facilities in Clint and Ursula, Texas. Then, Elora politely declined to bring The Courtroom to Columbia Law School—at least for the time being—and asked if Waterwell would consider making a new project using first-person testimonies of the children and young parents she had met at the border.

I’ll start at the beginning of our company’s engagement with immigration and then describe The Flores Exhibits—the project Waterwell created in response to this conversation with Elora Mukherjee.

The Courtroom. Photo by Miguel Amortegui

The Courtroom

In the summer of 2018, Arian Moayed—an actor, writer, director, and co-founder of Waterwell—was watching, along with the rest of the United States, as an increasingly heated debate about immigration enveloped our country. Family separations at the border and the uproar that followed flooded the news, along with stories about how increasingly rapid deportation proceedings were compromising due process. Arian was born in Iran, immigrated here when he was seven years old, and became a citizen when he was twenty-six. The stories of how the United States was treating immigrants hit him personally.

He thought: How can Waterwell respond? What can we do to add something meaningful to this conversation?

Then a new question crystallized in his mind: We hear about them in the media, but what does a deportation proceeding in court actually look like? How do deportation proceedings work?

While reaching out to a handful of immigration lawyers and asking them to share transcripts of deportation proceedings, Arian met Richard Hanus, an immigration lawyer in Chicago, who has been practicing for over twenty-five years. Richard shared transcripts of one case he thought might be of interest, and Arian read it right away. The case was powerful.

The transcripts gave the story a certain kind of objectivity, an unvarnished truthfulness about immigration.

A few months later, I started as the newly appointed artistic director of Waterwell. Arian and I dove into these transcripts, did a rough edit of them, then another, then another, then an intense three-day text workshop with incredible actors, and came out with a script that had a three-act structure, with all the dialogue taken entirely from the court transcripts.

We asked Jeffrey S. Chase, a former immigration judge and widely respected leader in the field, to help us understand legal terms in the transcripts and to advise us on how to make most accurate representation of immigration court. He made a terrific recommendation: Go watch some proceedings.

We met at 26 Federal Plaza, went through the metal detectors, and headed up to the floors where proceedings take place. The courtrooms are small, with drop ceilings. There are no witness boxes and there is often no lawyer representing the immigrant—if you are an immigrant required to appear in immigration court, you don’t have automatic access to legal representation. This was not news to Arian, but for me, as a person born in the United States who had never interacted with the immigration system, I found it surprising and unsettling. Immigrants represent themselves, or pay not-unsubstantial sums to hire a lawyer. Non-profits and law school clinics step in to fill this gap, but they do not—and cannot—reach everyone.

Watching court proceedings—the combination of banal procedural details and life-and-death stakes—fundamentally shaped our thinking. What we witnessed was quiet, tense, tedious, disorienting. We knew that, for our performance, we’d have to risk recreating those very dynamics. It wouldn’t be quite a play but a reenactment. As we created The Courtroom, we focused on the small, regular mistakes shown in the transcripts—awkward phrasing of a thought, the quick mistaken use of a word—embracing them as interesting windows into how people function in court when they are prepared but don’t have a script, and set out to find real courtrooms to perform in. We created the original staging in our most hallowed venue: a grand courtroom on the seventeenth floor of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, the seat of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Though this prestigious courtroom was very different from small, plain immigration courts, the architecture taught us a lot about how courtrooms work.

The Courtroom. Photo by Maria Baranova.

The transcripts we used to create the script were from the case of Elizabeth Keathley, an immigrant from the Philippines who came to the United States on a K3 visa after she married her husband, who was a United States citizen. After inadvertently registering to vote at the DMV in Bloomington, Illinois, receiving a voter registration card in the mail, and voting, Elizabeth had to appear in court for deportation hearings. She lost the first case, but her appeal was heard in the Seventh Circuit, where the federal judges ruled in her favor.

The first performances were terrifying. We had no idea if the piece would capture people’s interest and hold their attention. But we put our faith in how this case encapsulated the age-old adage about the personal and the political. Through this story about a married couple in the early stages of building their family, who had made one honest mistake that put the wife in danger of being deported, the audience got to see a portrait of our nation’s legal system that exposed its catastrophic flaws and showed its singular, profound potential.

We were floored by audiences’ responses to the performances and started to understand the real power of the transcripts.

The transcripts gave the story a certain kind of objectivity, an unvarnished truthfulness about immigration—a polarizing issue that seems relentlessly distorted when we encounter it in the media, something that is all the more painful because it is central to our country’s identity. Ali Noorani, director of the National Immigration Forum, put it perfectly in his book, There Goes the Neighborhood: “Immigration gets at the core of who we are, and who we want to be, as a country.”

The Courtroom gave audiences an opportunity to get closer to the immigration legal system’s inner workings. Not to be told what to think, not to be told again how bad things are, but to get closer to something true and real. It was our realization about the power of unaltered transcripts that guided us when we started to think about what to make in response to our conversation with Elora Mukherjee.

The Flores Exhibits

We told Elora we would think deeply about how we could make a meaningful project, and she said she’d send us the testimonies. We took the conversation with her very seriously, feeling a sincere responsibility as artists to take up the need she put before us but having very little idea what we could create in response.

I printed out everything Elora sent me and sat down to read the sixty-nine testimonies. I thought: Again, here is that combination of procedural banality alongside life-and-death stakes. It unnerved me. The project needed to capture that specific disorienting, haunting aspect of the testimonies. It wasn’t hard to recognize the power of each individual story, and the patterns revealed when reading two, three, ten testimonies were a disturbing depiction of how the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) were being violated.

Here’s a quick history of the FSA and why it’s important: In 1985, a fifteen-year-old Salvadoran girl named Jenny Flores was held in substandard conditions in immigration detention for a prolonged period of time. Based on her experience, a number of legal organizations filed a lawsuit against the government, which in 1997 resulted in the Flores Settlement Agreement. This set standards for the treatment of unaccompanied children (anyone under the age of eighteen) while they are in detention, including requiring the government to provide reasonable standards of care as well as safe and sanitary living conditions, and to release minors without any unnecessary delay, setting a cap of twenty days.

It is often impossible for people held in detention to socially distance, and there are many reports that there is no access to soap or sanitizer in numerous facilities.

The sixty-nine testimonies that Elora gave us were exhibits filed by the National Youth Law Center in a temporary restraining order requesting emergency relief for minors held in Customs and Border Patrol facilities; the firsthand accounts demonstrated violations of the Flores Settlement. Wrenching news reports about children being held in detention facilities for extended period of times—sometimes in cages—without access to basic hygiene supplies and adequate nutrition or sleep were based on these lawyers’ experiences and these testimonies.

