"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Rekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KS
Rekha writes on LinkedIn:
A major step towards acknowledging that the best interest of the child must play a critical role in immigration cases. This was an idea I raised over 10 years ago with my friend and colleague, the brilliant Lory Rosenberg. Later the idea again was put forward with two additional brilliant colleagues, Paul Schmidt and Susan Roy. Sometimes it takes a very long time, but the right approach can’t be hidden forever.So pleased to see it is finally seeing some daylight.
Here’s the Memorandum from EOIR Director David L. Neal:
As noted by my Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, our Round Table has spoken out about the need for a separate Immigration Court system for children:
As you know, our Round Table signed on to a letter of support for proposed legislation to create a Children’s Immigration Court.
[Director Neal’s statement is] a positive administrative development.
Here’s my take:
While progress is always welcome, this statement shrouds the concept of “best interest of the child” (“BIC”) with legal gobbledygook and bureaucratic doublespeak. (P. 3 of Neal Memo under “Legal Standards”).
Here’s what a clear, correct statement on BIC would look like:
BIC, regardless of whether or not presented by a “Child Advocate” or incorporated in a “Best Interests Determination” (“BID”), can be directly relevant to issues of removability. For example, evidence of removability obtained by methods that clearly conflict with the BIC could be found unreliable or the result of “egregious misconduct” for the purposes of determining removability.
The BIC can also be highly relevant to issues of eligibility for relief. For example, a government or society that deprives certain children of all meaningful educational oportunities might well be engaging in persecution.
In addition, in NLPR cancellation cases, the BIC could be persuasive, even determinative, evidence that removal of a parent will result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a USC or LPR child or children.
3) Finally, since the EOIR Director is an administrator, not a quasi-judicial official, his or her policies have a distinct “you can take it or leave it” effect in Immigration Court. Therefore ameliorative statements from the Director, no matter how well-intended, are only effective if the BIA is willing and able to insist on and enforce “best practices” on Immigration Judges, preferably through precedent decisions and reassigning cases away from those IJs who show repeated contempt for due process and best practices.
Unfortunately, the current version of the BIA has, as a body, shown neither much sympathy nor concern for the substantive and due process rights of asylum seekers and other immigrants in Immigration Court. Unless and until Garland “cleans house” and appoints a BIA where all Appellate Judges are immigration/human rights experts laser focused on due process and best practices in Immigration Court — and not afraid of enforcing them uniformly in individual cases and incorporating them in binding precedents — the Director’s latest somewhat ameliorative statement is likely to be as toothless in practice as past efforts.
To a large extent, that’s a “nutshell” of why Garland’s Immigration Courts are in dire failure that threatens our entire democracy.
Unfortunately, that we are three years into this Administration and Garland is still bumbling along with a BIA that largely represents the mistakes and shortcomings of his predecessors suggests that waiting for him to “get religion” on the need for expertise, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR will continue to be an exercise in “Waiting for Godot!”
Immigration practitioners waiting for Garland to institute “due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices” as the sole mission of his EOIR “courts.” It could be a long wait. Very long! Too long! Naseer’s Motley Group in The Rose Bowl Merlaysamuel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg Copy [[File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg|Waiting_for_Godot_in_Doon_School]] Copy December 8, 2011
Three Lemons By Auguste Renoir (1918} Public Realm The BIA pulls three lemons on an epic judging fail that left a sour taste in the mouths of Fifth Circuit Judges!
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Although we owe deference to the BIA, that deference is not blind. Here, where the BIA misapplied prevailing case law, disregarded crucial evidence, and failed to adequately support its decisions, we are compelled to grant the petition for review, vacate the immigration court decisions, and remand to BIA for further proceedings.”
[Hats way off to Alison Lo, Jonathan Cooper and Chuck Roth!]
Congrats to this all-star NDPA litigation team. Once again, the expertise and scholarship in asylum and immigration law is on the “outside,” the NDPA, rather than at EOIR where it is so much needed!
Judge Higginbotham is a Reagan appointee. Judge Graves was appointed by Obama. Judge Douglas is a Biden appointee.
Here’s what the “coveted trifecta of bad judging” looks like:
The BIA:
1) misapplied prevailing case law,
2) disregarded crucial evidence, and
3) failed to adequately support its decisions!
My only question is: Did they manage to get the ”A#” right?
Golden nugget: The 5th Circuit recognizes that under the Supremes’ decision in Cardoza-Fonseca:“A ‘reasonable degree’ [for establishing a “well founded fear”] means a ten percent chance.” This “seminal rule” is violated by BIA panels and Immigration Judges across the nation on a daily basis. It is also widely ignored by many Circuit panels.
Unlike the BIA, Judge Higgenbotham carefully and clearly explains how threats other than physical injury can amount to persecution — another “seminal rule” that too many EOIR adjudicators routinely ignore.
By characterizing MS-13’s threats against Argueta-Hernandez and his family as
solely extortion, BIA disregards that he needed only to present “‘some
particularized connection between the feared persecution’” and the
protected ground in which his application for relief relies. . . . Such a rigorous standard would largely render nugatory the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).”).
Precisely! Ignoring Cardoza-Fonseca and their own binding precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi is what the BIA does frequently in “manipulating the nexus requirement” to deny meritorious claims to qualified refugees who face real harm! It’s all part of the toxic anti-asylum bias and “any reason to deny culture” that still permeates EOIR under Garland!
The BIA is not allowed to “presume,” as they effectively did in M-R-M-S-, the lack of qualifying motivation in “family based” psg cases and place an undue burden on the respondent to “prove” otherwise.
The panel also reams out the BIA for failure to follow basic rules and precedents requiring a separate CAT analysis.
Unlike the legal gobbldygook, obfuscation, doublespeak, and “canned” language that plagues many BIA opinions, Judge Higginbotham offers a clear, understandable, clinical explanation of asylum law and how it should be applied to what is actually a recurring situation in asylum law!
Reading this very clear opinion, I couldn’t help but feel that it was a panel of “general jurisdiction” Federal Judges from a so-called “conservative Circuit” who understood the complexity and nuances of asylum law, while the BIA Appellate Judges were the “rank amateurs.” This reflects a criticism oft made by my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chasethat EOIR’s asylum training is grotesquely substandard — far below that readily available in the “private/NGO/academic” sector! What possible excuse could there be for this ongoing travesty at DOJ?
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. His consistent, outspoken criticism of EOIR’s poor asylum training is proving all too true on a daily basis!
AG Garland continues to show a truly (and disturbingly) remarkable tolerance for poor judicial performance by his subordinates at the BIA. At the same time, he shows little, if any, concern for the deadly devastating impact of that bad judging on human lives and the way it corrodes our entire legal system!
The glaring, life-threatening legal and operational problems at EOIR are solvable. We should all be asking why, after three years in office, a Dem Administration has made such feeble efforts to bring long overdue leadership, substantive, and operational changes to “America’s worst court system?” Well into what was supposed to be a “reform” Administration, EOIR remains a steeped in the “culture of denial and bias against asylum seekers” actively furthered by the Trump Administration and NOT effectively addressed by Garland (although he concededly has made a few improvements)!
The agency is still considering referred applicants from the previous announcement posted September 25, 2023, under announcement number, IJ-12116877-23-VG. If you applied under that announcement and were referred for consideration, you need not reapply under this announcement.
This is an Excepted Service position. Upon completion of the required trial period, the position will be permanent. Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
This position is in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. EOIR seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals who serve as immigration adjudicators in this important Agency.
EOIR plays a pivotal role in the administration of the Nation’s immigration system. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases fairly, equitably, and efficiently at the trial and appellate level, governed by due process and the rule of law. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and other administrative hearings, applying the immigration laws while ensuring that adjudicators are impartial, that laws are applied humanely and equitably, that all parties are treated with respect and dignity, and that cases are resolved expeditiously and in accordance with the Administration’s priorities and all applicable laws and regulations.
EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the numerous immigration courts located throughout the United States where immigration judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of the immigration judges’ decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases. EOIR’s Headquarters is located in Falls Church, Virginia, about 10 miles from downtown Washington, DC.
As the federal agency whose mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, the Department of Justice is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. To build and retain a workforce that reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the American people, we welcome applicants from the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, religions, and cultures of the United States who share our commitment to public service.
Job Description
Immigration Judges preside in formal, quasi-judicial hearings. Proceedings before Immigration Judges include but are not limited to removal, and bond adjudications, and involve issues of removability as well as applications for relief such as asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status.
Immigration Judges make decisions that are final, subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In connection with these proceedings, Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law, and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions. Immigration Judges may be required to conduct hearings in penal institutions and other remote locations
Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the following minimum qualifications:
Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., J.D., or LL.M. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)
AND
Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)
AND
Experience: Applicants must have seven (7) years of post-bar admission experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing court or administrative agency proceedings at the Federal, State or local level. Qualifying trial experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court or administrative agency, or a charging document (e.g., indictment, notice of violation, or information) was issued by a court, administrative entity, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority. Relevant administrative experience includes cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body.
NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated only after bar admission.
IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE. If your resume does not support your assessment questionnaire answers, we will not allow credit for your response(s). Ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, email address, and employment information. Each position listed on your resume must include: From/To dates of employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY or MM/YYYY to Present); agency/employer name; position title; Federal grade level(s) held, if applicable; hours, if less than full time; and duties performed. In addition, any experience on less than a full time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
Additional information
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
Alternative work schedule options are available. Immigration Judges’ tour of duty may include Saturdays and Sundays.
There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to Immigration Judge appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in Immigration Judge hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must claim their status when completing their application in the online application process and attach supporting documentation. (See the “Required Documents” section.)
Many vacancies (see below vacancy link for locations): Location Negotiable After Selection
Travel
50% or less – You may be expected to travel for this position.
Relocation Expenses
Not authorized
* * *
Department Policies
Equal Employment Opportunity: The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex – including gender identity, sexual orientation, or pregnancy status – or because of age (over 40), physical or mental disability, protected genetic information, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, or any other non-merit based factor. The Department of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from persons with physical and mental disabilities. The Department is firmly committed to satisfying its affirmative obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that persons with disabilities have every opportunity to be hired and advanced on the basis of merit within the Department of Justice. For more information, please review our full EEO Statement.
Reasonable Accommodations: This agency provides reasonable accommodation to applicants with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application and hiring process, please notify the agency. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Outreach and Recruitment for Qualified Applicants with Disabilities: The Department encourages qualified applicants with disabilities, including individuals with targeted/severe disabilities to apply in response to posted vacancy announcements. Qualified applicants with targeted/severe disabilities may be eligible for direct hire, non-competitive appointment under Schedule A (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)) hiring authority. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to contact one of the Department’s Disability Points of Contact (DPOC) to express an interest in being considered for a position. See list of DPOCs.
Suitability and Citizenship: It is the policy of the Department to achieve a drug-free workplace and persons selected for employment will be required to pass a drug test which screens for illegal drug use prior to final appointment. Employment is also contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation. Congress generally prohibits agencies from employing non-citizens within the United States, except for a few narrow exceptions as set forth in the annual Appropriations Act (see, https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/non-citizens/Links to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link.). Pursuant to DOJ component policies, only U.S. citizens are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Trustee’s Offices, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unless otherwise indicated in a particular job advertisement, qualifying non-U.S. citizens meeting immigration and appropriations law criteria may apply for employment with other DOJ organizations. However, please be advised that the appointment of non-U.S. citizens is extremely rare; such appointments would be possible only if necessary to accomplish the Department’s mission and would be subject to strict security requirements. Applicants who hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ employees are subject to a residency requirement. Candidates must have lived in the United States for at least three of the past five years. The three-year period is cumulative, not necessarily consecutive. Federal or military employees, or dependents of federal or military employees serving overseas, are excepted from this requirement. This is a Department security requirement which is waived only for extreme circumstances and handled on a case-by-case basis.
Veterans: There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to attorney appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in attorney hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must include that information in their cover letter or resume and attach supporting documentation (e.g., the DD 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and other supporting documentation) to their submissions. Although the “point” system is not used, per se, applicants eligible to claim 10-point preference must submit Standard Form (SF) 15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference, and submit the supporting documentation required for the specific type of preference claimed (visit the OPM website, www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF15.pdfLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. for a copy of SF 15, which lists the types of 10-point preferences and the required supporting document(s). Applicants should note that SF 15 requires supporting documentation associated with service- connected disabilities or receipt of nonservice-connected disability pensions to be dated 1991 or later except in the case of service members submitting official statements or retirement orders from a branch of the Armed Forces showing that their retirement was due to a permanent service-connected disability or that they were transferred to the permanent disability retired list (the statement or retirement orders must indicate that the disability is 10% or more).
USAO Residency Requirement: Assistant United States Attorneys must reside in the district to which appointed or within 25 miles thereof. See 28 U.S.C. 545 for district specific information.
* * *
This and other vacancy announcements can be found under Attorney Vacancies and Volunteer Legal Internships. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of information contained in this vacancy announcement. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information.
Updated December 1, 2023
*****************
Yes, I’ve been highly critical of EOIR, particularly the BIA. But, to change the system for the better, we need the “best and brightest judges” at the “retail level” — the U.S. Immigration Courts!
In the process of denying asylum to a family targeted by gangs in Mexico, the BIA says:
The Immigration Judge’s finding that the cartel was motived by a desire to control the respondents’ land rather than their family membership is a permissible view of the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
This negative finding by the IJ was “permissible,” not “compelled.” That language admits that other fact-findings on the same evidence could also be “permissible.” Much depends on the individual Immigration Judge’s frame of reference and willingness to look for “reasons to protect” rather than defaulting to “reasons to reject.”
So, what if the IJ were able to see and understand asylum from the standpoint of the applicant, rather than defaulting to the EOIR “any reason to deny” approach? Fairer fact-findings below would require more careful review by the BIA. Rather than just being able to mindlessly affirm adverse findings below, the BIA would basically be legally bound to uphold more positive findings unless “clearly erroneous.”
Of course in their haste to deny some BIA panels are prone to violate the “clearly erroneous” standard to “get to no.” But, that increases the chances of Circuit reversal. See, e.g., Crespin Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (my case from Arlington).
Additionally, DHS can’t and doesn’t appeal every asylum grant, particularly when they are “fact bound.” I actually had ICE Assistant Chief Counsel say on the record in waiving appeal that while they respectfully disagreed with my fact-findings, they recognized that they were not “clearly erroneous” for purposes of appeal. (Other times they actually agreed after I had stated my detailed findings and analysis, sometimes actually repeating during closing arguments the basic analysis I would have reached on the record we had just made.)
Better judging below can actually cut off and discourage backlog building “let’s spin the bottle” appeals by DHS encouraged by the BIA’s systemic failure to consistently uphold the rights of asylum seekers and their “unduly restrictive” interpretations of asylum law!
Buried amongst the morass of poor administration and bad appellate judging at EOIR, many “true expert” IJs are making great decisions and saving lives on a daily basis. One of the “best kept secrets” at EOIR — often intentionally obscured by both EOIR and the media (not to mention GOP White Nationalist nativists) — is that as of this summer over half of all those who passed “credible fear” — 55% — received asylum grants if they were actually able to get to merits hearings at today’s backlogged EOIR!See, e.g., https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Asylum-grant-rates-fact-sheet-August-2023.pdf.
That’s an impressive rate, given that the system is stacked against asylum applicants! It also highlights the total insanity of today’s discussions on the Hill of how to artificially heighten standards to bar asylum seekers and promote more arbitrary wrongful denials of life-saving protection. What’s needed is better judging and more realistic and humane policies, NOT more cruelty and misapplications of asylum law!
As I have pointed out along with others, asylum grant rates would be much higher with better judges at EOIR and better precedents from the BIA. Better guidance would mean more cases granted at the Asylum Office and Immigration Court levels and a more timely and efficient system that advances and promotes due process, rather than inhibiting it!
But, it can’t all be done “from the outside!” Better Immigration Judges — true asylum experts with “hands on” experience representing applicants before EOIR and the Asylum Office — are essential to rebuilding EOIR as a functional court system.
For example, one of the expert recommendations from the very recent Women’s Refugee Commission study of asylum reception, resettlement, and processing was that: “One pro se assistance goal is to incentivize immigration judges to take a closer look at pro se asylum cases.”
But, this laudable goal presupposes Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum law and able to “work their way through” some of the inherent barriers to justice in pro se Immigration Court cases rather than submitting to the “artificial production pressures and any reason to deny culture” that still exists at much of EOIR. Sadly, not all current IJs have this ability. Moreover, the BIA has provided defective leadership and guidance. EOIR judicial training on asylum does not measure up to much of that readily available in the private/NGO sector. See, e.g.,VIISTA Villanova.
Many practitioners who have contacted me here at “Courtside” lament that their lives and their client’s futures would be better if they only were appearing before Immigration Judges who actually understood asylum law from a protection standpoint. They are frustrated by having their fine presentations and great arguments “shrugged off” with “predetermined boiler plate denials” citing negative language from the BIA — often ignoring what actually happened or was proved at trials.
Instead of being destined to forever be frustrated by EOIR’s shortcomings, YOU now have a chance to “be that judge” — the one who understands asylum law, has seen the defects in EOIR decision-making, who doesn’t view denial as “preordained,” and will require both parties fairly to meet their burdens. (Ironically, there are many places where the asylum regulations still place the burden of proof on DHS, even if many IJs and BIA panels are unwilling to enforce them.)
So, get in those applications for EOIR judgeships! It’s a great way to show leadership by improving the system from the inside while saving lives in the process! Better judges for a better America — starting at the “retail level!”
BIA Asylum Panel In Action. The BIA’s “take no prisoners” approach to asylum law has endangered asylum seekers lives without deterring them from applying! The BIA’s convoluted approach to asylum law is one factor making hearings for unrepresented applicants inherently unfair! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
BIA HEADNOTE:
If a persecutor is targeting members of a certain family as a means of achieving some
other ultimate goal unrelated to the protected ground, family membership is incidental or
subordinate to that other ultimate goal and therefore not one central reason for the harm.
Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), reaffirmed.
1) In any “mixed motive” case, EOIR will find that the “non-covered motive” is primary and all others are “tangental” so that the claim will be denied.
2) EOIR will ignore “but for,” “proximate cause,” and any other established legal rules of causation to maximize asylum denials.
3) Facts are irrelevant unless they support denial.
In its rush to deny, the BIA basically invents a “presumption” that family based persecution is “tangential” to some other non-qualifying ground. The respondent then must “establish, by direct or circumstantial evidenc, that their family membership is more than incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to other motives.”
When Congress added the “at least one central reason” language in 2005, they clearly intended to preserve a robust “mixed motive” doctrine by indicating that there could be “more than one” central motive. The BIA, however appears to be strangling the “mixed motive” language by intentionally, and often artifically, “subordinating” qualifying motives to non-qualifying ones!
And, of course, faced with a choice of adopting Circuit law that protects or that which rejects, the BIA invariably chooses the interpretation least favorable to the asylum applicant, as they did here.
I’m not the only member of the Round Table to remark on the BIA’s questionable performance.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase says:
“This holding is contrary to asylum law generally and to multiple Fourth Circuit holdings to the contrary. I would also argue that it contradicts Second Circuit case law, and the Supreme Court’s holding regarding the meaning of “on account of” in Bostock v. Clayton County.”
The poor performance of the BIA in establishing asylum precedents is a major contributing factor to disorder at the border and a dysfunctional, overly complicated, unduly restrictive, hopelessly backlogged, fundamentally unfair asylum adjudication system!
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase does the hard, dirty work of sifting through the legal muck for golden nuggets of hope and enlightenment! “The First Pan” By by W. Sihmedtgen. Public Realm
“Sir Jeffrey” writes:
In spite of the petition being denied, there is useful language on what constitutes persecution for a child, and in fn 6 on an IJ’s obligation to assist in delineating a PSG, whether or not the applicant is pro se.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Even when the final result passes Circuit review, the BIA’s too often sloppy “any reason to deny” approach should be of grave concern to all who advocate for due process and fundamental fairness for asylum seekers.
Hon. Cecelia M.Espenoza Former Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA; Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges Source: Denverdemocrats.orgHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi all: The bipartisan Children’s Immigration Court bill that we endorsed was introduced today.
The press release of Sen. Michael Bennet included this quote from Cecelia!
“The most vulnerable people in immigration proceedings are unaccompanied children. The Immigration Court Efficiency and Children’s Court Act of 2023 not only improves the process for children, it also provides necessary support and guidance to the overburdened immigration court system to address the needs of these children,” said Cecelia M. Espenoza, Former Appellate Immigration Judge.
Thanks to Sen. Michael Bennett (D-CO), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.), Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI), and Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR)! This is long, long overdue! A great bipartisan idea! 😎
Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) Credit: Ike Hayman SOURCE: Wikipedia
Rep. Hillary Scholten, the only former EOIR attorney in Congress, and an indefatigable advocate for good government, due process, common sense, and the well-being of children had this to say:
“Let’s be clear about one thing–infants and children should not be in a situation where they have to stand trial in immigration court,” said Scholten. “We have a deeply broken immigration system in this country. But as we continue the long and complicated work for repairing it, of fighting for justice in a political climate that has grown callous to the suffering of children, the next best option is creating a court that works to accommodate their unique needs. As a mom, I’ll never stop fighting for these vulnerable kids.”
Proud to be a member of this great group fighting for due process. Also grateful for all the great lawyers and firms who have provided pro bono drafting assistance to “give us a voice that needs to be heard!”
The Afghan man speaks only Farsi, but he wasn’t worried about representing himself in U.S. immigration court. He believed the details of his asylum claim spoke for themselves.
Mohammad was a university professor, teaching human rights courses in Afghanistan before he fled for the United States. Mohammad is also Hazara, an ethnic minority long persecuted in his country, and he said he was receiving death threats under the Taliban, who reimposed their harsh interpretation of Sunni Islam after taking power in 2021.
He crossed the Texas border in April 2022, surrendered to Border Patrol agents and was detained. A year later, a hearing was held via video conference. His words were translated by a court interpreter in another location, and he said he struggled to express himself — including fear for his life since he was injured in a 2016 suicide bombing.
At the conclusion of the nearly three-hour hearing, the judge denied him asylum. Mohammad said he was later shocked to learn that he had waived his right to appeal the decision.
“I feel alone and that the law wasn’t applied,” said Mohammad, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition that only his first name be used, over fears for the safety of his wife and children, who are still in Afghanistan.
. . . .
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, who reviewed the transcript, said he was surprised John-Baptiste waived Mohammad’s right to appeal and that the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Case law supports granting protection for people who belong to a group long persecuted in their homelands even if an individual cannot prove specific threats, said Chase, an adviser to the appeals board.
But Andrew Arthur, another former immigration judge, said John-Baptiste ruled properly.
“The respondent knew what he was filing, understood all of the questions that were asked of him at the hearing, understood the decision, and freely waived his right to appeal,” Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions, said via email.
Chase said the hearing appeared rushed, and he believes the case backlog played a role.
“Immigration judges hear death-penalty cases in traffic-court conditions,” said Chase, quoting a colleague. “This is a perfect example.”
Overall, the 600 immigration judges nationwide denied 63% of asylum cases last year, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Individual rates vary wildly, from a Houston judge who denied all 105 asylum requests to a San Francisco one denying only 1% of 108 cases.
John-Baptiste, a career prosecutor appointed during the Trump administration’s final months, denied 72% of his 114 cases.
. . . .
*******************
Read Julie’s complete article at the link.
Hazaras are an historically persecuted group in Afghanistan whose already perilous situation has demonstrably worsened under the Taliban. See, e.g., https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/blog/urgent-action-needed-hazaras-in-afghanistan-under-attack. This case should have been a “slam dunk grant” under a proper application of precedents like Cardoza and Mogharrabi! Additionally, Hazara claims should be routinely grantable under the “pattern or practice of persecution” regulations that EOIR judges are supposed to apply (but seldom do).
No wonder this system builds incredible unnecessary backlogs when it botches the easy grants, wastes time on specious, disingenuous reasons for denial, and allows questionably-qualified judges to run roughshod over due process, the rule of law, and binding precedents.
Here’s additional commentary from “Sir Jeffrey:”
Thankfully, the amazing Steve Schulman at Akin Gump took on Mohamed’s case after his pro se hearing, and Human Rights First provided additional support.
(The Round Table was prepared to file an amicus brief on this one at the Fifth Circuit, but an agreement was reached to reopen the case at the IJ level before briefing was due.)
That the Government agreed to reopen this case basically “says it all” about the absurd result in the original hearing and the bogus “waiver” of appeal.
“The question before us is whether the BIA’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence. As will be explained below, the BIA’s rationale does not allow us to make that determination. So we grant Lin’s petition and remand for further proceedings. … It is difficult to imagine that a reasonable person in Lin’s position, under the circumstances demonstrated in the record, would feel safe returning home. The determination that Lin failed to show a reasonable likelihood of individualized persecution in China is contravened by the record and compels us to conclude otherwise. … [H]ere, where we are left with no indication that the BIA undertook the appropriate inquiry and significant indications that it likely did not, remand for full consideration is proper.”
PWS: “Another “Big Whiff” by the BIA! Sounds like assembly line denials to me!”
HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE: “Whether a reasonable person returning home would feel safe – the correct standard cited by the circuit, is rarely if ever applied by the current BIA. I would really love to see the IJ training material on this standard.”
This is life or death folks! Why isn’t getting it right at the “retail level” an urgent mission for the Government?
A federal judge ordered Texas to remove floating barriers in the Rio Grande and barred the state from building new or placing additional buoys in the river, according to a Wednesday court filing, marking a victory for the Biden administration.
Judge David Alan Ezra ordered Texas to take down the barriers by September 15 at its own expense.
The border buoys have been a hot button immigration issue since they were deployed in the Rio Grande as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s border security initiative known as Operation Lone Star. The Justice Department had sued the state of Texas in July claiming that the buoys were installed unlawfully and asking the judge to force the state to remove them.
In the lawsuit, filed in US District Court in the Western District of Texas, the Justice Department alleged that Texas and Abbott violated the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act by building a structure in US water without permission from United States Army Corps of Engineers and sought an injunction to bar Texas from building additional barriers in the river. The Republican governor, meanwhile, has argued the buoys are intended to deter migrants from crossing into the state from Mexico.
Texas swiftly appealed the judge’s order.
. . . .
Ezra also found Texas’ self-defense argument – that the barriers have been placed in the face of invasion – “unconvincing.”
. . . .
Ezra also found Texas’ self-defense argument – that the barriers have been placed in the face of invasion – “unconvincing.”
. . . .
*********************************
Read the rest of Priscilla’s report at the link.
Who knows how this will play out in the 5th Circuit and the Supremes, given the composition of those courts. But, at least for a day, Judge Ezra has brought some common sense and the rule of law to bear on out of control grandstanding Texas “Governor” Greg Abbott.
We should also remember that the vast majority of those whom Abbott and the nativists bogusly call “invaders” seek only to turn themselves in to U.S. authorities so they can exercise their clear legal rights to apply for asylum — rights that attach regardless of status or manner of entering the U.S. (Rights that also have improperly been diminished and impeded by the Biden Administration’s ill-advised asylum regulations, currently under legal challenge).
If successful (under a legal system intentionally rigged against them), these so-called “invaders” will use their skills and work ethic to expand our economy and help Americans prosper while saving their lives and those of their families. To anybody other than Abbott and other White Nationalists, that sounds like a potential “win-win” that could and should be “leveraged” for everyone’s benefit!
Judge Ezra’s opinion in the aptly-named U.S. v. Abbottcan be found here:
“Petitioner Darwin Murillo Morocho seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for deferral of removal to Ecuador under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Murillo Morocho claims that, if returned to Ecuador, it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Ecuadorian government itself or by private actors acting with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Before this court, he argues that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review to the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) legal conclusions. He further claims that both the BIA and the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether the Ecuadorian government would more likely than not consent or acquiesce in his torture. Finally, he argues that even if the BIA and IJ applied the proper legal standards, the BIA’s decision, which adopts the IJ’s decision, is not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ erred in not giving him the opportunity to further corroborate his testimony. We agree that the agency1 applied the incorrect legal standard to the “consent or acquiescence” prong of Murillo Morocho’s CAT claim. We therefore grant his petition for review in part, vacate the order of the BIA denying Murillo Morocho CAT relief as to Ecuador, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Many congrats to Tasha and the rest of rest of the wonderful pro bono team over at WilmerHale!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s what my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase had to say:
Wonderful decision. Wilmer Hale has been doing outstanding work on deportation defense litigation.
H.H., the First Circuit’s recent precedent in which our Round Table filed an amicus brief, featured prominently in this decision.
Once again, the agency took the easy out – i.e. giving lip service to the acquiescence standard, rather than indulging in the in depth analysis required in such claims. Of course, EOIR’s training does not teach otherwise, and the BIA chooses to rubber stamp rather than correct and remand.
The First Circuit actually did the required analysis here. By contrast, it appears that as a “dismissal of a denial” by an IJ, this decision “defaulted” to the BIA’s “any reason to deny” assembly line. I suspect that if this had been a DHS appeal of an IJ grant, it would have received a more detailed, critical analysis. However, as we often see, even that analysis might be devoted to finding a bogus reason to deny.
Despite some improvement in the quality of IJ and BIA appointments under Garland, the lack of dynamic expert “pro due process” leadership and “culture of denial and deterrence” remain debilitating (and potentially life-threatening) problems at EOIR!
Experts find the BIA’s treatment of expert witnesses to be unduly harsh!Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
For Immigration Judges, country experts serve as the lens through which a confusing jumble of evidence becomes a clearer picture. No judge can be an expert on all countries; it is therefore by way of the country expert’s testimony that a determination can be made as to whether the asylum seeker’s predicament is a unique or a common one; a dispute is merely personal or possesses a political dimension; the home country’s government is truly likely to provide adequate protection; and why relocating within the country may or may not be reasonable.
However, Immigration Judges are provided remarkably little guidance on how to assess expert testimony. A 2020 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Castillo v. Barr,1 illustrates the problem. In that case, both the Immigration Judge and the BIA chose to discount the testimony of a qualified country expert because his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence of record. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “If an expert’s opinion could only be relied upon if it were redundant with other evidence in the record, there would be no need for experts.”2 Obviously, this simple, logical rule should have been incorporated in a BIA precedent decision by now.
When attorneys SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire brought an appeal involving this issue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges was most happy to file an amicus brief in the matter. We used the opportunity to inform the court “how IJs and the BIA need, and lack, a clear standard for whether to admit—and how to weigh— expert evidence.”
Although the court issued an unpublished decision (and explained why it was precluded by Supreme Court precedent from establishing the uniform standard that we had requested), I believe the opinion offers wisdom on the topic that Immigration Judges might find useful in spite of its nonbinding nature. The case name is G.P. v. Garland, No. 21-2002 (1st Cir., July 13, 2023).
Rather than review the entire decision, in the hope of increased convenience, I have instead listed the issues raised in the case that are likely to arise in removal proceedings, and then summarized how the First Circuit addressed each issue.
The recency of the expert’s knowledge:
May an Immigration Judge discount an expert’s country knowledge as “stale” due to the passage of time since the expert’s last visit to the country in question or contact with its government’s officials?
In G.P., the court found no support for such approach where: (1) the record contained no evidence of changed conditions over the period of time in question; (2) the expert testified to the lack of significant changes in country conditions over that same time period; (3) such testimony regarding the lack of significant change went unchallenged by ICE, which did not call its own expert or offer other country evidence to the contrary; and (4) the conclusion was not contradicted by the petitioner.
The basis of the expert’s knowledge
Can an expert’s testimony be discounted for lack of firsthand “knowledge, research, or connections” to the country in question?
In G.P., the court pointed to the BIA’s own precedent decision in Matter of J-G-T- in which the Board adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence standard that an expert’s testimony is reliable when it is “`based on sufficient facts or data’ that the expert `has been made aware of or personally observed’ or from sources that `experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on.'”3
In addition to finding that the IJ had overlooked sources of firsthand knowledge, the court in G.P. found further error in the IJ’s failure to either mention or explain why sources that experts in the field would rely on that were mentioned by the expert in his voir dire, which included crime rates, DEA reports, and U.S. Department of State Country Reports, were not sufficient to credit the expert’s testimony.
The expert’s lack of personal knowledge of a specific criminal organization
Can an expert’s testimony be discredited where the expert lacked personal knowledge of the specific criminal organization that the applicant fears?
In G.P., the court found that the IJ erred in discounting the expert’s testimony for this reason. The court again referenced the Board’s statement in J-G-T- quoted above, and cited another BIA precedent, Matter of Vides Casanova, in which the Board held that an expert “need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying” their opinion.4
Applying the above BIA guidance, the court observed that the expert witness learned specifics about the organization in question from reading the respondent’s affidavit, and importantly, that the facts contained in the respondent’s testimony and later testified to in court “were never challenged by the government or questioned by the IJ, who found G.P. credible.” The court added that “An expert cannot be ‘undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed’” (quoting from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Castillo, supra at 1284).
The feared persecutors are based outside of the country of expertise
Can an expert’s testimony about a crime group based in the U.S. be discredited where the witness was qualified as an expert on organized crime in the Dominican Republic?
In G.P., although the group in question was based in New England, connected to a cartel based in Sinaloa, Mexico, and “served as a conduit between the Mexican drug cartels and customers in Northern New England,” the group did not fall outside of the witness’s area of expertise (i.e. organized crime in the Dominican Republic) where the expert testified to the Sinaloa Cartel’s strong presence in the Dominican Republic, influence over government officials there, and treatment of government cooperators.” The court therefore found that the IJ’s statement that the expert lacked direct knowledge of the criminal organization “mischaracterizes the evidence as a whole” and was not supported by substantial evidence of record.
Prior statements of the expert
How should a prior statement of the expert that is offered by ICE be treated by the IJ?
In G.P., ICE introduced a quote from the expert’s 2011 book in which he wrote that he “couldn’t honestly say that torture is something deportees [to the Dominican Republic] should expect.”
However, the First Circuit found error in the IJ’s reliance on the quote, because (1) the quote was in the context of an entirely different set of facts and employed a highly narrow definition of torture; (2) the expert was only asked whether he recalled the quote and to provide its context, and not whether he agreed with it; (3) the quote addressed the general risk of torture faced by deported noncitizens, and not the specific risk faced by G.P.; and (4) the IJ failed to explain why the 2011 book deserved significant weight when it was older than other evidence the IJ found to be stale.
Conclusion
Petitioner’s counsel has moved the First Circuit to publish the decision. But regardless of the outcome, counsel may wish to bring the court’s analysis to the attention of Immigration Judges, who in turn may find it highly useful in navigating the treatment of experts in cases before them.
– –
Hats off to SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette on their outstanding litigation in the First Circuit, which led to this satisfying decision. Our Round Table is most thankful to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Alex Robledo, Angela Dunning, Marc Suskin, Robby L.R. Saldaña, and Greg Merchant of the law firm of Cooley LLP, for their expert drafting of our amicus brief in this case.
Copyright 2023 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All Rights Reserved.
Notes
980 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2020).
Id. at 1284.
Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97, 102 (BIA 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702(b), 703).
Matter of Vides Casanova, 26 I&N Dec. 494, 499 (BIA 2015). Interestingly, in VIdes Casanova, the country expert had been called by DHS to establish that the respondent was a persecutor of others. Under those circumstances, the BIA in its decision noted that an expert “is permitted to base her opinion on hearsay evidence and need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying those opinions.”
JULY 28, 2023
Republished with permission
*******************
The BIA spends far too much time cooking up bogus ways to deny asylum and other forms of protection. This leaves a “vacuum” on providing sound advice and needed guidance for effectively presenting and fairly analyzing the large untapped potential for more grants of protection currently “bouncing around the EOIR backlog” or alternatively being mindlessly rushed through “dedicated deterrence dockets” with neither time for advocates to properly prepare nor opportunity for thoughtful analysis by IJs! It’s a real (totally preventable) “lose-lose” for our justice system and asylum applicants!
Fortunately those from outside EOIR, including Article III Judges, subject matter experts like Judge Sir Jeffrey, and his loyal colleagues in the Round Table 🛡 have stepped in to fill the void. Wouldn’t it be better (and easier) to just aggressively recruit and hire the right expert, experienced, due-process-focused candidates for EOIR judgeships in the first place?
Here’s a report from Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:
Hi all: As you know, our group filed an amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary v. Garland, challenging the new rules at the border that would make most of those unable to get an online appointment through an app ineligible to apply for asylum.
District Court Judge Jon Tigar just issued the attached order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
From Judge Tigar’s order:
“Congress granted the agencies authority to impose additional conditions on asylum eligibility, but only those consistent with section 1158…Two of the conditions imposed by the Rule have been previously found to be inconsistent with Section 1158…
The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum. The Rule is also contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who fail to apply for protection in a transit country, despite Congress’s clear intent that such a factor should only limit access to asylum where the transit country actually presents a safe option.”
The order is stayed for 14 days to allow the government to appeal.
Our group has once again helped make a difference in providing fairness and due process. Congrats to all.
**********************
Congrats to the plaintiffs and to my Round Table colleagues!
This was basically a blowout for the plaintiffs on all issues! The USG argument essentially was that complying with the law would be too difficult and/or politically unpopular. Therefore, they have chosen to violate the law and to use rather transparent pretexts (actually misrepresentations about the bogus “presumption”) to evade it.
Really, folks, how do we have a Dem AG who 1) approves such complete legal nonsense; 2) advances essentially frivolous and disingenuous arguments in an attempt to defend the indefensible; and 3) can’t make the legal system for asylum work in a fair and legal manner at EOIR or DHS?
How immoral and intellectually dishonest are Garland’s arguments. Here’s one of my favorite passages from Judge Tigar’s opinion:
While they wait for an adjudication, applicants for asylum must remain in Mexico, where migrants are generally at heightened risk of violence by both state and non-state actors.
See, e.g., PC 32446–68 (2022 State Department report noting credible reports of gender-based violence against migrants; reports of migrants being tortured by migration authorities; “numerous instances” of armed groups targeting migrants for kidnapping, extortion, and homicide; and that asylum seekers and migrants were vulnerable to forced labor); PC 22839–42 (NGO report documenting violent crimes against 13,480 migrants in Mexico, by both state and non-state actors, between January 2021 and December 2022); PC 76248–87 (table of crimes summarized in preceding report); PC 21752–58 (2022 NGO report discussing gender-based violence in northern Mexico border cities, including against LGBTQI+ and Black migrants); PC 21610–11 (2022 NGO report concerning gender-based violence against Venezuelan women and LGBTIQ+ migrants in southern Mexico).16
16 In addition to these examples, the record is replete with additional documentation of the extraordinary risk of violence many migrants face in Mexico. See, e.g., PC 22129–30 (2023 news report documenting instances of kidnapping of asylum seekers in northern Mexico); PC 23247–50 (2022 news report quoting Chihuahua state police chief stating that “organized criminal gangs are financing their operations through migrant trafficking”); PC 23082 (2023 NGO report discussing treatment of migrants and asylum seekers); PC 20937–43 (2021 NGO report documenting kidnapping and extortion of Venezuelan migrants in Mexico); PC 29740–29744 (2021 NGO report documenting instances of rape, kidnapping, and other violence experienced by migrant women in Mexico); PC 75946–48 (2022 NGO report documenting violence against migrants in Mexico); AR 4881 (2022 NGO report noting that asylum seekers from Central America have been pursued across the border and found in southern Mexico by their persecutors).
Only somebody who avoids the border, has never represented asylum seekers there, and is impervious to facts and reality could make such outlandish arguments in favor of an outrageously deficient and illegal “policy.” Sounds like something out of the “Stephen Miller Playbook!”Why is it coming from a Dem AG?
“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Black Mauritanians and other asylum seekers of color find that the scales of justice are systemically weighted against them when on trial for their lives in AG Garland’s “courts!” Public RealmDanae King Faith & Values & Immigration Reporter Columbus Dispatch
“This data further confirms concerns raised about implicit racial and other bias in credibility determinations in US asylum adjudications,” the report states.
The report notes that Black asylum seekers face different treatment in the immigration system than others, including longer than average detention times, trouble finding accurate and adequate interpreters, different treatment in court, lack of access to counsel, purposefully rushed proceedings, biased judges, wrongful denial of asylum and more.
Lynn Tramonte has seen all those scenarios happen in Ohio.
“In immigration court, it’s almost like you’re guilty until proven innocent and they would rather err on the side of deporting a refugee who was tortured than granting asylum to someone who might be lying,” said Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, a group of Ohio immigrants and citizens who work to protect the dignity and rights of all through activism.
Nemecek has also seen judges and government attorneys “team up on (immigrants) and ask all kinds of questions and find them not credible.”
From 2002 to 2022, 713 Mauritanians went before immigration judges in Cleveland, and 443 were denied asylum. Another 28 had another form of relief, such as withholding of removal, and 242 were granted asylum, according to TRAC.
Tramonte wishes judges would do more research on the nations where asylum seekers are coming from.
“They have zero knowledge of documents from other countries or even what it’s like to be tortured,” she said.
A spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) disputed those claims.
. . . .
***********************
Read Danae’s full article at the link!
“Courtside” and others have been raising these issues for a long time! Yet, Garland has neither spoken out nor taken action to “clean up” courts that every expert would say are “broken” and need major changes, including better-qualified judges who have true expertise in asylum and human rights!
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke is totally “MIA” on this serious issue and on the racially-driven travesties in DOJ’s “wholly-owned” court system, in immigration detention centers, and at the Southern Border! Associate AG Vanita Gupta, once a civil rights icon, has “vaporized” on perhaps the biggest, potentially solvable, civil rights/racial justice issue facing America! What’s happening here?
I spent years doing Mauritanian asylum cases on the EOIR Ohio Docket (and, to a lesser extent, in the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court). Most were clear grants of asylum! Few were appealed by ICE! Almost none were reversed by the BIA! I doubt that conditions have improved materially since then.
Unfortunately, mistreatment of Black Mauritanian asylum seekers by EOIR is nothing new. It has a long and disreputable history going back decades.
In the late 1990’s, my now Round Table colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg and I frequently dissented from wrong-headed denials of Mauritanian asylum claims by our BIA colleagues. See, e.g., Matter of M-D-, 23 I&N Dec. 1180, 1185, 1189 (Schmidt, Chairman, Rosenberg, Board Member dissenting), rev’d sub nom, Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000). There, the Circuit, in a decision written by Chief Judge Walker, agreed with many of the points raised by Judge Rosenberg and me in our respective dissents: “[T]he BIA failed to: (1) rule explicitly on the credibility of Diallo’s testimony; (2) explain why it was reasonable in this case to expect additional corroboration; or (3) assess the sufficiency of Diallo’s explanations for the absence of corroborating evidence.”
Judge Rosenberg and I were later “rewarded” by AG John Ashcroft by being “purged” from the BIA, along with a minority of other colleagues who had the temerity to stand up for the legal and human rights of migrants! Folks at EOIR “got the message” that standing up for immigrants’ rights and due process could be “career threatening!”
That, in turn, unleashed a crescendo of sloppy, anti-migrant, dehumanizing decisions emanating from EOIR. Things got so bad so fast that subsequent Bush II AGs Gonzalez and Mukasey were finally forced, under extreme pressure from the Article IIIs, to intervene and put a stop to the most glaring abuses.
But, in fact, the EOIR system never recovered from that debacle. From then on, the BIA has been largely a “captain may I rubber stamp” (credit “Sir Jeffrey” Chase) for DHS Enforcement and each Administration’s political agenda. It’s been a continuous downward spiral, with subsequent AGs either actively encouraging abuses of asylum seekers and other migrants or being “willfully indifferent” to the ongoing legal and human rights disasters on their watches.
It’s interesting how when the “powers that be” ignore abuses, they don’t go away. They just fester and get worse. Garland’s “what me worry” stewardship over EOIR is a classic example.
As for EOIR’s claim that they are providing IJs with “robust” asylum training, in the words of my friend, Kansas City attorney (and former Arlington intern) Andrea Martinez, “I call BS!” The proof is in the results!
My friend and Round Table colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase puts it more elegantly:
In stating that the program is “robust” (i.e. fine as is), who among EOIR’s upper-level leadership is enough of an expert in the topic to make that determination? There are actually recent IJ hires with a great deal of expertise in asylum and CAT, but to my knowledge, they are not the ones creating or presenting the trainings.
EOIR’s asylum and CAT training remains insufficient, and the evidence of this can be found in the deluge of Circuit Court reversals, or even from simply reviewing hearing transcripts. Just compare the USCIS Asylum Officer training program with EOIR’s IJ training materials. A particular problem is the failure to properly train new IJs in the case law of the specific circuit in which they sit. Immigration Judges are largely left to their own devices to learn the law properly.
Another example of superior asylum training available “on the market” is that developed by Professor Michele Pistone (a true asylum expert who has taught and inspired generations of attorneys now serving in and out of government) at VIISTA Villanova. I am sure that EOIR could have arranged with Professor Pistone to create a “world class” asylum training program for both new and experienced IJs. Indeed, she would have been a logical choice for Garland to have recruited for a senior position at EOIR.
The talent to fix EOIR exists on the open market. However, EOIR can’t be fixed with the senior management team Garland has put, or in some cases left, in place.
In the meantime, the stunningly poor quality, blatant racial insensitivity, and inept judicial administration Garland tolerates at EOIR will continue to be a millstone around the neck of American Justice and the Democratic Party. To what depths Garland will drag both remains to be seen.
Garland’s dysfunctional and systemically biased Immigration “Courts” are a millstone around the neck for American Justice and Dems! Creative Commons license
Finally, where are progressive human and civil rights stalwarts like Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ) on this issue? Why haven’t they demanded some accountability from Garland? And, whatever happened to our first African-American Veep Kamala Harris? Does she still exist? What’s more important than racial justice in “life or death courts” wholly controlled by her Dem Administration?
“In sum, the BIA erred in finding that Chicas-Machado was not a refugee under the INA due to a lack of nexus to a protected ground, religion. Chicas-Machado demonstrated past persecution on account of religion, and is therefore entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 176-77. Recognizing the BIA’s error, we grant the petition for review and remand the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the BIA must determine whether the Government can rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 If the BIA concludes that Chicas-Machado is eligible for asylum on remand, it should reconsider her withholding of removal claim. See Sorto-Guzman, 42 F.4th at 450. We decline to reach all other issues raised on appeal as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims, and direct the BIA to reevaluate those claims following its reconsideration of Chicas-Machado’s asylum application. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 361 n.10 (4th Cir. 2021) (declining to reach the merits of withholding of removal appeal after finding error in the BIA’s asylum analysis).”
“This petition raises important questions about proper notice in removal proceedings. Federal immigration law mandates that the government provide a noncitizen with a written notice to appear that contains certain critical details about her removal hearing, including the “time and place” of the proceedings. In a pair of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that the notice to appear must be a single document containing all statutorily required information. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021); Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. The immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. Because Lazo-Gavidia and her son received defective notices to appear, we grant their petition, vacate the Board’s order dismissing their appeal, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Glenn Fogle! Listen to the oral argument here.]
“Because an offender can be convicted under Nebraska’s shoplifting statute when he acts with an intent not encompassed by a generic theft offense, we hold that the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic federal offense. Accordingly, the BIA erred in finding that Thok was removable for having committed a theft offense—and, thus, an aggravated felony—based upon his Nebraska shoplifting convictions. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“Mercy Naah, a native of Cameroon, was charged as removable from the United States. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Naah demonstrated that she is unable or unwilling to return to Cameroon because of past persecution on account of her political opinion. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports for the Round Table 🛡️⚔️:
5. Experts
Unpublished 1st Cir. Victory [Experts]
[T]o keep it brief, we were on the winning side in an unpublished 1st Cir. decision issued today in which the IJ and BIA wrongly gave little weight to an country expert’s opinion on the risk petitioner faced in a CAT case. Decision attached. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in this one. Another great win for SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and the ACLU of New Hampshire!
More to follow. We continue to make a difference!
Best, Jeff
I have just learned that counsel is filing a motion to publish. There is good language regarding the evidentiary weight of one qualified as an expert who testifies credibly. The decision points out that an expert need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying their opinion, as long as such opinion is based on sufficient facts or data;” that “An expert cannot be “undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed;” and that where an IJ makes factual findings not consistent with the expert’s opinion, it is important for the IJ to explain the reasons behind those findings.
Why do Dems routinely shoot themselves in the foot on immigration while driving a wedge between Dems in power and the immigration/social justice advocates who helped them get there?
In each of the 4th Circuit cases here, our Dem AG aligned himself with restrictionist positions advocated by dissenting Bush II and Trump appointees, while eschewing the far better-reasoned, more practical approaches advocated by expert advocates and adopted by the jurists in the majority who are committed to due process.
As the 4th Circuit majority in Chicas-Machado cogently points out, the BIA’s “excessively narrow reading” of nexus conflicts with both the statutory language and practical considerations regarding the motivation of persecutors (not to mention riding roughshod over existing, binding Circuit precedent). The BIA has a long and troubling history of ignoring “mixed motive” to deny asylum.
Yet, instead of improving under Dems, the BIA’s abuse of nexus to wrongfully disqualify qualified refugees from protection has continued to metastasize under Garland! It’s all part of the anti-immigrant, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR, promoted by Sessions and Barr and not effectively addressed by Garland.
Happy to see another Round Table victory on use of experts. But, the 1st Circuit should have published this instructive decision. Hopefully, they now will!
As we know, the BIA’s systemic mishandling of experts is a chronic problem, particularly as the BIA intentionally overcomplicates the law, as a “deterrent,” so experts are almost a requirement for success. (Even though it is well-known that many asylum applicants have difficulty just getting competent pro bono lawyers to represent them, let alone the services of “pro bono experts.”). Every example helps expose the BIA’s professional misconduct, for which Garland and his DOJ leadership have shown an unusual and disturbing tolerance.
If you don’t bring an expert, they deny for failure to sustain your B/P! If you do bring an expert, they minimize, misconstrue, or ignore their testimony!
“Catch 22” — the applicant loses either way!
Experts are also important because it’s an area where the Article IIIs’ experience with experts in civil litigation far exceeds the BIA’s. Therefore, they are apt to recognize the BIA’s sharp divergence from the weight and respect ordinarily given to experts in civil litigation. Hence, we have had substantial success with the Circuits in challenging the BIA’s continuing, inappropriately dismissive, treatment of experts.
The BIA routinely uses sloppy, often internally inconsistent, “boilerplate” in their decisions. Yet, they somehow find time to “nitpick” expert testimony looking for every minor or insignificant “omission” or “discrepancy” to discredit the expert! What a disgrace!
Finally, on Naah v. Garland, a special “shout out” to long-time NDPA stalwart and role model Danielle Beach-Oswald on her victory in a Cameroonian political persecution case in the 5th Circuit. As the decision reflects, asylum victories on non-procedural issues are hard to come by in the 5th. Danielle was a “Legacy Arlington Immigration Court regular” during my time on the bench. This just further cements her status as “one of the best in the business!”
Congrats, Danielle, and thanks for all you do!
Think how much better this system would function with a BIA of real subject-matter experts focused on due process and fundamental fairness — rather than helping out their “partners” at DHS enforcement and protecting their careers in the process! And, what if we also had a Dem AG focused on due process for immigrants in “his” courts, rather than being asleep at the switch and complicit in some of the worst, anti immigrant, biased, backlog building “jurisprudence” rolled out by the Federal “justice” system!
What if once in office, Dems actually courageously stood up for the immigrants, advocates, and values they claim to represent during elections?
