Category: Hon. Jeffrey Chase

“THE 5-4-1 PLAN FOR DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION COURT” — My Speech To The Association Of Deportation Defense Attorneys, NY City, March 21, 2019

ASSOCIATION OF DEPORTATION DEFENSE ATTORNEYS (“ADDA”)

NEW YORK CITY 

MARCH 21, 2019

“THE 5-4-1 PLAN FOR DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION COURT”

BY

PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT

U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE (RETIRED)

Good evening. Thanks so much for coming out tonight. As you know, I’m retired, so I no longer have to give my famous, or infamous, “super-comprehensive disclaimer.” However, I do want to hold my fellow panelists, ADDA, and anybody else of any importance whatsoever “harmless” for my following remarks.

They are solely my views, for which I take full responsibility. That’s right, no party line, no “bureaucratic doublespeak,” no BS. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, of course as I define truth.

In my brief “5-4-1 program,” I’m going to tell you five horrible problems infecting justice and Due Process in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts; 4 needed reforms, and one solution.

First, the problems, with which I’m sure most of you are painfully familiar. This isn’t a “court system” as any right-thinking person would envision it.

First, unlike any normal court system, the chief prosecutor, the Attorney General selects, directs, and “supervises” the “judges.” Not surprisingly, over the last decade, over 90% of the judges have come directly from government or prosecutorial backgrounds. Well-qualified candidates from private practice, NGOs, and academia have effectively been excluded from participation in today’s immigration judiciary. As part of his “improper influence” over the Immigration Courts, the Attorney General has imposed, over the objection of all judges I’m aware of, demeaning and counterproductive “production quotas” that elevate productivity and expediency over quality, Due Process, and fundamental fairness. 

Second, notwithstanding that, according to the Supreme Court, “everything that makes life worth living” might be at issue in Immigration Court, there is no right to appointed counsel. Therefore, DOJ has taken the absurd position that infants, toddlers, and others with no understanding whatsoever of our complicated legal, asylum, and immigration systems are forced to “represent themselves” in life or death matters against experienced ICE Counsel. The Government disingenuously claims that this complies with Due Process.  

Obviously, these first two factors give the DHS a huge built-in advantage in removal proceedings. But, sometimes that isn’t enough. Somehow, despite the odds being stacked against them, the individual respondent or applicant prevails. That’s when the “third absurdity” comes in to play.

The chief prosecutor, the Attorney General, can reach into the system and change any individual case result that he or she doesn’t like and rewrite the immigration law in DHS’s favor through so-called “certified precedents.” As you know, former Attorney General Sessions, a committed lifelong xenophobe and the self-proclaimed “king of immigration enforcement” exercised this authority often, more than the preceding two Attorneys General over the eight years they served. Sometimes he intervened even before the BIA had a chance to rule on the case or over the joint objections of both the individual and the DHS.

Fourth, this system operates under an incredible 1.1 million case backlog, resulting largely from what we call “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” or “ADR,” by DOJ politicos and their EOIR underlings. This largely self-created backlog continues to grow exponentially, even with a significant increase in judges, without any realistic plan for backlog reduction. In other words, under the “maliciously incompetent” management of this Administration, more judges has meant more backlog. 

Even more disgustingly, in an attempt to cover up their gross incompetence, DOJ and EOIR have attempted to shift the blame to the victims — asylum applicants, migrants, their hard-working often pro bono or low bono lawyers, and the judges themselves. Sophomoric, idiotic non “solutions” like “deportation quotas for judges,” limitations on legitimate continuances, demeaningly stripping judges of the last vestiges of their authority to manage dockets through administrative closing, and mindlessly re-docketing cases that should remain off docket have been imposed on the courts over their objections. 

The result has been an increase in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” the only thing that DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats seem to excel in. How many of YOU have been victims of ADR?

Fifth, the Administration, DOJ, and EOIR use so-called “civil immigration detention” mostly in absurdly, yet intentionally, out-of-the-way locations, to limit representation, coerce migrants into abandoning claims or appeals, and supposedly deter future migration, even through there is scant evidence that abusive detention actually acts as a deterrent. This is done with little or no effective judicial recourse in too many cases. Indeed a recent TRAC study shows neither rhyme nor reason in custody or bond decisions in Immigration Court, even in those cases where the Immigration Judges at least nominally had jurisdiction to set bond.

Now, I’ve told you how due process and fairness are being mocked by DOJ and EOIR  in a dysfunctional Immigration Court system where judges have effectively been told to act as “DOJ attorneys” carrying out the policies of their “partners” in DHS enforcement, supposedly a separate party to Immigration Court proceedings but now “driving the train.”

Here are the four essential reforms. First, and foremost, a return to the original “Due Process Focus” of the Immigration Courts: through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all. DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats must be removed from their improper influence over this system that has turned it into a tool of DHS enforcement. Everything done by the courts must go through a “Due Process filter.” 

Second, replace the antiquated, inappropriate, bloated, and ineffective “Agency-Style Structure” with a “Court-Style Structure” with sitting judges rather than DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats in charge. Court administration should be decentralized through local Chief Judges, as in other systems, appointed competitively through a broad-based merit system and required to handle a case load. Sitting judges, not bureaucrats, must ultimately be in charge of administrative decisions which must be made in a fair and efficient manner that considers the legitimate needs of DHS enforcement, along with the needs of the other parties coming before the court, and results in a balanced system, rather than one that inevitably favors DHS enforcement over Due Process, quality, and fairness.

Third, create a professional administrative office modeled along the lines of the Administrative Office for U.S. Courts to provide modern, effective judicial support and planning. The highest priorities should be implementing a nationwide e-filing system following nearly two decades of wasted and inept efforts by EOIR to develop one, efforts that have once again been put “on hold” due to mismanagement. A transparent, merit-based hiring system for Immigration Judges, with fair and equal treatment of “non-government” applicants and a system for obtaining public input in the process is also a must. Additionally, the courts must be redesigned with the size of the dockets and public service in mind, rather than mindlessly jamming a 21st century workload into “mini-courts” designed for a long bygone era.   

Fourth, a real Appellate Division that performs as an independent court, must replace the “Falls Church Service Center” a/k/a the BIA. The crippling Ashcroft purge-related bogus “reforms” that turned the BIA into a subservient assembly line must be eradicated. The BIA is a so-called “deliberative body” that is far removed from the public it serves and no longer deliberates in a publicly visible manner. The Appellate Division, not politicos and bureaucrats, must be responsible for promulgating precedents in controversial areas, insuring that the generous standards set forth in Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi are made realities, not just lip service, and reining in wayward judges, the worst of whom have turned some areas into veritable “asylum and due process free zones” resulting in loss of public confidence as well as denial of Due Process and unfair removals.

Some will say that these reforms only deal with two of the five glaring problems — prosecutorial control and political interference. But, an independent, judge-run, Due Process focused U.S. Immigration Court where judges control their own dockets free from political interference and bureaucratic incompetence will be able to work with both private entities and the DHS to solve the problems leading to lack of representation, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and backlog building, and abusive use of immigration detention. 

No, all problems that have been allowed to fester and grow over decades of calculated indifference and active mismanagement won’t be solved “overnight.” Additional legislative fixes might eventually be necessary. But, fixing Due Process is a prerequisite that will enable other problems and issues to be constructively and cooperatively addressed, rather than just being swept under the carpet in typical bureaucratic fashion.

So, now the “One Solution:” Congress must create an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court. That’s exactly what the ABA Commission on Immigration recommended in a comprehensive study and report released yesterday. 

Thus, the ABA joins the FBA, AILA, and the NAIJ, all organizations to which I belong, in recommending an Article I legislative solution. Significantly, after watching this Administration’s all out assault on Due Process, common sense, truth, the rule of law, human decency, and best practices, the ABA deleted a prior “alternative recommendation” for an independent agency within the Executive Branch. In other words, we now know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Executive Branch is both unwilling and unable to run an independent court system in accordance with Due Process. 

I highly recommend that you read the comprehensive ABA report in two volumes: Volume I is an “Executive Summary;” Volume II contains the  “Detailed Findings.” You can find it on the ABA website or on immigrationcourtside.com my blog, which, of course, I also highly recommend.

In closing, we need change and we need it now! Every day in our so-called “Immigration Courts” Due Process is being mocked, fundamental fairness violated, and unjust results are being produced by a disastrously flawed system run by those with no interest in fixing it. Indeed, one of the stunning recommendations of the ABA is that no further judges be added to this totally dysfunctional and out of control system until it is fixed. 

As the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Tell your elected representatives that you’ve had enough injustice and are sick and tired of being treated as actors in a repertory company specializing in “theater of the absurd” masquerading as a “court system.” Demand Article I now! 

Thanks for listening! Join the New Due Process Army, do great things, and Due Process Forever!

(03-21-19)

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

The horror stories from those actually attempting to practice in the NY Immigration “Courts,” the examples of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) from my friend, “Our Gang” colleague, and fellow panelist Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Patty McManus, and pressing need for an independent Article I Court to replace this dishonest and dysfunctional mess described by fellow panelist NY Attorney Jake LaRaus, of Youman, Mateo, & Fasano were most compelling.

Recurring complaints from the audience were the unequal treatment of private attorneys and DHS Counsel, the glaringly inappropriate deference shown by some Immigration Judges to DHS, and the unwillingness of some judges to enforce rules against the DHS. In other words, many of the things that EOIR originally supposed to “cure” are now “back in spades.” Everyone echoed the theme that this is a system in regression, where things that “worked” at one time have now been intentionally disabled by DHS and EOIR.

Independence and competent, professional, apolitical judicial management by judges would go a long way toward reducing today’s
Government-created backlogs. The problem is definitely not, as some would claim, the number of asylum seekers. Indeed legitimate asylum seekers all over this system who have been waiting years for their cases to be heard and who have time and time again been the victims of “ADR” and politicized meddling with the legal standards are among the many victims of this broken system.

We should all be ashamed of this disgraceful perversion of our Constitution and grotesque waste of Government money going on every day. The solution isn’t “rocket science;” it’s Article I. An achievable idea “whose time has come.”

PWS

03-22-19

Related posts:

  1. HALLOWEEN HORROR STORY: Opaque & Biased Politicized Judicial Hiring Denies Migrants The Fair & Impartial Adjudication To Which They Are Constitutionally Entitled – Given The Generous Legal Standards, A Worldwide Refugee Crisis, & Asylum Officers’ Positive Findings In Most Cases, Asylum Seekers Should Be Winning The Vast Majority Of Immigration Court Cases — Instead, They Are Being “Railroaded” By A Biased System & Complicit Article III Courts!
  2. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  3. GONZO’S WORLD: HE FIDDLES AS ROME BURNS! — Threats To Judges, Xenophobia, Racism, Cutting Corners, Dissing Respondents & Their Lawyers, Bogus Numbers, Aimlessly Adding Bodies Fail To Stem Tide Of Backlogged Cases In An Obviously Broken System — When Will Congress &/Or The Article IIIs Do Their Jobs By Restoring Due Process, Impartiality, & Competent, Apolitical Court Management To This Sorry Caricature Of A Court System?
  4. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”

JUSTICE PREVAILS AGAIN IN IMMIGRATION COURTS EVEN IN THE “POST-A-B-“ ERA — Outstanding Analysis By Judge Eileen Trujillo Of The U.S. Immigration Court In Denver, CO, Recognizes “Women In Mexico” As PSG, Finds Nexus, Grants Asylum, Distinguishes A-B-

JUSTICE PREVAILS AGAIN IN  IMMIGRATION COURTS EVEN IN THE “POST-A-B-“ ERA — Outstanding Analysis By Judge Eileen Trujillo Of The U.S. Immigration Court In Denver, CO, Recognizes “Women In Mexico” As PSG, Finds Nexus, Grants Asylum, Distinguishes A-B-

Congrats to NDPA warrior (and former EOIR JLC) Camila Palmer of Elkind Alterman Harston, PC in Denver who represented the respondents! Great representation makes a difference; it saves lives!

Conversely, the DOJ EOIR policies that inhibit representation, discourage full and fair hearings, and hinder sound scholarship by U.S. Immigration Judges, thereby making it more challenging for judges to produce carefully researched and written decisions (rather than haphazard contemporaneous oral decisions which often lack professional legal analysis) are a direct attack on Due Process by Government organizations that are supposed to be committed to upholding and insuring it.

Go to this link for a redacted copy of Judge Trujillo’s decision: 

Asylum grant PSG Mexican women

U.S. Immigration Judges are not trained in how to recognize and grant asylum cases (or anything else, favor that matter — judicial training was a recent “casualty” of budget mismanagement by DOJ & EOIR). The BIA, always reluctant to publish “positive precedents” on asylum, is keeping a low profile after its emasculation by former AG Sessions. So these cases actually become “de facto precedents” for advocates to use in assisting Immigration Judges and DHS Assistant Chief Counsel in “doing the right thing” in critically examining and completing cases efficiently in the face of the “hostile environment” for Due Process and cooperation in court that has been created by EOIR and DOJ. 

It’s a huge “plus” that Judge Trujillo was familiar with and used Judge Sullivan’s outstanding opinion in Grace v. Whitaker which “abrogated” (in Judge Trujillo’s words) or “dismantled and discredited” (my words) Sessions’s biased and legally incorrect decision in Matter of A-B-. Shockingly, during the recent FBA Asylum Conference in New York, Judge Jeffrey Chase and I learned from participants that some U.S. Immigration Judges weren’t even aware of Grace v. Whitaker until counsel informed them! Talk about a system in failure! But, the “bright side” is once aware of the decision, Immigration Judges almost everywhere reportedly were appreciative of the information and eager to hear arguments about how its reasoning applied to the cases before them.

It’s important to remember that in the perverse world of today’s EOIR, fairness, scholarship, teamwork, respect, and correct decision-making — in other words, Due Process of law — have been replaced by expediency, focus on “numbers,” churning out orders of removal, and assisting DHS with its “gonzo” and ever-changing enforcement efforts. What real court operates as an adjunct of the prosecutor’s office? Well, that’s what happens in most of the third word countries and authoritarian states that send us refugees. But, in the United States, courts are supposed to operate independently of the prosecutor.

That’s why EOIR, in its present form of a “captive” highly politicized immigration enforcement organization “must go” and be replaced by an independent Article I Court. Until then, everybody who relies on this system, including ironically not only individuals, but DHS enforcement, Article III Courts, and the Immigration Judges and BIA Judges themselves, will continue to suffer from the dysfunction created by “malicious incompetence” and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”

Thanks again and congrats to Camila for adding to the growing body of correct asylum jurisprudence available on the internet for all to use. Just think what could be accomplished if we had a Government devoted to “using best practices to guarantee fairness and Due Process for all!”

PWS

03-21-20

Related posts:

  1. THE HUMAN AGONY OF ASYLUM: SPEND 4 MIN. WITH MS. A-B- & HUMAN/WOMEN’S RIGHTS EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO — Beaten, Raped, & Threatened With Death By Her Husband, Hounded Throughout Her Country, Abandoned By El Salvadoran Authorities, She Sought Refuge In The U.S., Winning Her Case At The BIA — Then She Was Targeted For A Vicious Unprovoked Attack By Notorious Scofflaw Immigration Judge Stuart Couch & White Nationalist Xenophobe Jeff Sessions — She’s Still Fighting For Her Life!
  2. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  3. JOURNAL ON MIGRATION & HUMAN SOCIETY (“JMHS”) PUBLISHES MY TRIBUTE TO JUAN OSUNA (1963-2017): “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era”
  4. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”

“CBS HOUR” IS A BIG HIT AT FBA/NY LAW SCHOOL ASYLUM CONFERENCE — Chase, Bookey, Schmidt Entertain, Educate Sell-Out Crowd!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase

Blaine Bookey, Co-Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Me

“Eric the Cameraman”

NEW YORK, NY, Friday, March 8, 2019.  The “CBS Team,”* Jeffrey S. Chase, Blaine Bookey, and Paul Wickham Schmidt wowed the sellout crowd at the FBA Asylum Conference at NY Law School Friday. Speaking in the coveted “final slot” of the afternoon, the “CBS Gang” gave an enthusiastic audience lots of reasons and ways to go out and oppose former Attorney General Sessions’s perversion of American asylum law in Matter of  A-B-.

In that case, Sessions reversed nearly two decades of progress and consensus in asylum law to “stick it” to Ms. A-B-, a survivor of extreme domestic violence persecution in El Salvador who fled to the U.S., escaping torture and death threats.

Schmidt, a former Immigration Judge in Arlington, Virginia and past Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, led off with a rousing speech blasting Sessions for bias, intellectual dishonesty, and bad lawyering. He agreed with U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the recent case Grace v. Whitaker that much of what Sessions said was non-binding dicta.

Schmidt also formulated seven ways for advocates to challenge the decision. He brought the crowd to its feet with his closing exhortation to what he called the New Due Process Army: “Due Process forever, xenophobia never!”

Bookey, Co-Director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law and a long time refugee advocate, appeared “larger than life” from California through the “miracle of televideo.” She showed a moving video of Ms. A-B- relating the horrible rape, beatings, death threats and abandonment by her government  that forced her to leave El Salvador and her fear that she would be killed upon return.

Bookey also pointed out that this isn’t a mere “difference  of opinion” among lawyers. Rather, Matter of A-B- is a concerted and evil attempt to undo an existing national and international legal consensus that women facing domestic violence can and must be protected under refugee law. The reversion sought by Sessions and his restrictionist supporters would basically return women to the “dark ages” and result in torture, death, maiming and rape of countless females by persecutors throughout the world. Bookey also offered the Center for Refugee and Gender Studies at Hastings as a “clearinghouse” for litigation and litigation strategies attacking A-B-.

Batting “clean up,” retired Immigration Judge and noted asylum historian Chase led the audience in a tribute for Bookey’s “in the trenches” heroism in staunchly defending the rights of refugee women throughout our nation and the world. He then proceeded to eviscerate Sessions’s decision by going through Ms. A-B-‘s actual evidence in detail.

He pointed out how Sessions ignored facts of record supporting a grant of asylum to Ms. A-B- on the merits regardless of the favorable BIA precedent that Sessions went to great lengths to overrule. He also mentioned the ongoing efforts of “Our Gang” of retired U.S. Immigration Judges, assisted pro bono by some of America’s best lawyers, to educate the Article III Courts as to the realities of  asylum adjudication and the systemic destruction wrought by Sessions’s unprovoked attack on women’s asylum rights.

The Conference concluded with a request by FBA immigration Section Chair Elizabeth “Betty” Stevens for everyone to contract their Senators and Representatives about the need for an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court as proposed by the FBA, ABA, National Association of Immigration Judges, AILA, and others.

Netflix filmed the proceedings for a future documentary about American immigration. Additionally, star immigration reporter Nicole Neara of Law 360 was in the audience. Immediately following the closing, Conference organizer and NY Law School Professor Claire “Human Dynamo” Thomas left for the Southern Border with a group of students committed to putting into effect what they had learned about strategies for ensuring due process and re-establishing justice in the U.S. asylum system.

*The “CBS Hour,” “CBS Team,” and “CBS Gang” have no relationship to the CBS Network, CBS Broadcasting, CBS Sports, CBS News, or any other legitimate organization.

Here’s the video featuring Ms. A-B-:

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/news/cgrs-and-hrw-release-video-call-government-restore-protections-domestic-violence-survivors

And, here’s the text of my speech:

FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION ASYLUM CONFERENCE

NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL

March 8, 2019

 

Good afternoon, and thanks so much for inviting me.  In the “old days,” I would have started with my comprehensive disclaimer. But, now that I’m retired, I’m just going to hold the FBA, New York Law School, my fellow panelists, and anyone else of any importance whatsoever “harmless” for my remarks today.  They are solely my views, for which I take full responsibility. No sugar-coating, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no “party line,” no BS – just the unvarnished truth, as I see it!

“We’ve had situations in which a person comes to the United States and says they are a victim of domestic violence; therefore they are entitled to enter the United States. Well, that’s obviously false but some judges have gone along with that.”

 

“Good lawyers, using all of their talents and skill, work every day—like water seeping through an earthen dam—to get around the plain words of the INA to advance their clients’ interests. Theirs is not the duty to uphold the integrity of the act. That is our most serious duty.”

 

“When we depart from the law and create nebulous legal standards out of a sense of sympathy for the personal circumstances of a respondent in our immigration courts, we do violence to the rule of law and constitutional fabric that bind this great nation. Your job is to apply the law — even in tough cases,” 

 

 

Those, my friends, are obviously not my words. Whose words are they? They are the words of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions who ran the U.S. Immigration Courts for nearly two years.

 

Incredibly, this totally biased, xenophobic, misinformed, and glaringly unqualified individual, who had actually been rejected for a Federal Judgeship by his own party because of alleged racial bias, was in charge of our U.S. Immigration Court system. That helps explains why it is such a total disgraceful mess today from both a Due Process and administrative standpoint.

 

The Immigration Courts have a “known backlog” of over 1.1 million cases, with tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of additional cases likely squirreled away and still unaccounted for following the unnecessary “shutdown,” no signs of abating, and absolutely no, I repeat no, credible planfor reducing or controlling the backlog consistent with Due Process and our asylum laws. The DOJ’s process for increasing the backlog, known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” – and their outrageous attempts to “shift the blame” to respondents and their attorneys – are, as my esteemed former colleague retired Judge M. Christopher Grant used to say, “on steroids.” And, as my friend and fellow panelist, Judge Jeffrey Chase pointed out this week to BuzzFeed News, the current “strategy shift” to slowing down judicial and court staff hiring and abandoning once again the “e-filing program” that EOIR has failed to roll out after two decades of failed efforts is a guarantee that: “More people will wait longer!”

 

Acting Attorney General Whitaker’s questionable certification of two important cases during his brief tenure promises a continuation of political interference with the Immigration Courts in derogation of Due Process.

 

Don’t expect any improvement under current Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s known as an “enforcement solves all problems” immigration hard liner who co-authored an article praising Sessions for his attacks on Civil Rights, immigrants, and other vulnerable communities.

 

One of Sessions’s most cowardly and reprehensible actions was his atrocious distortion of asylum law, the reality of life in the Northern Triangle, and Due Process for migrants in Matter of A-B-. There, he overruled the BIA’s important precedent in Matter of A-R-C-G-, a decision actually endorsed by the DHSat the time, and which gave much need protection to women fleeing persecution in the form of domestic violence.

 

Take it from me, Matter of A-R-C-G-was one of the few parts of our dysfunctional Immigration Court system that actually workedand provided a way of moving cases efficiently through the court system in accordance with Due Process while consistently granting much needed protection to some of the most vulnerable and most deserving refugees in the world!

 

Sessions is gone. But, his ugly legacy of bias and unfairness remains. Fortunately, because he was a lousy lawyer on top of everything else, he failed to actually accomplish what he thought he was doing: wiping out protection for refugee women, largely from Central America. That’s why it’s critically important for you, as members of the “New Due Process Army” to fight every inch of the way, for as long as it takes, to restore justice and to force our U.S Immigration Courts to live up to their unfulfilled, and now mocked, promise of “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all!”

 

The only real,Article IIIFederal Judge who has ruled on Matter of A-B-to date largely supports my criticisms of Sessions’s effort to distort asylum law against refugee women.  It’s a decision written by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington, D.C. called Grace v. Whitaker. You will want to read that decision. There is also an outstanding analysis by my fellow panelist Judge Jeffrey S. Chase on his blog.

 

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, EOIR has purported to limit Grace’s rejection of Matter of A-B-to so called “Credible Fear Reviews.” In other words, they have improperly, and perhaps unethically, instructed Immigration Judges and the BIA not to apply Gracein individual asylum hearings.

 

But, that shouldn’t stop you from shoving Grace back down their throats! There is an outstandingonline practice advisory on how to argue Gracein Immigration Court by my fellow panelist Blaine’s amazing colleague, my good friend Professor Karen Musalo.  I also reposted it in my blog, immigratoncourtside.com.

 

I’m going to give you sevenvery basic tips for overcoming Matter of A-B-.  I’m sure that Blaine and her colleagues, who are much more involved in the day to day litigation going on in the courts than I am, can give you lots of additional information about addressing specific issues.

 

First, recognize that Matter of A-B- really doesn’t change the fundamental meaning of asylum.It just rejected the way in which the BIA reached its precedent in A-R-C-G-— by stipulation without specific fact-findings based on the administrative record. Most of it is mere dicta.

 

On a case by case basis, domestic violence can still be a proper basis for granting asylum in many cases. Indeed, such cases still are being granted by those Immigration Judges committed to following the rule of law and upholding their oaths of office, rather than accepting Sessions’s invitation to “take a dive.”

 

Just make sure you properly and succinctly state your basis, establish nexus, and paper the record with the overwhelming amount of reliable country condition information and expert opinion that directly contradicts the bogus picture painted by Sessions.

 

Second, resist with all your might those lawless judges in some Immigration Courts who are using, or threatening to use, Sessions’s dictum in Matter of A-B- to deny fair hearings or truncate the hearing process for those claiming asylum through domestic violence.If anything, following the overruling of A-R-C-G-,leaving no definitive precedent on the subject, full, fair case-by-case hearings are more important than ever. Under Due Process, asylum applicants are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present their claims in Immigration Court. Don’t let wayward, biased, or misinformed Immigration Judges deny your clients’ constitutional and statutory rights. 

 

Third, keep it simple. Even before A-B-, I always said that any proposed “particular social group” (“PSG”) longer than 25 words or containing “circular” elements is D.O.A. I think that it’s time to get down to the basics; the real PSG here is gender! “Women in X country” is clearly a cognizable PSG.  It’s undoubtedly immutable or fundamental to identity; particularized, and socially distinct. So, it meets the BIA’s three-part test.

 

And, “gender” clearly is one of the biggest drivers of persecution in the world. There is no doubt that it is “at least one central reason” for the persecution of women and LGBT individuals throughout the world.

 

As Judge Chase and I recently reported on our respective blogs, a number of these “women as a PSG” cases have succeeded in the “Post-A-B-Era.” The detailed unpublished analyses by Immigration Judges are available online and, although of course not precedents, should give you helpful ideas on how to construct arguments and rebut ICE attempts to invoke A-B- to bar meritorious asylum claims by abused women.

 

Fourth, think political. There is plenty of recent information available on the internet showing the close relationship between gangs and the governments of the Northern Triangle. In some cases, gangs are the “de facto government” in significant areas of the country. In others, gangs and local authorities cooperate in extorting money and inflicting torture and other serious harm on honest individuals who resist them and threaten to expose their activities. Indeed, a very recent front-page article in the Washington Postpointed out that gangs are so completely in charge in El Salvador that U.S-trained policemen are forced to flee and seek asylum in the United States. Additionally, gangs are the largest employer in El Salvador.

 

In many cases, claiming political or religious persecution should be a stronger alternative ground than PSG. As one of my friends recently pointed out, because of the incorrect precedents by the BIA, Immigration Judges almost always reject gang cases as actual or imputed political opinion. That’s plain wrong.

 

We need to start making the record and fighting back, using the large amount of available evidence and expert testimony on how gangs have infiltrated and influence every aspect of life in the Northern Triangle including, of course, politics and government. It’s time for the “EOIR charade” of  “let’s not grant gang-based asylum cases” to end, once and for all.

 

Fifth, develop your record.  The idea that domestic violence and gang-based violence is just “common crime” advanced by Sessions in A-B-is simply preposterous with regard to the Northern Triangle. Establish records that no reasonable factfinder can refute or overlook! Use expert testimony or expert affidavits to show the real country conditions and to discredit the watered down and sometimes downright false scenarios set forth in Department of State Country Reports, particularly under this Administration where integrity, expertise, and independence have been thrown out the window.

 

Sixth, raise the bias issue. As set forth in a number of the Amicus Briefs filed in Matter of A-B-, Sessions clearly was a biased decision maker. Not only had he publicly dismissed the claims of female refugees suffering from domestic violence, but his outlandish comments spreading false narratives about immigrants, dissing asylum seekers and their “dirty lawyers,” and supporting DHS enforcement clearly aligned with him with one party to litigation before the Immigration Courts. By the rules governing judicial conduct there was more than an “appearance of bias” here – there was actual bias. We should keep making the record on the gross violation of Due Process caused by giving a biased enforcement official like Sessions a quasi-judicial role.

 

Seventh, and finally, appeal to the “real” Article III Courts.I can’t over-emphasize this point. What’s happening in Immigration Court today is a parody of justice and a mockery of legitimate court proceedings. It’s important to “open the eyes” of the Article III Judges to this travesty which is threatening the lives of legitimate refugees and other migrants.

 

Either the Article III’s do their jobs, step in, and put an end to this “theater of the absurd,” or they become complicitin it. There’s only one “right side of the law and history” in this fight. Those who are complicit must know that their actions are being placed in the historical record – for all time and for their descendants to know – just like the historical reckoning that finally is happening for so- called “Confederate Heroes” and those public officials who supported racism and “Jim Crow.”

 

Now is the time to take a stand for fundamental fairness, the true rule of law, and simple human decency! Join the New Due Process Army and fight to vindicate the rights of asylum seekers under our laws against the forces of darkness and xenophobic bias! Due process forever! Xenophobia never!

 

(03-11-19)

PWS

03-12-19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO @ LA TIMES: We Can Restore Legality & Humanity To U.S. Asylum Law — That’s Why The Refugee Protection Act Deserves Everyone’s Support — “The bill lays out a plan to allow women and girls fleeing gender-based violence the opportunity to obtain asylum, and bring our country back in line with its humanitarian commitments. It’s a vision that all members of Congress should be able to get behind, even at a time of bitter partisanship.”
  2. THE HUMAN AGONY OF ASYLUM: SPEND 4 MIN. WITH MS. A-B- & HUMAN/WOMEN’S RIGHTS EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO — Beaten, Raped, & Threatened With Death By Her Husband, Hounded Throughout Her Country, Abandoned By El Salvadoran Authorities, She Sought Refuge In The U.S., Winning Her Case At The BIA — Then She Was Targeted For A Vicious Unprovoked Attack By Notorious Scofflaw Immigration Judge Stuart Couch & White Nationalist Xenophobe Jeff Sessions — She’s Still Fighting For Her Life!
  3. 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!
  4. PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO: Persecution Of Women In El Salvador On The Basis Of Gender Is Real & Endemic – The Administration’s Attempts To Skew The Law Against Women Refugees Is Totally Dishonest, Immoral, & Illegal!

THE ART OF SOCIAL JUSTICE — HON. POLLY WEBBER’S TRIPTYCH “REFUGEE DILEMMA” HITS THE ROAD!

 

  1.  a) “Fleeing From Persecution;” b) “Caught in the Covfefe;” c) “Safe Haven;”
  2. The stories behold each rug by the artist, Hon. Polly Webber;
  3. Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase & Hon. Polly Webber admiring “Caught in the Covfefe” during a break at the 2019 FBA New York Asylum & Immigration Law Conference at NY Law School on March 8, 2019;
  4. Closeup of “Caught in the Covfefe.”

Art powerfully expresses the overwhelming need to fight for social justice and human dignity in the age of Trump’s unabashed cruelty, racism, and White Nationalism.

It’s even more powerful when the artist is Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Polly Webber (a proud member of “Our Gang” of retired judges) who has spent her life promoting Due Process, fundamental fairness, justice, and the rule of law in American immigration. She has served as an immigration attorney, former President of AILA, U.S. Immigration Judge, and now amazing textile artist bringing her full and rich life and deeply held humane values to the forefront of her art.

Thanks, Polly, for using your many talents to inspire a new generation of the “New Due Process Army!”

I’m only sorry that my photos don’t do justice to Polly’s art. Hopefully, the “real deal” will come to a venue near you in the future!

PWS

03-10-19

 

 

Related posts:

  1. NATION OF CHILD ABUSERS: WHILE MANY RIGHT WING APOLOGISTS (ALONG WITH ALAN DERSHOWITZ) PAN NAZI COMPARISON, ACTUAL HOLOCAUST CHILD SURVIVOR YOKA VERDONER UNDERSTANDS THE PARALLELS! — Child Abuse Is Child Abuse —Evil Is Evil — Damage Is Irreparable!
  2. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”
  3. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  4. INCONVENIENT TRUTH: HALEY SWEETLAND EDWARDS @ TIME TELLS WHAT TRUMP, MILLER, COTTON, SESSIONS, & THEIR WHITE NATIONALIST GANG DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW: Human Migration Is A Powerful Force As Old As Human History; It’s A Plus For Receiving Nations; It Won’t Be Stopped By Walls, Jails, Racist Laws, Or Any Other Restrictionist Nonsense; But, It Can Be Intelligently Controlled, Channeled, Harnessed, & Used For The Benefit Of The U.S. & The Good Of The Migrants! — “But to maximize that future good, governments must act rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.”

JUDICIAL BRAIN DRAIN: As Outlaw Administration Attacks Due Process & Attempts To Institutionalize Xenophobic Bias, Experienced, Conscientious U.S. Immigration Judges Head For The Exits – Abandonment Of Scholarship, Fairness, Commitment To Due Process Threatens Entire U.S. Justice System!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/immigration-policy-judge-resign-trump

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

Being An Immigration Judge Was Their Dream. Under Trump, It Became Untenable.

“It has become so emotionally brutal and exhausting that many people I know are leaving or talking about finding an exit strategy,” said one immigration judge. “Morale has never, ever been lower.”

Hamed AleazizBuzzFeed News Reporter

Map of San Francisco, California

Reporting From

San Francisco, California

Posted on February 13, 2019, at 6:15 p.m. ET

Former immigration judge Rebecca Jamil in Fremont, California, on Dec. 28, 2018.

Constanza Hevia for BuzzFeed News

Former immigration judge Rebecca Jamil in Fremont, California, on Dec. 28, 2018.

SAN FRANCISCO — Rebecca Jamil was sitting in a nondescript hotel ballroom in suburban Virginia when she realized that her dream job — being an immigration judge — was no longer tenable. It was June 11, 2018, and then–attorney general Jeff Sessions, her boss, was speaking to a room packed with immigration judges, running through his list of usual complaints over what was, in his estimation, a broken asylum system.

Toward the end of the speech, Sessions let slip some big news: He had decided whether domestic abuse and gang victims could be granted asylum in the US. Advocates, attorneys, and judges had been waiting months to see what Sessions, who in his role as attorney general had the power to review cases, would do. After all, it would determine the fate of thousands of asylum-seekers, many fleeing dangerous situations in Central America.

Sessions didn’t reveal to the room the details of his ruling but Jamil, based in San Francisco since she was appointed in 2016, learned later that day that the attorney general had decided to dramatically restrict asylum protections for domestic abuse victims.

“I’d seen the faces of these families,” the 43-year-old judge said. “They weren’t abstractions to me.”

Hundreds of people overflow onto the sidewalk in a line snaking around the block outside a US immigration office with numerous courtrooms in San Francisco.

Eric Risberg / AP

Hundreds of people overflow onto the sidewalk in a line snaking around the block outside a US immigration office with numerous courtrooms in San Francisco.

Jamil, a mother of two young daughters, had been shaken by the images and sounds that came as a result of the Trump administration’s policy to separate families at the border. As a judge who oversaw primarily cases of women and children fleeing abuse and dangers abroad, this was the last straw.

Soon after, she stepped down from the court.

“I can’t do this anymore,” she told friends. “I felt that I couldn’t be ‘Rebecca Jamil, representative of the attorney general’ while these things were going on.”

In many ways, her resignation underscores the tenuous position of immigration judges, who are overseen by the attorney general and susceptible to the shifting winds of each administration. To avoid potential conflicts, the union that represents the judges has long called for its court to be an independent body, separate from the Department of Justice.

The Trump administration has undertaken a monumental overhaul of the way immigration judges, which total around 400 across the country, work: placing quotas on the number of cases they should complete every year, ending their ability to indefinitely suspend certain cases, restricting when asylum can be granted, and pouring thousands of previously closed cases back into court dockets.

In the meantime, the case backlog has jumped to more than 800,000 under the administration and wait times have continued to skyrocket to hundreds of days.

The quotas in particular have made judges feel as if they were cogs in a deportation machine, as opposed to neutral arbiters given time to thoughtfully analyze the merits of each case.

“The job has become exceedingly more difficult as the court has veered even farther away from being administered as a court rather than a law enforcement bureaucracy,” said Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge who heads the National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing around 350 judges.

And it’s not just Jamil who has departed because of the massive changes to the court undertaken by the Trump administration, according to observers within the Department of Justice and those on the outside. While some, like Jamil, have resigned, others have retired early in large part because of the policies instituted under Trump, they said.

For those remaining at the immigration court, the mood is bleak.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a news conference on Oct. 16, 2018.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a news conference on Oct. 16, 2018.

“It has become so emotionally brutal and exhausting that many people I know are leaving or talking about finding an exit strategy,” said one immigration judge who declined to be named. “Morale has never, ever been lower.”

Another Justice Department official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told BuzzFeed News, “It is exhausting when you feel undervalued by the people at the top of your organization, especially when they are motivated by partisanship and have not spent their careers doing the job that you do.”

Tabaddor, the head of the union, said that her group has noticed a higher rate of retirements and resignations than in the past because of the way judges have been treated under Trump.

Some have been bold in their timing. John Richardson, a former immigration judge in Phoenix, stepped down on Sep. 30, 2018 — the day before the administration instituted a quota for the number of cases to be completed by judges.

“The timing of my retirement was a direct result of the draconian policies of the Administration, the relegation of [judges] to the status of ‘action officers’ who deport as many people as possible as soon as possible with only token due process, and blaming [judges] for the immigration crisis caused by decades of neglect and under funding of the Immigration Courts,” he said in a statement to BuzzFeed News.

Another judge who resigned from the bench in September told staff members in a goodbye email, “I know things are getting difficult for you at [the Executive Office for Immigration Review], but I believe all you will ‘ride through the storm’ and ‘come out with a smile.’”

There have long been work challenges for immigration judges, including heavy caseloads and assignments, leading to comparatively high burnout rates. Justice Department officials told BuzzFeed News that concerns over retirements were nothing new.

According to the agency, from the beginning of fiscal year 2014 through Feb. 12, 2019, 94 immigration judges have retired, separated, or died. More than a third of those judges, 32, have left since Oct. 1, 2017. The agency does not track why judges leave their positions.

To those within the court and others who have recently retired, the situation has worsened to an unprecedented level. Richardson, the former judge in Phoenix, said he would have continued presiding over immigration cases if the status quo had remained.

“Yes, I was 75 years old with over 50 years of honorable federal service with the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, but had no plans for retirement as long as I was treated with respect, appreciated, and provided adequate support,” he said. “I had 28 years as an IJ and very much enjoyed my job, even with the poor funding and lack of support by Congress and the White House during that 28 years.”

Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge who stepped down years ago and who speaks regularly with others who’ve left the bench, was blunt in his characterization.

“The fastest growth industry is former immigration judges,” Chase said. Those still on the bench have told him, “It’s horrible. Whatever you think it is, it is much, much worse.”

In the meantime, the Trump administration has hired more than 100 judges to not only fill the vacancies of those who’ve retired but to add numbers to the bench. It’s a rehauling of the courts that could “have a drastic impact,” according to Chase.

Many of the judges retiring in recent months are experienced jurists, hired by the Clinton administration in the mid to late ’90s, he said. These judges, Chase said, were more willing to push back on claims made in court by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement or to allow immigrants extended time to make their cases in what could otherwise be a rushed procedure.

In their place, Chase said, are judges hired by the new administration with case completion quotas, a two-year probation period, and a mandate to avoid showing sympathy for the people appearing before them.

“Even if it doesn’t show up on the sheet, just the level of humanity, that makes a huge difference — that’s what this administration is trying to remove from the immigration judge corps,” he said.

Rebecca Jamil holds her immigration judge certificate.

Constanza Hevia for BuzzFeed News

Rebecca Jamil holds her immigration judge certificate.

For her part, Jamil wanted to become an immigration judge from the earliest moments of her legal career. After working as a staff attorney at the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals, she joined the government as a prosecutor with ICE in 2011, where she was able to use discretion to focus deportation efforts on those with serious criminal backgrounds. Under the Trump administration, ICE attorneys have been told that nearly all undocumented immigrants are priorities for deportation.

In 2014, Jamil took a chance to fulfill her dream: She applied to become an immigration judge. It was a 17-month process, full of drawn-out interviews in Washington, DC, but finally, in 2015 she received a phone call informing her that she got the job.

“I thought, and I must have told most people I know, that this is the last job that I would ever have. It’s all I wanted to do,” she said.

Jamil dedicated herself to the exhausting career. She oversaw a docket made up primarily of families and regularly heard cases in which women and children applied for asylum based on abuse that they had experienced by partners and family members abroad.

Day in and day out, Jamil heard intense testimony of physical and sexual violence against women and children.

“You’re sitting in a windowless room and people tell you the very worst parts of their life and you have to decide if it is enough to stay in the US,” she said. “That is very tiring day after day to be the person who makes that decision.”

Then, under the Trump administration, things started to change. In 2018, Sessions instituted a new policy, severely limiting when judges could suspend certain cases. Suddenly, her docket expanded and she wasn’t allowed to decide which cases deserved to remain in court and which didn’t.

Jamil and fellow immigration judges were in attendance at the Virginia conference where Sessions spoke for annual trainings on courtroom procedure. The year before, jurists heard substantive legal updates and trainings on bias in the courtroom.

This version of the training, however, felt different.

“The entire conference was profoundly disturbing. Do things as fast as possible. There was an overarching theme of disbelieving aliens and their claims and how to remove people faster,” Jamil said. “That is not what I saw my job as an immigration judge to be. I was not trained to do that.”

Soon after she returned home, Jamil put in her resignation. Her colleagues fretted, probing her about whether she had considered the type of judge that could fill her spot on the bench and the impact that could have.

She didn’t have an answer, but she knew that she couldn’t do it any longer.

“Family separations; Sessions making his own case law on asylum; when we could continue cases — I could no longer sit below the seal of the Department of Justice and represent the Department of Justice at that point,” Jamil said. “They just chipped away at our authority on a daily basis. It felt like we weren’t really judges. It was frustrating and demoralizing.”

A former colleague, Laura Ramirez, worked for years as an immigration judge in San Francisco. In December, she retired at the earliest date possible, five days after she turned 60.

The changes put in place by the Trump administration, especially the case quotas, and the politicization of her job, became too much to handle.

The loss of judges like Jamil and others could be immeasurable to both immigrants and Department of Homeland Security attorneys, Ramirez said.

“For the system of justice, there’s these highly qualified, fair, thoughtful people who are being squeezed out of the system for political reasons, basically,” she said. “If people like her are squeezed out, it’s a loss to people who appear before her. The system can’t be fair if good people like her are pushed out.”

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

Forcing the “best, brightest, and fairest” out. Reinforcing “worst practices.” Enabling judges with well-established records of anti-asylum, nationality-based, and misogynistic bias. Attacking those private attorneys who steadfastly defended legal and Constitutional rights that were being systematically undermined by the Administration. Blaming others for his own incompetence and lack of scholarship. That’s what the “Sessions program” was all about.

The only good news: folks like Judge Jamil, Judge Ramirez, Judge Richardson, and Judge Chase are now part of the ever-growing “Our Gang” of retired Immigraton Judges helping others to fight the injustices and destruction of Due Process being pushed by the Trump Administration and a DOJ that has abandoned its mission in favor of a White Nationalist political agenda. Our voices are being heard in support of the efforts of the “New Due Process Army.”

And, while I doubt that anyone outside of Trump and Miller can match the viscous lies, racism, and knowingly false narratives of Sessions, I wouldn’t expect much improvement under Barr. Barr thought Sessions was “the greatest thing since sliced bread.” That, more than the Mueller investigation, should have caused all Democrats to vote against his confirmation. He’ll just “lose” some of the overtly racist and inflammatory lingo of the White Nationalist restrictionists and attack immigrants on the basis of bogus “strict enforcement” platitudes.

Every American who believes in our Constitution and thinks that America is different from the “Banana Republics” we often criticize will be threatened by this development. Malicious harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all; and the collapse of one of the “building blocks” at the “retail level” of the American justice system will adversely affect everybody’s ability to get justice with fairness and impartiality.

Many of us don’t think we will need fair, independent, and impartial courts until we do. Once the Trump Administration destroys them, they won’t easily be rebuilt.

Who will defend your rights when the time comes if you stand by and watch the rights of others being trampled?

PWS

02-14-19

 

 

Related posts:

  1. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  2. GONZO’S WORLD: RECENT ARTICLES SHOW HOW SESSIONS’S SHOCKINGLY INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS TO NEW IMMIGRATION JUDGES VIOLATED EOIR CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS, SHOWED DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW, AND VIOLATED THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF GOOD IMMIGRATION JUDGING BY DIRECTING JUDGES NOT TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO REFUGEES! – TURNING REFUGEE LAW AND HISTORY ON ITS HEAD!
  3. HALLOWEEN HORROR STORY: Opaque & Biased Politicized Judicial Hiring Denies Migrants The Fair & Impartial Adjudication To Which They Are Constitutionally Entitled – Given The Generous Legal Standards, A Worldwide Refugee Crisis, & Asylum Officers’ Positive Findings In Most Cases, Asylum Seekers Should Be Winning The Vast Majority Of Immigration Court Cases — Instead, They Are Being “Railroaded” By A Biased System & Complicit Article III Courts!
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: The Drama Of Immigration Court!

Feb 10 All The World’s A Stage (including the 2d Cir.!)

“How did we get here?  How the hell…

Pan left – close on the steeple of the church.”

  • Jonathan Larson, “Halloween,” from Rent

The above lines popped into my head as I sat in an ice-cold dressing room in the basement of Judson Memorial Church in Greenwich Village just prior to curtain for the final performance of the world premiere run of Waterwell’s play The Courtroom.  I was performing the role of the judge in the final scene who conducts a naturalization ceremony in which the journey of the protagonist, Elizabeth Keathley, through the immigration system ends with her becoming a U.S. citizen.  The castwas comprised of stars of stage and screen, including a Tony Award winner, and a Tony nominee and Obie, Drama League, and Outer Critics Circle winner.  “How did I get here?”

The Courtroomis the result of the inspired vision of Waterwell’s co-founder, Arian Moayed, himself a Tony-nominated Broadway actor who currently plays Stewie on the HBO hit Succession.  A civic-minded theater company, Waterwell has staged musicals written during WW II aboard The Intrepid with a cast of actors and veterans, and a bilingual Farsi-English production of Hamlet set in 1918 Tehran.  (Waterwell also runs an incredible educational program with New York City High School students, and its film division produces the Emmy-nominated web series The Accidental Wolf.)

An immigrant himself, Arian was moved by his own family history to respond to the present immigration climate, and took the unorthodox approach of seeking out actual immigration court transcripts to serve as the script.  The production’s wonderful associate producer, Madelyn Murphy, quickly connected with Chicago immigration attorney Richard Hanus. He suggested the case of Elizabeth Keathley, whose path to a green card based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen was put in jeopardy over an innocent mistake regarding voter registration while applying for a driver’s license.   Years later, Elizabeth prevailed on appeal to the 7th Cir. Court of Appeals in Keathley v. Holder, when Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook was persuaded by Hanus’s argument that the criminal common-law defense of entrapment by estoppel should apply in the immigration law context.

The script for the first act of The Courtroomis the verbatim transcript of Ms. Keathley’s immigration court proceedings in 2008.  The script for the second act is the verbatim oral argument before the 7th Cir. and the panel’s written decision.  So instead of a piece written by a playwright seeking to make a statement about our immigration system, one case plucked from that system was allowed to speak for itself.  I had the pleasure of attending the first table read-through at Waterwell’s Manhattan offices. I remember Arian asking “Will this work as drama?” but he had a strong feeling that it would, and his instincts proved right.

What I found compelling about the case was that everyone involved in the immigration court hearing was respectful, professional, and thoughtful.  After witnessing the complete immigration court hearing, the audience does not feel animosity towards the judge or ICE attorney. Nevertheless, the wrong result was reached.  To me, an important theme is that of faith in an imperfect system – and not only the faith of the protagonist and her loving husband who are unexpectedly caught in a system they don’t understand, or of the brilliant lawyer who perseveres knowing that the correctness of his argument is no guarantee of a satisfying outcome.  It also speaks to the faith that our justice system requires from society, a point I touched on in my stage remarks.

Waterwell’s managing director, Adam Frank, came up with the idea for a third act portraying Elizabeth’s naturalization ceremony.  Adam told me the idea was inspired by his hearing Arian speak emotionally about his own naturalization, an experience that native-born Americans never have.  So in the last act, the entire audience is naturalized. The role of the judge in that last scene was played by actual judges. My fellow former immigration judge, Betty Lamb, sitting immigration judge Mimi Tsankov, Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara of the Eastern District of New York, and myself took turns playing the role.  And each of us were allowed to write our own remarks following the oath. This imbued each performance with a personalized view of the process in the words of actual judges who have performed these ceremonies in real life. My remarks are copied below.

I was first invited to perform at one of the two performances held inside the main courtroom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in lower Manhattan.  (Other performances were held at Fordham Law School, St. Mark’s Church in the East Village, and Judson Church). For the courthouse performances, audience members had to have their names on a list, go through security, and check their cell phones at the door.  I still can’t believe that I was fortunate enough to perform on the stage of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a once in a lifetime experience. The courtroom held an energy unlike any of the other venues. The setting created the sense of watching an actual hearing in a real courtroom, without the usual sense of separation when sitting in the audience watching a play on a stage.  As one of the actors pointed out, in the courtroom performances, when he read the line “please rise,” the whole audience rose to its feet without hesitation.

Ruthie Ann Miles, Kathleen Chalfant, Happy Anderson, Kristin Villanueva, Linda Powell, Michael Braun, Michael Bryan French, Mick Hilgers, and Hanna Cheek comprised the brilliant cast.  Lee Sunday Evans’ inspired direction had to contend not only with the unorthodox nature of the script, but with the constantly changing layouts and acoustics over the four different venues.  In the hands of these outstanding professionals, it all worked beautifully.

The real-life Keathleys and Richard Hanus traveled to New York and attended two of the performances, sitting in the audience just a few rows behind the actors portraying them.

I was left in awe of the talent and dedication of all involved; it was also without exception the warmest, kindest group of individuals I have ever had the privilege to be involved with.  Thanks to all of them for briefly welcoming me into their world.
Hereis a link to a New York Times’ article about the play.

My remarks from the naturalization ceremony:

“It is my great honor and pleasure to congratulate you all and address you for the first time as fellow citizens of the United States.  Performing these ceremonies is undoubtedly the best part of my job. Judges have a number of powers, but none is greater or more humbling than the act we just performed together.  Just a few minutes ago, you were citizens of many different countries. But by raising your hands and repeating an oath, you all instantly, almost magically, became citizens of the United States.  To fully comprehend the significance of this, think back to the first time you ever heard of this country – maybe from a book or in a movie, or through a family friend or relative who was visiting from America.   Imagine if you were told at that moment that you would be standing here today as an American citizen. Hopefully, that memory will capture the wonder of this great ceremony.

For some of you, the path to U.S. citizenship may have been short and without incident; others might have traveled a longer, more difficult road to arrive here today. Regardless, you should all be congratulated on reaching this most important milestone.  

You should not feel a sense of loss today.  American citizenship does not erase your past; to the contrary, it simply adds a new dimension to who you already are.  We are a country of hyphenated Americans. Whether we are Mexican-American, African-American, Iranian-American, or Filipino-American, we should all wear our heritage as a source of pride, as the culture, thoughts and traditions that we bring to the American experience makes all of us richer.

There are of course responsibilities that come with citizenship.  I’m going to mention two such responsibilities today. First, you have the responsibility to perform jury duty if called upon to do so.  In a democracy, faith in our judicial institutions is paramount. However, our courts will not always reach the right result. But society will abide by judicial outcomes that they disagree with if they believe that the result was reached impartially by people who were genuinely trying to get it right.  Abiding by judicial decisions is a key to democracy. It is what prevents angry mobs from taking justice into their own hands. In the words of Balzac, “to distrust the judiciary marks the beginning of the end of society.” To keep this public trust, we must all try our best every day to get it right. Your participation in this system as part of a jury of one’s peers, and your fairness in trying to reach the correct result under the law is crucial to this process.

The other responsibility I want to mention today is the responsibility to vote.  As a U.S. citizen, your vote counts the same as that of anyone else, no matter how rich or powerful they may be.  You should exercise that right by voting responsibly and often. No election is too small for you to exercise your right to vote.  As Abraham Lincoln famously said in his Gettysburg Address, this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. As of today, you all now share the responsibility for ensuring that those words remain true.

Once again, congratulations!”

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

 

JEFF CHASE

 

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

 

Blog     Archive     Contact

Powered by Squarespace

Newsletter

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

Thanks, Jeffrey.  I’m speaking with Adam Frank tomorrow about how we might use this production as a teaching vehicle in a number of contexts!

 

I always said that being an immigration was “50% scholar, 50% performing artist.”

 

And, congrats to “Our Gang” member, retired Immigration Judge Betty Lamb on making her stage debut!

Watch the “trailer/teaser” for “The Courtroom” here:

http://waterwell.org/watch-the-courtroom-trailer/

PWS

02-11-19

 

 

Related posts:

  1. TIME FOR SOME GOOD NEWS: Waterwell’s Immigration Court Drama “The Courtroom,” Featuring Roles By Some “Judges Of The Roundtable,” Makes NY Times “Best Theater of 2019” List! — “[W]e citizens are on trial, too. What kind of a nation are we? How cruel have we permitted ourselves to be?”
  2. JUST “OFF BROADWAY,” BUT REACHING THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF AMERICA – Waterwell’s “The Courtroom” & “The Flores Exhibits” Paint a Chilling Picture Of Justice That All Americans Should See!  — Retired Immigration Judges & Pro Bono Advocates Join “A-List” Actors In Giving Human Voices To The Dispossessed Struggling For Their Lives In A Badly Broken & Dysfunctional System That All too Often Leaves Humanity Behind As It Mindlessly Grinds Down Lives!
  3. HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE BLOG PRESENTS “THE FLORES EXHIBITS” – Truth, No Matter How Terrible & Disturbing, Is The Best Antidote To Notorious Human Rights Abuser “Big Mac With Lies” & His Truly Despicable Knowingly False Narratives & Immoral Actions! – “At this time when our nation is led by scoundrels, we are in need of heroes.”
  4. 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.”

HON JEFFREY S. CHASE: Trump’s Disingenuously Named “Migrant Protection Protocols” Are Anti-American – “As the late Arthur Helton wrote more than 25 years ago, ‘A basic measure of a civilized society is the way it treats strangers.’”

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/2/10/wait-in-mexico-policy-access-to-counsel-amp-crime

Feb 10 Wait in Mexico Policy, Access to Counsel, & Crime

A February 1, 2019 article in the L.A. Timesreported that two American attorneys who work for the immigrant rights organization Al Otro Lado, which has sent attorneys to Tijuana to offer advice to Central American refugees seeking to apply for asylum in the U.S., were stopped by Mexican immigration officials while attempting to enter that country.  The attorneys were detained and questioned, and eventually denied entry because their passports had been “flagged.” One of the lawyers was actually traveling to Mexico on a family vacation, and was separated from her husband and 7-year-old daughter at the airport and taken to a separate room where she was interrogated.  Her crying daughter was eventually allowed to join her; the two were held for 9 hours and forced to sleep on a cold floor without food or water before being sent back to the U.S. Two journalists who had been covering the issue of refugees seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border suffered the same experience. The Mexican government denied responsibility for the “flagging;” one of the journalists was told “the Americans” were responsible.

One of my first reactionsto the remain in Mexico policy was the impact it would have on access to counsel.  I have heard disturbing first-hand reports from individuals who have traveled to Tijuana to provide legal assistance to refugees there.  When crossing back to the U.S., American citizens identified by Customs and Border Patrol officers as “activists” have been harassed by being sent to secondary inspection, where they have been questioned and, remarkably, have had the contents of their electronic devices accessed by DHS agents.  A means of avoiding such treatment was to fly directly to Mexico. However, the reported policy of flagging the passports of attorneys engaged in such work has undermined that route as well. Thus, attorneys are being treated like criminals for the “crime” of doing their job of providing legal assistance to asylum seekers.

While DHS focuses on such imaginary “crime,” it willfully ignores the actual crime to which those asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico are exposed.  In a letterto DHS Secretary Kirsjen M. Nielsen, the American Immigration Council, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network reported that 90.3% of asylum seekers surveyed said that do not feel safe in Mexico; 46% stated that either themself or their child had suffered harm in Mexico, and 38.1% reported mistreatment at the hands of the Mexican police.  Female asylum seekers accompanied by their minor children reported suffering crimes in Mexico including rape, sexual assault, kidnaping, extortion, and death threats.