What could we create to respond? We wanted people to experience the testimonies in full. We wanted people outside of New York City, where we’re based, to hear them. We wanted to involve actors but also all the incredible people we’d met during the process of creating The Courtroom who were not actors: lawyers, former judges, immigrant-rights advocates, immigrants who are not in the arts, and playwrights, designers, and other artists invested in this issue.

We decided not to make a piece of theatre. We decided to make a series of videos.

The testimonies would be read in full, without any textual or cinematic editing. We would ask readers from different sectors of society to participate with the hope that it would demonstrate—in a quiet, un-didactic way—a wide-ranging solidarity and investment in the issue. Each reader would sit at a simple wooden table with a glass of clean water, which is often described in the testimonies as being hard for immigrants to get in detention.

The Flores Exhibits. Photo courtesy of Andrew Kluger.

We wanted the readers to be good storytellers but I directed them not to take on any “character” they gleaned from the text or embody the experience described by the person who gave the testimony to the lawyers. We said the goal was for people to hear the words as clearly as possible—without emphasis, without dramatization.

To date, we have filmed forty-three out of the sixty-nine testimonies and are working to complete the filming of the remaining ones. This coming fall, we hope to instigate and facilitate live screenings of The Flores Exhibits around the country as a way to bolster support, organizing, and advocacy for the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement to be upheld and improved.

Taking Action

Right now, there are efforts around the country to decarcerate as many people held in jails, prisons, and detention facilities as possible due to the amplified dangers posed by COVID-19 to anyone in this kind of environment. It is often impossible for people held in detention to socially distance, and there are many reports that there is no access to soap or sanitizer in numerous facilities.

Using excerpts from videos in The Flores Exhibits, we released this ninety-second video connecting firsthand testimonies of people held in detention in June 2019 to the urgent need to get people out of detention during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If you are interested in getting involved, here are a few ways to start:

Find out where there are detention facilities near you: local jails and prisons often have contracts with ICE, and there are dedicated ICE facilities, often in rural areas. Once you know where those facilities are in your state, follow them in the news and connect with and support local organizations and elected representatives who advocate for the release of immigrants, proper living conditions, and access to healthcare in detention. (For a full explanation of government agencies involved in immigration detention, watch this video.)
Join and amplify the efforts of Detention Watch Network, a coalition of eight hundred organizations around the country to get urgent messages to governors, ICE directors, sheriffs, and other represented officials to release people from detention during COVID-19.
Join New Sanctuary’s efforts to advocate to free unaccompanied minors held in immigration detention.
Join Freedom for Immigrants to get involved in your area.
Read the Southern Border Community Coalition’s New Border Vision so you can be part of their proactive movement to transform culture, values, and policy at our southern border.

**********************

Think about the grotesque perversions of justice going on in the US today! Desperate kids seeking protection and entitled to legal process being illegally held in detention as unlawful punishment and coercion in violation of U.S. Court orders.

Some of the criminals who masterminded and carried out these illegal, unethical, and totally immoral schemes not only remain free but, outrageously, are on our public payroll: Thugs like Stephen Miller, Chad Wolf, Billy Barr, and Ken Cuccinelli. “Cooch Cooch” actually continues to spew his vile propaganda after being held by a Federal Judge to have been illegally appointed.

Another notorious human rights criminal and child abuser, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, remains at large and is outrageously running for return to the Senate, a position he already had abused and misused to promote a White Nationalist racist agenda in the past.

Still others like “Big Mac With Lies” and Kirstjen Nielsen are also at large, disingenuously trying to “reinvent” themselves by having the audacity to tout their past criminal activities, public lies, and human rights abuses as “senior executive experience.”

As these transcripts show, it’s a “world turned upside down” under the vile Trump kakistocracy. But, we all have a chance to redeem our nation in November by voting the kakistocracy out and re-establishing honesty, human values, mutual respect, cooperation, our Constitution, and the rule of law as the hallmarks of America.

On the other hand, the despicable performance by those public officials who abandoned their legal and moral obligations to humanity also shines a light on the many unsung heroes of our time: folks like Professor Elora Mukherjee, Lee Sunday Evans, Arian Moayed, Judge Jeffrey Chase, and the many other members of the New Due Process Army throughout the U.S. Unlike many of our public officials, they are standing up for Due Process and the rule of law in the face of seemingly never-ending tyranny, racism, xenophobia, and hate-mongering from the Trump regime.

Due Process Forever! The Regime’s Continuing Child Abuse ☠️☠️ Never!

PWS

04-26-20

INSANITY ALWAYS ON THE DOCKET @ EOIR: Court Cleaners In Hazmat Suits Add To The “Clown Court” 🤡 Atmosphere — But, Those Forced To Risk Their Lives ☠️ To Keep The Deportation Railroad 🚂 Rolling Aren’t Laughing 😰!

Hon. A. Ashlley Tabaddor — Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National
Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

Trump’s ‘Deportation Machine’ Keeps Growing Despite Pandemic – Bloomberg

Malathi Nayak reports for Bloomberg News:

As President Donald Trump prepares to pause immigration into the U.S., the court system that handles the removal of immigrants is projected to issue nearly 60% more deportation orders than last year.

With the rest of the U.S. legal system grinding to a near halt amid the pandemic, at the nation’s 69 federal immigration courts cleaning crews clad in hazmat suits are regularly used to make sure in-person hearings can continue. The courts are moving at speed to reduce a massive backlog of cases despite outdated technology and criticism from advocacy groups and a union representing most of the nation’s 460 immigration judges, who say the pace is putting people at risk of infection.

“The deportation machine has not stopped,” said Florida immigration lawyer Ira Kurzban. “It’s somewhat outrageous given the current circumstances.”

While the number of people deported from the U.S. fell in March, one research group predicts that the total number of deportation orders will rise for the 2020 fiscal year, despite the pandemic. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a Syracuse University group that tracks government enforcement actions, estimates there will be 340,500 deportation orders in the year ending Sept. 30, 2020, up from 215,535 for the prior year. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which oversees immigration courts, declined to comment on the projection, saying it doesn’t certify third-party statistics.

The National Association of Immigration Judges says the continued operation of the courts is unsafe and has called for them to be closed. The Trump administration in 2018 set a quota for each immigration judge to close 700 cases a year, a requirement that remains in force during the pandemic, said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the union.

‘Hobbesian Choice’

U.S. immigration judges are “being forced into this Hobbesian choice of risking their health and having to keep their jobs,” said Tabaddor. She cites a colleague who is trying to meet his quota while minimizing his health risk as a throat cancer survivor.

Along with the judges, 1,200 support staff work in the nation’s immigration courts. Those courts are taking precautionary steps similar to those elsewhere in the federal system “to reduce the likelihood of exposure to Covid-19,” including holding hearings via phone or video conference whenever possible, according to Kathryn Mattingly, a Justice Department spokeswoman. Hearings involving people not in custody have also been suspended until May 15.

But judges and lawyers said it is harder for the immigration courts to operate remotely than other federal courts. While electronic document filing is routine in other federal courts, the immigration courts have struggled to introduce it, leaving most documents in paper form. Though some filings are now accepted by email, the many court employees without laptops need to come into the office to access them.

“The immigration courts are probably 20 years behind federal courts in terms of technology,” said Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge. Moreover, some immigration courts have rules where opting for a phone hearing means giving up the right to object to documents submitted by ICE, he said.

The current situation has immigration lawyers choosing between their personal well-being and a client’s future, Chase said. “Lawyers should not be put in this position.”

. . . .

*********************

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Nice quotes from Judges Tabaddor and Chase!

Actually, when the “off docket”cases are factored in, the backlog exceeds 1.4 million cases. Even with artificially accelerated production, and if no new cases were filed by DHS (reality check — receipts have been exceeding completions for years) it would take until 2024 to “clear” the existing backlog. But, the reality is that even by speeding up the “Deportation Railroad,” adding new often inadequately trained judges largely from the ranks of prosecutors, eliminating Due Process, demeaning their own employees, and unethically skewing the law against migrants, EOIR has been unable to reduce the backlog by even one case under the Trump regime!

Indeed, when all of the pending and “off docket” cases are considered, the already large backlog left behind by the Obama Administration has more than doubled, and is well on its way to tripling, under the Trump regime’s “malicious incompetence” and pattern of often illegal and irrational behavior. Many of the “final orders of deportation” being cranked out by EOIR are either legally wrong or counterproductive — deporting harmless individuals who actually are productive members of our society, often with U.S. citizen family members. This system, including the mindless abuse of docket space by DHS Enforcement and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR, is broken! Yet, it’s allowed to continue grinding away, putting lives in danger in more ways than one.

And, speaking of incompetence, whether malicious or not, I was on the initial “E-Filing Group” that submitted comprehensive recommendations and a detailed plan for implementing e-filing to ”EOIR management” back in 2001 or 2002. Since then, successive waves of EOIR “management” have squandered time, money, and public trust without producing a usable product. Meanwhile, almost every other court in America has designed and implemented e-filing systems. This catastrophic failure in and of itself would more than justify eliminating EOIR and replacing it with a judicially-managed, independent, professionally administered court system that would guarantee due process, efficiency, and fundamental fairness for all.

But, that’s by no means the only problem at EOIR. It’s unconstitutional, unfair, dysfunctional, unprofessional, and downright dangerous. I have posted recently about how Courts of Appeals continue to find that the BIA has grossly misinterpreted, distorted, and/or misapplied both law and facts in “life or death cases.” Is “good enough for government work” really OK for human lives? That neither Congress nor the Article III Courts have had the guts and decency to put an end to this life-threatening farce staining our justice system is an unforgivable national disgrace.

Those of us who understand exactly what’s happening at EOIR under the Trump kakistocracy might at the moment be powerless to change it. But, we’re continuing to challenge the unacceptable status quo and making a public record of this grotesque malfeasance and of those in all three branches of Government who are “papering over” (and by doing so enabling) EOIR’s abuses. Eventually, positive change will come. The only question is how many lives and futures will unnecessarily be lost before it does?

Due Process Forever! Deadly ☠️ Clown Courts, 🤡 Never!

PWS

04-23-20

ROUND TABLE FILES AMICUS IN SUPPORT OF STOPPING DANGEROUS IMMIGRATION COURT PRACTICES – With Lots Of Help From Our Friends @ Arnold & Porter! – “We are in the midst of a nationwide pandemic. From the approach of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) headquarters, one would never know that.”☠️🆘

John A. Freedman
Senior Counsel
Arnold & Porter

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

Key Excerpt:

We are in the midst of a nationwide pandemic. From the approach of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) headquarters, one would never know that. Through a series of chaotic and inconsistent announcements, EOIR —the office that manages the procedural components of the immigration court system on behalf of the United States Department of Justice2—has continued to schedule non-essential proceedings, requiring judges, court staff and security personnel, litigants and case participants, attorneys, witnesses, interpreters, and interested members of the public to come immigration court, exposing them, their families, and their communities to unnecessary risk of COVID-19.
1 In accordance with Local Rule 7(o), no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor did any party or party’s counsel, or any other person other than amici curiae, contribute money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
2 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b) (setting forth the authority of the Director of EOIR).

1
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 22
The madness of EOIR s approach is evident in one example, representative of its
approach. Yesterday – April 8 — the immigration court in Elizabeth, New Jersey was open for business as usual. This court is across the Hudson River from New York City, and is near the epicenter of the largest COVID-19 hotspot on the planet, and is in a jurisdiction that has had a mandatory shelter-in-place” order since March 21. Yet EOIR insisted that proceedings continue
yesterday. Until it was learned that two detainees in the courthouse were positive for COVID- 19. Only then did EOIR accede to the obvious, scrambling to order the court to shut the Elizabeth court down. But immigration courts were open in many other jurisdictions yesterday, and are scheduled to be open today and for the foreseeable future.
EOIR’s intransigence defies the practice of numerous federal and state courts, the
recommendations of public health officials, and the orders of dozens of Governors who have ordered all non-essential business be deferred. As Judge Samuel Cole, a spokesperson for the National Association of Immigration Judges warned, everyone is being put at risk.” Close immigration courts? Lawyers and judges push to stop in-person hearings amid coronavirus spread, Fortune (Mar. 26, 2020) (describing how attorneys are wearing swim googles and masks to comply with EOIR orders).
The current EOIR approach manifests this disarray because there was not, and has never been, any meaningful continuity planning by EOIR. EOIR, and therefore the immigration court system itself, has sacrificed due process in favor of rapid removals, leaving the court without any incentive at all to plan to protect the public health or the individuals and participants in the system.
Amici urge the issuance of a temporary restraining order to allow for development of a more comprehensive, systemic, and scientifically sound policy that respects due process and the
2
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 22
public health. We offer a framework for what a legally and scientifically sound policy could look like and why a court-ordered pause on all non-essential activities for a short 28-day period could allow for such a policy to emerge in deliberations with stakeholder communities.

Read the entire brief, which contains our proposed solution for how the Immigration Courts could conduct essential operations consistent with health, safety, and due process during this pandemic: Amicus brief_NIPNLG

*********************************

Again, many, many thanks to John Freedman and his group at Arnold & Porter as well as Ilyce & Jeffrey for their leadership.

Due Process Forever! EOIR’s Insanity, Never!

PWS
04-1–20

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: Matter of R-A-V-P- (Bond Denial) — Maximo Cruelty, Minimal Rationality, Idiotic Timing! — BONUS: My “Monday Mini-Essay:” “ HOW EOIR’S ‘CAPTIVE COURTS’ INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!”

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/4/6/bia-lock-them-up

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

BIA: “Lock Them Up!”

In the words of the Supreme Court, “Freedom from imprisonment – from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint – lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.”1 While imprisonment usually occurs in the criminal context, courts have allowed detention under our immigration laws, which are civil and (purportedly) non-punitive, only to protect the public from danger or to ensure the noncitizen’s appearance at future hearings.2 Case law thus requires a determination that a detained noncitizen does not present a danger to the public, a risk to national security, or a flight risk in order to be eligible for bond under section 236 of the I&N Act.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has acknowledged the complexity of such determinations. In it’s 2006 decision in Matter of Guerra,3 the Board suggested nine factors that an immigration judge may consider in deciding if bond is warranted. The list included whether the respondent has a fixed U.S. address; the length of residence, employment history, and family ties in this country (and whether such ties might lead to legal status); the respondent’s criminal record, and their record of appearing in court, fleeing prosecution, violating immigration laws, and manner of entry to the U.S. But the Board made clear that an immigration judge has broad discretion in deciding what factors to consider and how much weight to afford each factor.The ultimate test is whether the decision was reasonable.

What makes such a decision reasonable? Given what the Supreme Court has called “an individual’s constitutionally-protected interest in avoiding physical restraint,”4 Guerra’s broad discretion must be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the inadequacy of relying on “one size fits all” presumptions as a basis for overriding such a fundamental constitutional right. In allowing IJs to consider what factors to consider and how to weigh them, Guerra should be read as directing those judges to delve deeply into the question of whether the noncitizen poses a danger or a flight risk. Obviously, all recently-arrived immigrants are not flight risks, and all of those charged with crimes don’t pose a threat to society.As the trier of fact, immigration judges are best able to use their proximity to the respondent, the government, and the evidence and witnesses presented to determine what factors are most indicative of the likelihood that the respondent will see their hearings through to the end and abide by the result, or in the case of criminal history, the likelihood of recidivism.

In considering the continued custody of one with no criminal record, the risk to public safety or national security are generally not factors. And in Matter of R-A-V-P-,5 a case recently decided by the BIA, the immigration judge found that the respondent, an asylum-seeker with no criminal record, presented no risk on either of those counts. However, the immigration judge denied bond on the belief that the respondent was a flight risk, and it was that determination that the BIA was asked to consider on appeal.

How does one determine whether someone detained upon arrival is likely to appear for their hearings? It is obviously more complicated than whether one presents a threat to public safety, in which the nature of the criminal record will often be determinative. In R-A-V-P-, the Board repeated the nine Matter of Guerra factors, and added a tenth: the likelihood that relief will be granted.

As stated above, Guerra made clear that these were suggestions; the immigration judge could consider, ignore, and weigh whatever factors they reasonably found relevant to the inquiry. Furthermore, many of the listed Guerra factors were not applicable to the respondent. Guerra involved a respondent found to pose a danger to others. The nine factors laid out in the decision were not specific to the question of flight risk; clearly, all the listed factors were not meant to apply in all cases. As to the specific case of R-A-V-P-, obviously, someone who was detained since arrival can have no fixed address, length of residence, or employment history in this country. The respondent’s history of appearing for hearings also reveals little where all appearances occurred in detention.And the Guerra factors relating to criminal record and history of fleeing prosecution are inapplicable to a respondent never charged with a crime.

The Board’s decision in R-A-V-P- is very short on details that would provide meaningful context. There is no mention of any evidence presented by DHS to support a flight risk finding. In fact, the absence of any listing of government counsel in the case caption indicates that DHS filed no brief at all on appeal, a point that doesn’t appear to have made a difference in the outcome.6

The few facts that are mentioned in the decision seem to indicate that the respondent sought asylum from Honduras based on his sexual orientation. Not mentioned were the facts that the respondent entered as a youth, and that although he entered the U.S. without inspection, he made no attempt to evade immigration authorities after entry. To the contrary, he immediately sought out such authorities and expressed to them his intention to apply for asylum.These facts would seem quite favorable in considering the Guerra factors of the respondent’s “history of immigration violations,” manner of entry to the U.S., and attempts to “otherwise escape from authorities.”7 And although not mentioned in Guerra, the respondent is also represented by highly competent counsel, a factor that has been demonstrated to significantly increase the likelihood of appearance, and one within the IJ’s broad discretion to consider as weighing in the respondent’s favor.

Regarding the tenth criteria introduced by the Board, i.e., the likelihood of relief being granted, the persecution of LGBTI individuals is well-documented in Honduras, and prominently mentioned in the U.S. Department of State’s country report on human rights practices for that country. The State Department reported an increase in killings of LGBTI persons in Honduras in 2019, and that 92 percent of hate crimes and acts of violence committed against the LGBTI community went unpunished. Such asylum claims are commonly granted by asylum officers, immigration judges, and the BIA.

Yet the Board took a very strange approach to this point. It chose to ignore how such claims actually fare, and instead speak in vague, general terms of how “eligibility for asylum can be difficult to establish,” even for those who were found to have a credible fear of persecution. The Board next noted only that the immigration judge found that the respondent “did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that he would be granted asylum,” without itself analyzing whether such conclusion was proper.

In fact, the immigration judge did deny the asylum claim; a separate appeal form that decision remains pending before the BIA. But the Board missed an important point.The question isn’t whether the respondent will be granted asylum; it’s whether his application for asylum will provide enough impetus for him to appear for his hearings relating to such relief. From my experience both as an attorney and an immigration judge, the answer in this case is yes.One with such a claim as the respondent’s who is represented by counsel such as his will almost certainly appear for all his hearings.The author of the Board’s decision, Acting BIA Chair Garry Malphrus, did sit as an immigration judge in a non-detained court for several years before joining the BIA. I’m willing to bet that he had few if any non-appearances on cases such as the respondent’s.

Yet the Board’s was dismissive of the respondent’s asylum claim, which it termed a “limited avenue of relief” not likely to warrant his appearance in court. Its conclusion is strongly at odds with actual experience. Early in my career, I represented asylum seekers who arrived in this country in what was then known as “TRWOV” (transit without visa) status, which meant that the airline they traveled on was responsible for their detention. The airline in question hired private guards to detain the group in a Queens motel.As time passed, the airline calculated that it would be cheaper to let those in their charge escape and pay the fine than to bear the ongoing detention costs. The airline therefore opened the doors and had the guards leave, only to find the asylum seekers waiting in the motel when they returned hours later.None were seeking to abscond; all sought only their day in court.And that was the determinative factor in their rejecting the invitation to flee; none had employment records, community ties, or most of the other factors held out as more important by the BIA in R-A-V-P-. They chose to remain in detention rather than jeopardize their ability to pursue their asylum claims.

My clients in the above example had a good likelihood of being granted asylum. But volunteering in an immigration law clinic three decades later, I see on a weekly basis individuals with much less hope of success nevertheless show up for all of their hearings, because, even in these dark times, they maintain faith that in America, an impartial judge will listen to their claim and provide them with a fair result. In one case, an unrepresented asylum applicant recently released from detention flew across the country for a preliminary master calendar hearing because the immigration judge had not yet ruled on his motion for a change of venue.

So for what reason did the BIA determine that the respondent in R-A-V-P- would behave to the contrary? The Board made much of the fact that an individual who promised to pay for the respondent’s bus ticket and provide him with a place to live (an offer which the Board referred to as “laudable”) was a friend and not a family member of the respondent. But on what basis can it be concluded that living with a cousin rather than a friend increases the chances of his future appearance in court? In the absence of statistics or reports that support such determination, is this fact deserving of such discretionary weight? The Board felt it could rely on this factor simply because it was mentioned in Matter of Guerra. But while that decision requires a finding that the IJ’s conclusion was reasonable, the decision in R-A-V-P- appears to be based more on a hunch than a reasoned conclusion, with the Board referencing seemingly random factors in support of its conclusion without explaining why such factors deserve the weight they were afforded, while ignoring other more relevant factors that would weigh in favor of release.

The respondent has now been detained for well over a year, including the seven months his bond appeal lingered before the Board, a very significant deprivation of liberty. The respondent’s asylum appeal remains to be decided, likely by a different Board Member or panel than that which decided his bond appeal.But now that the majority of the Board has voted to publish the bond denial as a precedent decision, what is the likelihood that any Board member will review that appeal with an unbiased eye?

As a final point, although the drafting of the decision likely began months earlier, the Board nevertheless chose to allow the decision to be published as precedent in the midst of an unprecedented health pandemic that poses a particular threat to those detained in immigration jails. So at a time when health professionals and numerous other groups are pleading for the government to release as many as possible from immigration detention centers, the BIA chose to instead issue a decision that will likely lead to an opposite result.

Notes:

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).

Ibid; Robert Pauw, Litigating Immigration Cases in Federal Court (4th Ed.) (AILA, 2017) at 418.

24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006).

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356 (1997).

27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020).

Appeals may be summarily dismissed due to the failure to file a brief or to sufficiently state a ground for appeal. However, the BIA does not view an appeal or motion as unopposed where ICE files no brief.

Matter of Guerra, supra at 40.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

APRIL 6, 2020

NEXT

Like “Firing Randomly Into a Crowd”

Repriented with permission.

*********************

HOW EOIR’S “CAPTIVE COURTS” INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

“Courtside” Exclusive

April 6, 2020

Jeffrey and I both get to pretty much the same “bottom line” here. But, as usual, he is more “nuanced” in his approach.

Here’s my earlier, less subtitle, take on this outrageously wrong and unjust precedent by Billy Barr’s wholly-owned subsidiary, the BIA: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/04/02/timing-is-everything-during-crisis-bia-makes-time-for-a-little-gratuitous-cruelty-what-could-be-better-during-worldwide-pandemic-humanitarian-disaster-than-an-attempt-to-narrow-the-criteria-for-c/

Certainly, the DOJ’s two-decade program, under Bush, Obama, and now Trump, of systematically excluding from the BIA (and also largely from the Immigration Judiciary, with a more than 9-1 government/private sector hiring ratio) any acknowledged immigration and human rights expertise from those who actually represent and work with asylum applicants is paying huge dividends for Trump’s nativist immigration agenda.

A “captive BIA” well-attuned to “not rocking the boat” and “implementing the Attorney General’s priorities” abandons due process and fundamental fairness for individuals. Instead, they crank out an endless stream of one-sided pro-DHS-enforcement “precedents.”

Led by the Supremes’ “supreme abdication of judicial duties” in Chevron and Brand X, the Courts of Appeals and sometimes the Supremes themselves “defer” to “any old interpretation” by the BIA rather than undertaking the more challenging search for the “best interpretation.” In immigration law, “deference” to the BIA “tilts the playing field” overwhelming in favor of DHS and against individuals and due process.

And, if the BIA occasionally lets the immigrant “win” or at least not outright “lose,” one or two precedents, Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr have shown a frequent willingness to merely step in and change the results. Sometimes, they do this on cases decided years ago, even when DHS doesn’t ask them to. They openly and aggressively are carrying out a predetermined White Nationalist, nativist agenda. Because, they can!

If this sounds like a parody of due process, that’s because it is! But, the Supremes and the rest of the Article IIIs have been studiously looking away while due process, fundamental fairness, and equal protection are trampled in Immigration Court for more than a half-century. Why step up to the plate now?

Although it’s hard to do under Chevron, the BIA does sometimes so clearly ignore the statute or come up with such “off the wall” interpretations that the Article IIIs occasionally have to distinguish Chevron and intervene. In other words, generally screwing immigrants is OK by the Article IIIs; but, at some point looking totally feckless or downright idiotic by rubber stamping the BIA’s most outlandish anti-immigrant rulings is a “no no.” Bad for their reputations, law school speaking tours, and recruitment of the “best and brightest” clerks that the “Supremos” and other Article IIIs enjoy so much.

Another “big advantage” of a captive and fundamentally unfair BIA is that its “perversions of justice” become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” The respondent in R-A-V-P- should not only have been released on bond, but his asylum case could easily have been granted in a “short hearing” in a system committed to a fair interpretation and application of asylum law. That might have led to the release of others and the more efficient granting of other similar cases. That actually would be an huge step forward in a dysfunctional system running a largely self-inflicted backlog of approximately 1.4 million cases.

Instead, denying meritorious cases creates hugely inflated denial rates. This supports the Trump Administration’s intentionally false narrative that all asylum claims are frivolous or fraudulent.

And, naturally, if the claims are overwhelmingly non-meritorious, who cares if we give asylum applicants any due process or not. Just summarily deny them all and you’ll be right 90% of the time.

That’s probably why Trump has gotten away with his biggest outrage: Simply eliminating the statutory right to apply for asylum at the border by Executive fiat, confident that the Supremes and the Article IIIs will never have the guts to effectively intervene and hold him accountable merely for arbitrarily inflicting potential death sentences on asylum seekers. After all, they are just “aliens,” not really “humans” or “persons” under the warped views of the Roberts’ Court majority! “Dred Scottification in action.”

Also, by denying meritorious claims for asylum seekers already in the U.S., the BIA “sends a message” that asylum seekers shouldn’t bother applying — they can’t and won’t win no matter how meritorious their cases. And, what’s more, the BIA will use the manipulated, improperly inflated “denial rates” to show that there is “little likelihood of success” on the merits of any asylum claim.

Under R-A-V-P–, this virtually guarantees punitive DHS detention, serving as both a punishment for asserting rights and a further deterrent to asserting claims in Immigration Court. Heck, in a “best case scenario” for Trump, COVID-19 will wipe out all detained asylum seekers, thereby eliminating that “problem.”

The system is a farce. But, it is a farce that both Congress and the Article IIIs have enabled.

Asylum seekers and other migrants deserve justice from America. When they will finally get it from a system intentionally rigged against them, and judges and legislators all too often unwilling to acknowledge or recognize their humanity, remains to be seen.

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

PWS

04-07-20

KILLER “COURTS” ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻 — “Malicious Incompetence” Or “Criminal Negligence” @ EOIR? — Experts Chase & Dzubow Rip Into EOIR/DOJ Officials For Needlessly Endangering Lives! — Kakistocracy Turns Deadly!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/3/26/like-firing-randomly-into-a-crowd

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase in Jeffrey S. Chase Blog:

Like “Firing Randomly Into a Crowd”

On March 23, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a sua sponte order in a case pending before it, ordering the Petitioner’s immediate release from detention “in light of the rapidly escalating health crisis, which public health authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers.” In taking such action, the court used its authority to protect those under its jurisdiction.This is what judges and courts are supposed to do.

In contrast, the leadership of EOIR, the agency which oversees our nation’s immigration courts, sees its mission quite differently. With shocking indifference to those subject to its authority, including its own employees as well as members of the public, EOIR’s present leadership seeks only to please its Department of Justice masters, much like a dog rolling over or playing dead to earn a pat on the head from its owner.

As we all began to comprehend the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic weeks ago, EOIR refused to close immigration courts out of fear of sending a message contrary to Trump’s statements that the health crisis was a “hoax.” Christopher Santoro, the coward holding the title of Acting Chief Immigration Judge, ordered court staff to remove CDC-issued advisories on ways to help stop the spread (i.e. by not shaking hands) on the grounds that the immigration judges lacked the authority to hang such notices in their own courtrooms. In defense of his stupidity, Santoro offered the age-old excuse of the weak: that he was only following orders.

As the virus spread, and people began dying, EOIR kept its courts open far longer than it should have. An ICE attorney who represented the government throughout a crowded Master Calendar hearing in Newark, NJ on March 13 is presently in a coma in intensive care with COVID-19 fighting for his life. I’ve heard that an immigration judge in one of NYC’s immigration courts is presently ill with COVID-19 and pneumonia.There have been additional reports of others at immigration detention centers testing positive.

As cities locked down and sheltered in place, EOIR finally agreed to postpone non-detained hearings, but only until April 10. Hearings in detained courts continue to go forward.And for some reason, non-detained courts that were closed and should have remained so were reopened for the filing of documents only, with such openings announced by nighttime tweets. On Wednesday night, EOIR tweeted that several courts would “open” the next morning, without explaining whether that meant hearings that had previously been announced as postponed would instead go forward the following morning.As this occurred after business hours, there was no one to call for clarification. In fact, the opening was only to file documents.EOIR’s leadership (for want of a better term) has decided that all court filings due during the court closings are now due on March 30.Many lawyers in NYC have no way to meet this deadline, as their office buildings have been locked in compliance with the state’s shutdown order.

In order to accept these filings, EOIR is forcing court clerical staff to leave the safety of their homes, disobey the state PAUSE directive and expose themselves and their family members to possible infection in order to report to work. In NYC, traveling to work for most employees requires riding trains and buses, further increasing the risk of exposure.As schools are closed, how those court staff with child care needs will manage in a time requiring social isolation is unknown.

Furthermore, not all judges hearing detained cases are granting continuances despite the crisis. EOIR has not informed judges that the present crisis exempts them from meeting their performance metrics, which requires all judges to complete 700 cases per year, and to finish 95 percent of cases on the day of their first-scheduled individual hearing. Newly hired judges, who are on probation for two years, are therefore being forced to choose between their own job security and the health and welfare of all those who appear in their courts.

In recent days, EOIR has been besieged with letters from health care professionals, law professors, and various legal and advocacy organizations containing strong arguments to do what the Ninth Circuit had done instinctively and without having to be asked. In one of these letters, attorney George Terezakis, writing on behalf of the New York-based Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys (on whose Board of Directors I sit), described how the mother of a detained respondent who traveled from her home in Long Island to the court in Lower Manhattan by commuter train and subway to file a document for her son’s hearing was later diagnosed with the coronavirus. Terezakis continued: “Just as someone firing randomly into a crowd of Immigration Judges, court staff, attorneys, interpreters and detainees’ family members will foreseeably and inevitably kill someone…keeping the courts open ensures continued, needless infection, serious illness and death…”The letter continued: “This is a real crisis requiring real leadership to take decisive action that will place the safety of those under its jurisdiction ahead of other concerns. There is no escaping the inevitable consequences of inaction.”

As for Santoro, “I was only following orders” has historically fared poorly as a defense. Someone whose name is preceded by the title “Chief Immigration Judge” is required to stand up and take appropriate action in a time of crisis, and accept the consequences of such action. And for those in EOIR’s leadership chain who refuse to do so, it is incumbent on all of us to do everything in our power to ensure that they will be held fully accountable for their inaction under the next administration.

Copyright 2020 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

**********************

Hon. Susan G. Roy
Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC
Princeton Junction, NJ
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://www.asylumist.com/2020/03/26/incompetence-and-reckless-at-eoir-endanger-lives/

Jason Dzubow writes in The Asylumist:

The coronavirus is causing unprecedented disruptions to nearly every area of life, and the Immigration Courts are no exception. The courts were already in a post-apocalyptic era, with over one million cases in the backlog, and now the situation has been thrown into near total chaos. The fundamental problem is that EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals–is determined to continue adjudicating cases, even if that means risking the lives of its own employees; not to mention the lives of respondents, witnesses, and lawyers (and anyone who comes into contact with them).

EOIR is closing and re-opening various courts seemingly at random, often times with an after-hours Tweet, such as one last night at 9:23 PM, declaring that the Newark and Seattle Immigration Courts will reopen today for purposes of accepting filings and litigating detained cases (non-detained cases through April 10, 2020 have been postponed). In reaction to this latest news, Susan G. Roy, an attorney and former Immigration Judge (and my friend from law school – Hi Sue!) wrote last night–

NJ has the second highest number of corona virus cases in the nation, second only to NY. The Newark Immigration Court was closed because someone tested positive for the virus. Now a DHS attorney is fighting for his life in ICU, another attorney is very ill, and an interpreter has tested positive. These are the ones we know about. The Court was set to reopen on April 12. That is a reasonable time to ensure that everyone is safe and that the risk of transmission is limited. How is it even remotely reasonable to decide to open TOMORROW? Even if it is only for filings, court staff and others will be forced to violate the Governor’s Executive Order [directing all residents to stay at home], put themselves at great risk, and risk contaminating others, while many people who work in the same building remain under mandatory quarantine. You are ruthlessly jeopardizing the lives of your own employees, not to mention the public, for no legitimate reason.

And it’s not just advocates who are upset about EOIR’s decision-making. The National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” – the judges’ union) and ICE attorneys are also reacting with anger. In response to EOIR’s tweet reopening the courts in Seattle and Newark, NAIJ responds, “Putting our lives at risk, one Tweet at a time.” And Fanny Behar-Ostrow, an ICE prosecutor and president of AFGE Local 511, says of EOIR: “It’s like insanity has taken over the agency,“

The gravity of keeping courts open is reflected in one incident, described in a recent letter from the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys in New York–

One of our members recently had a detained master calendar hearing scheduled for this past Friday, March 20, at the Varick St. Court. In order to prepare the bond application and for the master, the attorney and his staff met with the client‘s mother. A request for a bond hearing, together with the required relief applications, and a request for a telephonic hearing, were hand delivered to the Court at noon on Wednesday March 18th, 2020. The attorney did not receive any response to the motion for a telephonic hearing, and repeated calls to the court that day and the next went unanswered. To ensure that the Court was aware of the request, the client‘s mother retrieved from the attorney‘s office, Thursday evening, a letter to the court confirming the request for a telephonic hearing. She traveled to the court in Manhattan, from Long Island, and delivered the letter to the Clerk, and thereafter waited in the waiting area with family members of other detainees and other attorneys who were compelled to appear.

Today we received confirmation the client‘s mother has been diagnosed with COVID–19 virus, through medical testing. Can you imagine the number of people she came into contact with as the result of the decision to keep this court open? In addition to exposing the attorney and office staff, she traveled from her home on Long Island, on the Long Island Railroad, to Penn Station, from there to the subway and ultimately to the Court. Undoubtedly she came into contact with, and exposed, countless numbers of people, who in turn exposed countless others.

Anyone with a basic grasp of the fundamental principles of epidemiology – easily garnered from watching CNN or the local evening news – understands how easily this virus spreads. Given this, the decision to continue to keep the courts open can only be construed as a conscious decision on the part of EOIR to subject our Immigration Judges, court staff, interpreters, DHS attorneys, institutional defenders, members of the private bar, our clients, their families, and all whom they come into contact with, to an unreasonable risk of infection, serious illness and death.

NAIJ echoes this sentiment: “With [New York] the epicenter of the virus, DOJ is failing to protect its employees and the public we serve.”

The appropriate path forward is painfully obvious. EOIR should immediately close all courts for all cases. Staff should work remotely when possible to re-set dates and adjudicate bond decisions (so non-criminal aliens who do not pose a danger to the community can be released from detention). That is the best way to protect everyone involved with the Immigration Court system and the public at large.

Finally, I think it is important to name names. The Director of EOIR is James McHenry. I have never been a fan. Mr. McHenry was profoundly unqualified for his job, having gone from supervising maybe half a dozen people in a prior position to overseeing thousands at EOIR. However, he was politically aligned with the goals of the Trump Administration and he got the job. I have previously described the functioning of the agency during Mr. McHenry’s tenure as maliciousness tempered by incompetence. But these days, it is more like maliciousness exacerbated by incompetence. And in the current crisis, incompetence can be deadly. It’s time for Mr. McHenry and EOIR to do the right thing: Close the courts now.

**************************

Thanks, Jeffrey, Jason, and Sue, my friends, for “telling it like it is!” Now is not the time for “go along to get along” bureaucratic responses.
Unfortunately, attorneys and court staff might now start paying with their lives for EOIR’s inexcusable two-decade failure to implement a functional e-filing system.
As one of my Round Table colleagues said, “Since when is a late night tweet ‘official notice?’” Don’t remember anything about “notice by tweet” in 8 CFR!
As I noted previously, J.R. and his tone-deaf, complicit Supremes effectively repealed the “Bivens doctrine,” holding Federal officials responsible for “Constitutional torts” committed outside the scope of their official duties. They thereby essentially gave rogue Federal officials a “license to kill,” at least where the victim was merely an unarmed Mexican teenager. It appears that Barr, McHenry, and others in the “chain of command” are trying out their new “licenses.” They had better hope that J.R. & Co’s “willful blindness” and unwillingness to stand up for lives and Constitutional rights extend even when American citizen lawyers and court clerks are among the casualties.
Not surprisingly, EOIR’s contempt for due process and the lives of asylum seekers, families, children, and other migrants has expanded to include the lives of their own employees and members of the public forced to deal with this godawful, unconstitutional mess.
When the reckoning comes, we should not forget the negligent complicity of Congress as well as the Article III Courts for allowing the life-threatening, dysfunctional, unconstitutional mess that EOIR has become continue to operate and to threaten the health, safety, and welfare of all Americans.

PWS

03-27-20

CLOSE ‘EM DOWN, ALREADY! — ROUND TABLE JOINS 70+ OTHER NGOs CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE CLOSURE OF ALL IMMIGRATION COURTS!

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Knjightess — Knightess of the Round Table

Fanny Behar-Ostrow-Ostrow — Fanny Behar-Ostrow ESQ
Assistant Chief Counsel, DHS
President AFGE Local 511

From Dan Kowalski over @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

More than 70 Organizations Call on DOJ to Immediately Close All Immigration Courts During the COVID-19 Pandemic

AILA Doc. No. 20032630 | Dated March 26, 2020 | File Size: 596 K

DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENT

On March 26, 2020, more than 70 organizations joined AILA, the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), and the ICE Professionals Union, to call on the Department of Justice to immediately close all immigration courts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 20032630.

Related Resources

·         Resource Center: 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)

·         Immigration Judges, Prosecutors, and Attorneys Call for the Nationwide Closure of All Immigration Courts

·         Press Call: Immigration Judges and Attorneys Joined by Public Health Experts Call for Additional Protective Measures Amid COVID-19 Outbreak

March 26, 2020

The Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

James McHenry

Director

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Submitted via email

RE: THE DOJ MUST IMMEDIATELY CLOSE ALL IMMIGRATION COURTS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Dear Attorney General Barr and Director McHenry,

Following previous calls by the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 511 (ICE Professionals Union), and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) for the temporary closure of all immigration courts, we, the undersigned international, national, state, and local immigration, civil rights, faith- based, government accountability, and labor organizations urge the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to immediately close all 68 Immigration Courts operated by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in adherence with current public health protocols regarding the COVID-19 virus.

On the evening of March 17, EOIR postponed all non-detained hearings and recently postponed all of the Migrant Protection Protocol hearings (MPP) scheduled through April 22, 2020. However, more aggressive action is needed. While these policies are a step in the right direction, they fall far short of the required action called for by this pandemic emergency. The detained courts must also be closed to in-person hearings in order to minimize the spread of the virus, slow the rate of new infections, and to avoid overwhelming local resources.

Given the particular vulnerability of respondents in detained settings, the use of telework, which has been advocated by the Administration, can and should be quickly put in place. Immigration Judges stand ready and able to work to ensure priority matters, including detained bond matters, are addressed using technological tools. DOJ should permit all detained respondents to immediately receive telephonic bond redetermination hearings with teleworking judges and allow supporting documents to be faxed and emailed to a designated point of contact. When possible, ICE OPLA should stipulate to bond in written motions so it is not necessary to hold hearings.

The urgency for immediate, decisive action in this matter cannot be overstated. Every link in the chain that brings individuals to the court – from the use of public transportation, to security lines, crowded elevators, cramped cubicle spaces of court staff, packed waiting room facilities in the courthouses, and inadequate sanitizing resources at the courts – place lives at risk.

AILA Doc. No. 20032630. (Posted 3/26/20)

Every state and the District of Columbia have declared a state of emergency giving government leaders the opportunity to implement bold and unprecedented measures to slow and eventually

eliminate the spread of the virus. Some officials are releasing prisoners, allowing them to shelter in place at home. Cities, county, and state governments have moved swiftly to implement stay at home orders to ensure the protection of community members from this highly communicable virus. These measures include the scaling back of mass transit conveyances to most urban centers where the immigration courts are located, creating significant logistical problems for anyone needing to access the courts. On March 21, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it

will now require all legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment (PPE) (disposable vinyl gloves, N-95 or surgical masks, and eye protection) in order to enter any

detention facility, despite the nationwide shortage of PPE.

Yet EOIR continues to operate courts in a business-as-usual manner, placing court personnel,

litigants, and all community members in harm’s way. To make matters worse, DOJ and EOIR decision-making has been opaque, with inadequate information being released, causing confusion

and leading to litigants showing up at hearings that are cancelled without notice.

DOJ’s current response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its spread is frighteningly disconnected from the realities of our communities, and the advice of local leaders and scientific experts. DOJ must immediately implement the temporary closure all immigration courts. Failing to take this action now will exacerbate a once-in-a-century public health crisis and lead to a greater loss

of life.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Laura Lynch, Senior Policy Counsel, AILA (llynch@aila.org), Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President, NAIJ (ashleytabaddor@gmail.com), or Fanny Behar-Ostrow, President, AFGE Local 511 (fbehar1@gmail.com).

Sincerely,

Fanny Behar-Ostrow ESQ
Assistant Chief Counsel, DHS
President AFGE Local 511

Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.

America’s Voice

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 511 American Immigration Council

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)

Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc.

Amnesty International USA

Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO

Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence

ASISTA

Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, Inc.

Ayuda

Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

Center for Gender & Refugee Studies

   AILA Doc. No. 20032630. (Posted 3/26/20)

Center for Victims of Torture

Central American Resource Center

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)

Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section

*Disclaimer, this is the position of the Immigration Law Section and not the Federal Bar Association as a

whole.

Freedom Network USA

Government Accountability Project

Her Justice

HIAS

Human Rights First

Human Rights Initiative of North Texas

Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Immigrant Families Together

Immigration Equality

International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers International Rescue Committee

InterReligious Task Force on Central America

Just Neighbors

Justice for Our Neighbors-Michigan

Las America’s Immigrant Advocacy Center

Latin America Working Group

Leadership Conference of Women Religious

League of United Latin American Citizens

Legal Aid Justice Center

Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd National Association of Immigration Judges

National Council of Jewish Women

National Justice for Our Neighbors

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice

Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Neighbors Immigration Clinic

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice

New York Immigration Coalition

New York Justice for Our Neighbors

Northern Illinois Justice for Our Neighbors

Ohio Immigrant Alliance

Pax Christi USA

Restoration Immigration Legal Aid

Rian Immigrant Center

Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Santa Fe Dreamers Project

Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team

AILA Doc. No. 20032630. (Posted 3/26/20)

South Texas Human Rights Center

Tennessee Justice for Our Neighbors

The Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Ujima Inc: The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights

Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations

Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy

Washington Office on Latin America

Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Wellspring United Church of Christ

Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights

AILA Doc. No. 20032630. (Posted 3/26/20)

*************************

Pretty disturbingly graphic example of how little EOIR & the DOJ care about the health, safety, and welfare of their own employees, let alone the public they have long ceased serving!

Also appreciate the courageous leadership of AFGE Local 511 President and DHS Assistant Chief Counsel Fanny Behar-Ostrow in joining the effort to end the regime’s reckless insanity. An “Honorary Member” of the NDPA to be sure! Folks like Fanny, Ashley, Laura, Jeff, and Dan are among America’s unsung heroes! Thanks for all you do!

Due Process Forever! Political “Courts” Endangering Public Welfare & Safety, Never!

PWS

03-26-20

ROUND TABLE NEWS: Getting The Due Process Message Across — 9th Cir. Orders Regime To Respond To Round Table’s Amicus Briefs in Matter of A-B- Challenges!

Lory Rosenberg — Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg
Senior Advisor
Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLC

Round Table stalwarts Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg report:

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 03/03/2020 at 3:25:28 PM PST and filed on 03/03/2020

Case Name: Sontos Diaz-Reynoso v. William Barr

Case Number: 18-72833

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AF): The panel previously ordered that argument for the above-captioned cases would proceed with Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, No. 18-72833 being argued first. The panel supplements its previous order for argument in this first case, as follows: Petitioner will argue, reserving time for rebuttal if desired, then Amicus Curiae The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies will argue, then Respondent will have an opportunity to respond to both Petitioner and the Amicus, and finally Petitioner may use any time reserved for rebuttal. Additionally, Respondent should be prepared to address the arguments raised by Amici Curiae Thirty-Nine Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals. [11616996] [18-72833, 18-72735, 18-73434, 19-70489] (AF)

*******************

Great to know that at least some Article IIIs are paying attention. We can only hope that they will act on our expert views and save some very deserving and highly vulnerable lives. Of course, we couldn’t have gotten this far without the amazing pro bono team over at Gibson Dunn!

PWS

03-08-20

Case Name:	Sontos Diaz-Reynoso v. William Barr
Case Number:	18-72833
Document(s):	Document(s)

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!👍🏼

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

Related posts:

Happy Mothers’ Day and Due Process Forever!😎👍🥇

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! The Regime’s Continuing Child Abuse ☠️☠️ Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Deadly ☠️ Clown Courts, 🤡 Never!

Related posts:

Key Excerpt:

Read the entire brief, which contains our proposed solution for how the Immigration Courts could conduct essential operations consistent with health, safety, and due process during this pandemic: Amicus brief_NIPNLG

*********************************

Due Process Forever! EOIR’s Insanity, Never!

Related posts:

HOW EOIR’S “CAPTIVE COURTS” INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

“Courtside” Exclusive

April 6, 2020

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Political “Courts” Endangering Public Welfare & Safety, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts: