"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
THE PROSTITUTION OF EYORE: Founded To Establish Independence, The Immigration Court Agency Puts Out Bogus Statistics To Support Sessions’s White Nationalist Agenda!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt (U.S. Immigration Judge, retired)
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, known as “EOIR” and pronounced “Eyore” as in the sad little donkey from Wininie the Pooh,was founded in 1983 to promote judicial independence and Due Process. Sadly, those have ceased to be the focus, as the beleaguered agency now develops and promotes bogus statistics to advance the White Nationalist xenophobic agenda of chief immigration “enforcer,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Some might have noticed a new way of presenting so-called “asylum statistics.’ Recently, EOIR published the following so-called “statistical tables” on “defensive” asylum applications — that is, those filed by respondents as a defense to removal after they have been placed in proceedings before the Immigration Court. By contrast, applications filed with the USCIS Asylum Office before proceedings are instituted and thereafter “referred” to the Immigration Court if they are not granted are known as “affirmative” applications.
EYORE ROLLS OVER FOR SESSIONS
Here’s the chart:
Executive Office for Immigration Review
DefensiveAsylumApplications Fiscal Year
Filed
Granted
Defensive Receipts : Defensive Grants Ratio
2008
13,213
2,928
4.51:1
2009
12,258
2,458
4.98:1
2010
12,771
2,273
5.61:1
2011
17,988
2,807
6.4:1
2012
19,908
2,891
6.88:1
2013
23,372
2,620
8.92:1
2014
31,046
2,765
11.22:1
2015
45,960
3,388
13.56:1
2016
68,849
4,863
14.15:1
2017
120,094
6,995
17.16:1
2018 (as of 6/30/2018)
83,534
6,946
12.02:1
Anyone familiar with how immigration proceedings actually work immediately would see the problem with this presentation. However, few of those not familiar with EOIR and Immigration court would notice that glaring disconnect.
What’s the problem? This is a classic “apples and oranges”analysis. The number of “applications filed” in a particular year has little, indeed almost nothing, to do with the number granted. That’s because given the dockets at EOIR, applications are very seldom actually decided in the year that they are filed.The minority that are decided in the year filed are almost always applications by detained, usually unrepresented, aliens. Such applications are literally like “shooting fish in a barrel.” Detained unrepresented asylum applicants seldom receive anything even resembling Due Process and are therefore routinely denied asylum.
Moreover, because the system forces respondents to file all possible applications for relief before an “Individual Hearing” is scheduled, respondents who might actually be relying on cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, so-called “stateside waivers,” and other forms of relief must file the “backup” asylum application even if it might well never proceed to a final adjudication. Additionally, even respondents seeking only the lesser relief of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture must file on the asylum application, Form I-589, and thus are counted as “asylum applicants” even if they never pursue asylum.
By artificially maximizing the number of “defensive filings,” while taking the grants out of context to minimize them, EOIR artificially creates a bogus picture of only a small number of asylum applications being granted on the merits. Moreover, EOIR compounds the error by presenting a totally bogus and highly pejorative statistic of “filings to grants” without correlating the year filed with the year granted.
No honest professional statistician would participate in such a hoax. The intent obviously is to create a false narrative of overwhelmingly non-meritorious asylum applications to support Sessions’s disingenuous fabricated scenario of “asylum fraud” infecting the system. For example, according the EOIR’s bogus numbers, the ratio of “applications to grants” in FY 2017 was 17 to 1, falsely suggesting very few meritorious asylum applications.
THE “REAL DEAL”
So, what are the only meaningful EOIR asylum statistics. The number of asylum applications granted and denied on the merits in a particular year. And, those statistics present a radically different picture. Let’s look at EOIR’s own Statistical Yearbookthrough 2016 (the last year for which it was published – the 2017 Statistical Yearbookshould have appeared in the spring of 2018 but, for some curious reason hasn’t) the last full year of the Obama Administration:
As recently as 2016, despite the Obama Administration’s ill-advised “Southern Border Initiative” that forced more unprepared individuals into the “defensive” system faster, and notwithstanding the overall politicized slant of asylum law against Central American Asylum seekers (even before Sessions), the grant rate was a very “robust” 31%, essentially one in three, rather than the bogus one out of every 14.5 put forth in EOIR’s Sessions-driven false narrative.
Let’s look a little further into what the real numbers show. Here are the overall grant rates for asylum and withholding of removal (by regulation, all asylum applications are also considered applications for protection under the withholding of removal provisions of the INA) for the five-year period ending in 2016 :
Immigration Court Asylum or Withholding of Removal Grant Rate
Asylum Grants
Withholding of Removal Grants
Denials of Both Asylum and Withholding of Removal
Grant Rate
FY 12
10,575
1,527
6,978
63%
FY 13
9,767
1,493
7,293
61%
FY 14
8,672
1,453
7,888
56%
FY 15
8,184
1,184
7,685
55%
FY 16
8,726
969
10,533
48%
While there is a remarkable drop in approvals in FY 2016, again, likely due to the Obama Administration’s ill-advised “Southern Border Initiative,” in FY 2016, 48% of asylum applicants whose cases were actually adjudicated on the merits received protection – essentially one-half of applicants.Again, this is a far cry from EOIR’s current misleading scenario which compares grants to both asylum applications that were not adjudicated on the merits during the year and asylum applications that have never been adjudicated and might never be adjudicated at all, as a result of Session’s mismanagement of the Immigration Courts.
Let’s dig a little further. Here is what happens to so-called “affirmative applications,” that is those made initially to the USCIS asylum Office, when they are “referred” to the Immigration court for a full hearing:
Immigration Court Affirmative Grant Rate
Grants Denials Grant Rate
FY 12 7,721 2,964 72%
FY 13 7,175 2,589 73%
FY 14 5,925 1,937 75%
FY 15 4,794 1,172 80%
FY 16 3,890 801 83%
As we can see, the overwhelming number of affirmative asylum applications not granted by the Asylum Office are eventually granted by the Immigration Courts – a huge majority, 83% in FY 2016. At a minimum, this suggests that the USCIS Asylum Offices should be granting many more affirmative asylum applications, thereby keeping them out of Immigration Court altogether.
ACCURATE STATISTICS LEAD TO BETTER CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the real numbers lead to some obvious conclusions that refute the bogus picture of asylum abuse being painted by Sessions and his EOIR accomplices:
About 50% of asylum applicants whose cases are decided on the merits by the Immigration Courts gain protection;
Asylum applicants who are given fair access to lawyers and time to prepare, generally those filing “affirmative” asylum applications, succeed at extremely high rates;
The USCIS Asylum Office could grant many more “affirmative applications” than they currently do.
All of this suggests that a much more logical approach to asylum adjudication would be:
Treating all asylum applicants applying at ports of entry or who are apprehended near the border and found to have a “credible fear” of persecution or torture as “affirmative applicants” whose cases can be initially adjudicated, and often approved, on the merits by the USCIS Asylum Office without bothering the already overloaded Immigration Courts;
Insuring fair access to counsel and adequate preparation time, preferably in a non-detained setting, to those seeking asylum at the border (significantly, represented asylum applicants show up for their court hearings at extremely high rates);
Encouraging “priority scheduling” for cases in Immigration Court where the documentation is compelling and the Assistant Counsel and private counsel have worked together to narrow the issues for a likely grantof protection (obviously, there are less likely to be Due Process issues with “expediting” grants as opposed to denials).
Exploring other forms of protection or legal status for those whose cases are now “stuck” in the Immigration Court backlog (many are now married to U.S. citizens and eligible for “stateside processing,” or have or will have viable claims for Cancellation of Removal as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pereira.)
Restoring a more realistic and generous “prosecutorial discretion” (or “PD”) policy along the line of that followed during the later years of the Obama Administration would also help reduce and restore some order to the Immigration Court dockets.
Of course, under Sessions, EOIR and DHS are moving in the opposite direction: seeking, without any probative evidence to support their claims, to falsely paint asylum applicants as de-humanized “numbers” who are “gaming” the system. There is “gaming” going on; but, it’s by Sessions and his “go alongs” at EOIR who intentionally are using bogus statistics to paint a false picture of our asylum system.
NO JUSTICE UNTIL BOTH SESSIONS AND EYORE RIDE INTO THE SUNSET
Asylum is an important part of our immigration system. It should and could be much more generously granted and with far less red tape and bureaucracy. Granting asylum is not only our legal obligation (with a moral foundation stemming from the disaster of World War II and its aftermath) but also benefits both our country and, of course, the individuals whose lives are saved.
Yes, there is so-called “asylum fraud.” But, by and large, it doesn’t involve those currently applying at our Southern Border. Indeed, the parts of ICE Investigations that perform reallaw enforcement work, in my experience, do an excellent job of taking apart large asylum fraud rings and “undoing” those asylum grants that were based on fraud. Several significant Chinese and Indonesian “rings” and at least one involving Cameroonian claims were exposed and prosecuted in that manner.
The U.N Convention and Protocol relating to refugees, implemented by our Refugee Act of 1980, was intended to inspire “a generous asylum policy”and actually to extend protection
to those in flight who might not fully satisfy all of the technical requirements of the “refugee” definition. The generous letter and spirit of the Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980 also are reflected in the leading U.S. Supreme Court case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, implementing the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum.
Jeff Sessions and his White Nationalist gang are moving to dismantle refugee and asylum protections at all levels. Part of their strategy depends on de-humanization of refugees, bogus statistics, and false narratives. Shamefully, “Eyore” has now become part of that effort, just proving again that Due Process and the rule of law won’t ever be totally restored to our country until we get an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court.
My friend and colleague, The Honorable Jeffrey Chase, also contributed to this article. The views expressed are mine, and mine alone.
Sources: Stephen Miller pushing policy to make it harder for immigrants who received benefits to earn citizenship
By Tal Kopan, CNN
White House adviser Stephen Miller is pushing to expedite a policy that could penalize legal immigrants whose families receive public benefits and make it more difficult to get citizenship, three sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
The White House has been reviewing the proposal since March at the Office of Management and Budget, which is the last stop for regulations before they are final. But concerns over potential lawsuits have delayed the final rule, and the draft has undergone numerous revisions, multiple sources say.
The crux of the proposal would penalize legal immigrants if they or their family members have used government benefits — defined widely in previous drafts of the policy.
The law has long allowed authorities to reject immigrants if they are likely to become a “public charge” — or dependent on government. But the draft rule in its recent forms would include programs as expansive as health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, as well as some forms of Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The rule would not explicitly prohibit immigrants or their families from accepting benefits. Rather, it authorizes the officers who evaluate their applications for things like green cards and residency visas to count the use of these programs against applicants and gives them authority to deny visas on these grounds — even if the program was used by a family member.
Two non-administration sources close to US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which would publish and enforce the proposal, say that Miller has been unhappy by the delay and has pushed the agency to finish it quickly. The sources say Miller even instructed the agency to prioritize finalizing the rule over other efforts a few weeks ago.
Miller is an immigration hardliner within the administration, a veteran of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Senate office who has been at President Donald Trump’s side since the early stages of his presidential campaign.
But two other administration sources downplayed the idea of any instructions to defer other policies until it’s done, though they acknowledged Miller is keenly interested in the rule.
The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.
Tal also highlights the continuing bias and political interference with the U.S. Immigration Courts under Sessions, spotlighting the continuing vocal public opposition of “Our Gang” of retired U.S. Judges, led in this case by Judge Jeffrey Chase, to the wanton destruction of Due Process in our Immigration Courts as well as the NAIJ, representing current Immigraton Judges (I am a member):
Immigrant ordered deported after Justice Department replaces judge
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Judge Steven Morley has overseen the immigration case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum for years. But last month when Castro-Tum was officially ordered deported, it wasn’t Morley at the bench.
Instead, the Justice Department sent an assistant chief immigration judge from Washington to replace Morley for exactly one hearing: the one that ended Castro-Tum’s bid to stay in the US.
The unusual use of a chief immigration judge from headquarters has raised concerns from retired immigration judges, lawyers and the union for active immigration judges. They say the move seems to jeopardize the right to a fair process in immigration courts.
It also highlights the unique structure of the immigration courts, which are entirely run by the Justice Department, and the ways that Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who serves as a one-man Supreme Court in these cases — has sought to test the limits of his authority over them.
The saga of Castro-Tum starts in 2014, when he crossed the border illegally as a 17-year-old. The Guatemalan teen was apprehended by the Border Patrol, which referred him to custody with the Health and Human Services Department as an unaccompanied minor. He was released to his brother-in-law a few months later and registered his brother-in-law’s address with the government. Multiple notices of court hearings were sent to that address, the government said.
But after the fifth time Castro-Tum failed to appear in court, immigration Judge Morley closed the case until the government provided him with evidence that Castro-Tum had ever lived at the address they were sending the notices to. The Board of Immigration Appeals sent the case back to Morley to reconsider with instructions to proceed even if Castro-Tum failed to show again. His current whereabouts are unknown.
Earlier this year, Sessions referred the case to himself and ruled that immigration judges across the board could no longer close immigration cases as they saw fit. The attorney general said immigration judges lack the authority to make such “administrative closures” of cases.
Sessions gave Morley 14 days to issue a new hearing notice to Castro-Tum. The Philadelphia-based immigration attorney Matthew Archambeault, who had begun following the case, appeared in court and volunteered to represent Castro-Tum, as well as to track him down. He asked the judge to postpone the case a bit longer to give him time to do that, which Morley granted.
Thanks, again, Tal, for your reporting and for all you do to expose the Administration’s daily scofflaw performances in mal-administering our immigration laws.
Folks, we are in a battle for the “hearts and minds of America.” Will we fulfill our destiny as a vibrant, diverse, creative “nation of immigrants?” Or, will be become a “shell of a nation” controlled by emotionally stunted, scared, White Nationalist bigots pursuing a philosophy of White racial favoritism, discrimination, persecution, and “beggar thy neighbor” economics.
The next election will be the test. Statistically, Trump’s White Nationalist Nation, pushing a platform of overt xenophobia and bigotry, does not represent the majority of Americans. But, they (with the help of their “fellow travelers” in the GOP) have seized effective control of our Government on many levels. Unless we dislodge them at the ballot box and take back America for the majority of us who neither are nor sympathize with White Nationalism, our nation may well be doomed to a gloomy future.
Get out the vote! Just say no to Trump, Sessions, Miller and their White Nationalist cronies!
An amicus brief was recently filed on behalf of a group of 20 former Immigration Judges and BIA Members (including myself) in the case of Rodriguez et. al. v. Robbins. The case, which was remanded back to the Ninth Circuit by the U.S. Supreme Court in its February 2018 decision in Jennings et. al. v. Rodriguez, is the latest chapter in an ongoing conflict over the constitutionality of indefinite civil detention of noncitizens.
The concept of indefinite detention is at odds with our legal system’s well-known practice of meting out specific time frames for incarceration as part of the sentencing of convicted criminals. Indefinite non-punitive civil detention is even stranger to American concepts of liberty. For this reason, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered its decision in Rodriguez in 2015, requiring three classes of indefinitely detained noncitizens – those seeking entry to the U.S., those awaiting decisions on their removal from the U.S., and those convicted of certain classes of crimes but not subject to a final order of removal – to be afforded bond hearings every six months. The court noted that its order did not require “Immigration Judges to release any single individual; rather, we are affirming a minimal procedural safeguard…to ensure that after a lengthy period of detention, the government continues to have a legitimate interest in the further deprivation of an individual’s liberty.”
At around the same time the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez, the Second Circuit took the same approach in Lora v. Shanahan, also requiring bond hearings every 6 months, and further holding that bail must be afforded unless ICE establishes “by clear and convincing evidence that the immigrant poses a risk of flight or a risk of danger to the community.”
The Supreme Court disagreed with Rodriguez, and remanded the matter back to the Ninth Circuit, where that court will consider the issue of whether the detainees have a constitutional right to a bond hearing.
Our amicus brief argues that not only is the right to a bond hearing every six months consistent with principles of due process, but that such policy also assists with the immigration court’s efficient administration of justice. Given the huge backlog of some 715,000 cases in the nation’s immigration courts, the brief argues that prolonged detention has the effect of bogging down immigration court dockets by decreasing the detainees’ ability to obtain representation, impeding on the ability of represented detainees to communicate with their counsel, and creating obstacles for unrepresented respondents to present their cases. Many ICE detention facilities are in remote locations, often 100 or more miles from the nearest legal services provider or from cities with sizable populations of immigration lawyers. As a result, a recent study found that only 14 percent of detained immigrants obtain representation. Such distances create obstacles to communication between the lucky few who are represented and their counsel. The great majority who are left to defend themselves are hindered by the detention centers’ inadequate legal resources, including a lack of foreign language materials. As a result, cases take longer to complete, and the lack of legal briefs and supporting documentation places a greater burden on the already overworked immigration judges.
Our brief also argues that those facing the longest periods of detention are often those with the strongest cases for relief. The brief further opines that immigration judges are well-equipped to make individualized bond determinations, and that those released on bond do not present a flight risk.
We offer our heartfelt appreciation to attorneys David Lesser, Jamie Stephens Dycus, Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, and Jessica Tsang of the law firm of WilmerHale for their outstanding efforts in the drafting of the brief.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
The Justice Department replaced an immigration judge who’d blocked the deportation of a man who failed to show up for a hearing. The new judge ordered the man deported.
A Philadelphia immigration judge was removed from a high-profile case and replaced with a judge who would order the man in the case immediately deported, a move that smacks of judicial interference by the Trump administration, according to a letter signed by a group of retired judges this week.
Advocates call the removal of a judge in the middle of a case the latest in a line of steps by the Trump administration to undercut the independence of immigration judges, further a political agenda, and accelerate deportations.
“As a democracy, we expect our judges to reach results based on what is just, even where such results are not aligned with the desired outcomes of politicians,” read the letter, signed by 15 former judges and members of the immigration appeals board, and circulated Monday.
It all began when Judge Steven Morley presided over a case involving Reynaldo Castro-Tum — a man who’d failed to show up at his immigration court hearings. Morley suspended the case using a procedure known as “administrative closure,” citing the fact that the notice sent to Castro-Tum may have been sent to the wrong address. “Administrative closure” has been used in hundreds of thousands of cases across the country.
In his position overseeing the immigration court, Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred the case to himself and wrote an opinion in Mayrestricting the use of “administrative closures,” a decision that could dramatically alter the way deportation cases are handled and potentially add hundreds of thousands of cases to an already backlogged court system.
Sessions said that “administrative closures” lacked legal foundation and undermined the court’s ability to quickly hear cases.
In the meantime, Sessions sent the case back to Morley’s court, writing that if Castro-Tum did not appear for his hearing, he should be ordered deported. He didn’t show up but an attorney advocating on his behalf, Matthew Archambeault, argued that Castro-Tum didn’t have enough notice and that he wanted to file a brief on the case.
Morley then scheduled a hearing in late July to go over those issues. But before the hearing, Morley was replaced with a supervising judge by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Department of Justice body that oversees the immigration courts, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
The new judge, whom Archambeault identified as Deepali Nadkarni, an assistant chief immigration judge, ordered Castro-Tum deported.
Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge who heads the judges’ union, the National Association of Immigration Judges, said her organization was “deeply concerned” about the incident and that they were exploring “all available legal actions.”
The Department of Justice declined to comment on the letter or Morley’s removal. Nadkarni did not respond to a voicemail requesting comment.
Tensions have increased in recent months between the union and Sessions, who has warned that immigration judges, who are Justice Department employees, will be evaluated on the basis of how many cases they’ve heard. His referring cases to himself to establish policy also has rankled the immigration judges’ union.
Former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, who was among those signing the letter, said that Morley is an experienced and well-respected judge who served as a private attorney before being appointed to the immigration bench in 2010. Morley, Chase said, was pushed off of the case “because he had the courage to exercise his independent judgment in the pursuit of a fair result.”
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a University of Denver law professor, said the case would be remarkable if it turns out that a judge was pushed off the case for another judge who would rule the way the Justice Department wanted.
“Judges should never be assigned to a case because of how they are likely to rule,” he said.
He noted that unlike other federal judges, whose positions can only be second-guessed by appeals courts, immigration judges report to Sessions. “Regrettably, the immigration courts are susceptible to this type of manipulation,” he said. “Immigration judges are not protected from internal pressures or politics in the same way that other federal judges are.”
CORRECTION
Ashley Tabaddor’s name was misspelled in an earlier version of this post.
********************************
Sessions’s interference with what purports to be a “court system” is stunningly brazen and totally unethical. Of course, intentionally changing judges in a system known for grotesque discrepancies in outcomes is going to have a substantive effect on justice.
The difficulty is that both Congress and the Article III courts are effectively letting Sessions “rob the bank in broad daylight and stroll away counting his stolen cash!” Outrageous! But, as long as we as a country accept and fail to correct this type of blatant misconduct by public officials, it will continue — until we have no country left at all!
It is difficult not to cry (as I did) while listening to the recording of a recent immigration court hearing at a detention facility near the border. The immigration judge addresses a rape victim who fled to this country seeking asylum. She indicates that she does not feel well enough to proceed. When asked by the judge if she had been seen by the jail’s medical unit, the woman responds that she just wants to see her child (who had been forcibly separated from her by ICE), and breaks down crying. The judge is heard telling a lawyer to sit down before he can speak. The woman, still crying, repeats that she just wants to see her child. The immigration judge proceeds to matter-of-factly affirm the finding of DHS denying her the right to apply for asylum. The judge then allows the attorney to speak; he points out for the record that the woman was unable to participate in her own hearing. The judge replies “so noted.” He wishes the woman a safe trip back to the country in which she was raped, and directs her to be brought to the medical unit. He then moves on to the next case on his docket. Neither DHS (in its initial denial) nor the immigration judge (in his affirmance) provided any explanation or reasoning whatsoever for their decisions. According to immigration attorneys who have recently represented asylum seekers near the border, this is the new normal.
Under legislation passed in 1996, most non-citizens seeking entry to the U.S. at airports or borders who are not deemed admissible are subjected to summary removal by DHS without a hearing. However, those who express a fear of harm if returned to their country are detained and subjected to a “credible fear interview” by a USCIS asylum officer. This interview is designed as a screening, not a full-blown application for asylum. The noncitizen being interviewed has just arrived, is detained, often has not yet had the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, probably does not yet know the legal standard for asylum, and has not had the opportunity to compile documentation in support of the claim. Therefore, the law sets what is intended to be a very low standard: the asylum officer need only find that there is a significant possibility that the noncitizen could establish in a full hearing before an immigration judge eligibility for asylum.1
If the asylum officer does not find credible fear to exist, the noncitizen has one chance for review, at a credible fear review hearing before an immigration judge. This is an unusual hearing. Normally, immigration judges are trial-level judges, creating the record of testimony and other evidence, and then entering the initial rulings on deportability and eligibility for relief. But in a credible fear review hearing, the immigration judge also functions as an appellate judge, reviewing the decision of the asylum officer not to vacate an already entered order of removal. The immigration judge either affirms the DHS determination (meaning that the respondent has no right to a hearing, or to file applications for relief, including asylum), or vacates the DHS removal order. There is no further appeal from an immigration judge’s decision regarding credible fear.
Appeal courts do not hear testimony. At the appellate level, it is the lawyers who do all of the talking, arguing why the decision below was or was not correct. The question being considered by the immigration judge in a credible fear review hearing – whether the asylum officer reasonably concluded that there is not a significant possibility that the applicant could establish eligibility for asylum at a full hearing before an immigration judge – is clearly a lawyer question. The noncitizen applicant would not be expected to understand the legal standard.
At the present time, determining the legal standard is especially complicated. In light of the Attorney General’s recent decision in Matter of A-B-, all claims involving members of a particular social group fearing what the A.G. refers to as “private criminal actors” must clearly delineate the particular social group, explain how such group satisfies the requirements of immutability, particularity, and social distinction, meet a heightened standard of showing the government’s inability or unwillingness to protect, and show that internal relocation within the country of nationality is not reasonable.
An experienced immigration lawyer could make these arguments in a matter of minutes, by delineating the group, and explaining what evidence the applicant expects to present to the immigration judge to meet the required criteria.
However, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge’s Practice Manual states the following:
(C) Representation. — Prior to the credible fear review, the alien may consult with a person or persons of the alien’s choosing. In the discretion of the Immigration Judge, persons consulted may be present during the credible fear review. However, the alien is not represented at the credible fear review. Accordingly, persons acting on the alien’s behalf are not entitled to make opening statements, call and question witnesses, conduct cross examinations, object to evidence, or make closing arguments. (emphasis added).
Therefore, at best, a credible fear review hearing consists of the immigration judge asking the respondent an abbreviated version of the questions already asked and answered by the asylum officer. Often, the judge merely asks if the information told to the asylum officer was true (without necessarily mentioning what the asylum officer notes contain), and if there is anything else they wish to add. If the issue was whether the respondent was believable, this might make sense.2 However, the issue is more often whether the facts will qualify for asylum under current case law.
I have canvassed retired immigration judges, as well as attorneys whose clients have been through such hearings. The good news is that it is the practice of a number of judges (past and present) to allow attorney participation. And in some cases, it is making a difference. One lawyer who recently spent a week in south Texas was allowed by the judge there to make summary arguments on behalf of the respondents; the judge ended up reversing DHS and finding credible fear in all but one case. In Fiscal Year 2016 (the last year for which EOIR has posted such statistics), immigration judges nationally reversed the DHS decision and found credible fear less than 28 percent of the time (i.e. in 2,086 out of 7,488 total cases).
However, other judges rely on the wording of the practice advisory to deny attorneys the right to participate. According to a July 14 CNN article, one lawyer recently had a judge deny 29 out of 29 separated parents claiming credible fear. Another lawyer was quoted in the same article citing a significant increase in credible fear denials since the Attorney General’s decision in A-B- last month. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/14/politics/sessions-asylum-impact-border/index.html This demonstrates why it is now even more important to allow attorney participation to assist judges in analyzing the facts of the respondent’s case in light of this confusing new decision that many judges are still struggling to interpret. And as I recently reported in a separate blog post, USCIS just recently issued guidelines to its asylum officers to deny credible fear to victims of domestic violence and gang violence under a very wrong interpretation of Sessions’ A-B- decision.
It is hoped that, considering the stakes involved, the Office of the Chief Judge will consider amending its guidelines to ensure the right to meaningful representation in credible fear review hearings.
Notes:
1. It should be noted that when legislation created the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum in 1980, both INS and the BIA seriously misapplied the standard until the Supreme Court corrected them seven years later. Although when it created the “credible fear” standard in the 1990s, INS assured that it would be a low standard, as credible fear determinations may not be appealed, there can be no similar correction by the federal courts.
2. Although credibility is not usually an issue, attorneys point out that while they are merely notes which contain inaccuracies and are generally not read back to the asylum-seeker to allow for correction, the notes are nevertheless often treated as verbatim transcripts by immigration judges.
Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2018. All rights reserved.
********************************
Amen, Jeffrey, my friend, colleague, and fellow fighter for Due Process and human rights! Jeffrey[s article was also republished by our good friend and colleague Dan Kowalski in BIBDaily here http://www.bibdaily.com/
Not that the EOIR OCIJ is going to do anything to change the process and further Due Process in the “Age of Sessions.” After all, they all want to hold onto their jobs, at any cost to the unfortunate human beings whose lives are caught up in this charade of a “court system.”
In what kind of “court system” don’t lawyers have a right to represent their clients? The Star Chamber? Kangaroo Court? Clown Court? And, to be fair, this outrageous “advice” from OCIJ on how to deny Due Process and fundamental fairness preceded even Sessions. The well had already been well-poisoned!
But, let’s not forget the real culprits here. First, the spineless Article III Courts who have shirked their duty to intervene and require U.S. Immigration Judges to comply with Due Process, respect human rights and dignity, and use at least a minimum of common sense.
And, the greatest culprit is, of course, Congress, which created this monstrosity and has failed for decades to take the necessary corrective action to comply with our Constitution!
One month after Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued his cruel, misguided decision in Matter of A-B-, we are seeing the first signs of how the decision is being implemented by the BIA, USCIS, and ICE.
There is no question that Sessions’ intent was to eliminate domestic violence and gang violence as bases for asylum. How can I be so certain of this? While Matter of A-B- was pending before him, Sessions told a Phoenix radio station in March: “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.” (here’s the link: https://ktar.com/story/2054280/ag-jeff-sessions-says-closing-loopholes-can-fight-illegal-immigration/).
However, Sessions chose to attempt to achieve this goal by issuing a precedent decision. A decision is not a fiat. It must be analyzed in the same manner as any other legal decision and applied to the facts accordingly.
Asylum experts and advocacy groups analyzing the decision have reached the following conclusions. The main impact of Sessions’ decision is to vacate the Board’s 2014 precedent decision, Matter of A-R-C-G-, holding that a victim of domestic violence was eligible for asylum as a member of a particular social group. Therefore, asylum applicants can no longer rely on that decision.
However, Sessions’ decision otherwise cobbled together already existing case law (which was taken into consideration in deciding Matter of A-R-C-G-), and added non-binding dicta, i.e. his statement that “generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence…will not qualify for asylum.” (Note the use of the pejorative “aliens” to describe individuals applying for asylum.)
Furthermore, most of the items covered by Sessions involved questions of fact (which are specifically dependent on the evidence in the individual case, and which the BIA and AG have very limited ability to reverse on appeal) as opposed to questions of law, which can be considered de novo on appeal and have more general applicability. The questions of fact raised by Sessions include whether the persecutor was aware of the existence of the group and was motivated to harm the victim on account of such membership; whether the society in question recognizes the social group with sufficient distinction; whether the authorities in the home country are unable or unwilling to protect the victim, and whether the victim could reasonably relocate to another part of the country to avoid the feared harm.
So in summary, Sessions felt that the Board’s decision in Matter of A-R-C-G- did not provide a sufficiently detailed legal analysis, therefore vacated it, and laid out all of the legal analysis that future decisions must address. Domestic violence and gang violence claims still remain very much grantable, provided that all of the requirements laid out by the Attorney General are satisfied. Hearings on these cases may now take much longer, as testimony will need to be more detailed, additional social groups will need to be proposed and ruled on, more experts must be called, and more documents considered. But nothing in A-B- prevents these cases from continuing to be granted.
Therefore, how discouraging that the first decision of the BIA to apply this criteria failed to do what is now required of them. A single Board Member’s unpublished decision issued shortly after A-B-’s publication did not engage in the detailed legal analysis that is now warranted in domestic violence cases. Instead, the decision noted that the case involved a social group “akin to the group defined in Matter of A-R-C-G-.” The Board then found that the AG’s decision in A-B- “has foreclosed the respondent’s arguments,” because “the Attorney General overruled Matter of A-R-C-G- and held that it was wrongly decided.”
What is particularly dispiriting is that the decision was authored by Board Member Linda Wendtland. A former OIL attorney whose views are more conservative than my own, I have always respected her scholarly approach and her intellectual honesty. At the BIA, staff attorneys draft the decisions which the Board Members then edit. Judge Wendtland always took the time to write her edits as academic lessons from which I always learned something. She recently authored the lone dissenting opinion in a case involving a determination of whether a women was barred from relief for having provided material support to terrorists; Judge Wendtland correctly determined that the cooking and cleaning that the woman was forced to perform after having been kidnapped by rebels did not constitute “material support.” It is therefore perplexing why she would sign the post-A-B- decision that so sorely lacked her usual degree of analysis.
In addition to the BIA, on July 11, both USCIS and ICE issued guidance on applying A-B- to asylum adjudications. Much like the BIA decision, the USCIS guidelines to its asylum officers, which serve as guidance not only in adjudicating asylum applications, but also for making credible fear determinations, seem to apply the personal opinion of Sessions rather than the actual legal holdings of his decision. USCIS decided to print in boldface Sessions’ nonbinding dicta that such cases will generally not establish eligibility for asylum, refugee status, or credible or reasonable fear of persecution.
Credible fear interviews are conducted right after an asylum seeker arrives in this country, while they are detained, scared, often unrepresented by counsel, before having a chance to understand the law or gather documents or witnesses. The interviewer is supposed to find credible fear if there is a significant possibility that the applicant will be able to establish eligibility for relief at a future hearing before an immigration judge. It is likely that, at such future hearing, the applicant will have an attorney who will make the proper legal arguments, call expert witnesses, formulate the particular social group according to the requirements of case law, submit other supporting evidence, etc. But now asylum officers are being instructed to ignore all of that and deny individuals the chance to even have the opportunity to apply for asylum before an immigration judge essentially because Jeff Sessions doesn’t believe these are worthy cases.
ICE (through its Office of the Public Legal Advisor) has issued guidance that, while probably reflecting internal conflict within the bureau, is nevertheless somewhat more reasonable than the interpretations of either USCIS or the Board. The ICE guidance does ask its attorneys to hold asylum applicants to some exacting legal standards, to look for flaws in supporting evidence, and to question asylum applicants in great detail. It also asks its attorneys not to opine on whether gender alone may constitute a PSG until further guidance is offered (again, probably reflecting internal conflict within the bureau on the issue). But the guidance does not simply conclude that all domestic violence and gang violence cases should be denied. It even encourages attorneys to employ a “collaborative approach” by pointing out flawed social groups offered by pro se applicants in the hope that the IJ might help the applicant remedy the situation early on.
However, let’s remember that ICE stipulated to grants of asylum for victims of domestic violence in both Matter of R-A- (during the Bush administration, and to the consternation of then Attorney General John Ashcroft), and in Matter of A-R-C-G-. ICE argued in its brief to Sessions in Matter of A-B- that Matter of A-R-C-G- was good law and should not be vacated. So then shouldn’t ICE be applying these same principles to its guidance to attorneys?
It should also be noted that ICE and USCIS could see a way to granting worthy cases in spite of Sessions’ decision. In the early 1990s, then INS General Counsel Grover Joseph Rees III took exception with the BIA’s precedent decision holding that forcible abortions and sterilization under China’s family planning policies did not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground. Rees instructed his attorneys to seek to remand cases involving such claim to the INS Asylum Office, where per his instructions, such claims were granted affirmatively by asylum officers. There is no reason that a similar practice could not be employed now, particularly as both ICE and USCIS are not part of the Department of Justice and therefore are not controlled by Sessions. The only thing lacking is the political will to take such a stand. In the early 1990s, Rees’s stance involving abortion played to the Bush Administration’s political base. Today, ICE and USCIS would have to take action contrary to the wishes of that same base because doing so is the just and humane thing to do. Unfortunately, based on the tone of their recent advisals, doing the right thing is not enough of a motive in the present political climate.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
IN LATE June, Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, assured migrant parents whose children had been snatched away by U.S. border officials that there was “no reason” they could not find their toddlers, tweeners and teenagers. Then it turned out that Mr. Azar’s department, which is in charge of the children’s placements and welfare, doesn’t have a firm idea of how many of those children it has under its purview. Or where all their parents are (or even whether they remain in custody). Or how parents and children might find each other, or be rejoined.
On Thursday Mr. Azar was back with more rosy assurances, this time that the government would meet a court-imposed deadline to reunite those children with their parents — by Tuesday in the case of 100 or so kids under the age of 5, and by July 26 for older minors. A day later it turned out the government was begging the court for more time.
Mr. Azar blamed the judiciary for setting what he called an “extreme” deadline to reunify families. Yet as details emerged of the chaotic scramble undertaken by Trump administration officials to reunify families, it is apparent that what is really “extreme” is the government’s bungling in the handling of separated families — a classic example of radical estrangement between the bureaucracy’s left and right hands.
A jaw-dropping report in the New York Times detailed how officials at U.S. Customs and Border Protection deleted records that would have enabled officials to connect parents with the children that had been removed from them. No apparent malice impelled their decision; rather, it was an act of administrative convenience, or incompetence, that led them to believe that, since parents and children were separated, they should be assigned separate case file numbers — with nothing to connect them.
The result is Third World-style government dysfunction that combines the original sin of an unspeakably cruel policy with the follow-on ineptitude of uncoordinated agencies unable to foresee the predictable consequences of their decisions — in this case, the inevitability that children and parents, once sundered, would need at some point to be reconnected.
Now, faced with the deadline for reuniting parents and children set June 26 by Judge Dana Sabraw of U.S. District Court in San Diego, hundreds of government employees were set to work through the weekend poring over records to fix what the Trump administration broke by its sudden and heedless proclamation in May of “zero tolerance” for undocumented immigrants, and the family separations that immediately followed.
Mr. Azar, following the White House’s lead, insisted any “confusion” was the fault of the courts and a “broken immigration system.” In fact, the confusion was entirely of the administration’s own making. The secretary expressed concern in the event officials lacked time to vet the adults to whom it would turn over children. Yet there was no such concern about the children’s welfare, nor the lasting psychological harm they would suffer, when the government callously tore them away from their parents.
****************************************
Is this really happening in the United States of America in 2018? Are racist-inspired, cruel, human rights atrocities how we want to be remembered as a nation at this point in our history? Did we learn nothing from the death of Dr. King and seemingly (but apparently not really) moving by the “Jim Crow Era?” What excuse could we possibly have for allowing 21st Century “Jim Crows” like Trump, Sessions, & Miller to run our country when we should know better?
It’s interesting and somewhat satisfying to see that the “mainstream media” are now picking up the descriptive terms for the Trump Administration and their overt racism, unnecessary cruelty, and incompetence that “bloggers” like Jason Dzubow (“The Asylumist”), Hon. Jeffrey Chase (jeffreyschase.com), and me have been using for some time now!
The most important task right now: Hold this cruel, racist, and irresponsible Administration accountable for the unconscionable mess they have manufactured!
Don’t let them blame the victims!
Don’t let them blame the courts!
Don’t let them blame asylum laws!
Don’t let them blame lawyers!
Don’t let them blame Democrats!
Don’t let them blame Obama!
Don’t let them blame International Treaties!
Hold the Trump Administration & Its Minions Fully Accountable For Their Actions!
An attorney recently reported the following: at a Master Calendar hearing, an immigration judge advised that if on the Individual Hearing date, both the court and the ICE attorney do not believe the respondent is prima facie eligible for asylum based on the written submissions, the judge will deny asylum summarily without hearing testimony. The judge stated that other immigration judges around the country were already entering such summary judgments, in light of recent decisions of the Attorney General.
I have been telling reporters lately that no one decision or policy of the AG, the EOIR Director, or the BIA should be viewed in isolation. Rather, all are pieces in a puzzle. Back in March, in a very unusual decision, Jeff Sessions certified to himself a four-year-old BIA precedent decision while it was administratively closed (and therefore off-calendar) at the immigration judge level, and then vacated the decision for the most convoluted of reasons. What jumped out at me was the fact that the decision, Matter of E-F-H-L-, had held that all asylum applicants had the right to a full hearing on their application without first having to establish prima facie eligibility for such relief. It was pretty clear that Sessions wanted this requirement eliminated.
Let’s look at the timeline of recent developments. On January 4 of this year, Sessions certified to himself the case of Matter of Castro-Tum, in which he asked whether immigration judges and the BIA should continue to have the right to administratively close cases, a useful and common docket management tool. On January 19, the BIA published its decision in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, in which it required asylum applicants to clearly delineate their claimed particular social group before the immigration judge (an extremely complicated task beyond the ability of most unrepresented applicants), and stated that the BIA will not consider reformulations of the social group on appeal. The decision was written by Board Member Garry Malphrus, a hard-line Republican who was a participant in the “Brooks Brother Riot” that disrupted the Florida ballot recount following the 2000 Presidential election.
On March 5, Sessions vacated Matter of E-F-H-L-. Two days later, on March 7, Sessions certified to himself an immigration judge’s decision in Matter of A-B-, engaging in procedural irregularity in taking the case from the BIA before it could rule on the matter, and then completely transforming the issues presented in the case, suddenly challenging whether anyone fearing private criminal actors could qualify for asylum.
On March 22, Sessions certified to himself Matter of L-A-B-R-et al., to determine under what circumstances immigration judges may grant continuances to respondents in removal proceedings. Although this decision is still pending, immigration judges are already having to defend their decisions to grant continuances to their supervisors at the instigation of the EOIR Director’s Office, which is tracking all IJ continuances.
On March 30, EOIR issued a memo stating that immigration judges would be subjected to performance metrics, or quotas, requiring them to complete 700 cases per year, 95 percent at the first scheduled individual hearing, and further requiring that no more than 15 percent of their decisions be remanded. On May 17, Sessions decided Castro-Tum in the negative, stripping judges of the ability to manage their own dockets by administratively closing worthy cases.
On May 31, Castro-Tum’s case was on the Master Calendar of Immigration Judge Steven Morley. Instead of ordering Castro-Tum deported in absentia that day, the judge continued the proceedings to allow an interested attorney to brief him on the issue of whether Castro-Tum received proper notice of the hearing. Soon thereafter, the case was removed from Judge Morley’s docket and reassigned to a management-level immigration judge who is far less likely to exercise such judicial independence.
On June 11, Sessions decided Matter of A-B-, vacating the BIA’s 2014 decision recognizing the ability of victims of domestic violence to qualify for asylum as members of a particular social group. In that decision, Sessions included headnote 4: “If an asylum application is fatally flawed in one respect, an immigration judge or the Board need not examine the remaining elements of the asylum claim.” The case was intentionally issued on the first day of the Immigration Judges training conference, at which the need to complete more cases in less time was a repeatedly emphasized.
So in summary, within the past few months, the immigration judges have been warned that their livelihood will depend on their completing large numbers of cases, without the ability to grant continuances or administratively close cases. They have had the need to hold a full asylum hearing stripped away, while at the same time, having pointed out to them several ways to quickly dispose of an asylum claim that until weeks ago, would have been clearly grantable under settled case law.
So where does all this leave the individual judges? There has been much discussion lately of EOIR’s improper politicized hirings of immigration judges. I feel that the above developments have created something of a Rorschach test for determining an immigration judge’s ideology.
The judges that conclude from the above the best practice is to summarily deny asylum without testimony are exactly the type of judges the present administration wants on the bench. They can find a “fatal flaw” in the claim – either in the formulation (or lack thereof) of the particular social group, or in the lack of preliminary documentation as to the persecutor’s motive, the government’s inability to protect, or the unreasonableness of internal relocation, and simply deny the right to a hearing. It should be noted that these issues are often resolved by the detailed testimony offered at a full merits hearing, which is the purpose of holding such hearings in the first place.
On the other hand, more thoughtful, liberal judges will find that in light of the above developments, they must afford more time for asylum claims based on domestic violence, gang threats, or other claims involving non-governmental actors. They will conference these cases, and hear detailed testimony from the respondent, country experts, and other witnesses on the particular points raised by Sessions in Matter of A-B-. They may consider alternative theories of these cases based on political opinion or religion. They are likely to take the time to craft thoughtful, detailed decisions. And in doing so, they will find it extremely difficult to meet the completion quotas set out by the agency with Sessions’ blessing. They may also have their decisions remanded by the conservative BIA, whose leadership is particularly fearful of angering its superiors in light of the 2003 purge of liberal BIA members by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. The removal of Castro-Tum’s case from the docket of Judge Morley is clearly a warning that the agency does not wish for judges to behave as independent and impartial adjudicators, but rather to act in lockstep with the agency’s enforcement agenda.
There is another very significant issue: most asylum claims also apply for protection under Article III of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Unlike asylum, “CAT” relief is mandatory, and as it does not require a nexus to a protected ground, it is unaffected by the AG’s holding in A-B-. So won’t those judges pondering summary dismissal still have to hold full hearings on CAT protection? It would seem that a refusal to hold a full CAT hearing would result in a remand, if not from the BIA, than at the circuit court level.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Four Easy, Low Budget, Steps To A Better, Fairer, & More Efficient U.S. Immigration Court System:
Remove Jeff Sessions and all other politicos from control.
Restore Immigration Judges’ authority to “administratively close” cases when necessary to get them off the docket so that relief can be pursued outside the Immigration Court system.
Give Immigration Judges authority to set and control their own dockets, working with Court Administrators and attorneys from both sides (rather than having DHS enforcement policies essentially “drive the docket” as is now the case) to:
Schedule cases in a manner that insures fair and reasonable access to pro bono counsel for everyone prior to the first Master Calendar;
Schedule cases so that pleadings can be taken and applications filed at the first Master Calendar (or the first Master Calendar after representation is obtained);
Schedule Individual Hearings in a manner that will maximize the chances of “completion at the first Individual Hearing” while minimizing “resets” of Individual Hearing cases.
Establish a Merit Selection hiring system for Immigration Judges overseen by the U.S. Circuit Court in the jurisdiction where that Immigration Judge would sit, or in the case of the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, by the U.S. Supreme Court.
No, it wouldn’t overnight eliminate the backlog (which has grown up over many years of horrible mismanagement by the DOJ under Administrations of both parties). But, it certainly would give the Immigration Courts a much better chance of reducing the backlog in a fair manner over time.Just that, as opposed to the Trump Administration’s “maximize unfairness, minimize Due Process, maximize backlogs, shift blame, waste money and resources”policies would be a huge improvement at no additional costs over what it now takes to run a system “designed, built, and operated to fail.”
Those looking for legal analysis should read no further. The following is a cry from the heart.
The respondent’s personal nightmare began the year after her marriage. For the next 15 years, she was subjected to relentless physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
It is most apt that Donald Trump became president by beating a woman. His campaign historically provoked millions to march in angry protest of his denigration of women on his first full day in office.
“The violence inflicted on [her] took many forms. Her husband beat her repeatedly, bashing her against the wall and kicking her, including while she was pregnant. He raped her on countless occasions.”
On Monday, Trump’s Attorney General announced that women who are victims of domestic violence should no longer be deemed to merit protection from our government in the form of political asylum.
Sessions’ action was shockingly tone deaf. As the wonderful Rebecca Solnit wrote in her 2013 essay “The Longest War:” “We have an abundance of rape and violence against women in this country and on this Earth, though it’s almost never treated as a civil rights or human rights issue, or a crisis, or even a pattern. Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion, or a nationality, but it does have a gender.” The year after Solnit wrote those words, our Department of Justice took a step in the right direction. In recognizing domestic violence as a basis for asylum, our government was finally recognizing such gender-based abuse as a human rights issue, at least in the limited forum of immigration law.
“He also frequently threatened to kill her, at times holding a knife to her neck, and at other times brandishing a gun or, while she was pregnant, threatening to hang her from the ceiling by a rope.” The above were supported by sworn statements provided by the respondents’ neighbors.
It is only very recently that our society has begun to hold accountable those who commit gender-based abuses against women. #MeToo is a true civil rights movement, one that is so very long overdue. In opposing such movement, Jeff Sessions is casting himself as a modern day George Wallace. It bears repeating that no one, no one, was challenging the settled precedent that victims of domestic violence may be granted asylum as members of a particular social group. When the precedent case was before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Department of Homeland Security, i.e. the enforcement agency prosecuting the case, filed a brief in which it conceded that the group consisting of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” satisfied all of the legal criteria, and was therefore a proper particular social group under the law. No one has appealed or challenged that determination in the four years since. Who is Jeff Sessions, who has never practiced immigration law in his life, to just toss out such determination because he and only he disagrees?
The respondent’s “husband controlled, humiliated, and isolated her from others. He insulted her ‘constantly,’ calling her a ‘slut’ or ‘dog.’ He did not want her to work outside the house and believed ‘a woman’s place was in the home like a servant.’ When he came home in the middle of the night, he forced her out of bed to serve him food, saying things like ‘Bitch, feed me.”
Like Wallace before him, who in 1963 stood in front of the door of the University of Alabama trying in vain to block the entry of four black students, Sessions is trying to block a national movement whose time has come. As with Wallace and the Civil Rights Movement, justice will eventually prevail. But now as then, people deserving of his protection will die in the interim.
“Although [her] husband frequently slept with other women, he falsely accused her of infidelity, at times removing her undergarments to inspect her genitals. He also beat their children in front of her, causing her serious psychological damage.”
The AG’s decision was intentionally released during the first day of the Immigration Judges’ Training Conference. There have been ideological-based appointments of immigration judges under both the Trump and Bush administrations. Several persons present at the conference reported that when the decision was announced, some immigration judges cheered. It was definitely a minority; the majority of immigration judges are very decent, caring people. But it was more than a few; one of my sources described it as “many,” another as “a noteworthy minority.”
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?
The respondent “believes her life will be in danger” if returned to her country, “where her ex-husband, supported by his police officer brother, has vowed to kill her. She does not believe there is anywhere” in her country “she could find safety.
Victims of domestic violence will continue to file applications for asylum. They will argue before immigration judges that their claims meet the legal criteria even under the AG’s recent decision. Unfortunately, some of those applicants will have their cases heard by immigration judges who, when they heard that the woman whose claim was described in the italicized sections was denied asylum by Jeff Sessions, and will now likely be deported to suffer more such abuse or death, cheered.
The sections in italics are the facts of the asylum-seeker in Matter of A-B-, (including quotes from her appeal brief) who was denied asylum on Monday by Jeff Sessions.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
“Group Leader” Hon. Jeffrey Chase forwards these items:
Samantha Schmidt (long-lost “Cousin Sam?” sadly, no, but I’d be happy to consider her an honorary member of the “Wauwatosa Branch” of the Wisconsin Schmidt Clan) writes for the Washington Post:
Aminta Cifuentes suffered weekly beatings at the hands of her husband. He broke her nose, burned her with paint thinner and raped her.
She called the police in her native Guatemala several times but was told they could not interfere in a domestic matter, according to a court ruling. When Cifuentes’s husband hit her in the head, leaving her bloody, police came to the home but refused to arrest him. He threatened to kill her if she called authorities again.
So in 2005, Cifuentes fled to the United States. “If I had stayed there, he would have killed me,” she told the Arizona Republic.
And after nearly a decade of waiting on an appeal, Cifuentes was granted asylum. The 2014 landmark decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals set the precedent that women fleeing domestic violence were eligible to apply for asylum. It established clarity in a long-running debate over whether asylum can be granted on the basis of violence perpetrated in the “private” sphere, according to Karen Musalo, director for the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.
But on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned the precedent set in Cifuentes’s case, deciding that victims of domestic abuse and gang violence generally will not qualify for asylum under federal law. (Unlike the federal courts established under Article III of the Constitution, the immigration court system is part of the Justice Department.)
For critics, including former immigration judges, the unilateral decision undoes decades of carefully deliberated legal progress. For gender studies experts, such as Musalo, the move “basically throws us back to the Dark Ages, when we didn’t recognize that women’s rights were human rights.”
“If we say in the year 2018 that a woman has been beaten almost to death in a country that accepts that as almost the norm, and that we as a civilized society can deny her protection and send her to her death?” Musalo said. “I don’t see this as just an immigration issue … I see this as a women’s rights issue.”
. . . .
A group of 15 retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals wrote a letter in response to Sessions’s decision, calling it an “affront to the rule of law.”
The Cifuentes case, they wrote, “was the culmination of a 15 year process” through the immigration courts and Board of Immigration Appeals. The issue was certified by three attorneys general, one Democrat and two Republican. The private bar and law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, agreed with the final determination, the former judges wrote. The decision was also supported by asylum protections under international refugee treaties, they said.
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the former judges wrote.
Courts and attorneys general have debated the definition of a “particular social group” since the mid-1990s, according to Musalo.
“It took the refugee area a while to catch up with the human rights area of law,” Musalo said.
A series of cases led up to the Cifuentes decision. In 1996, the Board of Immigration Appeals established that women fleeing gender-based persecution could be eligible for asylum in the United States. The case, known as Matter of Kasinga, centered on a teenager who fled her home in Togo to escape female genital cutting and a forced polygamous marriage. Musalo was lead attorney in the case, which held that fear of female genital cutting could be used as a basis for asylum.
“Fundamentally the principle was the same,” as the one at stake in Sessions’s ruling, Musalo said. Female genital cutting, like domestic violence in the broader sense, generally takes place in the “private” sphere, inflicted behind closed doors by relatives of victims.
Musalo also represented Rody Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who fled extreme domestic abuse and, in 2009, won an important asylum case after a 14-year legal fight. Her victory broke ground for other women seeking asylum on the basis of domestic violence.
Then, after years of incremental decisions, the Board of Immigration Appeals published its first precedent-setting opinion in the 2014 Cifuentes case, known as Matter of A-R-C-G.
“I actually thought that finally we had made some progress,” Musalo said. Although the impact wasn’t quite as pronounced as many experts had hoped, it was a step for women fleeing gender-based violence in Latin America and other parts of the world.
Now, Musalo says, Sessions is trying to undo all that and is doing so at a particularly monumental time for gender equality in the United States and worldwide.
“We’ve gone too far in society with the MeToo movement and all of the other advances in women’s rights to accept this principle,” Musalo said.
“It shows that there are these deeply entrenched attitudes toward gender and gender equality,” she added. “There are always those forces that are sort of the dying gasp of wanting to hold on to the way things were.”
. . . .
Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired immigration judge and former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, wrote on his blog that Sessions sought to encourage immigration judges to “just find a way to say no as quickly as possible.” (Schmidt authored the decision in the Kasinga case extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation.)
Sessions’s ruling is “likely to speed up the ‘deportation railway,’ ” Schmidt wrote. But it will also encourage immigration judges to “cut corners, and avoid having to analyze the entire case,” he argued.
“Sessions is likely to end up with sloppy work and lots of Circuit Court remands for ‘do overs,’ ” Schmidt wrote. “At a minimum, that’s going to add to the already out of control Immigration Court backlog.”
Picking on our most vulnerable and denying them hard-earned legal protections that had been gained incrementally over the years. Certainly, can’t get much lower than that!
Whether you agree with Sessions’s reasoning or not, nobody should cheer or minimize the misfortune of others as Sessions does! The only difference between Sessions or any Immigration Judge and a refugee applicant is luck. Not merit! I’ve met many refugees, and never found one who wanted to be a refugee or even thought they would have to become a refugee.
An Attorney General who lacks fundamental integrity, human values, and empathy does not belong at the head of this important judicial system.
In my career, I’ve probably had to return or sign off on returning more individuals to countries where they didn’t want to go than anybody involved in the current debate. Some were good guys we just couldn’t fit into a badly flawed and overly restrictive system; a few were bad guys who deserved to go; some, in between. But, I never gloried in, celebrated, or minimized anyone’s suffering, removal, or misfortune. Different views are one thing; overt bias and lack of empathy is another.
Advocates and many judges say that the decision is extraordinary, not only because the attorney general took steps to overrule the court’s’ prior rulings, but because the decision that victims of certain kinds of violence can qualify for asylum has been previously reviewed over the course of decades.
A group of 15 former immigration judges signed a letter on June 11 calling the decision “an affront to the rule of law.” They point out that the decision Sessions overturned, a precedent cited in the “Matter of A-B-” decision that he was reviewing, had been certified by three attorney generals before him: one Democrat and two Republicans.
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the letter says. “Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them.”
In his decision, Sessions said “private criminal activity,” specifically being a victim of domestic violence, does not qualify migrants for asylum. Rather, victims have to show each time that they are part of some distinct social group (a category in international and US law that allows people to qualify for refugee status) and were harmed because they are part of that group — and not for “personal reasons.”
Sessions said US law “does not provide redress for all misfortune. It applies when persecution arises on the account of membership in a protected group and the victim may not find protection except by taking refuge in another country.”
“Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-government actors will not qualify for asylum,” the decision reads. In a footnote, he also says that few of these cases would merit even being heard by judges in the first place because they would not pass the threshold of “credible fear.”
But attorney Karen Musalo says every case has to be decided individually. Muslao is the director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the UC Hastings College of the Law and has been representing women in immigration hearings for decades. She is concerned that some asylum officers will see this decision as a directive to turn people away from seeing a judge. “That’s patently wrong,” she says.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that conducts initial screenings for asylum cases (known as “credible fear interviews”) did not respond to a request for information about how the decision might change the work they do.
Musalo’s is among the attorneys representing A-B-, a Salvadoran woman identified only by her initials in court filings, whose case Sessions reviewed. Her center was part of a group that submitted a brief of over 700 pages in the case; that brief was not cited in Sessions’ decision. The brief reviewed impunity in El Salvador, for example, for those who commit violence against women and also had specific evidence about A-B- and how local police failed to protect her from domestic violence.
“What’s surprising is how deficient and flawed his understanding of the law and his reasoning is. The way he pronounces how certain concepts in refugee law should be understood and interpreted is sort of breath-taking,” says Musalo. “He was reaching for a result, so he was willing to distort legal principles and ignored the facts.”
To Musalo, this case is about more than asylum, though. She says it’s a surprising, damaging twist in the broader #MeToo movement. Sessions is “trying to turn back the clock on how we conceptualize protections for women and other individual,” she says. “In the bigger picture of ending violence against women, that’s just not an acceptable position for our country to take and we’re going to do everything we can to reverse that.”
That includes monitoring cases in the system now and making appeals in federal courts, which could overturn Sessions’ decision. Congress, Musalo says, could also take action.
Because Sessions controls the immigration courts, which are administrative courts that are part of the Department of Justice rather than part of the judiciary branch, immigration judges will have to follow his precedent in determining who qualifies for asylum. District court and other federal judges
Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said she was troubled by Sessions’ lack of explanation for why he intervened in this particular case.
The attorney general’s ability to “exercise veto power in our decision-making is an indication of why the court needs true independence” from the Justice Department, Tabaddor told the New York Times.
Immigration judge Dana Leigh Marks, the immigration judges association past president, says the group has been advocating for such independence for years.
“We have a political boss. The attorney general is our boss and political considerations allow him, under the current structure, to take certain cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals and to choose to rule on those cases in order to set policy and precedent,” she says. “Our organization for years has been arguing that … there’s a major flaw in this structure, that immigration courts are places where life and death cases are being heard.”
Therefore, she adds, they should be structured “like a traditional court.”
Sessions’ decision will have immediate implications for domestic violence victims currently seeking asylum in the US.
Naomi, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym because her case is pending in New York, is from Honduras. Her former boyfriend there threw hot oil at her, but hit her 4-year-old son instead. The boyfriend threatened them with a gun — she fled, ultimately coming to the US where she has some family. She told us that she tried to get the police to help, but they wouldn’t.
Naomi’s attorney, Heather Axford with Central American Legal Assistance in Brooklyn, said they might need to try a new argument to keep her client in the US.
“We need to come up with new ways to define a particular social group, we need to explore the possibility of when the facts lend themselves to a political opinion claim, and we need to make claims under the Convention Against Torture,” she told WNYC Monday. The US signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994.
Mary Hansel, deputy director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, says the Sessions decision goes against US human rights obligations.
“An evolving body of international legal authorities indicates that a state’s failure to protect individuals (whether citizens or asylum seekers) from domestic violence may actually amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” Hansel writes in an email to PRI. In international human rights law, states need to protect individuals from harm. “Essentially, when women are forced to endure domestic violence without adequate redress, states are on the hook for allowing this to happen,”
Naomi’s story is horrific, but it is not unusual for women desperate to escape these situations to flee to the US. Many of these women had a high bar for winning an asylum case to begin with. They have to provide evidence that they were persecuted and documents to support their case. Sometimes, lawyers call expert witnesses to explain what is happening in their country of origin. Language barriers, lack of access to lawyers, contending with trauma and often being in detention during proceedings also contribute to making their cases exceptionally difficult.
Sessions’ decision will make it even harder.
In justifying tighter standards, Sessions often claims that there is fraud in the system and that asylum seekers have an easy time arguing their cases.
“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” Sessions told Phoenix radio station KTAR in May. “Well, that’s obviously false, but some judges have gone along with that.”
The Trump administration has taken several steps to clear the 700,000 cases pending in immigration court. At the end of May, Sessions instituted a quota system for immigration judges, requiring them to decide 700 cases each year and have fewer than 15 percent of cases be overturned on appeal.
Marks told NPR that the quota could hurt judicial independence. “The last thing on a judge’s mind should be pressure that you’re disappointing your boss or, even worse, risking discipline because you are not working fast enough,” she said.
According to TRAC, the courts decided more than 30,000 cases in the 2017 fiscal year compared to about 22,000 in 2016. Some 61.8 percent of these cases were denied; the agency does not report how many of the claims were due to domestic or gang violence, or for other reasons. For people from Central America, the denial rate is 75 to 80 percent. Ninety percent of those who don’t have attorneys lose their cases.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Sessions’ overturned a decision in the “Matter of A-B-.”
**************************************
Here’s another one from Bea Bischoff at Slate:
How the attorney general is abusing a rarely used provision to rewrite legal precedent.
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Alex Wong/Getty Images, Library of Congress.
On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a group of immigration judges that while they are responsible for “ensur[ing] that our immigration system operates in a manner that is consistent with the laws,” Congress alone is responsible for rewriting those laws. Sessions then announced that he would be issuing a unilateral decision regarding asylum cases later in the day, a decision he told the judges would “provide more clarity” and help them “rule consistently and fairly.” The decision in Matter of A-B-, which came down shortly after his remarks, reverses asylum protections for victims of domestic violence and other persecution.
During his speech Sessions framed his decision in Matter of A-B- as a “correct interpretation of the law” that “advances the original intent” of our immigration statute. As a matter of law, Sessions’ decision is disturbing. It’s also alarming that this case ended up in front of the attorney general to begin with. Sessions is abusing a rarely used provision to rewrite our immigration laws—a function the attorney general himself said should be reserved for Congress. His zealous self-referral of immigration cases has been devastatingly effective. Sessions is quietly gutting immigration law, and there’s nothing stopping him from continuing to use this loophole to implement more vindictive changes.
Normally, an immigration judge is the first to hear and decide an immigration case. If the case is appealed, it goes in front of the Board of Immigration Appeals before being heard by a federal circuit court. In a peculiarity of immigration law, however, the attorney general is permitted to pluck cases straight from the Board of Immigration Appeals for personal review and adjudication. Sessions, who was famously denied a federal judgeship in 1986 because of accusations that he’d made racist comments, now seems to be indulging a lingering judicial fantasy by exploiting this provision to the fullest. Since January 2018, Sessions has referred four immigration cases to himself for adjudication, putting him on track to be one of the most prolific users of the self-referral provision since 1956, when attorneys general stopped regularly reviewing and affirming BIA cases. By comparison, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch certified a total four cases between them during the Obama administration.
Sessions is not using these cases to resolve novel legal issues or to ease the workload of DHS attorneys or immigration judges. Instead, he is using the self-referral mechanism to adjudicate cases that have the most potential to limit the number of people granted legal status in the United States, and he’s disregarding the procedural requirements set up to control immigration appeals in the process.
A close look at the Matter of A-B- case shows exactly how far out of bounds Sessions is willing to go. Matter of A-B- began when Ms. A-B- arrived in the United States from El Salvador seeking asylum. Ms. A-B- had been the victim of extreme brutality at the hands of her husband in El Salvador, including violent attacks and threats on her life. The local police did nothing to protect her. When it became clear it was only a matter of time before her husband tried to hurt her again, Ms. A-B- fled to the United States. Upon her arrival at the U.S. border, Ms. A-B- was detained in Charlotte, North Carolina. Her asylum case was set to be heard by Judge Stuart Couch, a notoriously asylum-averse judge who is especially resentful of claims based on domestic violence.
During her trial, Ms. A-B- testified about the persecution she’d faced at the hands of her husband and provided additional evidence to corroborate her claims. Despite the extensive evidence, Judge Couch found Ms. A-B-’s story was not credible and rejected her asylum claim. Ms. A-B- then appealed her case to the BIA. There, the board unanimously found that Ms. A-B-’s testimony was in fact credible and that she met the requirements for asylum. Per their protocol, the BIA did not grant Ms. A-B- asylum itself but rather sent the case back down to Judge Couch, who was tasked with performing the required background checks on Ms. A-B- and then issuing a grant of asylum in accordance with their decision.
Judge Couch, however, did not issue Ms. A-B- a grant of asylum, even after the Department of Homeland Security completed her background checks. Instead, he improperly tried to send the case back to the BIA without issuing a new decision, apparently because he was personally unconvinced of the “legal validity” of asylum claims based on domestic violence. Before the BIA touched the case again, Attorney General Sessions decided he ought to adjudicate it himself.
Sessions trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerablewomen.
After taking the case, Sessions asked for amicus briefs on the question of “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum.” The question of whether private criminal activity like domestic violence can in some instances lead to a grant of asylum had not been at issue in Matter of A-B-. The issue raised in Ms. A-B-’s case was whether her claims were credible, not whether asylum was available for victims of private criminal activity. In fact, persecution at the hand of a private actor who the government cannot or will not control is contemplated in the asylum statute itself and has been recognized as a grounds for asylum for decades. The question of whether domestic violence could sometimes warrant asylum also appeared to be firmly settled in a 2014 case known as Matter of A-R-C-G-.
The question the attorney general was seeking to answer was actually so settled that the Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for prosecuting immigration cases, submitted a timid brief to Sessions politely suggesting that he reconsider his decision to take on this case. “This matter does not appear to be in the best posture for the Attorney General’s review,” its brief argued, before outright acknowledging that the question of whether private criminal activity can form the basis of an asylum claim had already been clearly answered by the BIA. The attorney general, despite his alleged desire to simplify the jobs of immigration prosecutors and judges, ignored DHS’s concerns and denied the agency’s motion. “[BIA] precedent,” Sessions wrote in his denial, “does not bind my ultimate decision in this matter.” Sessions, in short, was going to rewrite asylum law whether DHS liked it or not.
Sessions not only ignored DHS concerns about the case but, as 16 former immigration judges pointed out in their amicus brief, trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerable women. First, he failed to require Couch, the original presiding judge, to make a final decision before sending the case back to the BIA. The regulations controlling immigration appeals allow an immigration judge to send a case to the BIA only after a decision has been issued by the original judge. Next, Sessions failed to wait for the BIA to adjudicate the case before snapping it up for his personal analysis. Even if Judge Couch hadn’t improperly sent the case back to the BIA, Sessions was obligated to wait for the BIA to decide the case before intervening. The self-referral provision permits the attorney general to review BIA decisions, not cases that are merely awaiting adjudication.
Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the question Sessions sought to answer in this case, namely “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum” was not a question considered by any court in Matter of A-B-. Rather, it was one Sessions seemingly lifted directly from hardline immigration restrictionists, knowing that the answer had the potential to all but eliminate domestic violence–based asylum claims.
On June 11, after receiving 11 amicus briefs in support of asylum-seekers like Ms. A-B- and only one against, the attorney general ruled that private activity is not grounds for asylum, including in cases of domestic violence. Ms. A-B-’s case, in Sessions’ hands, became a vehicle by which to rewrite our asylum laws without waiting on Congress.
The attorney general’s other self-referred decisions are likewise plagued by questionable procedure. In Matter of E-F-H-L-, Sessions seized on a case from 2014 as an opportunity undo the longstanding requirement that asylum applicants be given the opportunity for a hearing. Like in Matter of A-B-, Sessions did procedural somersaults to insert himself into Matter of E-F-H-L-, using a recent decision by the immigration judge in the case to close the proceedings without deciding the asylum claim as grounds to toss out the original BIA ruling on the right to a hearing. Without so much as a single phone call to Congress, Sessions effectively rescinded the requirement that asylum seekers are entitled to full hearings. He also mandated that the judge reopen Mr. E-F-H-L-’s case years after he thought he was safe from deportation.
In Matter of Castro-Tum, a case Sessions referred to himself in January, he used his powers to make life more difficult for both immigrants and immigration judges by banning the use of “administrative closure” in removal proceedings. Administrative closure allowed immigration judges to choose to take cases off their dockets, indefinitely pausing removal proceedings. In Matter of Castro-Tum, Sessions made a new rule that sharply curtails the use of the practice and allows DHS prosecutors to ask that judges reschedule old closed cases. The result? The potential deportation of more than 350,000 immigrants whose cases were previously closed. In addition, judges now have so many hearings on their dockets that they are scheduling trials in 2020.
As CLINIC, an immigration advocacy group, pointed out, Sessions appeared be using his decision in Matter of Castro-Tum to improperly develop a new rule on when judges can administratively close immigration cases. Normally, such a new rule would need to go through a fraught bureaucratic process under the Administrative Procedures Act before being implemented. Instead of going through that lengthy process, however, Sessions simply decreed the new rule in his decision, bypassing all the usual procedural requirements.
The cases that Sessions has chosen to decide and the procedural leaps he’s taken to adjudicate them show that his goal is to ensure that fewer people are permitted to remain in the United States, Congress be damned. So far, his plan seems to be working. As a result of Sessions’ decision in Matter of A-B-, thousands of women—including many of the women who are currently detained after having their children torn from their arms at our border—will be shut out of asylum proceedings and deported to their countries of origin to await death at the hands of their abusers.
While Sessions’ decisions trump BIA precedent, they do not override precedent set by the federal circuit courts on immigration matters, much of which contradicts the findings he’s made in his decisions. While immigration attorneys are scrambling to protect their clients with creative new advocacy strategies, the only real way to stop Sessions’ massacre is to listen to him when he says Congress needs to fix our immigration laws. In doing so, the legislative branch could not only revise our immigration system to offer meaningful paths to legal status for those currently shut out of the system, but could eliminate the needless attorney general review provision altogether and force Sessions to keep his hands out of immigration case law.
*****************************************
Sessions’s shameless abuses of our Constitution, Due Process, fundamental fairness, the true rule of law, international standards, common morality, and basic human values are beyond astounding.
I agree with Bea that this requires a legislative solution to 1) establish once and for all that gender based asylum fits squarely within the “particular social group” definition; and 2) establish a U.S. Immigration Court that is independent of the Executive Branch.
A few problems, though:
Not going to happen while the GOP is in control of all branches of Government. They can’t even get a “no brainer” like DACA relief done. Trump and his White Nationalist brigade including Sessions are now firmly in control.
If you don’t win elections, you don’t get to set the agenda. Trump’s popularity has consistently been below 50%. Yet the majority who want to preserve American Democracy and human decency have let the minority control the agenda. If good folks aren’t motivated to vote, the country will continue its descent into the abyss.
No more Obama Administrations, at least on immigration. The Dreamer fiasco, the implosion of the Immigration Courts, and the need for gender protections to be written into asylum law were all very well-known problems when Obama and the Dems swept into office with a brief, yet significant, veto proof Congress. The legislative fix was hardly rocket science. Yet, Obama’s leadership failed, his Cabinet was somewhere between weak and incompetent on immigration, and the Dems on the Hill diddled. As a result “Dreamers” have been left to dangle in the wind — a bargaining chip for the restrictionist agenda; children are being abused on a daily basis as a matter of official policy under Sessions; women and children are being returned to death and torture; and the U.S. Immigration Courts have abandoned Due Process and are imploding in their role as a “junior Border Patrol.” Political incompetence and malfeasance have “real life consequences.” And, they aren’t pretty!
There have been some bright spots for the Dems in recent races. But, the November outcome is still totally up for grabs. If the Trump led GOP continues its stranglehold on all branches of Government, not only will children suffer and women die, but there might not be enough of American Democracy left to save by 2020.
Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement in Response to Attorney General’s Decision in Matter of A-B-.
As former Immigration Judges with decades of experience at the trial and appellate level, we consider the Attorney General’s decision an affront to the rule of law. As former judges, we understand that in order to be fair, case law must develop through a process of impartial judicial analysis applying statute, regulations, case law, and other proper sources to the facts of the case.
The life-or-death consequences facing asylum applicants makes it extremely important to keep such analysis immune from the political considerations that appointed cabinet members are subject to.
The BIA’s acknowledgment that a victim of domestic violence may qualify for asylum as a member of a
particular social group was the culmination of a 15 year process through the immigration courts and BIA. The issue was certified by three different Attorneys General (one Democrat and two Republican), who all chose in the end to leave the final determination to the immigration judges and the BIA. The private bar, law enforcement agencies (including DHS), the BIA, and the circuit courts all agreed with this final determination.
What is more, a person who suffers persecution that is perpetrated by private parties whom their government cannot or will not control, is equally eligible for asylum protection under both US law and international refugee treaties.
For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development
that was universally agreed to be correct. Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them. We hope that appellate courts or Congress through legislation will reverse this unilateral action and return the rule of law to asylum adjudications.
Sincerely,
Honorable Steven R. Abrams
Honorable Sarah M. Burr
Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase
Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn
Honorable Cecelia Espenoza
Honorable Noel Ferris
Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.
Honorable William P. Joyce
Honorable Carol King
Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb
Honorable Margaret McManus
Honorable Susan Roy
Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg
Honorable Paul W. Schmidt
Honorable Polly A. Webber
1
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)
List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members
The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.
The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.
The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.
The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003- 2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014 and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.
The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.
The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in
2
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)
immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.
The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.
The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues. The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb
Judge Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench after twenty-seven years in January 2018. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in 1973, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. Judge McManus was an attorney for Marion Ginsberg, Esquire from 1989 to 1990 in New York. She was in private practice in 1987 and 1990, also in New York. Judge McManus worked as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services from 1987 to 1988 in New York. She was an adjunct clinical law professor for City University of New York Law School from 1988 to 1989. Judge McManus served as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1983 to 1987. She is a member of the New York Bar.
The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.
The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of
was appointed as an Immigration Judge in September 1995. She received
a Bachelor of Arts degree from the College of Mt. St. Vincent in 1968, and a Juris Doctorate in 1975 from St.
John’s University. From 1983 to 1995, she was in private practice in New York. Judge Lamb also served as an
adjunct professor at Manhattan Community College from 1990 to 1992. From 1987 to 1995, Judge Lamb
served as an attorney for the Archdiocese of New York as an immigration consultant. From 1980 to 1983, she
worked as senior equal employment attorney for the St. Regis Paper Company in West Mark, New York. From
1978 to 1980, Judge Lamb served as a lawyer for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services in
New York. She is a member of the New York Bar.
3
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)
the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.
The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.
The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.
4
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)
****************************************
The AP already picked up our statement in this article:
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said the decision was “despicable and should be immediately reversed.” And 15 former immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals members signed a letter calling Sessions’ decision “an affront to the rule of law.”
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the former judges wrote. “Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them.”
******************************************
Also, I was quoted in this article by Alan Pyke posted yesterday in ThinkProgress:
The attorney general also took care to remind the judges that his decisions aren’t advice from a fellow lawyer but binding instructions from their one true boss. Though they are termed “judges” and wear robes behind a bench in court, the immigration judiciary is essentially a staff arm of the Attorney General rather than the independent arbiters that most envision when hearing their job titles.
Sessions’ frank expression of expectations was jarring to retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt. When attorneys general addressed the training conference in the past, Schmidt said, they stuck to the kind of collegial rah-rah stuff common to executives addressing underappreciated staff — but also stressed an expectation of careful, diligent, and independent professional conduct.
“I’ve never seen an AG come and basically tell the judges they’re part of the border enforcement effort. It’s outrageous,” Schmidt said. “Whether they’re inside DOJ or not, this is supposed to be an administrative court that exercises independent judgment and decisionmaking. And he’s reduced to to where they’re little enforcement officers running around carrying out the AG’s border policies.”
Sessions did go briefly off-book on Monday to offer one conciliatory note, looking up from his notes after calling the current backlog in immigration courts“unacceptable” to acknowledge that it’s been a tougher problem than he expected. “We thought we could get those numbers down, but they’re not going down yet,” Sessions said, before returning to his prepared remarks. He did not acknowledge that his own policies have contributed to the swelling of the backlog, which hit an all-time high in May.
Immigration court backlog hits all-time high, days before Sessions speech to immigration judges
Sessions is redrawing lines more tightly atop an already perversely narrow system.
A separate ruling last Friday helps underline the severity of the limits on traumatized migrants’ rights to seek protection in the United States. In a decision pertaining to the immigration courts’ handling of those accused of providing “material support” to terrorist organizations abroad, the Board of Immigration Appeals decided even labor compelled with death threats counts as grounds to bar someone from the United States.
The Salvadoran woman whose appeals gave rise to the case had been married to a sergeant in El Salvador’s army during a bloody civil war there. Guerrillas kidnapped the woman and her husband, made her watch as he dug his own grave and was shot dead, then made her wash clothes and do other menial chores for the rebel fighters while in captivity.
This clothes-washing and death-avoiding makes her, in the DOJ’s immigration overseers’ eyes, a terrorist no better than the unnamed group — presumably the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMNL) — who killed her husband in front of her and forced her into servitude.
The board denied her appeals and used the case to set a broader line across all immigration courts. Violently coerced labor while imprisoned by a terror organization will permanently bar you from crossing the U.S. border to seek protection. If you try it, we’ll send you back to your captors — presumably after first taking your kids away from you, pursuant to Sessions’ new policy mandating all immigrants crossing the border without documentation be referred to criminal court and thus separated from any minors who accompanied them.
This piece has been updated with additional context about Sessions’ immigration policies and further perspective from immigration policy experts.
Read Alan’s full analysis at the above link. According to many observers, the “small aside” by Sessions in the article is the closest he’s ever come to accepting responsibility for a mess that he, the Trump Administration, and the two previous Administrations actually have caused with their horrible and highly politicized mismanagement of the U.S Immigration Courts.
For the most part, the ever disingenuous Sessions, has tried to shift blame for his gross mismanagement to the victims: migrants (particularly asylum seekers); private attorneys (particularly those heroic attorneys performing pro bono); and the beleaguered, totally demoralized U.S. Immigration Judges themselves who have been stripped of dignity, wrongfully accused of laziness, and placed under inane, sophomoric, “performance standards” — incredibly developed by Sessions and other politicos and “Ivory tower” bureaucrats who have never themselves been Immigration Judges, have no idea what is happening in Immigration Court, and are driven entirely by political bias and/or a desire to keep their comfy jobs on the 5th floor of the DOJ or in the Falls Church Tower — well away from the results of the havoc they are wreaking on local Immigration Courts every day!
What a way to “manage” one of the nation’s largest and most important court systems! The real blame here goes to Congress which created this awful mess, yet has done nothing to remove this joke of a system from the toxic incompetence of the DOJ and create an independent court system where fairness, Due Process, quality, respect, and efficient, unbiased decision-making will be the hallmarks!
*********************************
UPDATE:
The fabulous Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis also reminds me that our statement was the “banner, above the fold” headline on today’s bibdailyonline!
Here’s the link which also includes tons of other “great stuff” that Dan publishes!
On June 6, the BIA published its precedent decision in Matter of A-C-M-. As the Board seems to no longer issue precedent decisions en banc, the decision is that of a divided three-judge panel. The two-judge majority found the respondent to be barred from asylum eligibility because in 1990, she had been kidnaped by guerrillas in her native El Salvador, who after forcing her to undergo weapons training, made her do the group’s cooking, cleaning, and laundry while remaining its captive.
In 2011, an immigration judge granted the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal. The DHS appealed the decision to the BIA, which reversed the IJ’s grant, finding that the respondent was ineligible for cancellation under section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VIII), which makes inadmissible to the U.S. anyone who has received military-type training from a terrorist organization. The BIA stated in its 2014 decision that it found the guerrillas to be a terrorist organization at the time of the respondent’s abduction in 1990.
The case was remanded back to the immigration judge, where the respondent then applied for asylum, a relief from which she was not barred by the military training. However, the IJ ruled that she was ineligible for asylum under another subsection of the law, which bars anyone who commits “an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training” for either the commission of a terrorist activity, someone who has committed or is planning to commit a terrorist act, or to a terrorist organization or member of such organization.
The respondent in A-C-M- clearly wasn’t providing her labor by choice; she was forcibly abducted by the guerrillas and was then held against her will. However, the BIA decided in a 2016 decision, Matter of M-H-Z-, that there is no duress exception to the material support bar. Therefore, in the Board’s view, the involuntary nature of the labor was irrelevant.
In her well-reasoned dissent, Board Member Linda Wendtland acknowledged a critical question: “whether the respondent reasonably should have known that the guerrillas in 1990 in El Salvador were a terrorist organization.” Note that the statutory language quoted above requires that the actor “knows or reasonably should know” that the support will aid a terrorist activity or organization.
The decision doesn’t name the guerrilla organization (presumably the FMLN). It also fails to mention when the Board itself concluded that the group had been a terrorist organization in 1990. The Board’s view of the guerrillas was not always so, as witnessed in its 1988 precedent decision in Matter of Maldonado-Cruz. The case involved an asylum-seeker from El Salvador who had been kidnaped by guerrillas in that country, given brief military training, and then forced to serve in the group’s military operations. He managed to escape, and legitimately feared that if returned to El Salvador, he would be killed by death squads the guerrillas dispatch to punish deserters.
The BIA denied asylum. In doing so, it expressed the following rationale: “It is entirely proper to apply a presumption that a guerrilla organization, as a military or para-military organization, has the need to control its members, to exercise discipline.” The Board noted that the guerrillas needed non-volunteer troops to fill out the military units required to fight against the government. It continued: “To keep them as cohesive fighting units they must impose discipline; and an important form of discipline…is the punishment of deserters.”
The Board’s language in Maldonado-Cruz really does not sound as if it is describing a terrorist organization. Frankly, it’s tone wouldn’t sound out of place in describing the penalties imposed by the Park Slope Food Coop towards members who miss their shifts. If the Board didn’t contemporaneously view the guerrillas as terrorists, why would they expect the respondent to have done so?
Judge Wendtland did not need to answer that question, because she convincingly argued that the respondent’s cooking and cleaning did not constitute “material support” under the statute. She is correct. Notice the examples of support contained in the statutory language: safe houses, funds, transportation, weapons, explosives, and training. All of these are of a quite different nature from cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry.
The respondent in A-C-M- was not someone whom Congress intended to exclude under the anti-terrorism provisions. She did not provide money or weapons to ISIS to carry out terrorist acts. To the contrary, she performed labor completely unrelated to any violent objective. She was forced to perform such labor – in the words of Judge Wendtland, “as a slave” – for a group whose terrorist nature was far from clear.
In adopting the two-member majority’s view, the Board has chosen an interpretation of the statute that turns Congressional intent on its head by punishing the victims of terrorism, and adds insult to injury by labeling these victims as terrorists themselves. Hopefully, the lone dissenting opinion will prevail on appeal.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
3rd-Generation Gangs and Political Opinion
****************************
The BIA has a long-standing history of finding ways to construe the law and facts to deny protection to refugees from Central America, one of the most violent areas in the world for decades.
Judge Linda Wendtland is one of the few BIA jurists since the 2003 “Ashcroft Purge” to stand up to her colleagues and the Attorney General for the rights of Central American asylum seekers to fair treatment under the asylum laws.
As most of us familiar with Immigration Court and immigration enforcement know, the “material support” bar is very seldom used against real terrorists and security threats. Most caught up in its absurdly overbroad web are minor players — victims of persecution themselves or “freedom fighters” many of whom actually supported forces allied with or assisting the US Government.
Probably one of the biggest and most grotesque examples of “legislative overkill” in recent history. And, the BIA has made the situation much worse by construing the bar in the broadest, most draconian, and least reasonable way possible.
Moreover, the DHS waiver process is totally opaque compared with the Immigration Court process, thereby encouraging arbitrary and capricious decision-making that escapes any type of judicial review.
When Attorney General Jeff Sessions issues his decision in Matter of A-B- (the case he certified to himself to decide whether “being a victim of private criminal activity” can constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes), it may negatively impact those asylum applicants who fear gang violence on account of their membership in a particular social group. Attorneys representing such claimants should consider whether their clients may alternatively claim a well-founded fear of persecution based on their political opinion under a “third-generation gang” theory, supported by country condition evidence.
In their article ‘Third Generation’ Gangs, Warfare in Central America, and Refugee Law’s Political Opinion Ground,1 Deborah Anker and Palmer Lawrence make a very important point: that “the Refugee Convention’s concept of political opinion incorporates ‘any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of the State, government, and policy may be engaged,’ or that of other persecutory agents where the state is unwilling or unable to provide protection” (citing Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 746 (Can.)).
Relying on this broad interpretation of political opinion, Anker and Lawrence next note that some military and law enforcement experts have concluded that the larger Central American gangs (including MS-13 and Mara 18) “have developed a degree of politicization, sophistication, and international reach to qualify them as ‘third generation gangs,’” which “function as de facto governments, controlling significant territory (competing with the state for power).” Anker and Lawrence cite Lieutenant Colonel Howard L. Gray, Gangs and Transnational Criminals Threaten Central American Stability, 7 U.S. Army War College, Strategy Research Project (2009)); in documenting such claims, practitioners should also reference John P. Sullivan and Robert J. Bunker, “Third Generation Gang Studies: An Introduction,” 14-4 Journal of Gang Research 1 (Summer 2007), and “Third General Gangs Strategic Note No. 1: Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) 500 Man Commando Unit Planned for El Salvador,” Small Wars Journal, Sept. 10, 2016. The last article quotes Douglas Farah, Visiting Senior Fellow, National Defense University Center for Complex Operations as stating that “The MS has strong political and military ambitions and now views itself as political/military rather than a gang…MS 13 now has troops, weapons, and a cause…efforts to form a joint force with the 18 is less likely but both sides are in discussion to at least have lines of communication open.”2
Under the definition of political opinion cited above, gangs such as MS-13 and Mara 18 are at least other persecutory agents from which the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection. Such gangs might also be the de facto “state” itself in areas they control. The idea that opinions or matters that engage such gangs might constitute political opinion finds support from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has recently published Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Guatemala (January 2018), El Salvador (March 2016), and Honduras (July 2016). These can be found on the website Refworld.org. UNHCR has been described as “the entity that most resembles a supervisory body of the [1951] Convention.”3 Although U.S. courts and the BIA have been inconsistent in the deference accorded to its opinions, given the clearly stated intent of Congress in passing the Refugee Act of 1980 to conform U.S. asylum law to the language of the 1951 Convention (which was binding on the U.S. based on its ratification of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees), it has been argued that courts should defer more consistently to UNHCR’s interpretations of the Convention’s provisions.4
UNHCR’s 2016 Eligibility Guidelines for El Salvador includes an “Assessment of International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from El Salvador.” The agency concludes that “depending on the particular circumstances of the case, UNHCR considers that persons perceived by a gang as contravening its rules or resisting its authority may be in need of international protection on the grounds of their (imputed) political opinion…”5 The UNHCR Guidelines report at p. 12 that “gangs are reported to exercise extraordinary levels of social control over the population of their territories.” According to UNHCR, residents in such gang-controlled zones “are reportedly required to ‘look, listen and keep quiet’ (‘mirar, oir, callar’), and often face a plethora of gang-imposed restrictions on who they can talk with and what about, what time they must be inside their homes, where they can walk or go to school, who they can visit and who can visit them, what they can wear, and even, reportedly, the color of their hair.”
At p. 28 of its Guidelines, UNHCR states:
The ground of political opinion needs to reflect the reality of the specific geographical, historical, political, legal, judicial, and sociocultural context of the country of origin. In contexts such as that in El Salvador, expressing objections to the activities of gangs may be considered as amounting to an opinion that is critical of the methods and policies of those in control and, thus, constitute a “political opinion” within the meaning of the refugee definition. For example, individuals who resist being recruited by a gang, or who refuse to comply with demands made by the gangs, such as demands to pay extortion money, may be perceived to hold a political opinion.
Anker and Lawrence note in their conclusion that many denials of such claims “reflect adjudicators’ and courts’ lack of knowledge (often because they are not presented with evidence) of regarding the political nature and context of the present conflict in that region.” This is an extremely important point. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in Castro v. Holder6 that “a claim of political persecution cannot be evaluated in a vacuum….” The court noted that it has “remanded cases in which the agency denied an application for asylum based on its failure to properly engage in the “complex and contextual factual inquiry” that such claims often require…Nevertheless, in this case, the agency has once again embraced an ‘impoverished view of what political opinions are, especially in a country where certain democratic rights have only a tenuous hold’” in denying the asylum claim “without any coherent examination of the surrounding political environment.”
Immigration judges dealing with seriously overloaded dockets, limited authority to grant continuances, and completion quotas will be hard pressed to engage in “complex and contextual factual inquiry.” Practitioners should do their best to educate adjudicators through country condition evidence, expert testimony, memoranda of law, and through detailed direct examination of the asylum-seeker.
Practitioners should also rely on the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996), which held that imputed political opinion may satisfy the refugee definition (relying in part on the UNHCR Handbook and Procedures for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention; and that asylum applicants need not show conclusively why persecution may occur, but need only produce facts to establish that a reasonable person would fear that the danger arises on account of a protected ground. The Board in S-P- also set forth five elements to consider in identifying motive, including “indications in the particular case that the abuse was directed toward modifying or punishing opinion rather than conduct (e.g., statements or actions by the perpetrators or abuse out of proportion to nonpolitical ends)” (Id. at 494). With the support of the UNHCR Guidelines, a strong argument can be made that death threats or actual killings for offenses such as “looking mistrustfully at a gang member,” “wearing certain clothing.” or “accidentally turning up uninvited in a gang zone” constitute “statements or actions…out of proportion to nonpolitical ends” under the criteria found in Matter of S-P-.7
Where another motive exists for the feared harm, practitioners should argue that mixed motives will support a grant of asylum where one of the motives is tethered to a statutory ground. See Matter of S-P-, supra at 495. In Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit responded to INS’ argument that a labor union leader could not establish a nexus to political opinion because his dispute with the Guatemalan government was economic in nature by finding “any attempt to unravel economic from political motives is untenable in this case.” The court concluded that the petitioner’s union activities “imply a political opinion,” concluding that “the Government’s view of what constitutes a political opinion is too narrow.” Or, as Anker and Lawrence explain, “gangs can, for example, view a person who refuses extortion as an enemy opposing them and, at the same time, also want the funds.”
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
1. 14-10 Immigration Briefings 1 (October 2014).
2. I first heard Farah speak at a country condition training on gang violence in the Northern Triangle held by USCIS for its asylum officers; at my invitation, Farah was a speaker on the same topic at the 2015 EOIR Training Conference for its immigration judges and BIA staff.
3. American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees: A Need for Harmony in the Face of a Refugee Crisis (Note), 131 HARVARD L.R. 1399 (March 2018).
4. See, e.g., American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, supra; Bassina Farbenblum, Executive Deference in U.S. Refugee Law: Internationalist Paths Through and Beyond Chevron,” 60 DUKE L.J. 1059 (2011); Joan Fitzpatrick, The International Dimension of U.S. Refugee Law, 15 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 1 (1997).
In an action reflecting on the agency’s transparency, EOIR responded to a Freedom of Information Act request by Long Island, NY attorney Bryan Johnson for the remanded decisions of Charlotte Immigration Judge Barry Pettinato by redacting pretty much everything from all of the decisions, including sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the names and citations of published BIA precedent decisions that were referenced in the Board’s judgments. For example, one such redacted BIA decision provided pursuant to the FOIA request now reads that the appeal was from the IJ’s decision denying the respondent’s “applications for [BLANK] pursuant to section [BLANK] of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”); [BLANK], for [BLANK] pursuant to section [BLANK] of the Act, [BLANK], and for [BLANK] pursuant to [BLANK].” A later section of the same redacted decision now reads: “During the pendency of this appeal, the Board issued [BLANK][BLANK] (BIA 2014) and [BLANK] [BLANK] (BIA 2014, which clarifies the elements required to establish [BLANK] under the Act.” Here is the link to all 58 redacted decisions: https://amjolaw.com/2018/05/24/doj-redacts-all-the-relevant-facts-and-law-in-all-58-remand-decisions-of-immigration-judge-barry-pettinato/.
As names and all other identifying information were (correctly) redacted from each decision, it is unclear why EOIR saw the removal of virtually all information from the decisions to be necessary. The BIA publishes precedent decisions in which it substitutes initials for the respondent’s name, but otherwise includes the facts and law relevant to the case. As attorney Johnson points out, “Almost all the cites to BIA and Circuit Court decisions are redacted under the (b)(6) exemption, which is supposed to protect private personal information. The title to a published BIA decision is about as far from personal information as it gets.”
On May 23, an amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of a group of 13 former immigration judges (including myself) and BIA members in the appeal of the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-. In that decision, a three-judge panel of the BIA held that an asylum applicant must clearly delineate its proposed particular social group before the immigration judge. The Board held that the asylum applicant may not alter the social group formulation on appeal to the BIA, citing the “inherently factual nature of the social group analysis.”
Our brief argues that the Board’s reasoning is flawed. The Board has held that the determination of whether a particular social group is cognizable is a question of law which the Board may review de novo. Our brief also points out that the Board’s arguments as to why it will generally not consider a new group on appeal overlooks the fact that it has done just that in the past.
One member of our group, former BIA chairperson Paul W. Schmidt, was the author if the Board’s 1996 landmark decision in Matter of Kasinga, the first BIA precedent to grant a gender-based asylum claim. Two other members of our group, former Board Members Gus Villageliu, and Lory D. Rosenberg, respectively joined in the majority opinion and wrote a concurring opinion in Kasinga. As the three pointed out in the drafting process, the particular social group that the Board approved in that case was neither delineated before the IJ nor proposed by either party on appeal. It was crafted for the first time by the Board itself, in a manner that was consistent with the factual record below and which allowed the Board to grant relief. The three noted that the ability of the Board itself to alter the group’s contours is often necessary to allow an en banc Board to reach consensus.
Our brief also pointed to the Board’s decision in Matter of M-E-V-G- to remand the record where “the respondent’s proposed particular social group has evolved during the pendency of his appeal.” We also point out how circuit courts have frequently cited to the Board’s decades-long practice of clarifying proposed groups.
Our brief additionally underscores the extreme complexity of particular social group formulation, particularly in light of the highly-criticized additional requirements of particularly and social distinction imposed by the Board in recent years. We note that group delineations will often be made by pro se respondents, often with a limited mastery of English, sometimes in detained facilities with limited access to counsel or law libraries.
This was the sixth Amicus brief filed by our group. We are most thankful for the outstanding assistance of attorneys Jean-Claude Andre and Katelyn Rowe of the law firm of Sidley Austin for lending their assistance pro bono for the second time in the drafting of our group’s brief. We also acknowledge the distinguished counsel for the respondents, led by Fatma Marouf of Texas A&M Law School, Geoff Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center, and Deborah Anker of Harvard Law School.