Keep in mind that the Administration has shamelessly named its wait-in-Mexico policy the “Migrant Protection Protocols.”  Instead, the policy exposes asylum seekers (including vulnerable unaccompanied children and families) to crime and police harassment, while restricting their access to counsel.

Access to counsel is increasingly critical to Central American asylum seekers, many of whose claims require proving that their fear is on account of their membership in a particular social group.  Where fear is of non-governmental persecutors, applicants must further establish that the government is unable or unwilling to control such actors, and that internal relocation to another part of the country was not reasonable.  Meeting these criteria requires an applicant to offer complex legal theories, and to support such claims with affidavits, reports, and articles from one or more experts. Without legal assistance, this is a daunting task for refugees (some of whom are families or children) living under difficult conditions (including the above-mentioned exposure to crime and government harassment) on the Mexico side of the border.  Under present BIA precedent, an asylum seeker who is just a little off in formulating their particular social group (even if they included one word too many or too few) is stuck with such formulation, and may not amend it should they be fortunate enough to obtain counsel to assist them with their appeal. See Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018).

The Trump Administration’s policies towards Central American asylum seekers has consistently run counter to our country’s international treaty obligations.  The Administration has tried to argue that those fleeing to our country are not truly refugees, falsely painting them (in the words of a Human Rights First release) as “frauds, security threats, and dangerous criminals.”

By undertaking efforts on so many fronts to make it increasingly more difficult for such claimants to succeed in their asylum applications, the Administration seeks to paint the resulting drop in grant rates as “proof” that such claims are “fraudulent.”  In criminally prosecuting those who eventually try to cross the border when they are no longer to endure the conditions under which refugees are forced to wait in Mexico, the Administration cites such convictions as “proof” that the refugees are “criminals.”  The Administration seems to view the flight to the U.S. as a choice, and believes that its deterrence policies might convince refugees to simply return to their home countries.

Such view is at odds with reality.  This December articleby Prof. Karen Musalo in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminismadds further corroboration to the many reports detailing the horrible violence Central American refugees are fleeing.   And the World Migration Project at the Columbia Univ. School of Journalism continues to track those who have suffered harm (including death) following their deportation from the U.S.; its findings also counter the Administration’s position that those fleeing are not truly refugees, and that repatriation is a viable option.

As the late Arthur Helton wrote more than 25 years ago, “A basic measure of a civilized society is the way it treats strangers.”  Similarly, Jorge Ramosrecently wrote in Timemagazine that “countries are judged by the way they treat the most vulnerable, not the rich and powerful.”  Our government’s policies towards asylum seekers (including its most recent efforts to interfere with that population’s ability to retain counsel), and its willingness to expose such a vulnerable population to harm (including murder and rape) shames us all.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

 

JEFF CHASE

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

 

Blog     Archive     Contact

Powered by Squarespace

Newsletter

 

Feb 10 All The World’s A Stage (including the 2d Cir.!)

 

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

As Jeffrey and I have pointed out a number of times before, a “bona fide Administration” could resolve the “self-created non-crisis” at the Southern Border simply by:

  • Following existing asylum laws;
  • Generously granting asylum in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the BIA’s precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi, and the Handbook;
  • Working with NGOs, pro bono groups, bar associations, “Big Law,” the religious community, and affected states and localities to provide easy access to counsel and achieve universal representation of asylum seekers, which, in turn:
    • has a proven strong correlation to court appearances;
    • makes most detention unnecessary, and most important,
    • safeguards Due Process and the rule of law.

Clearly, these measures could be accomplished more quickly and for far less than the $5.7 billion that Trump so desperately wants to waste on his Wall. And, other than perhaps a few “tweaks” to allow some U.S. Government funding of pro bono and “low bono” representation projects, they would not require a major rewrite of current statues.

By sharply reducing unnecessary and wasteful “civil immigration detention” (a/k/a the “New American Gulag” or “NAG”) and the many legal challenges it generates, the  money and litigation time, on both sides, could be redirected at actually solving the problems, rather than making them worse.

 

PWS

 

02-11-19

 

 

 

 

 

J

 

 

Related posts:

  1. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  2. TWO LA TIMES EDITORIALS “SPOT ON” IN CALLING OUT TRUMP’S FAILED BORDER POLICIES, BOGUS EMERGENCY, & ABUSE OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY!
  3. “SITTING DUCKS” IN “UNSAFE THIRD COUNTRIES” — How The Supremes, The 9th Circuit, The 5th Circuit, & Other Complicit Federal Appellate Courts Aid & Abet The Trump Regime’s Human Rights Violations — Would The “Privileged Robed Ones” Take Due Process & The Rule Of Law More Seriously If It Were THEIR Kids & Grandkids Being Kidnapped & Held for Ransom For The “Crime” Of Seeking Protection Under U.S. Laws?  
  4. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”

CHASE, SCHMIDT, & THE REST OF “OUR GANG” READY TO “STEP UP” TO TEACH ASYLUM LAW FOR FURLOUGHED U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES! – Read The Latest From Hon. Jeffrey Chase On How Asylum Law Can Be Properly Interpreted To Save Lives (What It’s Supposed To Do) & “Move” Dockets Without Curtailing Anyone’s Rights!

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

 

IJs Grant Gender-Based Asylum Claims

As my friend Paul Schmidt announced on his excellent blog immigrationcourtside.com, immigration judges in San Francisco and Arlington, VA recently issued written decisions granting asylum to victims of domestic violence.  Notably, the decisions concluded that “Mexican females” and “women in Honduras” constituted cognizable particular social groups under applicable case law, including the former Attorney General’s decision in Matter of A-B-.

Asylum advocates have sought for many years to have the Board of Immigration Appeals recognize a particular social group defined by gender alone.  However, the BIA has declined to consider the issue.1 The need for such guidance from the Board has increased significantly since the issuance of Matter of A-B- last June.  Even under the holdings of that decision, gender continues to meet all of the criteria for a cognizable particular social group, as gender is an immutable characteristic fundamental to one’s identity, is sufficiently particular to provide a clear benchmark for inclusion, is socially distinct in all societies, and is not defined by the harm which gives rise to the applicant’s fear of persecution.

In the seven months since Matter of A-B- was issued, the BIA has yet to respond with a precedent decision affirming the continued viability of domestic violence-based asylum claims.  Nor has the BIA affirmed that gender alone may constitute a cognizable particular social group for the above reasons, in spite of the fact that its members have had years to consider the issue, and could rely on so many outstanding legal sources on the topic.  The BIA showed an ability to respond quickly in issuing a precedent decision in only two months time following the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions.  So the present silence should be interpreted as a specific choice by the BIA to remain silent, likely motivated by its fear of upsetting its higher-ups in the present administration.

In the absence of guidance from the BIA, and while waiting for appeals to work their way through the circuit courts (I am aware of appeals relating to this issue currently pending in the First and Fourth Circuits), the two recent immigration judge decisions are encouraging.  In the San Francisco case, Judge Miriam Hayward (who has since retired from the bench) found “Mexican females” to constitute a cognizable particular social group. In Arlington, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Deepali Nadkarni made the same finding for the group consisting of “women in Honduras.”  Redacted copies of their written decisions may be read here: http://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SF-IJ-Hayward-DV-PSG-grant.pdf;  http://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Nadkarni-Grant-Women-in-Honduras-PSG.pdf

In addition to their particular social group analysis, both decisions conclude that at least one central reason for the persecution suffered was the asylum applicant’s membership in the gender-defined group.  For example, in the San Francisco case, Judge Hayward found such nexus was established by a combination of specific statements made by the male persecutor (i.e. “a woman’s only job was to shut up and obey her husband,” and “I’m the man and you’re going to do what I say”); a report of an expert on domestic violence citing gender as a motivating factor for domestic violence; and a statement in a multi-agency report that violence against women in Mexico “is perpetrated, in most cases, to conserve and reproduce the submission and subordination of them derived from relationships of power.”

In her decision, Judge Nadkarni held that the size of the group defined by gender does not prevent it from being defined with particularity, and noted that the BIA “has routinely recognized large groups as defined with particularity.”  It also bears mentioning that the ICE prosecutor in Judge Nadkarni’s case “conceded that the Honduran police was unable or unwilling to protect the respondent…” Without such concession in her case, Judge Hayward found that country reports and Mexican law itself were sufficient to establish that the government was unable or unwilling to protect the respondent even under the heightened standard expressed by the former AG in Matter of A-B-.

As I stated in an earlier article, immigration judges have received no guidance or training from EOIR in analyzing domestic violence claims in the aftermath of Matter of A-B-.  As a result, some immigration judges remain uncertain as to whether the law allows them to grant such claims at present.  It is hoped that these decisions will serve as a useful template for judges. It seems particularly instructive that one such decision was issued by Judge Nadkarni, a management-level judge who supervises all immigration judges sitting in the Arlington, Batavia, Buffalo, and Charlotte Immigration Courts, as well as the Headquarters court which hears cases remotely by televideo.  Judge Nadkarni is the direct boss of V. Stuart Couch, the Charlotte-based immigration judge whose refusal to grant asylum as directed by the BIA in Matter of A-B- led to the former Attorney General’s certifying that case to himself.

Congratulations to attorneys Kelly Engel Wells of Delores Street Community Services and Mark Stevens of Murray Osorio PLLC for successfully representing the asylum applicants.

In light of these decisions, and in the absence of guidance from EOIR, our group of former immigration judges and BIA members would be happy to provide sitting judges with outside training and resources on this topic.   Interested judges may contact me, and perhaps we can set up group training sessions for furloughed judged during the present shutdown.

Notes:

  1. See, e.g. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388, 395, n. 16, acknowledging the argument of amici “that gender alone should be enough to constitute a particular social group in this matter,” but declining to reach the issue.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

 

JEFF CHASE

Blog     Archive     Contact

Powered by Squarespace

Thanks Jeffrey! I’m “with you” all the way, my friend!
EOIR would do much better if it were to lose the venomous “(junior) partner of DHS Enforcement, no sympathy, compassion, or kindness for the most vulnerable among us, and scofflaw” persona that it acquired under White Nationalist AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and act more like a real court of law (or at least a fair and impartial quasi-judicial tribunal) again.
While there is zero chance of it happening, soon to be AG Bill Barr (who grotesquely has painted himself as a great admirer of his biased and incompetent predecessor) would do himself and our country a great and lasting service if he hired a retired Federal Judge with a strong record in (positive) humanitarian law, individual due process, and court administration (e.g., a “reincarnation” of the late Judge Patricia Wald) to run and rebuild EOIR with a Due Process, independent adjudication, and judicial efficiency focus, and kept the politicos out of the process, no matter how much they might complain or not like fair results on the “deportation railway.” But, not going to happen till we get “regime change.”
Viewing “law enforcement” as a solemn responsibility to insure that individuals’ rights are protected, individuals are treated fairly regardless of status, creed, gender, or race, and that life-saving protection is generously granted whenever legally possible is as much a part of the Attorney General’s Constitutional responsibility as  booting folks out of the country. It’s sad, disturbing, and very damaging to our country, that so few Attorneys General have taken this responsibility seriously, particularly in recent years.
PWS
01-21-18

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  3. NY TIMES: Trump Mocks & Dehumanizes Vulnerable Refugees & His Administration Claims It’s OK To Return Them to Honduras; BUT The Facts Say The Opposite: Honduras Is An Armed Conflict Zone Where Gangs Exercise Quasi-Governmental Control & Those Who Resist Are Severely Punished, Often Maimed, Tortured Or Killed!
  4. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE — USCIS RACISTS TARGET BLACK HAITIANS: As Evidence Unfolds In Federal Court, The Blatant Racism & Dishonesty Of USCIS Politicos In Bogus Termination Of TPS Becomes A Matter Of Public Record!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/1/7/haiti-tps-and-racial-bias

Haiti, TPS, and Racial Bias

This morning, the trial begin in Saget v. Trump, before District Judge William Kuntz in the Eastern District of New York.  As your Brooklyn observer, I attended the opening hours of what is likely to be a two or three day trial.

The basis for the case is the Trump administration’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) for Haitians who have been present in the U.S. since January 12, 2011, and remain unable to return due to conditions in that country following a massive earthquake in 2010, a 2016 hurricane, and a major cholera epidemic.  59,000 Haitians in the U.S. are presently in TPS status, a number too large for the Haitian government to presently absorb if returned en masse.

TPS is not asylum, and offers no permanent status in this country.  It was created by Congress in 1990 to afford blanket protection to nationals of countries to which return is currently untenable for a variety of reasons, including armed conflict, natural disaster, rampant disease, or the inability of the country to absorb the mass repatriation of its nationals.  Such designation is granted in intervals of 6 to 18 months, and is reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) at least 60 days before the end of each designated period. The law only allows TPS status to be terminated where such review finds that the conditions for designation no longer exist in the country; otherwise, the period of TPS is to be extended.  In the case of Haiti, after being designated for TPS in early 2010, such designation was extended in 18-month increments continually until the coming of the Trump Administration in 2017.

DHS, within its subcomponent, USCIS, has a Country Conditions Unit.  I know that unit’s director, LeRoy Potts, and met with him and some of his senior staff when I oversaw EOIR’s country conditions database during my time at the BIA.  They are knowledgeable, fair-minded, and in my experience, issued accurate reports free of political influence. The Country Conditions Unit is generally consulted in TPS decisions.  As it had in the past, the Unit again drafted a report finding serious problems in Haiti that would call for an extension of TPS.

However, as the Plaintiffs’ counsel noted in his opening statement, Robert T. Law, previously director of the vehemently anti-immigration lobby group ironically known by the acronym FAIR, who under the Trump administration was made a senior policy advisor to USCIS (which is mind-boggling on its own), decided that the Country Condition Unit’s memo was “overwhelmingly weighted for extension which I do not think is the conclusion we are looking for.”  According to petitioner’s counsel, Law edited the document (with the blessing of the USCIS chief policy strategist, Kathy Nuebel Kovarik) in 35 minutes, without further research. https://nationaltpsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DPP-3349-EX-3.pdf   According to the opening statement, the only research requested by the administration was for evidence that Haitians in the U.S. had criminal records or received public assistance, a clear attempt to discredit a nationality using racial stereotypes.  Plaintiff’s counsel stated that the USCIS Country Conditions Unit characterized DHS’s final version of the report used to justify its termination of TPS for Haiti as “complete fiction.”

The Plaintiffs called as their first witness Ellie Happel, an expert on country conditions in Haiti and resident of that country from 2011 to 2017, who took apart the DHS memo sentence by sentence.  For example, Happel explained the meaninglessness of DHS’s claim that 98 percent of internal displacement camps (“IDPs”) in Haiti have been closed. Happel stated that the majority who left the camps did so due to actual or threatened forced eviction, and many did not return to durable housing.  When one settlement, Canaan, was decertified as an IDP camp, it statistically eliminated 50,000 people from the list of those internally displaced. However, those 50,000 people continue to live on the site of the former camp, a windswept, previously uninhabited land far from government services.

Happel cited a report (also referenced in the USCIS report) that a minimum of 500,000 homes would have to be constructed to meet the housing needs of the Haitian population.  Happel also testified in convincing detail to continued food insecurity, political instability, an economy marred by a 2 billion dollar debt to Venezuela caused by misappropriation or embezzlement of funds by government officials, and a continued susceptibility to cholera following one of the worst epidemics of the disease in recent history.

Why would DHS’s leadership go to such lengths to fabricate a fictitious report to justify returning 59,000 Haitians to such conditions before it was advisable to do so?  The plaintiffs pointed to the answer in the statements of President Trump himself, made a few months earlier to members of Congress, in which he referenced predominantly black nations as “shithole countries” (the presiding judge insisted on the use of the unedited quote), questioned “why do we need more Haitians? (whom he previously claimed “all have AIDS”); and stated his preference for immigrants from places such as Norway.  The government’s attorney somehow managed to keep a straight face when claiming in response that DHS’s acting Secretary had reached the decision to terminate independent of Trump’s opinions.

Sadly, Haitians have suffered a long history of unfair treatment under our country’s immigration laws.  In his excellent 1998 law review article “Race, the Immigration Laws, and Domestic Race Relations: A ‘Magic Mirror’ Into the Heart of Darkness,” Prof. Kevin R. Johnson wrote “No U.S. policy approached…the government’s extraordinary treatment of Black persons fleeing the political violence in Haiti.”  When the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1993 decision in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., upheld the policy initiated by President George H.W. Bush, and surprisingly continued under President Clinton, of repatriating intercepted Haitians without first screening the returnees to see if they qualified for refugee status, Justice Brennan argued in dissent that the Haitian refugees “demand only that the United States, land of refugees and guardian of freedom, cease forcibly driving them back to detention, abuse, and death. We should not close our ears to it.”

Sadly, 25 years later, our nation’s most openly racist president continues to advocate for policies of extraordinary cruelty towards Haitians.  And seemingly without embarrassment, many of his underlings are happy to go to extreme lengths to carry out such policies, the admirable exception being the USCIS Country Conditions Unit.

It was heartwarming to see the large team of lawyers, paralegals, and expert witnesses united  in Judge Kuntz’s courtroom to continue to fight against such cruelty. Among those in attendance were Ira Kurzban, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, and Michael Posner, founder and former director of Human Rights First, both of whom were early defenders of Haitian rights in the 1980s.  To see them working alongside a younger generation of attorneys and experts, such as Happel, the director of NYU Law School’s Haiti Project, and Florida attorney Kevin Gregg reminded this aging attorney that the struggle for immigrants’ rights will be passed on to most capable hearts and hands.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

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

Tal Kopan has unearthed some of this in an earlier post based on documents obtained under the FOIA. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2rC

Gotta wonder about the ethics of DOJ lawyers defending the indefensible in Federal Court.

PWS

01-09-19

 

Related posts:

  1. PROFESSOR FITZ BRUNDAGE @ WASHPOST: Can We Regain Our Humanitarian Values In The Age Of Trump? — “We must shine a spotlight on cruel and illegal policies that undermine our national ideals and find the wisdom and the courage to do better.”
  2. COURTS OF INJUSTICE: How Systemic Bias, Bad Precedents, Gross Mismanagement, & Poor Decision-Making Threaten Lives In Immigration Court — What Should Be “Slam Dunk” Grants Of Protection Are Literally “Litigated To Death” Adding To Backlogs While Mocking Justice! — Featuring Quotes From “Roundtable” Leader Hon. Jeffrey Chase!
  3. “CONSTITUTIONAL CASTRATION”– CATHERINE RAMPELL @ WASHPOST: HOW THE FECKLESS GOP CONGRESS IS SCREWING THE MOST VULNERABLE AMONG US BY LETTING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TRASH THE IMMIGRATION LAWS AND END-RUN THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL PARTICIPATION! – “The Trump administration keeps scolding desperate immigrants to shape up and “follow the law.” When will cowardly members of Congress insist that the president do the same?”
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: 6th Cir. Correctly Rejected BIA’s Disingenuous Approach To Res Judicata In Jasso! — Time To End The “Chevron Farce” In Immigration Cases!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/12/31/6th-cir-reverses-bia-on-res-judicata

6th Cir. Reverses BIA on Res Judicata

In the final days of 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedent decision in Matter of Jasso Arangure.1  The respondent in that case, a longtime permanent resident, had been convicted of first-degree home invasion under Michigan law.  ICE had placed him into removal proceedings because it claimed the conviction constituted an aggravated felony as a “crime of violence” under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Although the immigration judge agreed with ICE, Mr. Jasso won his appeal because the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in another case, found the concept that a crime that in itself was not violent (i.e. home invasion) could be considered a “crime of violence” because hypothetically, a violent confrontation could occur, was unconstitutionally vague.  As a result, Mr. Jasso’s case was terminated because the government had not met its burden of proof.

Two days later, the government commenced another case against Mr. Jasso.  It again charged him, on the basis of the exact same home invasion conviction, of being removable as an aggravated felon, but this time, instead of labeling it a crime of violence, ICE argued that it met the definition of an aggravated felony burglary offense under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Act.  Mr. Jasso moved to terminate, arguing that the new proceedings were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which forbids relitigating the same issue between the same parties where the matter has already reached a final judgment on the merits.  The immigration judge did not terminate, and ordered the respondent removed.

On appeal, the BIA affirmed.  The BIA had to acknowledge that res judicata had been found to apply in the administrative law context, and that the Board itself had applied the similar doctrine of collateral estoppel in its own precedent decisions.  Nevertheless, the BIA concluded that it would be too burdensome “to require the DHS to present all possible bases for removal in a single proceeding.” That statement is remarkably misleading.  In this case, it would have required the ICE attorney at most two extra minutes to add the additional charge of “burglary” to the original “crime of violence” charge. If ICE somehow neglected to do this in the original charging document, an ICE attorney could have added the additional charge later, a common practice.

The BIA added that “whether a particular offense is an aggravated felony is a legal determination affected by complex laws that are in constant flux,” the implication being how can we punish the poor DHS for not anticipating an unexpected change in law.  But the same BIA proved the disingenuousness of this approach less than six months later, following former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision in Matter of A-B-.  Four days later, when the BIA decided an appeal that had been argued and decided while Matter of A-R-C-G- was still a precedent decision that was commonly relied on to grant domestic violence cases, the BIA did not say “a grant of asylum is a legal determination affected by complex laws that are in constant flux,” and remand the matter to allow the applicant to reformulate her arguments under the four-day-old decision.  To the contrary, the Board said “the Attorney General has foreclosed the respondent’s arguments,” and dismissed the appeal with no meaningful analysis.2

Fortunately, Mr. Jasso appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which issued its decision in the final days of 2018.  Under a concept known as Chevron deference, circuit courts must defer to the BIA’s interpretation of a statute if and only if the statutory language being interpreted is ambiguous.  In recent years, the trend has been for the circuit courts to find the language ambiguous and accord such deference. In this case, it would have been particularly easy for the court to do so, because the Immigration and Nationality Act is completely silent as to whether the concept of res judicata should apply in removal proceedings.

However, the Sixth Circuit did something extraordinary.  It first noted that the Supreme Court has recently taken the circuit courts to task for being too quick to find a statute ambiguous,3 and therefore decided to exercise due diligence before reaching such determination in the present case.  And even though there was no statutory language at all, the court took the extra step of turning to “canons,” which it defined as “general background principles that courts have developed over time to guide statutory interpretation.” The court noted one such canon in particular, which presumes “that general statutory language incorporates established common-law principles (like res judicata) unless ‘a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.’”  Pursuant to a lengthy, detailed analysis, the court concluded that the canon should properly be applied in removal proceedings, which renders the statute unambiguous, meaning that res judicata applies.

The Sixth Circuit next examined whether “a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.”  The Court noted that the statutory burden of proof that Congress put on DHS to prove removability by “clear and convincing evidence” “would be rendered ‘largely meaningless’ if DHS could repeatedly bring one proceeding after another until it got the result it wanted.”

The BIA had tried to support its decision below by reading into the Act a clear Congressional intent to remove noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies and other crimes, determining that a concept such as res judicata shouldn’t apply where it would interfere with such a clear Congressional intent.  The Board concluded that the purpose for res judicata, which it expressed as “the public interest in the finality of administrative judgments,” was no match for “Congress’ clear intent” to remove noncitizens convicted of crimes.

The Sixth Circuit had a wonderful reply, finding the Board’s approach “suggests courts can simply ignore the enacted text and instead replace it with an amorphous ‘purpose’ that happens to match with the outcome one party wants.”  The court further pointed out the ridiculousness of the Board’s approach, as, since Congress always wants its statutes to be enforced, res judicata could always be viewed as an obstacle, and so such reading would have the effect of rendering the whole common-law presumption “meaningless.”  The court wisely concluded that “statutes are motivated by many competing – and often contradictory – purposes” which “Congress addresses…by negotiating, crafting, and enacting statutory text.  It is that text that controls, not a court’s after-the-fact reevaluation of the purposes behind it.”

Having ruled that res judicata could be applied, the court found that three of the four requirements for applying res judicata were met.  The court concluded that both proceedings involved the same facts, as they were both based on the same Michigan conviction,  and that the different basis for the aggravated felony charge lodged by DHS was not a new fact, but rather a different legal theory of a party.  The court also found that there was no dispute that both proceedings involved the same parties, and that DHS could have lodged the burglary charge in the earlier proceedings.  The only remaining question was whether the first proceeding concluded in a final judgment. As the court found it unclear from the record whether the termination of the initial proceedings was with or without prejudice, it remanded the record for the BIA to consider the question in the first instance.

Regardless of the outcome on remand, the decision is important, as the doctrine of res judicata will again be available (at least in the Sixth Circuit) to preclude ICE from subjecting noncitizens to multiple removal proceedings due to the Government’s lack of preparation.  The decision might also signal the application of a tougher standard for determining whether Chevron deference is due to BIA precedent decisions.  In a footnote, the Sixth Circuit pointed out that “many members of the Supreme Court” have questioned Chevron deference, including present Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.  The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in a case concerning the continued viability of the related concept of Auer deference, according deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.4  Let’s hope that the circuit courts will in the future be less inclined to rely on Chevron to afford the BIA a free pass, and instead be more likely to take the Board to task for its poorly-reasoned, result-driven decisionmaking.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

Notes

  1. 27 I&N Dec. 178 (BIA 2017).
  2. Matter of M-J- (unpublished decision, June 15, 2018).
  3. See, e.g. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105, 2121 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

4. Kisor v. Wilkie, 899 F.3d 1360 ( cert. granted (U.S. Dec. 10, 2018) (No. 18-15).

 

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Blog     Archive     Contact

Powered by Squarespace

Jeffrey and I agree that the Circuit Courts like the 6th are finally taking a long-overdue more critical approach to giving the BIA so-called “Chevron deference.”  By now, the Article III Courts should be catching on that the BIA recently has been stretching statutory interpretation in any way possible to favor the DHS’s view in almost all published cases. This is even when the alternate interpretation offered by the respondent is closer to the statutory language, would be more practical, and/or would produce a more reasonable outcome.  In most cases, the consequences at stake for the individual respondent are far, far greater than those at stake for the DHS.
And, the concept that clearly biased “know nothing” enforcement zealots like Sessions and Whitaker should be given any deference whatsoever in their political roles as Attorney General is beyond preposterous. The “Supremes-created” doctrine of “Chevron deference” (a/k/a “Judicial Task Avoidance”) was based largely on the assumption of both an objective deliberative administrative process and a high degree of technical expertise. Neither of these apply any more to the BIA, let alone to hacks like Sessions and Whitaker.
I believe that the time has come for the Supremes to overrule “Chevron” and resume doing their primary judicial function of interpreting the law. That, of course, would not prevent the Article III Courts from deferring on a case-by-case to particularly persuasive or well-reasoned agency decisions (so-called “Skidmore deference” which was the predecessor to Chevron) where appropriate. But, even if Chevron deference continues as a general proposition, there are compelling reasons for no longer applying it to administrative adjudications under the immigration laws.
PWS
01-03-19

Related posts:

  1. PROFESSOR MAUREEN SWEENEY ON WHY THE BIA DOESN’T DESERVE “CHEVRON” DEFERENCE – JEFF SESSIONS’S ALL OUT ATTACK ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY IS EXHIBIT 1!
  2. NO DEFERENCE DUE! – 6th CIR. SLAMS TWO BIA PRECEDENTS – MATTER OF KEELEY, 27 I&N DEC. 27 I&N DEC. 146 (BIA 2017) & MATTER OF JASSO ARANGURE, 27 I&N DEC. 178 (BIA 2017) BITE THE DUST! — Time To Put An End To Inappropriate “Chevron Deference” For “Captive” BIA!
  3. THE LATEST FROM HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE:  Rethinking Chevron In The Era Of Weaponized Immigration Courts Acting As Adjuncts Of DHS Enforcement, & Further Adventures Of The Round Table!
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO: Persecution Of Women In El Salvador On The Basis Of Gender Is Real & Endemic – The Administration’s Attempts To Skew The Law Against Women Refugees Is Totally Dishonest, Immoral, & Illegal!

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/Musalo_El%20Salvador_A%20Peace%20Worse%20Than%20War_30%20Yale%20J.L.%20&%20Fem.%203_20018.pdf

Here’s part of the conclusion of Karen’s article “EL SALVADOR–A PEACE WORSE THAN WAR: VIOLENCE, GENDER AND A FAILED LEGAL RESPONSE” published at 30 Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 3 (2018):

Historical and contemporary factors have given rise to the extremely high levels of violence that persist in El Salvador today. Many of the Salvadorans interviewed for this article referred to a “culture of violence” going back to the brutal Spanish Conquest and continuing into more recent history, including the 1932 Matanza and the atrocities of the country’s 12-year civil war. Gender violence exists within this broader context. However, as almost every Salvadoran source noted, violence against women is even more deeply rooted than other expressions of societal violence as the result of patriarchal norms that tolerate and affirm the most extreme forms of domination and abuse of women.
. . . .

Levels of violence, including the killings of women, have continued to rise, while impunity has remained a constant. Criticism of the persistent impunity for gender violence resulted in El Salvador’s most recent legal development: the enactment of Decree 286, which created specialized courts. However, the exclusion of the most commonly committed gender crimes–intrafamilial violence and sexual violence–from the specialized courts’ jurisdiction, and the courts’ hybrid structure, which requires that cases still be initiated in the peace courts, do not inspire optimism for positive outcomes.

Notwithstanding these considerable obstacles, the Salvadorans interviewed for this article, who have long struggled for access to justice and gender equality, maintain the hope and the belief that change is possible. In the course of multiple interviews over a six-year period (2010 to 2016), Salvadoran sources have expressed deep frustration and disappointment but have not articulated resignation or defeat.

. . . .

The Salvadorans who I interviewed for this article have provided information, insights, and perspectives that are simply not available in written reports or studies. Although they come from a range of backgrounds–governmental and non-governmental; legal professionals as well as grassroots activists–they all acknowledge the complex causes of societal violence. As discussed throughout this article, they also have specific critiques and prescriptions for what must be done in order to see any real progress. Discussions of the country’s crisis, as well as of the international community’s response, must start by listening to the voices of the Salvadorans who, despite the seemingly intractable situation of violence and impunity in which they live, have refused to abandon the struggle for justice and equality. They are inspiring in their courage and resilience. By quoting extensively from these sources, this article has sought to amplify their voices.

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

Read Karen’s complete article at the above link.

Compare real scholarship and honest reflection of the experiences of women in El Salvador affected by this seemingly unending wave of persecution with the intentionally bogus picture painted by Jeff Sessions in Matter of A-B-. Hopefully, advocates will be able to use the research and expertise of Karen and others like her to enlighten fair-minded Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges, support their efforts to grant women the protection they merit as contemplated by the Refugee Act and the Convention Against Torture, and force the Article III Courts and eventually Congress to consign Sessions’s intentionally perverted reasoning to the dustbin of “Jim Crow Misogynist History” where it belongs.

Many thanks to my good friend and colleague in  “Our Gang,” Judge Jeffrey Chase, for passing this link to Karen’s important scholarship along.

Due Process For All Forever!

PWS

12-31-18

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. NY TIMES: Trump Mocks & Dehumanizes Vulnerable Refugees & His Administration Claims It’s OK To Return Them to Honduras; BUT The Facts Say The Opposite: Honduras Is An Armed Conflict Zone Where Gangs Exercise Quasi-Governmental Control & Those Who Resist Are Severely Punished, Often Maimed, Tortured Or Killed!
  3. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  4. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”

NOTORIOUS CHILD ABUSER JEFF SESSIONS ALSO TARGETED REFUGEE WOMEN & GIRLS FOR DEATH, RAPE, TORTURE, & OTHER MAYHEM — HIS EVIL PLANS HIT A ROADBLOCK: THE LAW! — Read The Latest Commentary From Hon. Jeffrey S.Chase On Challenges To Sessions’s Effort To Pervert The Law — Matter of A-B- In Light Of Grace v. Whitaker!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/12/24/how-far-reaching-is-the-impact-of-grace-v-whitaker

How Far Reaching is the Impact of Grace v. Whitaker?

Six months after a significant number of U.S. immigration judges cheered a decision intended to revoke the hard-earned right of domestic violence victims to asylum protection, immigration advocates had their chance to cheer last week’s decision of U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Grace v. Whitaker.  The 107-page decision blocks USCIS from applying the standards set forth in a policy memo to its asylum officers implementing the decision of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in Matter of A-B-.  Judge Sullivan concluded that “it is the will of Congress – and not the whims of the Executive – that determines the standard for expedited removal,” and therefore concluded that the policy changes contained in the USCIS memo were unlawful.

In his decision in Matter of A-B-, Sessions stated that “generally, claims…pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence will not qualify for asylum.”  In a footnote, Sessions added “accordingly, few such claims would satisfy the legal standard to determine whether an [asylum applicant] has a credible fear of persecution.”  Read properly, neither of those statements are binding; they are dicta, reflecting Sessions’ aspirations as to how he would like his decision to be applied in his version of an ideal world.  However, both the BIA and the author of the USCIS policy memo forming the basis of the Grace decision drank the Kool Aid.  The BIA almost immediately began dismissing domestic violence cases without the required individualized legal analysis.  And USCIS, in its memo to asylum officers, stated that in light of A-B-, “few gang-based or domestic violence claims involving particular social groups defined by the members’ vulnerability to harm may…pass the ‘significant probability’ test in credible fear screenings.”1

If one reads Matter of A-B- carefully, meaning if one dismisses the more troubling language as non-binding dicta, its only real change to existing law is to vacate the precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G- which had recognized victims of domestic violence as refugees based on their particular social group membership.2   A proper reading of A-B- still allows such cases to be granted, but now means that the whole argument must be reformulated from scratch at each hearing, requiring lengthy, detailed testimony of not only the asylum applicant, but of country experts, sociologists, and others.  Legal theories already stipulated to and memorialized in A-R-C-G- must be repeated in each case.  Such Sisyphean approach seems ill suited to the current million-case backlog.

However, the BIA and the USCIS memo chose to apply Sessions’ dicta as binding case law, an approach that did in fact constitute a change in the existing legal standard.  When the Department of Justice argued to the contrary in Grace, Judge Sullivan called shenanigans, as USCIS’s actual application of the decision’s dicta to credible fear determinations  harmed asylum applicants in a very “life or death” way. The judge also reminded the DOJ of a few really basic, obvious points that it once knew but seems to have forgotten in recent years, namely (1) that the intent of Congress in enacting our asylum laws was to bring our country into compliance with the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees; (2) that the UNHCR’s guidelines for interpreting the 1951 Convention are useful interpretive tools that should be consulted in interpreting our asylum laws, and (3) that UNHCR has always called for an expansive application of “particular social group.”  Judge Sullivan further found that as applied by USCIS, the should-be dicta from A-B- constitutes an “arbitrary and capricious” shift in our asylum laws, as it calls for a categorical denial of domestic violence and gang-based claims in place of the fact-based, individualized analysis our asylum law has always required.

How far reaching is the Grace decision?  We know that the decision is binding on USCIS asylum officers, who actually conduct the credible fear interviews.  But is the decision further binding on either immigration judges or judges sitting on the Board of Immigration Appeals?

USCIS of course is part of the Department of Homeland Security.  Immigration judges and BIA members are employees of EOIR, which is part of the Department of Justice.  Its judges are bound by precedent decisions of the Attorney General, whose decisions may only be appealed to the Circuit Courts of Appeal.  However, the credible fear process may only be reviewed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and only as to whether a written policy directive or procedure issued under the authority of the Attorney General is unconstitutional or otherwise in violation of law.3 This is how Grace ended up before Judge Sullivan.  The BIA and Immigration Judges generally maintain that they are not bound by decisions of district courts.

Despite these differences, the credible fear interviews conducted by USCIS are necessarily linked to the immigration court hearings of EOIR.  An asylum officer with USCIS recently described the credible fear interview process to me as “pre-screening asylum cases for the immigration judge.”  The credible fear process accounts for the fact that that the applicant has not had time yet to consult with a lawyer or gather documents, might be frightened, and likely doesn’t know the legal standard.  But the purpose of the credible fear interview is to allow the asylum officer to gather enough information from the applicant to determine if, given the time to fully prepare the claim and the assistance of counsel, there is a significant possibility that the applicant could file a successful claim before the immigration judge.  The credible fear standard has always been intended to be a low threshold for those seeking asylum. Before A-B-, a victim of domestic violence was extremely likely to meet such standard.  The USCIS memo reversed this, directing asylum officers to categorically deny such claims.  But now, pursuant to Grace, USCIS must go back to approving these cases under the pre-A-B- legal standard.

When an asylum officer finds that the credible fear standard has not been met, the only review is before an immigration judge in a credible fear review hearing.  Although, as stated above, EOIR generally argues that it is not bound by district court decisions, its immigration judges would seem to be bound by the Grace decision in credible fear review hearings.  Congress provided the district court the authority to determine that a written policy directive of the AG (which was implemented by the USCIS written policy memo) relating to the credible fear process was in violation of law, and Judge Sullivan did just that.  Even were EOIR to determine that the decision applies only to USCIS, the IJ’s role in the credible fear review hearing is to determine if USCIS erred in finding no credible fear. If USCIS is bound by Grace, it would seem that IJs must reverse an asylum officer’s decision that runs contrary to the requirements of Grace.

But since the credible fear standard is based entirely on the likelihood of the asylum application being granted in a full hearing before an immigration judge, can EOIR successfully argue that its judges must apply Grace to conclude that yes, a domestic violence claim has a significant chance of being granted at a hearing in which the IJ will ignore the dicta of A-B-, find that the only real impact of the decision was that it vacated A-R-C-G-, and will thus apply an individualized analysis to an expansive interpretation of particular social group (with reference to UNHCR’s guidelines as an interpretive tool)?  And then, once the case is actually before the court, ignore Grace, and apply what appears to the be BIA’s present approach of categorically denying such claims?

Many immigration judges are presently struggling to understand Matter of A-B-.  The decision was issued on the afternoon of the first day of the IJ’s annual training conference.  This year’s conference was very short on legal analysis, as the present administration doesn’t view immigration judges as independent and neutral adjudicators.  But the judges tapped for the asylum law panel had to throw away the presentation they had spent months planning and instead wing a program on the A-B- decision that they had only first seen the prior afternoon.  Needless to say, the training was not very useful in examining the nuances of the decision.  As a result, fair-minded judges are honestly unsure at present if they are still able to grant domestic violence claims.

Of course, a decision of a circuit court on a direct challenge to A-B- would provide clarification.  However, A-B- itself is presently back before the BIA and unlikely to be decided anytime soon.4  I am aware of only one case involving the issue that has reached the circuit court level, and it is still early in the appeal process.  My guess is that EOIR will issue no guidance nor conduct specialized training for its judges on applying A-B- in light of the Grace decision.  Nor will the BIA issue a new precedent providing detailed analysis to determine that a domestic violence claimant satisfied all of the requirements set out in A-B- and is thus entitled to asylum.

A heartfelt thanks to the team of outstanding attorneys at the ACLU and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies for their heroic efforts in bringing this successful challenge.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

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

Four of the “scummiest” things about Sessions’s decision in Matter of A-B-.

  • Sessions is a biased prosecutor with well-know racist proclivities who had no business acting as a quasi-judicial decision maker in A-B-;
  • A-B- was purposely decided in a procedural context that made it impossible for the respondent to immediately challenge it in the Circuit Court;
  • Nevertheless, the untested dicta in A-B- cynically was used by USCIS to cut off access to the hearing system for refugee women who were unfairly returned to dangerous situations with no appeal rights;
  • Some U.S. Immigration Judges improperly used A-B- to “rubber stamp” these illegal denials of access to the hearing system, often mocking Due Process by barring the participation of attorneys attempting to represent refugee women and children.

There are few things more despicable than those charged with fairness and protecting the rights of others abusing their authority by  screwing the most vulnerable among us!

PWS

12-26-18

 

Related posts:

  1. THE HUMAN AGONY OF ASYLUM: SPEND 4 MIN. WITH MS. A-B- & HUMAN/WOMEN’S RIGHTS EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO — Beaten, Raped, & Threatened With Death By Her Husband, Hounded Throughout Her Country, Abandoned By El Salvadoran Authorities, She Sought Refuge In The U.S., Winning Her Case At The BIA — Then She Was Targeted For A Vicious Unprovoked Attack By Notorious Scofflaw Immigration Judge Stuart Couch & White Nationalist Xenophobe Jeff Sessions — She’s Still Fighting For Her Life!
  2. HERE’S WHY NIELSEN’S LATEST ATTACK ON REFUGEES AND THE RULE OF LAW COULD BACKFIRE! – ALSO, AN ADDENDUM: “MY MESSAGE TO THE NDPA”
  3. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

“OUR GANG” OF RETIRED JUDGES ISSUES STATEMENT ON GRACE v. WHITAKER!

Thanks to “Our Leader” Judge Jeffrey Chase for making this happen!

Retired Immigration Judges and Former Member of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement on Grace v. Whitaker

December 19, 2018

Today’s decision in Grace v. Whitaker provides a lesson in what it truly means to return to the rule of law. In a 107-page decision, Judge Sullivan reminded the current administration of the following truths: that more than 30 years ago (in a decision successfully argued by our former colleague,Immigration Judge Dana Marks), our nation’s highest court recognized that the purpose of the 1980 Refugee Act was to honor our international treaty obligation towards refugees, and that the language of that treaty was meant to be interpreted flexibly, to adapt to changes over time in the agents, victims, and means of persecution, and to be applied fairly to all. The decision affirms that our asylum laws are meant to be applied on an individual, case-by-case basis and not according to a predetermined categorical rule. The decision wisely considered the interpretation of the UNHCR Handbook, and afforded it greater weight than the personal agenda of a former Attorney General in determining our legal obligations to afford protection to refugees who are victims of domestic violence.

The decision imposes a permanent injunction on DHS from applying the awful decision of the former Attorney General in Matter of A-B- in its credible fear determinations. This reasoned decision will prevent this administration from continuing to deny women credibly fearing rape, domestic violence, beatings, shootings, and death in their countries of origin from having the right to their day in court. We applaud Judge Sullivan’s just decision, as well as the truly heroic efforts of the lawyers at the ACLU and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies that made such outcome possible. We also thank all of the attorneys, organizations, judges, experts, and others whose contributions lent invaluable support to this effort.

Hon. Steven R. Abrams

Hon. Sarah M. Burr

Hon. Teofilo Chapa

Hon. George T. Chew

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase

Hon. Cecelia M. Espenoza

Hon. Noel Ferris

Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr.

Hon. Rebecca Jamil

Hon. William Joyce

Hon. Carol King

Hon. Elizabeth A. Lamb

Hon. Margaret McManus

Hon. Charles Pazar

Hon. George Proctor

Hon. John Richardson

Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg

Hon. Susan Roy

Hon. Paul W. Schmidt

Hon. Polly A. Webber

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

Thanks to Jeffrey and the rest of the “Gang” for speaking out so promptly and forcefully!

PWS

12-20-18

 

Related posts:

  1. NOTORIOUS CHILD ABUSER JEFF SESSIONS ALSO TARGETED REFUGEE WOMEN & GIRLS FOR DEATH, RAPE, TORTURE, & OTHER MAYHEM — HIS EVIL PLANS HIT A ROADBLOCK: THE LAW! — Read The Latest Commentary From Hon. Jeffrey S.Chase On Challenges To Sessions’s Effort To Pervert The Law — Matter of A-B- In Light Of Grace v. Whitaker!
  2. SCOFFLAWS THWARTED: U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE EMMET G. SULLIVAN EXPOSES SESSIONS’ S OUTRAGEOUSLY ILLEGAL WHITE NATIONALIST ATTACK ON U.S. ASYLUM LAW — MATTER OF A-B- EXCEEDED SCOFFLAW A.G.’S AUTHORITY — Grace v. Whitaker
  3. JUDGE SULLIVAN STUFFS TRUMP’S REQUEST TO KEEP ON VIOLATING ASYLUM LAW PENDING APPEAL — Stay Denied In Grace v. Whitaker!
  4. THE HUMAN AGONY OF ASYLUM: SPEND 4 MIN. WITH MS. A-B- & HUMAN/WOMEN’S RIGHTS EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO — Beaten, Raped, & Threatened With Death By Her Husband, Hounded Throughout Her Country, Abandoned By El Salvadoran Authorities, She Sought Refuge In The U.S., Winning Her Case At The BIA — Then She Was Targeted For A Vicious Unprovoked Attack By Notorious Scofflaw Immigration Judge Stuart Couch & White Nationalist Xenophobe Jeff Sessions — She’s Still Fighting For Her Life!

THE FURTHER EXPLOITS OF “OUR GANG” – 5th Circuit Grants Oral Argument In Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- (requiring asylum applicants to clearly delineate the PSG before the IJ)!

“Hot off the wire” from “Our Gang” of Retired Immigration Judges’ Leader Judge Jeffrey Chase:

Good morning, all:  The Fifth Circuit has granted oral argument for the week of February 4 in Canterero-Lagos v. Whitaker the appeal of the BIA’s decision Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- (requiring asylum applicants to clearly delineate the PSG before the IJ).  Our group filed an amicus brief in that case (there was a second amicus brief on behalf of legal service providers).  Lead counsel emphasized the importance of the amicus briefs in convincing the Circuit court to grant oral argument, which OIL opposed, arguing that the case was not of particular interest and that W-Y-C- did not constitute a change in existing law.

Best, Jeff

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

Thanks Jeff for passing this along! And special thanks to all of our retired colleagues who make this effort so special and effective and to the amazingly talented and dedicated pro bono advocates who help us be “heard in court.”

Even from our angle, we can see that “great representation makes a difference.” If it makes that much of a difference to retired Immigration Judges trying to be “heard,” just imagine what a difference it makes to those actually appearing in U.S. Immigration Court to literally “plead for their lives!”

That’s why this Administration’s “strategy” of using waiting lists, illegal orders, inhumane detention, family separation, expedited removal, skewed credible fear interviews, and so-called “review before an Immigration Judge” where counsel, even if present, isn’t even allow to speak, to prevent competent representation and fair presentation of claims is such an outrageous abuse of Due Process!

We are still in the early stages of fully exposing the jaw-dropping extent of these abuses to Article III Judges, Congress, and the public! And, we (and our successors and allies in the NDPA) won’t rest until the U.S. Government is finally forced to live up to its cynically abandoned promise of making U.S. Immigration Courts “the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”

No wonder that Trump and his White Nationalist cronies are so scared of “gangs like ours!”

PWS

12-14-18

Related posts:

  1. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  2. WHEN ARTICLE III COURTS FAIL: U.S. “Orbits” Refugee Families To Dangerous Chaos In Guatemala Under Clearly Fraudulent “Safe Third Country” Arrangements As Feckless U.S. Courts Fail To Enforce Constitutional Due Process & U.S. Asylum Laws In Face Of Trump Regime’s Contemptuous Scofflaw Conduct!
  3. JUSTICE PREVAILS AGAIN IN IMMIGRATION COURTS EVEN IN THE “POST-A-B-“ ERA — Outstanding Analysis By Judge Eileen Trujillo Of The U.S. Immigration Court In Denver, CO, Recognizes “Women In Mexico” As PSG, Finds Nexus, Grants Asylum, Distinguishes A-B-
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

SOPHIA GENOVESE: Advocates Must Keep Pushing Back Against DOJ’s Bias & Unduly Restrictive Interpretations Of Asylum Law!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/acting-ag-whitaker-takes-aim-at-asylum-seekers-fleeing-family-based-persecution—sophia-genovese

Sophia writes in an article that was published at LexisNexis:

Acting AG Whitaker Takes Aim at Asylum Seekers Fleeing Family-Based Persecution – Sophia Genovese

Sophia Genovese, Dec. 10, 2018 – “Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has followed in his predecessor’s footsteps by referring yet another immigration case to himself, Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 494 (A.G. 2018). The Acting AG asks parties to brief “whether, and under what circumstances, an alien may establish persecution on account of membership in a particular social group under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) based on the alien’s membership in a family unit.”

As background, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) recognized that membership in a family unit constitutes a particular social group. However, it held that to establish eligibility for asylum on such a basis, “an applicant must not only demonstrate that he or she is a member of the family but also that the family relationship is at least one central reason for the claimed harm.” The BIA denied asylum to the respondent, L-E-A-, for failing to meet this nexus requirement. The respondent was a native and citizen of Mexico whose father owned a general store in Mexico City. Members of a drug cartel approached the respondent’s father to ask if they could sell drugs in the store as they viewed it as a favorable distribution location. The respondent’s father refused. The members of the drug cartel approached respondent to see whether he would sell drugs for them at his father’s store. Upon respondent also refusing, the members of the cartel tried to abduct him, but he was able to get away. The respondent fled to the United States and sought asylum. The IJ and BIA reasoned that the respondent was not entitled to relief because even if the persecutor had harmed the respondent, it was done so as a means to an end, i.e. to sell drugs. In other words, they argued, the persecution was not due to the respondent’s membership in a particular social group and animus towards the family, but rather because he was interfering in their drug trade.

The BIA in Matter of L-E-A- recognized the long history of family units constituting particular social groups. See, e.g., Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011); Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009); Torres v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 616, 629 (7th Cir. 2008). The BIA has previously “explained that ‘persecution on account of membership in a particular social group’ refers to ‘persecution that is directed toward an individual who is a member of a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic…such as…kinship ties.” Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951, 955 (BIA 2006) (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233-34 (BIA 1985)). “It has been said that a group of family members constitutes the ‘prototypical example’ of a particular social group.” INS, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course: Eligibility Part III: Nexus 21 (Nov. 30, 2001) (quoting Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1576 (9th Cir. 1986)). “There can, in fact, be no plainer example of a social group based on common, identifiable and immutable characteristics than that of the nuclear family.” Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir. 1993). Indeed, the BIA found that L-E-A-’s membership in his family constituted a particular social group. Instead, the key issue was whether the harm he experienced or feared was on account of his membership in that particular social group. The BIA in L-E-A- upheld the IJ’s decision below, opining that “any motive to harm the respondent because he was a member of his family was, at most, incidental…[Rather,] the cartel’s motive to increase its profits by selling contraband in the store was one central reason for its actions against the respondent and his family.” 27 I&N Dec. at 46.

As we and others have previously discussed, the BIA missed the mark in L-E-A-. The BIA in L-E-A- critically notes that “[i]f the persecutor would have treated the applicant the same if the protected characteristic of the family did not exist, then the applicant has not established a claim on this ground.” 27 I&N Dec. at 44. Under this reasoning, L-E-A- should have been granted asylum. But for L-E-A-’s familial relationship with his father, he would not have been targeted by the cartel. In other words, despite their motivation of wanting to sell drugs at his father’s store, the cartel’s motivation in targeting L-E-A- was to get to his father, thus satisfying the nexus criteria. There is a reason why the cartel did not target the father’s neighbor – because the neighbor does not have a close, i.e. family, relationship to him. That the cartel ultimately had monetary motivations is irrelevant in the analysis of why they persecuted L-E-A-.

It is unclear how the Acting AG, or the incoming AG (anticipated to be William Barr), will rule in a case that has already made the obstacles more onerous for asylum-seekers. Given the administration’s animus towards asylum-seekers, it is unlikely that they seek to redress the problems with the BIA’s holding. Rather, it is likely that the Acting AG seeks to build upon the BIA’s flawed reasoning and make it even more difficult for those to flee persecution and obtain asylum. The BIA in Matter of L-E-A- affirmed, without question, that kinship ties are inherently a particular social group. Given the wording of the Acting AG’s question Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 494 (A.G. 2018), he will likely attack the case on this front.

As outlined by the BIA in Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), and reiterated above, there is no clearer definition of particular social group than kinship ties. To be granted asylum based on one’s membership in a particular social group, the applicant must show that the group is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. at 392. As set forth in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 212 (BIA 1985), a “common immutable characteristic” is defined as “a characteristic that either is beyond the power of the individual members of the group to change or is so fundamental to their identities or consciences that it ought not be required to be changed.” Under  Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) and clarified in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), the social group must be defined with “particularity,” or be defined by boundaries of who is actually a member of the group. Finally, as explained in Matter of W-G-R-, “social distinction” is defined as the ‘recognition’ or ‘perception’ of the particular social group in society. 26 I&N Dec. at 216. Family units very clearly satisfy each of these requirements, where you cannot change who your family is, where who members of your family are can be defined with particularity, and where others in society can recognize you as a member of your family. A challenge to the family unit particular social group would undermine the construction of nearly all particular social groups thereafter.

Once formulating one’s social group, the applicant must also show that their persecution was on account of their membership in the social group (the “nexus requirement”), and that the government in the country of origin is unable or unwilling to afford them protection from such persecution. As we’ve previously argued, the Courts need to clarify the nexus requirement. In Matter of L-E-A-, for example, the nexus analysis needed to have focused specifically on why L-E-A- was targeted and persecuted – not what the cartel’s ultimate aim was after targeting him. Clarification on this issue is imperative for uniform adjudication of particular social group asylum cases. Additionally, given AG Sessions’ holding in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), future courts and advocates will need to clarify the state protection analysis, especially when the persecution is carried out by private actors. In particular, advocates will need to demonstrate through country conditions reports and expert testimony that the country of origin is unable or unwilling to provide protection from these private actors. In Matter of L-E-A- in particular, one can demonstrate that the cartel acts as a quasi-government in the respondent’s town, and that the police do not have control (or choose not to have control) over them.

Although the legitimacy of Acting AG Whitaker’s appointment, and thus his self-referral of cases, has been called into question, advocates must instead focus their efforts on litigating the asylum requirements. The constant self-referral of cases and unilateral, sweeping changes to the law have been tiresome for immigration advocates; however, we should use these opportunities to litigate existing, flawed case law to create a more robust asylum framework so that we can actually protect those fleeing violent persecution.”

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

Sophia is absolutely correct!

Like Sessions, Whitaker combines a White Nationalist agenda with some poor intellectual and lawyering skills. Not surprising, because lawyers advancing a racially biased restrictionist agenda are obviously driven by something outside, and usually not even very closely related to, the law and conventional human values.

Their arrogant and outrageous disregard of the law and facts provides a good opportunity for asking Article III Courts and Congress to finally adopt and enforce a legally appropriate, generous, humanitarian approach to asylum law as was directed by the Supremes back in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. Notwithstanding some meaningful advances over the three decades since that decision, the “promise of Cardoza” for U.S. asylum law has never been fully recognized.

And this Administration is hell-bent on rolling back even the modest advances that had been painstakingly made. Now is the time to make asylum law work as it was supposed to! Human lives and our integrity as a nation of laws and values depend upon  it!

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to hold the “Department of Injustice” and its biased and deviant officials accountable to the law and to history for their naked racism, extreme intellectual dishonesty, failure to uphold the rule of law, and cowardly contempt for human life! Yes, it’s annoying. Yes, it’s hard work! But, in the end it will be worth it to know that you did something worthwhile in your life. And there are few things more worthwhile than protecting the rights and saving the lives of the most helpless, exploited, and vulnerable among us.

For those of you new to “Courtside,” both Judge Jeffrey Chase and I have previously written about how the BIA stood the law of causation on its head to deny a very grantable asylum claim in Matter of L-E-A-. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-UI

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-UI; 

Indeed, the Fourth Circuit later absolutely trashed the BIA’s L-E-A- rationale on nexus in Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, without mentioning L-E-A- by name. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2aS.

The Fourth and other Circuits have also been very strong in recognizing “family” as a PSG. Indeed, one of the seminal “family-based” cases was Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). That was a case where the Fourth Circuit reversed and slammed the BIA while affirming my finding as an Immigration Judge that a family-based PSG was cognizable. In other words, I was right and the BIA was wrong. But, hey, who’s keeping track?

Now, Whitaker seeks to make things even worse. We should all be totally outraged that the Immigration Courts are under the control of the DOJ and political officials who are completely unqualified to sit in a quasi-judicial capacity. It’s “Clown Court;” but, in this case, the “clowns” are threatening innocent people’s lives!🤡

PWS

12-13-18

 

Related posts:

  1. HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM COURTSIDE! — I Take A Look Forward @ 2019’s Big Immigration Stories
  2. 🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: AILA Blasts Appointment Of Prosecutors Without Judicial Qualifications To Top Judicial Positions in Billy the Bigot’s Weaponized Anti-Due-Process “Court” System — Dysfunction, Bias, Illegitimate Decisions Run Rampant As Congress, Article IIIs Fail to Enforce U.S. Constitution!
  3. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations!