"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.
Garland’s bureaucratic minions keep close watch over their “captive” Immigration Judges. “Galley Slaves” Public Realm
As one of my esteemed colleagues says, “You can’t make this stuff up!”
I got this message from one of my Round Table colleagues involved in planning in a well-respected CLE event where local Immigration Judges had been invited to participate. “Things [for local IJ’s participation in CLE conference] were going pretty smoothly until EOIR Ethics came back with a NO.NO, the Judges cannot participate, and NO we’re not going to tell you why.”
One Round Table member noted: “As [Hon. “Sir”] Jeff [Chase] has said, our main legacy will be to educate the next generation of immigration lawyers.”
“EOIR in Exile” (“a/k/a “The Round Table”) appears to be “the only game in town” when it comes to educating practitioners about what really happens in Immigration Court.
Under Garland, EOIR inflicts unprofessional and humiliating treatment not only on the parties and lawyers appearing it, but also on its own judges!
Way back in the “good ol’ days @ EOIR,” Immigration Judges were actually allowed, even occasionally encouraged, to participate in CLE and other educational events. Of course, advance permission, at several levels, extensive disclaimers, and an occasional dose of censorship (had to stick to the “party line” – no criticism of EOIR) were part of the equation. That was enough to discourage a number of my judicial colleagues from engaging in public speaking. But, I was one of those who accepted as many invitations as possible.
I remember being on a panel with a U.S. District Judge. I delivered my “standard elaborate disclaimer” — basically providing “plausible deniability” for my remarks for everyone in the universe. Then, the USDJ got up and said something like this: “I asked nobody’s permission to be here today, although I did notify the Chief Judge of my whereabouts as a matter of professional courtesy.” That summed up the difference between “independent” and “captive” judges, and why an independent Article I Immigration Court is long, long overdue. But, in the meantime, there is no excuse for the ongoing and worsening disorder and dysfunction in Garland’s “courts!“
On June 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision that might not have received the attention it deserved. The end result of the court’s published decision in Herrera-Alcala v. Garland was to affirm an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum based on a lack of credibility.1
But before reaching the merits, the court addressed a jurisdictional issue, and that is where our interest lies. At his removal proceeding, the petitioner was detained at a Louisiana correctional facility, which placed him physically within the territory of the Fifth Circuit. For some reason, the Administrative Control Court (which is where the administrative record for the case was created and maintained, and where documents were filed by the parties) having jurisdiction over that Louisiana correctional facility was in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, which is physically located within the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction.
However, the immigration judge who conducted the hearing remotely by video and rendered the decision was sitting at the Immigration Adjudication Center in Falls Church, Virginia, which is within the geographic jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit. So after the BIA dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, his counsel sought review with the Fourth Circuit. The Department of Justice moved to change venue to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the petitioner’s location was determinative. And an amicus brief filed by an immigrants’ rights group took the position that venue properly belonged in the Eighth Circuit, where the control court was located.
The Fourth Circuit resolved the question of jurisdiction using the language of the relevant statute. Since 8 U.S.C. section 1252(b)(2) states that the “petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings,” the court interpreted that to mean it is the location of the judge that determines jurisdiction. And as the judge in this case was in Virginia, it found proper jurisdiction to be with the Fourth Circuit.
The decision yields an immediate benefit, as there are presently nineteen Immigration Judges sitting in the two Immigration Adjudication Centers that are located within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction (in Falls Church and Richmond, VA). Based on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, any of the thousands of noncitizens whose cases were heard by one of these Virginia-based judges now have the option of seeking judicial review in the Fourth Circuit.
The impact of this becomes apparent when we look at the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of L-E-A-.2 In that case, the Board held that the respondent’s family constituted a valid particular social group for asylum purposes, but then denied asylum by finding that a nexus had not been established between that family membership and the feared persecution. In fact, the decision created an unreasonably high standard for nexus in a commonly occurring type of asylum claim. But the decision contains a footnote recognizing that the Fourth Circuit holds a significantly different view of nexus in such cases, adding that L-E-A- did “not arise in the Fourth Circuit.”3
Although the Board doesn’t go as far as saying so, applying Fourth Circuit case law to the facts of L-E-A- would have resulted in a grant of asylum. As I discussed in far greater depth in this blog post in December, the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly reversed the Board on nexus, citing the latter’s error of focusing on why the persecutor targeted the group in question, instead of asking why they targeted the asylum applicant themself. For example, if the group in question is a family, it doesn’t matter if the persecutor is targeting that family for an unprotected reason such as money, revenge, or self-preservation. Per the Fourth Circuit, if the asylum seeker themself wouldn’t be targeted if not for their membership in that family, then nexus has been established, regardless of the reason the family is at risk in the first place.4
In addition to its more favorable take on nexus, the Fourth Circuit is also among the handful of circuits to consider verbal death threats to constitute persecution.5 This is important, because one who has been threatened in those circuits has thus established past persecution, causing burdens of proof regarding future fear and internal relocation to then shift to the government to rebut, and further opening the possibility for humanitarian grants of asylum even where the government meets its burden of rebuttal.6
The Fourth Circuit has also imposed on Immigration Judges a strong obligation under international law to fully develop the record in hearings involving asylum claims, particularly (but not exclusively) where the respondent is pro se, and considers an IJ’s failure to meet this obligation to be “presumptively prejudicial.”7 Any attorney who is representing on appeal an asylum applicant who appeared pro se below where the IJ had been sitting in Virginia might want to review the record to see if the duties imposed by the Fourth Circuit to develop the record, which includes a “broad and robust duty to help pro se asylum seekers articulate their particular social groups,” was satisfied.8
In spite of the above-listed benefits, advocates have identified a potential downside to the ruling in Herrera-Alcala should the Fourth Circuit’s view on jurisdiction be adopted nationwide. To illustrate this concern, I’ll use a hypothetical example arising in a circuit such as the Fourth with a body of case law favorable to asylum applicants. Let’s imagine that after briefing and documenting the claim in line with that circuit’s law, the presiding judge in Baltimore is out sick on the day of the merits hearing. A deserving asylum seeker could have a likely grant of asylum upended if a judge stationed in a jurisdiction with far less favorable case law is enlisted to hear the case by video under EOIR’s “No Dark Courtrooms” policy.9 While the intent behind substituting in a remote judge might be an innocent one, the impact on the asylum seeker of unexpectedly having to overcome a much tougher standard for nexus or a narrower definition of persecution could be devastating, as the Matter of L-E-A- example illustrated.
The Fourth Circuit’s view is presently limited to the Fourth Circuit. But should it come to be the universal rule, while whether a particular circuit will accept jurisdiction over a petition for review is beyond EOIR’s control, the agency may itself still choose which circuit’s case law its own Immigration Judges should apply in individual cases before the Immigration Courts. EOIR would do well to look to the example of USCIS, which advises its asylum officers conducting credible fear interviews that where there is disagreement among the circuits as to the proper interpretation of a legal issue, “generally the interpretation most favorable to the applicant is used when determining whether the applicant meets the credible fear standard.”10
I mentioned above the Fourth Circuit’s recognition of the duty of Immigration Judges to ensure that the record is fully developed in asylum claims. Scholars credit that obligation to the legal requirement on nations to implement treaties in good faith. For example, in discussing the adjudicator’s duty to develop the record in asylum cases, two leading international refugee law scholars explain the duty to implement treaties in good faith as holding states “not simply to ensuring the benefits of the Convention are withhold from persons who are not refugees, but equally to doing whatever is within their ability to ensure recognition of genuine refugees.”11
But shouldn’t that same obligation apply to not only developing the evidence of record, but also to deciding which law to apply when, as in Herrera-Alcala, there is more than one option? If there is an obligation on our government to do everything in its ability to ensure recognition of genuine refugees, then isn’t that obligation breached where an individual sitting in a geographic area in which the law deems her deserving of asylum is then denied protection because the judge being beamed into that courtroom is sitting in a place with less enlightened precedent?
Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2022. All rights reserved.
Notes:
Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, Nos. 20-1770, 20-2338, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. June 30, 2022).
See Sorto-Guzman v. Garland, No. 20-1762, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022) (restating the court’s repeated holding that “the ‘threat of death’ qualifies as persecution.”); Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020) (emphasizing that “under our precedent, as we have repeatedly explained, a threat of death qualifies as past persecution”).
8 C.F.R. §§1208.13(b)(1), 1208.13(b)(3)(ii), and 1208.13(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Matter of D-I-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 448 (BIA 2008); Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705 (BIA 2012).
Arevalo Quintero v. Garland, 998 F.3d 612, 642 (4th Cir. 2021) (italics in original).
Id. at 633.
March 29, 2019 Memo of EOIR Director, “No Dark Courtrooms,” OOD PM 19-11.
USCIS Asylum Division Officer Training Course, Credible Fear of Persecution and Torture Determinations (Feb. 13, 2017), at 17.
James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (2d Ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014, at 119.
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a formerImmigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
*******************
At the “Legacy INS,” the acronym for what were then called “Remote Adjudication Centers” was “The RACK” — with good reason! Once upon a time, EOIR went out of the way to emphasize the differences with, and independence from, INS — it ran “courts” not “adjudication centers,” and it was comprised of “judges” NOT “adjudicators.”
Indeed, I can remember a past (in person) IJ National Conference where a senior DOJ official received a rather chilly reception for referring to the IJs in the room as “highly paid immigration examiners who worked for the AG.”
But, times change, and passage of time does not always bring progress. In many important ways EOIR is going backwards. Over the years, particularly 2017-2021, it probably has become more “politicized, compromised, weaponized, and subservient to immigration enforcement” than it was when it operated within the “Legacy INS.” Now, its bloated hierarchical bureaucracy, unmanageable backlogs, lousy public service, and emphasis on “productivity” and carrying out DOJ policies, looks more and more like DHS — the successor to the agency from which it declared “independence” back in 1983. What an unforgivable mess!
As a “vet” of thousands of Televideo Hearings during my 13+ years on the bench at Arlington, I can definitively say that they are inferior to in person hearings, for many reasons. But, sometimes bureaucratic attempts to “depersonalize” justice, cut corners, and achieve bureaucratic goals produce unanticipated outcomes!
The Off-Broadway play The Courtroom is now a film; it recently screened as part of the Tribeca Film Festival. I think it is excellent, and would highly recommend that all those interested in immigration law see it. As you might know, the film depicts the actual immigration court case that culminated on appeal in the Seventh Circuit’s 2012 precedent decision in Keathley v. Holder.1
While there is so much artistic talent to applaud among the film’s cast (especially the excellent Kristin Villanueva as the respondent, Elizabeth Keathley), director Lee Sunday Evans, and Arian Moayed (who created the script from actual court transcripts), as a lawyer and former judge, I was particularly impressed with the legal theory employed in the case by the real-life attorney Richard Hanus.
To summarize the facts of the case, Ms. Keathley went to the Illinois Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain a state identification card while in non-immigrant status, having been admitted to the U.S. on a fiancee visa. In processing her application, the DMV official asked (as he was required to do) whether she wanted to be an organ donor, and more consequentially, whether she wanted to register to vote. Having just shown the DMV official her non-U.S. passport and non-immigrant visa, Ms. Keathley took the question to mean that she was eligible to vote. And an Illinois law designed to deter discrimination in voter registration precluded the DMV official from offering her further guidance to dispel that belief. When at her adjustment of status interview with DHS, Ms. Keathley answered honestly that she had voted in the 2006 midterm election, she soon found herself in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
Furthermore, her situation appeared hopeless. Section 237(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration & Nationality Act requires only a finding that a noncitizen voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local statute in order to make the individual deportable; it does not require a criminal conviction for having done so. Ms. Keathley readily admitted that she had voted. And of course, a federal statute, namely, 18 U.S.C. section 611, prohibits non-citizens from doing so.
But Ms. Keathley’s attorney argued that she was not in fact deportable, because there was a legal defense for her action, called “entrapment by estoppel.” As Judge Frank Easterbrook, writing the Seventh Circuit’s decision in the case, explained, criminal defenses are relevant in removal proceedings. He provided the example of a noncitizen who kills another in self-defense, raising the question of whether that person would then be deportable for having committed the crime of murder. While Judge Easterbrook explained that the statute might define murder as the intentional killing of a human being, a person who kills in self defense is not guilty of murder, and would thus not be deportable.2 The same logic applies to voting.
Judge Easterbrook further explained that while its name is confusing, the defense of entrapment by estoppel can be better described as “official authorization.” In his oral argument, Hanus offered the analogy of a police officer waving a driver through a red light; because the officer authorized the action, the driver could not be ticketed for their action.
Judge Easterbrook provided another example: if a Secret Service agent authorizes someone to distribute counterfeit currency as part of a criminal investigation, the person doing so cannot then be criminally charged for such action.
But the judge also emphasized an important requirement for the defense: the person authorizing the action must have the authority to do so. As Judge Easterbrook pointed out, a Secret Service agent can authorize someone to pass counterfeit bills, but (choosing a seemingly random example) a high school principal, in spite of being a government employee, would have no authority over who is qualified to vote.
He continued that in Ms. Keathley’s case, while Department of Motor Vehicle officials lack the authority to specifically register non-citizens to vote, they are authorized to register people for federal elections. In the words of Judge Easterbrook, “The power to register someone supposes some authority to ascertain whether legal qualifications have been met,” meaning that such officials “thus are entitled to speak for the government” on the subject of eligibility to vote.3
The Seventh Circuit remanded the matter, advising that “If the IJ does credit Keathley’s statements about what occurred, the Department of Homeland Security should give serious consideration to withdrawing its proposal that she be declared inadmissible and be removed from the United States. A person who behaves with scrupulous honesty only to be misled by a state official should be as welcome in this country in 2012 as she was when she entered in 2004.”4
On remand, Immigration Judge Craig Zerbe determined that the charge of removability was not sustained in light of the Seventh Circuit’s decision; Ms. Keathley’s application for adjustment of status was thus granted. As those who saw the movie or play know, she has since become a U.S. citizen.
I hold Richard Hanus in the highest regard, and find his arguments in litigating this case to be brilliant. I’ve also wondered if his argument might have broader applications.
With that thought in mind, I have heard of a disturbing position being taken by DHS in response to the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana, which presently remains a controlled substance under federal law.
The issue is that a noncitizen seeking to adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident must demonstrate that they are not inadmissible to the U.S.(It was in this same posture that Ms. Keathley was also found inadmissible at her adjustment of status interview). But section 212(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Act makes inadmissible not only any noncitizen who “is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance,” but also one who “is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance…or endeavored to do so.”
Like the voting provision, this exclusion ground does not require a criminal conviction. But while whether or not someone voted is a clearcut question, what constitutes aiding, abetting, assisting, or colluding with marijuana-related businesses that are operating legally at the state level is far less obvious.
For example, DHS has taken the position that those providing accounting and payroll services to marijuana-related businesses constitute aiding or assisting with drug trafficking within the meaning of the Act. It’s not clear how far that theory can be extended. What about those providing banking services? Or the landlords renting to such businesses? Or those providing them with phones, electricity, or internet service? And in at least one case, USCIS has applied the trafficking bar to an individual who maintained video surveillance equipment in a marijuana collective.5
My question is whether the “entrapment by estoppel” defense successfully raised in Keathley could also apply to someone such as an accountant who performed services typical of their profession for a client who happened to be in the marijuana business, and who is then charged by DHS of aiding or assisting in marijuana trafficking. I’m posing this and all that follows as thoughts for discussion; they certainly are not an authoritative opinion. I am curious to hear what readers think.
First, in terms of “official authorization,” legalizing states have set up agencies to closely regulate the marijuana industry. In Colorado, even non-employees providing support services that require them to be unescorted in what the state has termed “limited access areas” within marijuana-related businesses must be issued a license by the state’s Marijuana Enforcement Division.6 Would the application process and issuance of such authorization by the relevant state agency be sufficient to trigger an entrapment by estoppel defense?
There is a question of whether a state agency can provide authorization that would carry any weight at federal level. As noted above, the DMV official in Keathley, although working for the state, had the authority to register individuals to vote in federal as well as state elections; in the view of the Seventh Circuit, that authority carried with it an entitlement to speak to issues of eligibility.
I would here point to an August 29, 2013 memo to all U.S. Attorneys from then Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, titled “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement.” Importantly, this memo refers to a “traditional joint federal-state approach to narcotics enforcement,” adding that this approach has been affected by “[t]he enactment of state laws that endeavor to authorize marijuana production, distribution, and possession by establishing a regulatory scheme for these purposes…”
The Cole Memo listed the federal government’s specific enforcement priorities as follows:
Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels;
Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana;
Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
Preventing the growth of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and
Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
The memo continues by stating that outside of the above-listed priorities, “the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws.”
So if the federal government views state governments as partners in a “traditional” joint approach, in which the federal government limits its own enforcement to the above-listed priorities, and leaves the rest to its enforcement partners at the state level, then could someone authorized by the state to engage in activity of the type that the federal government has announced it was ceding to the state to enforce have a valid argument that state permission covered them at the federal level as well?
It also bears noting that subsequent to the Cole Memo, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury called the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (or “FinCEN” for short) issued guidance “ to clarify Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) expectations for financial institutions seeking to provide services to marijuana-related businesses.”7
It is noteworthy that this federal government guidance does not warn that providing banking or other financial services to MRBs constitutes aiding, assisting, or abetting in the commission of a federal crime. The guidance does require such institutions to exercise due diligence, and to file suspicious activity reports with FinCEN if it believes activity it observes might violate the federal government’s enforcement priorities. In doing so, those institutions are actually aiding and assisting the federal government in its enforcement.
So in providing such guidance, is FinCEN “waving through” businesses who provide supporting services to marijuana-related businesses, providing that they adhere to the guidance? Could the FinCEN guidance be interpreted by non-financial institutions for the premise that it’s OK to provide services to marijuana-related businesses as long as one keeps their eyes open for suspicious activity, and reports all suspect activity to the authorities?
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
696 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2012).
Id. at 646.
Id. at 646-47.
Id. at 647.
Voronin v. Garland, No. 2:20-cv-07019-ODW (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2021). Thanks to Marie Mark at the Immigrant Defense Project for flagging.
1 Code of Colorado Regulations 212-3 at Section 1-115.
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
*******************
The DHS position described by Jeffrey appears to fall on a scale somewhere between “bizarre and incredibly stupid!” But, that doesn’t mean immigrants and their lawyers shouldn’t be concerned and prepared to respond!
Judge William Van Wyke (D – Aug. 14, 2022) U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges “A True Due Process Visionary” PHOTO: the world.com
Remembering William
From his fellow former Immigration Judges:
This news is very sad. William appeared before me years ago when he was an attorney for CARECEN and I was the sole Immigration Judge in Washington DC. Before the 1986 Amnesty, my docket was largely persons from El Salvador, who were the bulk of his case load. I saw him close to daily in those years. Ironically, once he became a colleague -sitting in Philly, York and New York, I saw much less of him.
Passionate is indeed the word that describes him. His death is truly a loss to society.
– Joan Churchill, Immigration Judge, Washington, D.C./ Arlington, VA – 1980 – 2005
So sad to hear. I worked my first legal job with William at CARECEN in Washington DC, we were two attorneys representing hundreds of clients in what at the time a no- win environment where all court cases were being denied. William was a tireless advocate for justice and the little guy and relished playing David to the system’s Goliath.
I later followed his lead in becoming an IJ, meeting with him at York detention court where he assuaged my doubts and concerns about an IJ’s ability to be effective in achieving our goals of putting the respondent first.
Golden Slumbers, William.
– Paul Grussendorf, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and San Francisco, 1997-2004
William was both an honorable man and an honorable judge. Before he became an immigration judge, he often appeared in the Baltimore Immigration Court. I would ask, how much time do you need to present your case in chief, and he would say , at least 1 day, judge! He taught me so much about El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras…he was a passionate advocate who believed in fundamental fairness, the right to be heard, due process. He cared so much about the vulnerable people who came before us.
Rest In Peace, William.
– John Gossart, Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1982-2013
William was an inspiration. So devoted to justice and uncompromising despite the personal costs. His memory will be a blessing to us all, as well as a reminder to hold true to our beliefs. He will be sorely missed.
– Dana Leigh Marks, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1987-2021
So shocking to hear about William. I’m so sorry for his family. Paul Grussendorf, you had it right when you said he relished playing David to the system’s Goliath. He was brilliant, thoughtful and tireless, and a warm and collegial colleague.
– Terry Bain, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2019
I echo what Terry said. He was a great colleague. I am so sad for his young children.
– George Chew, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995 – 2017
This is so shocking! William was a rare combination of a legal scholar, a genuinely caring human being and a compassionate judge. I’m very sorry for his family.
– Sarah Burr, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge and Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2012
I concur with Terry and the others. I just saw William on 7/31 at Steve Morley’s retirement celebration in Philadelphia. He was as animated and passionate as ever-among the most powerful and persuasive advocates to have ever served as an IJ. William will be missed.
– Charles Honeyman, Immigration Judge, New York and Philadelphia, 1995-2020
I am so saddened by Bill’s untimely passing. I practiced before him in York and for his brief stint in Philadelphia before his return to NY. It was always a pleasure and refreshing to see an IJ so passionate about immigrant rights. And, I spoke with him in NY shortly before I took the bench 12 years ago. It was a pleasure to reconnect with him at my retirement party 2 weeks ago. Just so sad.
– Steve Morley, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia, 2010-2022
I cant get over this shocking and sad news about William’s passing. He is someone Ive known for so long – back to the times in the 80s when I’d come to DC from Boston for marches for Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum rights! I knew William from the National Lawyers Guild Immigration Project. Such a devoted warrior and thinker for civil and human rights!
As I said elsewhere, we had a lot of contact when he was at York and I was at the BIA. We shared a commitment to fairness and justice. He is such an honorable person and an inspiring and humane advocate for those he represented and whose cases he adjudicated. l’ll miss him.
– Lory D Rosenberg, Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2002
After I met William during my new Immigration Judge training, we quickly became good friends. He was one of the most brilliant lawyers I’ve ever known, a staunch warrior for justice, and a lovely person. He will be terribly missed. I really can’t believe he is gone.
– Carol King, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2017
William was a very caring and compassionate judge. He was also a terrific human being who touched so many lives in a positive way!
– Robert D. Weisel, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Immigration Judge, New York, 1989-2016
I always admired his devotion to justice and especially his bravery and righteousness. I wish I had known William well enough to share that I also had a son named Camilo. We would have gotten to know each other so much better.
– Laura Ramirez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
He really was a wonderful advocate for immigrants. I always remember government counsel complaining to Judge Creppy and I that he was too nice and too helpful to detained clients. Such an indictment. We needed more Judges like him.
– William P. Joyce, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1996-2002
I will always remember him as someone who put his duties to the law, human dignity, and his country above “career comfort.” Compare that with the many “go along to get along” appellate judges on the BIA — unwilling to properly review records and enforce Mogharrabi and Cardoza because it might rock the boat and slow down the deportation assembly line. William laid his career on the line for higher values of humanity and fairness.
Like Bill Joyce, I say we we need more of that from our judges from EOIR to the Supremes!
– Paul W. Schmidt, Chairperson and Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2003; Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA, 2003-2016
My experiences with William were mostly after he left York. We became friends and spoke freely of our similarly being derailed because others didn’t approve of how we viewed our duty to the sacred office we held. I tried to give him some of my silly humorous advice based on Alexander Zholtenis advice that when in exile tend to your craft. Later he expressed his appreciation for that silly advice I got from my kid brother. William, as everybody noted was a first class mind individual and legal scholar. I’ll always miss him.
I also echo all that has been said. I knew William from our IJ conferences in addition to periodically speaking with him by phone. Whatever the issue, he was always the voice of experience, respect and sensitivity.
He was a good judge. He was a good man. May he RIP.
– Alberto Gonzalez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995 – 2005
I did not know William well, perhaps having run into him at AILA conferences before we each became IJs in 1995. There were a few times that we connected on seemingly humorous events, such as EOIR having Bernadette Dohrn present at our national training one year. (She had been known maybe 20 years earlier as a leader in the Weather Underground). I had immense respect for him and his forthrightness about what was fair and just. A powerful voice that will be missed.
– Polly Webber, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2016
Very, very sad news…A warrior for Justice. May his memory be a blessing.
– Bruce J. Einhorn, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1990-2007
He will be missed. One of the best we had.
– Steve Abrams, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick St., and Queens Wackenhut, 1997-2013
The descriptions are apt. and I concur on the great loss that his passing represents and feel very sad about this news.
I first met him when I was sitting on the ABA’s Coordinating Committee on Immigration – I believe that was in the late 80’s. We were on the commission when Pro Bar was created. He was such a knowledgeable person. He was also committed to justice and due process and he will be missed.
– Denise Slavin, Immigration Judge, Miami, Krome, and Baltimore, 1995-2019
I will remember William for his intellect, his courage, and his compassion. He will be greatly missed.
– James R. Fujimoto, Immigration Judge, Chicago 1990-2019
I knew William primarily through appearing before him as an attorney, and then through the work of the Round Table. William’s legal acumen, compassion, and dedication to justice has been reflected in his work both on and off the bench. I had just seen him in person at Steve Morley’s retirement party, where we talked about many things, and got to know each other better. I am very thankful for that opportunity, because I very much enjoyed our conversation, and especially our discussion of how much he was enjoying retirement and the time he was able to spend with family and friends.
– Sue Roy, Immigration Judge, Newark, 2008-2010
William had a mind like no one else, a really deeply-held sense of right and wrong, a scholarly grasp of the law, and patience to take as long and go into as much detail as humanly possible to get to the correct result. We won’t see another like him. I am honored to have known him. He will be greatly missed.
– Jeff Chase, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2007
****************************
Many thanks to our colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase for compiling, organizing, and formatting the many e-mails that circulated among the Round Table paying tribute to our friend and colleague.
A life dedicated to serving humanity through due process. RIP our friend!
Judge William Van Wyke (D – Aug. 14, 2022) U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges “A True Due Process Visionary” PHOTO: the world.com
On August 14, the immigration law community lost a true giant. William Van Wyke, a former Immigration Judge, advocate, and scholar unexpectedly passed away.
How does one capture William’s essence? I’m going to attempt to do so through his own words (in bold), taken from both public sources and emails he wrote to his former Immigration Judge colleagues in conversations after his retirement from the bench.
“The fearful and crude ideas get put into practice by reflex; compassionate and thoughtful ones wait around until everyone agrees with them. – William” – April 1, 2021 email.
My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.
Prior to authoring that article, WIlliam had spent nine years pioneering the representation of Central American refugees before the Immigration Courts in Washington and Baltimore, beginning this work when the 1980 Refugee Act was still new.
“’We have a law that was intended to be generous, that, when it is well understood, would cover many cases — many, many more cases — than those that are granted,’ Van Wyke says.” – Quote in Eyder Peralta, “Why A Single Question Decides The Fates Of Central American Migrants,” NPR, Feb. 25, 2016.
In one 1990 case in which his clients were denied asylum, William succeeded in persuading the Immigration Judge to rule that those clients could not be deported to their native El Salvador as long as the civil war continued there. William achieved this result by arguing customary international law, and analogizing a refugee’s flight from war to the customary practice of allowing a ship in distress the right to enter a port without authorization. The Washington Post quoted an immigration law authority who called the decision “one of the most impressive victories ever in an immigration court.” The decision was the subject of a law review article the following year.3
“My own experience is that people with anti-immigrant sentiments, whether in INS, DHS, EOIR or anywhere else, have always cringed at the idea of an IJ giving an unrepresented person sufficient information to make genuinely informed decisions… I remember a talk by Janet Reno at one of our conferences 20 years ago when she mentioned ‘compassion’ 12 times — I counted them. But try to actually be compassionate in specific cases in a legally appropriate and consequential way and you’re accused of overstepping judicial bounds. Didn’t I know that compassion is supposed to be a decoration, not something that actually helps the people before us?” – Email, Sept. 18, 2019
William’s appointment as an Immigration Judge in March, 1995 sent a message of hope to the immigration law community. On the bench, William maintained his methodical, detail-oriented approach. Early in his career on the bench, William reported that the INS trial attorneys had given him the nickname “the Van Wyck Expressway,” a reference to the similarly named NYC roadway that most know from traveling to or from JFK Airport. When William pointed out to one of those INS attorneys that his courtroom actually moved quite slowly, the attorney responded: “So does the Van Wyck Expressway.”
While we were both on the bench, I heard that William had developed a highly unique seating plan for his courtroom, and asked him about it one day. He showed it to me, explaining in detail his deeply thought out reasoning for the placement of every chair in the room. I don’t remember the specifics so many years later, but it was a perfect example of the strong sense of responsibility WIlliam felt towards all who set foot in his courtroom.
That sense of responsibility became even more heightened when WIlliam transferred from the court in New York to what he used to call “plain old York,” meaning the detained immigration court in York, Pennsylvania, located inside of the York County Prison.4
In one case he heard there, a non-citizen sat in jail awaiting approval of a green card petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife that could have saved him from deportation. But approval of visa petitions is not something an immigration judge can do; that power lies with the same government agency that was seeking the non-citizen’s deportation (at the time, that was INS; it is now DHS). After continuing the case multiple times to allow for a decision on the visa petition, WIlliam was repeatedly informed by INS’s attorney that no action had been taken. The INS attorney further refused to inquire as to when a decision might be expected, and insisted that rather than wait, the non-citizen should be ordered deported.
Although at the time such action required the consent of both parties, WIlliam took the bold step of administratively closing the case over the government’s objection, writing a detailed decision explaining the necessity of doing so under the facts presented.
Remarkably, rather than appeal William’s denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the INS attorney privately and most improperly contacted the Chief Immigration Judge by phone, who in turn improperly reopened the matter and placed it back on for hearing.
In a decision that should be required reading for all EOIR management, WIlliam fired back at both INS and his own higher-ups, stating that it would be a “manifest injustice” to deport the respondent “simply because INS has not performed its Congressionally-mandated adjudication in a timely fashion.”
Detailing the extensive efforts he had undertaken to get INS to adjudicate the visa petition, WIlliam further noted that “[t]he asymmetry of ordering one party, but asking, begging, pleading and cajoling the other party hearing after hearing without effect, can only diminish the court as an authoritative and independent arbiter in the public’s eyes.”
WIlliam took the INS and the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge to task for their unethical ex parte communication, and the latter’s unauthorized action in response to such conversation:
The Chief Immigration Judge is an administrative and policy officer without appellate or other legal authority to overrule the immigration judge’s procedural decisions in the case, see 8 CFR 3.9, 3.1(b), and ethical rules require the Chief Immigration Judge as well as immigration judges to refrain from taking action in a specific case following an ex parte communication about the case by one of the parties.
William further noted that his “decision to close the case temporarily was not a mere administrative one subject to OCIJ’s general direction, but a legal decision made as an integral part of the adjudicatory process in an individual case.” William cautioned that the private communication, which denied opposing counsel the right to be heard, protected INS from having to defend its position in an appeal to the BIA, thus giving
a procedural and tactical advantage to the INS by demonstrating to respondent, rightly or wrongly, that an INS call to the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge may be enough to undo what the immigration judge does in open court, while encouraging the INS to continue to seek results from the OCIJ privately that it might not be able to get from the BIA publicly.
William concluded:
Unable to establish or enforce the standards of conduct that this judge believes must apply, he will recuse himself from further consideration of the case. In the court’s view, only the OCIJ, which went beyond mere administrative action to direct a particular course of action in this case, is in a position to cure the appearance of impropriety its intervention has produced. The court will therefore refer this case back to the Chief Immigration Judge for whatever action he may deem fit and appropriate.
In retirement, William was a member of our Round Table that filed an amicus brief in an important case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Velasco-Lopez v. Decker. The case challenged the practice of requiring a detained non-citizen to themself prove that they would not pose a flight risk or danger to the community in order to warrant their release from detention. In its precedent decision, the circuit court agreed that such burden should be borne by the government, and not the detainee.
I share here part of William’s response to the decision
In this decision, the important starting point is that due process applies to every person in their relation to the power of government. This principle humanizes immigrant “others” and shows that when Big Government (i.e. the kind that wields power in favor of the already rich and already powerful) treads on anyone, everyone’s rights are in jeopardy. The principles relevant in bond decisions –– having ties to our communities and not being a danger to others –– are strong values that most of us honor and share, whether recent immigrants or earlier-generation immigrants, and should make all of us resist limitations on our freedom by the coercive power of jailing people.
I don’t know if they still staple those little yellow cards with red print onto files of jailed immigrants that used to say, “RUSH: detained at government expense.” Years ago when I was at York I wrote to… EOIR General Counsel, to ask if we couldn’t change those cards to be more humane, to say, “RUSH: person deprived of liberty,” or at least more neutral: “person deprived of liberty at government expense.” A change, of course, was “unnecessary” because everyone already knew the immigrants’ hardship, even if our boss’s reminder focused only on the government’s. Maybe they’ll change the cards now to remind adjudicators: “Rush: this person should not be deprived of freedom unless the government quickly decides he/she lacks any community ties AND is dangerous.” I won’t hold my breath, though.
I will conclude by saying that just recently, I set about researching a narrow legal issue that I would imagine most Immigration Judges would resolve in a few pages at most. I came across a decision that William had written on the topic shortly before his retirement from the bench that was exactly what I was looking for. It was 39 pages single spaced, and of course, absolutely brilliant.
On behalf of your fellow judges, and of all who have appeared in Immigration Court, thank you, William, for being you, for never lowering your standards. You restored the hope of so many in the power of law to make a positive difference in people’s lives, and so often showed that there was a way forward when we thought there was none. You are already greatly missed.
Notes:
William Van Wyke, “A New Perspective on Well-Founded Fear,” 1992-93 Immigration & Nationality Handbook(AILA, 1992) at 497.
Cookson, II, Charles W. “In Re Santos: Extending the Right of Non-Return to Refugees of Civil Wars.” American University International Law Review 7, no. 1 (1991): 145-171.
The York Immigration Court was closed on July 31, 2021.
Eric Schmitt, “Two Judges Do Battle in an Immigration Case,” NYT, June 21, 2001.
978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020). The author recognized the outstanding representation in this matter by the petitioner’s counsel, Julie Dona (who argued the case) and Aadhithi Padmanabhan of the Legal Aid Society, and to Souvik Saha of Wilmer Hale for his remarkable assistance in drafting our amicus brief.
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
************************
My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.
. . . .
William spent those years trying to persuade the government of the proper application of the new law. However, INS and the newly created EOIR remained largely mired in the Cold War-influenced view of asylum that preceded the 1980 changes. And under that Cold War approach, Central Americans fleeing pro-U.S. regimes had nearly no chance to obtain asylum
A 1991 Washington Post article documented how this institutional resistance only caused William to be more persistent and creative in his legal approach.2
Kind of says it all about the entrenched, continuing, institutional resistance at EOIR to correct, generous, fair, practical interpretations of asylum law and other immigration and human rights laws! That’s what helps generate uncontrollable backlogs and brings our entire justice system into disrepute! Worst of all, it threatens the lives of those denied justice by its legal misinterpretations and mis-applications of the law!
What does it say about an institution that no longer touts or actively pursues its noble one-time-vision of “through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” Ironically, William’s life and achievements embody that now-defunct “EOIR vision.” But, nobody in “management” actually acknowledged that during his often-difficult tenure there.
Encouragingly, a number of Garland’s recent judicial appointments are distinguished, expert, widely respected “practical scholars” in the “Van Wyke mold.” Unfortunately, it’s going to take immediate and dramatic changes in moribund, uninspired EOIR leadership and in the “any reason to deny” BIA to overcome the “Cold War mentality,” anti-immigrant bias, assembly line procedures, “institutionalized go along to get alongism,” and unacceptably poor performance of EOIR. Right now, it’s still drag on our entire justice system that puts the future of our nation at risk!
No wonder we already miss William, his outspoken courage, and his wisdom so much. There is a void in our justice system right now where fierce due-process-focused, creative, humane, practical scholars should be leading the way in our institutions of justice!
It’s up to the “new generation” of the NDPA to break down the walls of official resistance by Garland and other short-sighted bureaucrats and politicos who lack the vision to make racial justice, immigrant justice, and equal justice for all realities rather than disingenuous unfulfilled rhetoric! Guys, your lives and those of your descendants might depend on it! So, dial up the pressure on the intransigents, many of them in the Biden Administration you helped to elect and who expect your support and votes again this Fall!
What kind of “judges” would “defy” the evidence of record to wrongfully deny asylum? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Read the 3rd Circuit’s (unfortunately) unpublished decision here:
The IJ credited Bimpong’s testimony, and the BIA did not disturb this finding. Yet the BIA concluded that Bimpong’s persecution was a personal land dispute that lacked any nexus to his membership in the Ashanti tribe. In doing so, the BIA deferred to the IJ’s conclusion that “the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the [Enzema] Tribe targeted the applicant because of membership in the Ashanti Tribe.” AR 97 (emphasis added). That conclusion defies the record, which is replete with evidence that Bimpong’s tribal affiliation was a central reason for his persecution. See, e.g., AR 157, 162-63, 167–68, 185, 596, 598. For example, Bimpong testified that members of
the Enzema “did not want the land that [he] possessed to be owned by non-members of 4
the Enzema tribe,” AR 596, and that he “was a target of persecution because of [an] intertribal dispute between the Enzema tribe and Ashanti tribe.” AR 598.
****************
Typical BIA BS prejudged, form denial “boilerplate.” “Devoid of evidence” — gimmie a break! We tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to eliminate this type of non-analytical nonsense several decades ago. It’s indicative of a totally broken system that is unfair and biased against migrants! Why is Garland allowing this continuing systemic injustice?
Demand that Garland replace his inept, unprofessional, unconstitutional, “Trump holdover” BIA with real judges who are experts in immigration, asylum, human rights, and fully committed to due process and fundamental fairness!
To quote my good friend and Round Table 🛡 colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
At the IJ level, the ACIJs have to be charged with determining if the IJ actually doesn’t know the law, or if they are choosing not to follow it. Of course, you need ACIJs who actually know immigration law, which isn’t always the case anymore. If it’s the former, you schedule additional training; if it’s the latter, they may need to suspend or remove the IJ. That should be a priority for the next Chief IJ.
But why isn’t this being caught at the BIA level? They continue to act as a rubber stamp. There have been a few cases just in the past couple of weeks where the errors were really major and apparent.
A BIA that would “rubber stamp” denials without question or meaningful analysis so that OIL could then argue “deference” to railroad refugees and other individuals entitled to relief out of the country is precisely what Barr and Sessions intended to create. In other words, a “parody of justice” that would carry out the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda without giving it any thought. And, it’s no coincidence that this unconstitutional agenda falls hardest on the backs of asylum seekers and other migrants of color. It also serves to reinforce the vile concept that individuals of color in the U.S. are not equal under the law.
The real question here is why Garland hasn’t effectively changed the system by bringing in real judges who are experts in immigration and human rights and who would be fair to all coming before his Immigration Courts regardless of race or status? “Gradual change” is unacceptable when individuals (and their conscientious representatives) are being subjected to deadly quasi-judicial incompetence on a daily basis. Tell Garland you’ve had enough!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi: I just heard that all of the anti-immigration measures that Republicans attempted to add as amendments to the reconciliation bill were defeated.
I’m so in awe of the advocates who were up all night monitoring the process and weighing in with Senators’ offices.
Best, Jeff
*******************
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American Racism, Now At The Heart of The GOP Immigration Agenda
But, don’t relax or breathe a sign of relief. The GOP is very up front about the Jim Crow hate agenda they plan to roll out if they gain control of Congress in the midterms. Here is is in all it’s dishonesty, cruelty, and racist agitation:
Yes, you can expect Biden to veto any of this. But, it still will disrupt the business of Congress and will lead to hate rhetoric, lies, and racist stereotypes being hurled against immigrants and people of color. There is virtually no chance that the GOP would have the votes to override the vetoes in both Houses.
Still, upcoming generations of younger Americans will have to decide whether they want to live and raise their children in the the “American Hungary” — a neo-Nazi state where racial and ethic hatred and anti-Semitism will be at the center of all authoritarian Government policy. If not, the younger generation of the NDPA needs to come up with ways of keeping the GOP out of political power from the top to the bottom.
However welcome, the latest hard-fought victory over racist nativism and xenophobia was just the beginning of the struggle for the heart and soul of America.
On July 21, we were treated to the news that our nation’s immigration courts will no longer be run by a chief judge specifically installed by the prior administration as part of its plan to undermine those courts’ independence and fairness. The fact that this development took a year and a half to occur, evoked surprise, and was met with accusations of wrongdoing and threats to investigate from conservative corners that read as parody says a lot about the present state of those courts.
The Chief Immigration Judge should be in charge of the hiring and training of judges, and in setting policy for the courts. The holder of that title is the person most responsible for creating the environment in which the Immigration Courts function. Unfortunately, the choice to fill this position has too often been an afterthought. And the Trump Administration succeeded in stripping the office of pretty much all authority; one of its appointees was effectively reduced to internally disclaiming “it wasn’t my decision” in response to every controversial directive issued from his office.
It is therefore extremely important for the Biden Administration to give much thought to its next appointee, and in doing so, clearly define what the position is meant to be. And although that appointee serves at the will of the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, formerly a distinguished circuit court judge, is particularly qualified to understand the need for a strongly independent Chief Immigration Judge willing to push back against threats to due process. He should thus afford his choice for the position the authority to do just that. Because when courts fulfill their proper function of providing a fair reading of the law and protecting against government error and overreach, we all benefit.
It is important to note that no Chief Immigration Judge has been chosen from the ranks of immigration law scholars. I think this is partly because unlike their counterparts at the B.I.A., the Chief Immigration Judge is not actively involved in deciding cases; theirs is an administrative job. However, it is high time for that view to change. Now would be an ideal opportunity to appoint someone to the position who knows the law at least as well as the judges they will oversee.
Among other reasons, that degree of knowledge is necessary to allow a chief judge to differentiate between legitimate actions taken by judges based on their good faith interpretations of the law, and alternatively false justifications disguised as legal reasoning offered by those whose real goal is to carry out a particular agenda. The ability to clearly articulate the difference is needed to protect the former, eliminate the latter, and rebut the inevitable claims of political motivation in response to such actions.
As a brief recap, under the Trump Administration, we saw plenty of examples of improper political motive. For instance, the Immigration Courts issued not one but two broadsheets of anti-immigrant propaganda unironically titled “Myths vs. Facts” (in spite of being devoid of the latter). In addition, a highly respected Immigration Judge was wrongly chastised for correctly doing his job because his concern for the due process of the non-citizen was not shared by the then powers that be. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the judicial equivalent of a “hit man” was dispatched from D.C. to Philadelphia for the sole purpose of entering an order of deportation in that case, due process concerns be damned. The entire exercise was clearly intended as a message to other judges of the consequences of acting as anything other than a rubber stamp.
When in spite of such warnings, many Immigration Judges continued to grant asylum claims because the correct application of the law required it, the Trump Administration hired new and unqualified judges who would place loyalty to its nativist agenda above all. One of those hires had actually written a shockingly insulting article only months before his appointment, labeling as “rebels without a clue” all of his soon-to-be colleagues who had issued scholarly, well-reasoned opinions granting asylum to female victims of domestic violence. The author demonstrated what should have been a disqualifying lack of knowledge in broadly characterizing all such claims as falling outside the scope of our asylum laws, and in further accusing more learned judges who concluded otherwise of “grossly exceeding their authority” and engaging in a “gross violation of legal ethics.”
What was needed then was a Chief Immigration Judge willing to say “over my dead body” to these hirings and other abusive actions. It is greatly hoped that the next chief judge will possess both the integrity and authority to do just that, with the knowledge that higher-ups within the agency will stand behind their decisions.
And since we won’t always have a former Circuit Court judge serving as Attorney General, it might be worthwhile while we do to ask for regulations (or at least some form of guidance from above) clarifying what will henceforth be expected of those filling the position, and calling on all personnel within the Department of Justice to encourage and support the independence of their colleagues charged with carrying out judicial functions.
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
JULY 25, 2022
Reprinted by permission.
***************************
Very timely and “spot on,” Sir Jeffrey!
Why The Chief Immigration Judge & BIA Chair Must Be “Working Judges” — No More “JINOS” (“Judges In Name Only”)!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
July 26, 2022
Time (actually “long past time”) for dynamic change! As Chief IJ, we need an “intellectual powerhouse” who is a nationally recognized expert in immigration, human rights, constitutional law, equal justice, racial justice, and an acknowledged, widely-respected intellectual leader with the guts and the “juice” to stand up to bureaucratic meddling and political interference. That’s in addition to having a “big picture” outlook and some actual experience in legal administration.
One additional key change I would make: The Chief Immigration Judge should also function as a “working judge” hearing and deciding at least some cases on a regular basis! There is no substitute for “actual time on the bench” for understanding the Immigration Judge’s proper role.
It puts the CJ in touch with both the DHS Counsel and the private bar on a regular basis. It also exposes BS and nonsense that’s going on in the Immigration Court system. A huge difference exists between “policy and procedural memos issued in a vacuum” from “on high” and actually having to apply them on a daily basis.
Indeed, a “sitting Chief Judge” wouldn’t have to “study” or ask for “reports” on the problems; she would know first-hand what they are from actual experience. Also, the CJ must get out in person and see what’s happening in the various courts, rather than taking an occasional “official tour” where everything tends to be a “sanitized show & tell.” An engaged Chief Judge could be “proactive rather than reactive.”
Surprising what you can find out by actually getting out of the “Executive Suites” in the Skyline Tower in Falls Church and poking around the “retail level” of the system you are administering! There is no better way of doing that than actually taking the bench and dispensing some justice!
How do I know? Well, during my six-year stint as BIA Chair (1995-2001) I was a “working appellate judge” in addition to be an engaged administrator of a dynamically growing and changing organization. I also served as a Senior Executive at EOIR and was never reticent about expressing my views on overall agency management and EOIR’s sometimes stormy relationship with other parts of the DOJ. At one point, I had the unenviable task, along with the then General Counsel of EOIR, of “barring” the then-Director from attending an en banc conference at which cases were to be discussed.
Upon appointment, from private practice, I was one of only four “permanent” appellate judges then on the BIA. By the time I stepped down in 2001, there were more than 20 appellate judges, the staff had more than doubled, a new management structure was in place, a Clerk’s Office had been created, the Virtual Law Library established, precedents were written and formatted differently, and numerous other changes had been made. Sadly, many of the positives have been erased over the past two decades through a combination of political meddling from DOJ and subservient “management” at EOIR.
I also sat and voted on nearly every one of the more than 200 precedent decisions issued during my tenure. I authored some of them, including the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, recognizing female genital mutation (“FGM”) as persecution for the first time.
Additionally, I sat on three-member panels, sometimes as a “regular,” other times filling in for those who were out of the office. I took panels “on the road” to hear oral arguments across the U.S. (something now “prohibited” by the mindless “Ashcroft reforms” that accompanied his “purge” of the BIA in ‘02-03”) and to meet with the local judges, bar, and INS Counsel. It was “due process in action” — a real-life, open, accessible demonstration of how “collegial justice” should work! It put a much-needed and now totally absent “human face” on appellate justice. As those who practiced before the BIA at that time can testify, my “unmistakable signature” was on thousands of non-precedent decisions.
I also made regular unannounced visits to the BIA Attorney Advisers and the newly-established Clerk’s Office to chat about what was on folks’ minds. “Chairman alert” was a commonly heard “warning” throughout the various buildings of the Skyline Center where the BIA was located.
Sure, I didn’t get everything right, and there were some problems I couldn’t solve. But, I was always “on top” of what was happening — both legally and “operationally” — at the BIA. I didn’t have to spend lots of time asking for reports from the staff, because I knew from experience what the problems were and whether the solutions we were attempting were working or not.
Yes, my decision to actively participate in adjudication and aggressively advance my legal views put me in constant conflict with many of my more conservative judicial colleagues at the BIA. As the record shows, I got “outvoted” on a regular basis at both en banc and on panels. But, so what! That’s what being a “real judge” and having real views on justice, based on many years of experience in and out of Government, is all about!
An unanticipated benefit: My “hands on” judicial experience was good preparation for the somewhat unexpected “next phase” of my career — when Ashcroft “exiled” me to the Arlington Immigration Court in 2003. I’ll acknowledge that there were some things about being a trial judge that couldn’t be learned from reading transcripts, writing appellate decisions, and occasionally observing hearings in person.
In another life, at the “Legacy INS,” I had basically “created and implemented” the “modern Chief Counsel system” now in use at DHS — over some vigorous “internal opposition” to change and centralized legal control. That system provided independence from the “clients” in district office operations. Then, I basically had to face that creation in court every day for 13 years!
But, I certainly had a good idea of what I was getting into and was able to “hit the ground running” in terms of the substance of immigration law, the “big issues,” and what good trial decisions should be and look like in writing. Indeed, my “former colleagues” on the BIA sometimes mischaracterized my “oral decisions” as “written decisions” because I used the “familiar BIA written format” and constructed them as what I found the “ideal decision” to be for appellate review during my BIA tenure.
Interestingly, I found that as an Immigration Judge the more humane and realistic view of the law that had been an anathema to the majority of my BIA colleagues — and which helped me and my so-called “liberal” colleagues get the boot from Ashcroft and Kobach — was often accepted by both parties at the trial level. Even when appeals were taken, I did much better with my former colleagues as an IJ than I did as Chair. And, I certainly learned first-hand how deeply screwed up EOIR was and how misguided the BIA majority was on many of their precedents. That, in turn, prepared me to become an advocate for radical due process reforms at EOIR upon retirement.
It’s surprising what an administrator can learn if he or she actually “does” some of the “line work” they are administering. We need a functioning, substantively-engaged, well-informed, “real judge” for Chief IJ, not another “JINO!”
Is she the “Debbie Anker of Entertainment?” PHOTO: Mason Poole, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase writes:
What a beautiful tribute to a true giant and hero. I can’t even begin to state the influence Debbie has had on me. But think of how many NDPA heroes out there are former students of hers, and how many immigration law clinics around the country relied on Debbie’s clinic at Harvard as its model. It’s impossible to overstate her impact.
Clinical Professor Deborah Anker LL.M. ’84, ‘one of the architects of modern refugee law’ and founder of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, moves to emerita status
By Debbie/HLS Correspondent, July 20, 2022
Credit: Kathleen Dooher
As Harvard Law School Clinical Professor Deborah Anker LL.M. ’84 moves to emerita status, she and her many students and colleagues can reflect on her formidable record of achievement — as a pioneer in the study of refugee and asylum law, the author of the seminal text on the subject, and a tireless advocate for the rights of refugees, particularly women and children. As her former student Molly Linhorst ’16 puts it — quoting a sentiment voiced by many of Anker’s admirers — “She’s the Beyoncé of asylum law.”
“As founding director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, Deborah Anker has played a pivotal role at Harvard Law School, not only by founding our clinic but in helping build our clinical program,” Harvard Law School Dean John F. Manning ’85, the Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. “Her work in the clinic enabled countless clients to enjoy freedom and escape persecution by remaining in the U.S., and she trained and inspired scores of other lawyers to work to those same ends.”
“Debbie wins the prize for tenacity in terms of standing up for refugee rights in America,” says James Hathaway, prominent international refugee law scholar and founding director of Michigan Law’s Program in Refugee and Asylum Law. “Literally nobody has fought the good fight as often as she has done. But she is also an intellectual trailblazer, having, in particular, developed a gender-inclusive understanding of refugee status, and having made the case for the alignment of American understandings of asylum with our international obligations. She truly is a hero.”
Groundbreaking scholarship and litigation
A pioneer in the development of clinical legal education in the immigration field, Anker joined the Harvard Law faculty in the early ’80s, as a lecturer on law and later clinical professor of law in 2008. Along with her colleagues Nancy Kelly and John Wilshire-Carrera, Anker founded the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, or HIRC, which has since become a model for similar clinics nationwide. Her book, “Law of Asylum in the United States,” first published in 1998 under the editorship of former student Paul Lufkin and now updated annually with a cadre of HLS student editors, remains the key authoritative text in the area. She also has authored numerous amicus curiae briefs in major refugee litigation, served as an expert witness before national and international fora, and helped draft national gender refugee guidelines.
Harvard Law Clinical Professor Sabrineh Ardalan ’02, Anker’s former student and the current faculty director of HIRC, credits its significant expansion over the decades to Anker’s “commitment to advocating for immigrants’ rights and dedication to responding to the evolving challenges facing immigrants and refugees in the U.S.”
In addition to the clinical work at Greater Boston Legal Services, overseen by Kelly and Willshire Carrera, “HIRC now includes two clinics, a student practice organization [SPO], and the Harvard Representation Initiative, which serves members of the Harvard community whose immigration status is at risk. In addition to the flagship Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Clinic, there is now a Crimmigration Clinic, led and directed by Phil Torrey, which focuses on cutting-edge appellate and district court advocacy at the intersection of immigration and criminal law. And through the HLS Immigration Project, the student-practice organization, students can hit the ground running with hands-on immigration and refugee advocacy their 1L year,” said Ardalan. “Debbie built a team at HIRC that now supervises over 140 HLS students each year through the two clinics and SPO and in so doing, centered immigration and refugee law as a core component of HLS’s clinical program.”
Credit: Tsar Fedorsky Anker (left) in 2011 with HIRC students Gianna Borotto ’11 and Defne Canset Ozgediz ’11, and Sabrineh Ardalan ’02. Ardalan is Anker’s former student and the current faculty director of HIRC.
Committed to justice from an early age
Raised in New York, Anker graduated magna cum laude from Brandeis University, and went on to earn her J.D. from Northeastern before continuing her legal studies at Harvard. Even before she began formal studies, Anker was invested in the study of and advocacy for human rights. She credits that in large part to her family history and values: Her Jewish grandparents crossed the Atlantic to escape the persecution leading to the Holocaust, and both of her parents were committed public school educators. Her father was a New York City Schools chancellor during desegregation. “The belief in the equality of all people was central to how I was raised,” she said.
“From my family I got deep beliefs and commitment to anti-racism. I have a strong memory of my father telling me about Ralph Bunche, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, one of the founders of the United Nations, leading actor in the mid-20th-century decolonization process and U.S. civil rights movement, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” said Anker. According to her father, Anker reports, Bunche was discriminated in obtaining housing, and refused membership in a neighboring tennis club in the area of Queens where Anker’s family moved in her early teenage years. “That was something that stuck with me,” she said. Early in her legal career, Anker represented a Black family that had moved into Dorchester during desegregation and was subject to violent attacks; this was one of the cases covered in J. Anthony Lukas’ classic 1985 book, “Common Ground.” “For me personally, a commitment to racial justice was central to my identity,” she says.
Anker credits the late Harvard Law School public interest professor Gary Bellow ’60, founder and former faculty director of Harvard Law School’s clinical programs, with advising, advocating and paving the way for her engagement in clinical education at the law school.
She also credits the ‘extraordinary determination and integrity’ of Lisa Dealy, former assistant dean of clinical education, with whom Anker worked closely, in helping to expand the school’s clinical program.
In 1984, when Anker, along with Kelly and Willshire Carrera founded the Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Clinic, the study of immigration law was still in its infancy, and clinical education was relatively new in legal education.
And, according to Kelly, Anker was writing the law from the beginning. “The article she co-authored on the legislative history of the Refugee Act [and] shaped how that law would be interpreted, with the U.S. Supreme Court citing it in support of an internationalist approach to refugee and asylum law, grounded in our treaty obligations, as signatories to the U.N. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,” said Kelly. “She authored some of the first empirical studies of immigration adjudication and co-authored the first study of the expedited removal process for addressing the claims of asylum seekers at the U.S. border.”
According to Willshire Carrera, Anker “believes in bringing the reality of the law as it is experienced by real people into the classroom and into scholarship. We developed an approach of ‘legal change from the bottom up,’ changing ground-level legal institutions, which set the stage for changes at higher levels, including in precedent decisions in the federal courts.” From its earliest years, HIRC worked to bring administrative decision-making out of the shadows, publishing administrative asylum decisions, which were otherwise inaccessible to advocates and researchers.
During these early years, Anker also worked with Hathaway, who developed a structured human rights approach to interpretation of refugee law, an approach HIRC would adopt including in much of its women’s refugee work.
Credit: Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer Anker (pictured here in 2014) with (from left) Julina Guo ’14, John Wilshire Carrera, and Nancy Kelly. Wilshire Carrera and Kelly founded the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic with Anker in 1984.
Anker’s background in racial justice led her to work with Haitian refugees beginning in the mid 1980s. “I got to know civil rights lawyer Ira Kurzban, who was leading the charge on behalf of Haitian refugees fleeing a horrible and violent dictatorship, which the U.S. had backed.” Among other work, Kurzban engaged Anker as an expert witness on U.S. asylum law, in challenges he brought based on discriminatory detention and treatment generally of Haitian refugees. She would continue to be called in as an expert, including later in challenges brought by Canadian NGOs in 2005 and 2017 to exclusionary policies of the Canadian government, refusing entry to asylum seekers coming from the U.S. under the Safe Third Country Agreement.
The Canadian Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling on whether the Canadian policy of returning asylum seekers to the U.S. complies with the Canadian Charter and international law. Canadian attorney Andrew Bouwer praised Anker’s work on the Safe Third Country Agreement and says he looks forward to her continued advocacy on these issues. “Professor Anker is a force of nature! Working with her on Canada-US border issues, especially the inhumane Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, these past 17 years has been an incredible honor and a highlight of my practice.”
Also in the 1980s, Anker helped found the Boston Committee against Deportation, defending a group of Haitians who were arrested by immigration authorities as they attempted to organize a union at Faneuil Hall market place.
HIRC continued this work with Haitian refugees who fled again during the 1990s after the violent overthrow of Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide. HIRC’s early engagement with Haitian refugees led to groundbreaking work on gender asylum. “After President Aristide was deposed, there were security forces who went into women’s houses (the men had mostly fled) and raped them, because they were known, or assumed to be, supporters of Aristide,” explained Anker. “So it was really rape used as punishment based on ‘political opinion,’ one of the grounds of protection in the refugee treaty to which the U.S. is a party.”
Working in conjunction with other groups, HIRC got the administrative Board of Immigration Appeals to recognize that this was a form of what the agency called “grievous harm,” which HIRC argued fit the concept of persecution. “This case, Matter of D.V., was the first administrative gender asylum decision; along with others, we were able to convince the board to publish it as a precedent decision,” said Anker.
Meanwhile, the group traveled to Haiti to collect affidavits; their work ultimately led the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to make the first finding by an international human rights body that rape could constitute torture.
This in turn contributed to greater global awareness of violence against women within a human rights framework. Canadian NGOs and academics took the lead, particularly through the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. “The Canadians worked up an amazing series of guidelines, and we [the HIRC] took those and adapted them to American law,” Anker said. “We published these and asked the U.S. government to take our guidelines and issue official government guidelines, based on them — and in fact, they did that.” Later, HIRC led a major amicus effort, drafting a brief to the then-attorney general signed by 187 organizations and individuals, arguing that violence against women in the “domestic” sphere, that is, in the home by sexual intimates, could be the basis for protection. Eventually the attorney general reversed an original denial and the petitioner, represented by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, was granted asylum.
(HIRC was) committed to having legal education grounded in actual clients’ experiences of persecution. … We set a precedent that law school clinics are not just a place to do policy work or major litigation, but also a place to engage with clients, to get to know them and to help them articulate their experiences. … I am grateful to the law school for allowing us to advance that approach to legal advocacy and education.
Deborah Ankernone
Personal involvement became key in Anker’s approach to teaching. “We were committed to having legal education grounded in actual clients’ experiences of persecution. Students represented clients and learned to help them tell their stories. We then gave them the time to reflect in class and to write about it. We set a precedent that law school clinics are not just a place to do policy work or major litigation, but also a place to engage with clients, to get to know them, and to help them articulate their experiences,” said Anker. “I am grateful to the law school for allowing us to advance that approach to legal advocacy and education. We now have such a rich and diverse clinical education program at the law school, which has developed in many different directions – client work, policy advocacy, regulatory reform, as well as litigation.”
Anker also points to the clinic’s work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to develop general guidelines for international refugee law.
“My perception was that few academics and major practitioners around that time, the mid to late 1990’s, were thinking conceptually about this. Jim Hathaway’s work was a major force in bringing a principled, and importantly structured, human rights approach to interpretation of refugee law,” said Anker. “We got the UNHCR to adopt general guidelines recognizing gender itself as a category of protection within the refugee treaty’s ‘particular social group’ ground. In the amicus work we have done over the years, we have stuck to this approach and increasingly federal courts as well as some administrative decision makers are recognizing that gender itself can be a basis for protection, including in the ground-breaking 2020 First Circuit decision in De Pena-Paniagua v.Barr, which directly adopted language from HIRC’s lead amicus brief.”
HIRC has continued to expand its scope, working in recent years with students who were eligible for DREAM Act protection. Most recently, Anker and the group have worked on climate change and refugee law, pushing for interpretations of the law to account for the large-scale climate-based displacement that is already occurring in Central America and is expected to worsen. “We need to show decision makers and policy makers that displacement is caused by multitudes of factors and a person can qualify for protection if part of the cause is environmental,” said Anker.
“Our work has always been informed by what is happening,” Kelly said. “The gender work came from a sense of, ‘Where are the women in this system? They don’t seem to be represented’. The Haiti work was geared toward what happened to Haitian women after the coup in 1991. That brought the reality home of what was happening to Haitian women, and got that recognized in a legal context that could then be brought back to cases in the US. The two are integrally connected.”
“We pride ourselves on doing work from the ground up,” Willshire Carrera said. “We’ve had a large number of students who have gone on to be major contributors in the development of asylum law in the country. One thing for sure is that the clinic is now very well recognized. So much of that has to do with Debbie.”
Former students pay tribute
Ardalan, who now directs HIRC, acknowledges a significant personal influence. “Debbie has shaped the course of my life. I have learned so much from her advocacy and scholarship, from her empathy in working with clients, from her tremendous care for her students and colleagues, and from her incredible persistence in continuing to fight against injustice no matter what the odds. She has modeled for me how to approach teaching and lawyering with dedication, humility, strength, and compassion.”
Anker’s influence also goes far beyond Harvard Law School. According to Mark Fleming ’97, who studied with her at Harvard Law and is now a partner at WilmerHale, “Debbie’s contribution to how young lawyers thought about immigration law really can’t be overstated. She was the first person I met at HLS who was not only a gifted academic, but devoted to using her knowledge to represent clients. She used her knowledge to manage a significant group of people who were trying to push immigration law in a good direction and to help people who needed it. That was a new thing to me.”
Fleming currently does pro bono work in the immigration field and cites this as an example of Anker’s influence. “One of the more important lessons she taught me is that immigrants who come to our country are thrown into a very complicated system without anybody to help them. She showed me that things immediately change when a lawyer shows up, so a pro bono lawyer can make an enormous difference.” This, he said, goes back to his days at Harvard Law. “As a law student, the opportunity to walk down the street, to what used to be called Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services, had an impact. First of all, it was terrifying, because I had no idea what to do. But also very rewarding, because people in the system are otherwise forced to navigate it by themselves.”
“Debbie’s seminar influenced the way I think about asylum,” said Fatma Marouf ’02, who now directs the Immigration Rights Clinic at Texas A&M University School of Law. “The way she talked about absorbing each person’s story, I never forgot that. She walked us through each element of her incredible text about the law of asylum, and made sure we had a great understanding of it. She helped us connect the cases we were working on with the thinking behind it. And I loved that she really got in an international perspective — not just U.S. asylum law but how the U.K., Canada, Australia might approach it.”
Marouf particularly credits Anker with emphasizing the connection between asylum and human rights law. “When I teach my own clinic I talk about the importance of bringing in a comparative perspective of what asylum should be, versus how it is — and that’s all Debbie’s. I don’t know if I could have gone into immigration law without her, much less fallen in love with teaching.”
Credit: Brooks Kraft
“She built a program at a time when immigration clinics were not found at many law schools,” said David B. Thronson ’94, who went on to teach international human rights law at Michigan State University. “Part of what impressed me from the beginning is that her work is absolutely compelling and consequential; it changes peoples’ lives. You’re talking about people who are going to face persecution in their home countries if they are returned. It’s not an equal fight, the stakes and the consequences are high and their resources are often minimal; the government is always well represented but the migrant seldom is. To find someone with Debbie’s expertise and willingness to take on those issues — and who is also a tremendously human person that you can get to know — makes a huge difference, and it was a really defining law-school experience for me.”
That experience stuck with Thronson through his career. “I got the realization that things could go together; I could be a professor and still make a difference in the real world, representing clients — and hopefully I can do that in a way that lets my students grow and have good experiences. Debbie taught me that those aren’t mutually exclusive things to do.”
Another former student, Rebecca Sharpless ’94, now directs the immigration clinic at the University of Miami School of Law. “Debbie was the single most influential professor during my time at HLS. As I started my first year, I knew that I wanted to be a social justice lawyer, but I didn’t know what kind. Debbie taught me the urgency and importance of working with immigrants. Her work on some of the most difficult issues relating to the protection of refugees has been pathbreaking, but to me she is first and foremost a teacher and mentor. Under her guidance, I argued in immigration court, organized a trip to Miami to help Haitian refugees, and contributed to federal court briefing. Without a doubt, she made me into the immigration lawyer and teacher that I am today.”
Looking back on a lifetime of impact
Anker has been designated a Woman of Justice by the Massachusetts Bar Association, and in 2011 was elected as a fellow to the American Bar Foundation. The HIRC’s Women’s Refugee Project, which spearheaded work on gender asylum, received the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) most prestigious “Founders Award.” HIRC also received AILA’s Human rights award for its work in clinical legal education and advocacy on behalf of refugees. Anker has received AILA’s Elmer Fried Excellence in Teaching Award; two awards for gender asylum work from the Federal Bar Association; the Massachusetts Governor’s New American Appreciation Award; and the CARECEN Award from the Central American Refugee Center.
Presenting her with the latter honor, lead attorney Patrick Young called Anker “one of the architects of modern refugee law. She really defined the field from its inception and her essays and her seminal treatise, ‘Law of Asylum in the United States,’ have helped educate and train two generations of asylum lawyers. Without her thoughtful guidance, it is doubtful CARECEN and many other refugee defense programs could have succeeded in protecting the persecuted as effectively as we have.”
In addition to those already mentioned, Anker notes that “HIRC and I are so fortunate to have on staff attorneys Sameer Ahmed, Jason Corral, Tiffany Lieu, Mariam Liberles and Cindy Zapata. HIRC’s staff also includes our head of social work, Liala Buoniconti; paralegal Karina Buruca; Mary Hewey; and Anna Weick, our chief administrator.” Anker credits her faculty assistant, Sophie Jean, as being an incredible resource, organizing work on “Law of Asylum” research with students, among other invaluable assistance. “Not much can be accomplished without her amazing intelligence and commitment, and of course thank you to those who have come and gone like the incomparable Jordana Arias, a force of nature, and all my assistants going way back to wonderful Delona Wilkins.”
In entering emerita status, Anker reflects back with much gratitude at the opportunities she has been given. “I love this community and I love this work. It truly has been an honor. I am so very grateful.”
***************************
Thanks and many congrats, Debbie, my long-time friend, for all you have done for due process, justice, humanity, and the future generations of the “New Due Process Army!” I wholeheartedly concur in the comments of my friend and Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey!” Through your intellectual brilliance, moral courage, extraordinary leadership, and ability to teach and inspire others, you have certainly left a permanent mark on the worldwide, eternal quest for justice!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey Chase forwards our Round Table’s latest effort to promote reality, reasonableness, and due process in EOIR’s dysfunctional world:
Amici curiae are 38 former immigration judges (““IJs””) and members of the 2
Board of Immigration Appeals (““BIA””).2
Amici have dedicated their careers to improving the fairness and efficiency of
the United States immigration system, and have an interest in this case based on their combined centuries of experience administering the immigration laws of the United States. Amici collectively have presided over thousands of removal proceedings and thousands of bond hearings in connection with those proceedings, and have adjudicated numerous appeals to the BIA.
In denying Anderson Alphonse’’s (““Mr. Alphonse”” or ““Petitioner””) petition for writ of habeas corpus, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Saylor, J.), relied in part on the premise that it was ““readily foreseeable that proceedings will conclude in the near future”” because Mr. Alphonse’’s appeal to the BIA was ““fully briefed.”” This premise—at best aspirational when made in January 2022—has proven erroneous: nearly six months later, Mr. Alphonse’’s BIA appeal remains undecided. This is, regrettably, unsurprising given the surging caseload in the immigration courts, which now exceeds 1.8 million
1
1Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any
party, and no person or entity other than Amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
2
2 See the appendix for a complete list of signatories.
pending cases. This crushing backlog—adding significantly to the backlog facing the BIA—-iis extremely relevant to the question of when a removal proceeding is likely to conclude. In fact, it might be the most important factor in this equation. Yet this factor is absent from the First Circuit’’s current analytical framework, opening the door to erroneous suppositions and conclusions based on a cursory review of a removal proceeding’’s posture, such as the one made by the District Court here.
Thus, Amici write to respectfully urge the Court to reassess the impact the backlog of cases facing the immigration courts may have on the ability of courts to accurately forecast when removal proceedings will conclude. Given their extensive experience with the immigration courts and BIA appeal process, Amici are uniquely positioned to provide insight into this narrow, but critical, issue.
The case is Alphonse v. Moniz, currently pending in the 1st Cir. Here’s a complete copy of our brief:
Many thanks to our wonderful pro bono counsel Matthew Levitt and Evan Piercy at MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
Although BIA decisions, particularly in non-detained cases, might take many months or even years to decide, the appellant is given only a relatively short period of time to file a brief — 21 days. A single 21 day extension may be requested and is usually granted, although it is common for the appellant not to be notified that the extension has been granted until after the extension period has expired.
Requests for additional or longer extensions are rarely granted. Motions to accept late-filed briefs, even those only a day or two tardy, are often denied. On the other hand, failure to file a timely brief after requesting a briefing schedule is a potential ground for summary dismissal of an appeal regardless of the merits! 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E).
These rigid procedures might give the false impression that the EOIR system is driven by a sense of urgency in dispensing justice. Additionally, BIA and AG decisions often disingenuously pontificate about the supposedly “critical importance” of finality in immigration decisions. It’s all BS!
As you might note, the only “urgency” at EOIR is the potentially severe consequences imposed on the appealing party, usually the migrant. One the “compressed briefing” is complete, there is no particular assurance that the appeal will be decided on the merits for months, years — or ever! Additionally, the BIA can sometimes make dismissal of an appeal easier by ignoring an untimely brief or even by summarily dismissing an appeal for failure to file a brief without dealing with the merits.
Moreover, the hopelessness of the 1.82 million case EOIR backlog and the “assembly line justice” encouraged by EOIR’s “political masters” at DOJ results in a sloppy, “haste makes waste” approach to “justice.” This, in turn, means wrongful removals or unnecessary “remands” from Circuit Courts.
But, not to worry — there is neither penalty nor accountability for the BIA’s poor performance. Wrongly deported individuals are “out of sight, out of mind” — assuming they are even still alive.
Moreover, court remands actually give the BIA unlimited opportunities to correct their sloppy and unprofessional work, often with the benefit of a more thoughtful analysis from the Circuit Court. Not that such beneficial treatment by the Circuit necessarily means the BIA will get it right on remand. The BIA has been known to get “chewed out” by Circuit Courts for ignoring or “blowing off” their mandates.
“Red flags” 🚩 should be popping up all over the Falls Church horizon — so big that even the often “asleep at the wheel” immigration policy folks at the Biden Administration can see them! But, don’t hold your breath! Our Round Table, however, will continue “speaking truth to power” and revealing the real, awful due process mess at EOIR.
The respondent in this case is ably represented by Associate Dean Mary Holper of Boston College Law and her Immigration Clinic. In a way, this is a classic illustration of why Garland has been unable to fix EOIR. Dean Holper is an accomplished, universally-respected litigator, teacher, writer, practical scholar, and administrator. She is exactly the type of NDPA All-Star/Expert whom Garland should have recruited on “Day 1,” brought in, and empowered to fix EOIR and reinstate and realize its due process mission. Instead, Garland’s EOIR continues to flail and fail while the talent who could fix it are lined up in court against him!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
9th Circuit Decision in U.S. v. Bastide-Hernandez
Hi all:Attached please find the published, en banc decision of the 9th Circuit issued yesterday in U.S. v. Bastide-Hernandez.As expected, the court held that the absence of a date and time of hearing does not deprive the Immigration Court of jurisdiction.
However, please note the concurring opinion of Judge Friedland, stating that although the court held that the issue is not jurisdictional, “there are strong argument for the contrary position,” adding that the Supreme Court may reach a different conclusion.
Judge Friedland also quoted our Round Table’s amicus brief at length, as follows:
“An amicus brief filed by former immigration judges elaborates on why it better serves clarity, efficiency, and due process to include the time and location of the hearing in an NTA in the first instance. As amici explain, incomplete initial notice documents create uncertainty both for noncitizens, who are left in the dark as to when and where a potentially life-changing proceeding will be held, and for immigration judges, who cannot be sure if a case can proceed. Amici also note that the Government’s notice-by- installment practice creates additional fact-finding obligations for immigration judges, who may need to look to multiple documents to determine whether informational gaps in the initial notice have been filled. And amici caution that, because immigration judges are already overburdened and face pressure to complete cases, ambiguities about notice may lead immigration judges to order noncitizens removed when they fail to show up at their hearings, even if the noncitizens never received notice of those hearings at all.”
I think that this lengthy reference demonstrates the importance of our work.
In the words of Ninth Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee): “[I]t better serves clarity, efficiency, and due process to include the time and location of the hearing in an NTA in the first instance.”
What if we had an EOIR where all judges at the trial and appellate levels and all senior administrators were unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices?
Instead, we have a dysfunctional organization where DHS’s wishes, perceived expediency, and keeping the “political bosses” happy (thus providing “job security”) triumphs over the public interest and the cause of justice. Currently, we’re “saddled” with a broken system that sees Immigration Court as a “soft deterrent” rather than a dispenser of justice could actually make our immigration, human rights, and justice system run more smoothly by applying fair procedures and “best interpretations.” That would facilitate the legal admission of many more migrants, while starting to “disempower smugglers,” cut backlog, discourage poor practices at DHS Enforcement, promote consistency, and keep many disputes that should be resolved in favor of respondents out of the Article IIIs!
Better, more reasonable administrative precedents that adhered to the proper interpretations of asylum and protection laws and provided positive guidance on how to apply them to recurring situations would also “leverage” the Asylum Office by allowing many more cases to be granted at the first level. As long as the current lousy BIA precedents prevail, far too many cases will just be denied at the AO level and referred to Immigration Court — making it a colossal waste of time. “So-called streamlining” will only work if it results in significantly more AO grants of protection!
We “win some, lose some.” But, our Round Table’s cause is justice; we’re not going to give up until this system makes the long overdue, radical personnel, procedural, attitude, and “cultural” changes necessary to become the “best that it can be!”
That means fulfilling the Immigration Courts’ once and future vision of “through teamwork and innovation become the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
Bonus Coverage:
“Sir Jeffrey’s” skills aren’t confined to the legal arena. Here are some pictures he took from his balcony of last night’s “Super Moon:”
“Super Moon” July 13, 2022 By Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
There are plenty of similar cases out there in the EOIR backlog and waiting at the border for the Administration to start following asylum law!(Others have been unlawfully and immorally returned to persecution without meaningful opportunities to present their claims.)
These types of cases could be identified, represented, and timely granted by a “better EOIR” led by a “better BIA.” These are the decisions that should be binding precedents. Practical, positive legal guidance shows how to “build on” gender-based and family-based asylum to grant more protection, encourage good preparation and presentation on both sides, rein in “never asylum judges,” and to clear dockets of cases of individuals who deserve to be on their way to green cards, citizenship, and full participation in our society.
A fair, consistent, timely application of asylum and refugee laws would establish that many of those wrongly characterized as “law violators” are, in fact, legal immigrants. And, that’s something our country needs!
What if the “powers that be” would “institutionalize” this type of judicial performance rather than the “denial factory/good enough for government work” culture that continues to operate widely at EOIR under Garland? Wouldn’t that be the type of “good government” that Biden and Harris promised, but have yet to deliver, particularly on immigration?
Personal note:Judge Balasquide was the widely respected ICE Chief Counsel in Arlington when I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court in 2003. He was initiallyappointed as a Immigration Judge in New York in July 2006 by then AG Alberto Gonzalez. I always enjoyed working with Judge Balasquide during my time in Arlington. (He actually appeared before me in court on a few occasions.)
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
I talk all the time about the play “The Courtroom,” for which I served as a consultant, and then actually performed in four times on stage.
The film version (which I am not in) is now an entry in the Tribeca Film Festival, where it can be screened from home over a ten-day window next month.The “script” is entirely taken from the transcript of the Immigration Court hearing of an actual case, and then from the transcript of that same case as argued before the Seventh Circuit (Keathley v. Holder).
Onstage, several actual judges (present and retired) took turns playing the judge in the naturalization scene at the end.Two other retired IJs in addition to myself (Betty Lamb and Terry Bain), and one presently sitting IJ (Mimi Tsankov) performed.But in the film, the actor BD Wong plays Judge Denny Chin ofthe Second Circuit Court of Appeals; the real Judge Chin also performed that same role onstage.We all got to write our own remarks to address the newly naturalized audience.Judge Chin spoke so poignantly about his own family immigration story, and his remarks appear in the film.
In real life, this was another case in which the IJ and the BIA got it wrong.I feel this story is a tribute to those Paul has labeled the “New Due Process Army.”The real life Chicago attorney Richard Hanus had a brilliant legal argument, his very sympathetic client and her US citizen husband maintained faith in both him and in our legal system, and in the end, justice prevailed.
I hope that you will watch the film (Kristin Villanueva, who plays the respondent, was so moving in the role onstage; my wife, no stranger to immigration court, cried the first time she saw it performed), and maybe let others in our community know of it.Waterwell, the performing arts company responsible for this, is comprised of truly wonderful, talented, and caring people dedicated to creating socially conscious works.
CAST: Marsha Stephanie Blake, Michael Braun, Kathleen Chalfant, Hanna Cheek, Michael Chernus, Michael Bryan French, Mick Hilgers, Linda Powell, Kristin Villanueva, BD Wong
EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: Anne Carey, Ryan Chanatry, Gena Konstantinakos, Lee Sunday Evans, Arian Moayed
I don’t know whether Waterwell has “academic rates” or “specials” for social justice fundraising. This could be a great teaching tool for clinical and other immigration professors as well as a potential fundraiser for clinics and community nonprofits dedicated to social justice.
Thanks, Jeffrey, for highlighting this great work. And thanks for the “mini-review.”
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
The attached is the final “as filed” version of our latest brief in Chavez-Chilel v. Garland, in support of the motion for rehearing/rehearing en banc. This one is very “all in the family,” as Sue Roy is our counsel, Sue and I drafted the brief, and decisions from Miriam Hayward and Charles Honeyman are attached as exhibits.
There is also an amicus brief by law school professors, and joining NJ attorney Ted Murphy as petitioner’s counsel is Paul Hughes, who argued Kisor v. Willkie before the Supreme Court (as well a Nasrallah v. Barr, a Supreme Court victory in which we were amici).
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
NYT: Under the new policy, which the administration released on Thursday as an interim final rule, some migrants seeking asylum will have their claims heard and evaluated by asylum officers instead of immigration judges. The goal, administration officials said, is for the entire process to take six months, compared with a current average of about five years.
CLINIC: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agreed to restore a path to permanent residency for many Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries blocked by then-acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli — an illegally appointed Trump official. Because of this agreement, TPS beneficiaries impacted by this policy will be able to reopen and dismiss their removal orders and apply to adjust their status to become permanent residents — eliminating the threat of deportation if their TPS protections are revoked in the future.
AL: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, will discontinue use of the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, and will limit the use of the three other southern detention facilities: Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, FL., Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, LA., and Alamance County Detention Facility in Graham, N.C. See also Biden to Ask Congress for 9,000 Fewer Immigration Detention Beds.
Roll Call: Congress in the fiscal 2021 law instructed the agency to include the number of legal visits “denied or not facilitated” as well as how many detention centers do not meet the agency’s standards of communications between immigrants and their lawyers… [T]he report claimed ICE inspections in fiscal 2020 “did not identify any legal representatives being denied access to their clients.”
Border Chronicle: Behind closed doors, agents, like technocrats in a Fortune 500 company, create color-coded graphics to demonstrate the most “efficient” and “effective” enforcement techniques. Even though the effectiveness of deterrence has been questioned and refuted, and even though the question of human rights has not entered the equation at all, the U.S. federal government seems to be plowing ahead with this without any questions.
GBH: The Boston asylum office for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services granted only about 11% of applications last year, less than half the national average, according to a report released Wednesday.
Law360: A Massachusetts judge ordered an immigration attorney to pay $240,000 in penalties and restitution for filing frivolous and false asylum applications for undocumented Brazilian immigrants without their knowledge, according to a Thursday announcement from Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey.
More than half of the judges will be going to the Hyattsville Immigration Court (Maryland) and Sterling Immigration Court (Virginia, opening May 2022). The list includes Claudia Cubas (CAIR Coalition), Kristie Ann-Padron (Catholic Legal Services, Miami), Kyle A. Dandelet (Pro Bono Immigration Attorney at Cleary Gottlieb), Ayodele A. Gansallo (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society of Pennsylvania), Joyce L. Noche (Immigrant Defenders Law Center), Christine Lluis Reis (Human Rights Institute at St. Thomas University College of Law), Carmen Maria Rey Caldas (IRAP), and others.
WaPo: Refugee workers said it was typical for recent refugees to focus at first on the possibility that they would be able to return quickly to their lives. But should the war drag on, more Ukrainians would seize on the chance to seek a haven in the United States, they said.
Law360: Immigration and environmental attorneys are increasingly banding together as advocacy groups on both the left and the right try to leverage environmental laws to influence immigration policy.
Law360: An Ohio federal judge on Tuesday blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from considering a Biden administration mandate that had narrowed immigration enforcement priorities while making custody decisions, finding the policy overstepped sections of federal immigration law.
Lexis: On review, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York affirmed the denial under the “weapons bar” of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V). The question on appeal is whether USCIS, in denying Kakar’s application, adequately explained the unlawfulness of Kakar’s acts under United States law, and whether in doing so it considered his claim of duress. Because we are unable to discern USCIS’s full reasoning for denying Kakar’s application or to conclude that the agency considered all factors relevant to its decision, we conclude that its decision was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
Law360: The Eleventh Circuit ruled Thursday that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred when finding that a man’s Florida conviction for marijuana possession rendered him ineligible for a form of deportation protection.
Law360: A Texas federal judge has denied the Biden administration’s bid to transfer a group of Texas sheriffs’ challenge to the administration’s immigration enforcement policies, rejecting the argument that none of the sheriffs in the judicial district has standing to sue.
AILA: Advance copy of DHS and DOJ interim final rule (IFR) on asylum processing. The IFR will be published in the Federal Register on 3/29/22 and will be effective 60 days from the date of publication, with comments accepted for 60 days.
AILA: DOS issued guidance on visas for Ukrainian children undergoing intercountry adoption or who previously traveled for hosting programs in the United States. The Ukrainian government is not currently approving children to participate in host programs in the United States. More details are available.
AILA: EOIR updated appendix O of the policy manual with adjournment code 22. The reason is “Respondent or representative rejected earliest possible hearing date,” and the definition is “Hearing adjourned due to respondent or representative rejecting earliest possible hearing date.”
AILA: HHS 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to the Family Reunification Packet of forms for potential sponsors of unaccompanied children. Comments are due 60 days after publication of the notice. (87 FR 16194, 3/22/22)
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
The idea that the DHS “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) doesn’t restrict attorney access is absurd! A primary reason for detention in obscure, out of the way, hard to reach places like Jena, LA, Lumpkin, GA, amd Dilley, TX is to inhibit representation and increase the pressure on detainees to abandon claims and take “final orders of removal.”
That goes hand in hand with staffing these prisons with DOJ’s wholly owned judges who are renowned for denying bond and summarily denying most asylum claims. That a disproportionate number of these facilities are located in Federal Judicial Circuits five and eleven, notorious for anti-due process, anti-human-rights, anti-immigrant “jurisprudence,” is no coincidence either.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
With respect to the “categorical approach,” as my distinguished colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase has pointed out, EOIR has actually “institutionalized” resistance to and manipulation of this analysis to promote results unfavorable to immigrants and pleasing to DHS!
As several related Supreme Court decisions sealed the matter, the Board in 2016 was finally forced (at least on paper) to acknowledge the need to make CIMT determinations through a strict application of the categorical approach. However, as Prof. Koh demonstrates with examples from BIA precedent decisions, since 2016, the Board, while purporting to comply with the categorical approach, in fact has expanded through its precedent decisions the very meaning of what constitutes “moral turpitude,” enabling a greater number of offenses to be categorized as CIMTs.
Consistent with this approach was a training given by now-retired arch conservative Board member Roger Pauley at last summer’s IJ training conference. From the conference materials obtained by a private attorney through a FOIA request, Pauley appears to have trained the judges not to apply the categorical approach as required by the Supreme Court when doing so won’t lead to a “sensible” result. I believe the IJ corps would understand what this administration is likely to view as a “sensible” result. Remember that the IJs being trained cannot have more than 15 percent of their decisions remanded or reversed by the BIA under the agency’s completion quotas. So even if an IJ realizes that they are bound by case law to apply the categorical approach, the same IJ also realizes that they ignore the BIA’s advice to the contrary at their own risk.
As both of these incidents show, the Biden Administration under Mayorkas and Garland has failed to bring accountability or intellectual honesty to many parts of the broken immigration justice system they inherited from the Trump regime. The disgraceful “atmosphere of unaccountability” continues to predominate at DHS and DOJ.
