"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
*Roto-Rooter is the registered trademark of Roto Rooter Co.🪠🚽🧻
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Justice” Star Chamber StyleHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports more good news for the NDPA, bad news for the EOIR kakistocracy🤡 🦹🏿♂️and the seedy DOJ lawyers 🦹🏿♂️clogging the Federal Courts with frivolous litigation engendered by the White Nationalist, nativist immigration agenda ☠️⚰️🏴☠️ at failed DOJ:
Hi all: The lesser asylum regs that were scheduled to take effect tomorrow were just blocked by a TRO and preliminary injunction granted in D.C. District Court (order to follow). These regs would have required certain respondents to file their I-589s within 15 days of the first Master Calendar hearing, and would have required EOIR to reject any I-589 which left even a single space blank, among other things.
Best, Jeff
*************
There needs to be a “day of reckoning” for DOJ lawyers who have “carried the water” for the racist kakistocracy @ the regime’s “Ministry of Nativist Propaganda & Crimes Against Humanity” (the Federal agency formerly known as the “Department of Justice”).
Illegal regulations, clogging the Federal Courts with frivolous positions, defending the actions of imposters impersonating Cabinet officers and other officials, inventing pretexts to cover invidious intent, targeting the most vulnerable among us have “real life” consequences.
There will be no “rebirth” at Justice unless “Team Garland”👨🏻⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸 deals with the xenophobia, racism, institutionalized cowardice, and criminal misuse of office and Government resources at the failed DOJ over the past four years.
That’s in addition to the “maliciously incompetent” mismanagement aspect of the unmitigated disaster @ EOIR which has (mis)used various illegal “gimmicks” to pour more mismanaged resources into creating astronomical, mostly unnecessary backlogs in our failed and beyond dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” (actually Star Chambers, masquerading as “courts”), in “partnership” with the out of control, White Nationalist enforcement kakistocracy @ ICE/DHS and violating the Constitution and human decency to boot! Really, could it be any worse?
The Trump/GOP insurrection🥷🏻 @ our Capitol is directly related to lack of accountability that let the Trump kakistocracy “get away with murder.” That’s why the Inauguration is being held in a city under military lockdown next week.
You can bet that the lies, “back-pedaling,” cover-ups, finger pointing, and avoidance of responsibility for the disintegration of democracy will be in full swing by the end of next week! Judge Garland will have to deal with it up front; he can’t “wait for Godot” as has been the problem with past Dem Administrations!
Today’s “DOJ” looks and “(mal)functions” like a Clown Show 🤡 repertory company playing “Theater of The Absurd” in a bad imitation of a Franz Kafka novel! If Judge Garland doesn’t want to become the “star” of this revolting exhibition, he’d better start cleaning 🧹 up and cleaning out 🪠on “Day 1.” And the EOIR “Tower of Babble” would be a great starting point for “Operation Clean Sweep”🧹!
There will be no real justice in America without a a “day of reckoning” @ Justice. It’s long, long, long, long overdue!
The Next-Level Shamelessness of the COVID Security Regs
On December 23, EOIR and USCIS published final rules designed to brand most people a “security risk,” and thus ineligible for asylum. The rules won’t become effective until January 22 (i.e. after the Biden Administration is in office), so will presumably be pulled back before they hurt anyone other than the reputations and careers of those responsible for their publication. Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to refute the present administration’s claimed justification for such a rule. First, there will certainly be other bad administrations in our future, and as we’ve seen with the present one, they might look to the past for inspiration.
Furthermore, even without the rule going into effect, individual immigration judges will still be faced with interpreting the clause it invokes on a case-by-case basis. I’m hoping the following analysis will prove useful, as I’m pretty sure it wasn’t covered in the judges’ training.
But most importantly, the assaults of the past four years on facts and reason have taught us the need to constantly reinforce what those presently in charge hope to make us forget: that there are laws passed by Congress; that the Judiciary has created strict rules governing their interpretation, and that executive agencies are not free to simply ignore or reinvent the meaning of those laws to their own liking.
The regulations in question seek to take advantage of the present pandemic to render any asylum seeker who either exhibits symptoms of the virus, has come in contact with it, or has traveled from or through a country or region where the disease is prevalent ineligible for asylum. The administration seeks to justify this by claiming that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the above a danger to the security of the United States.
The “danger to the security of the United States” bar to asylum1 which the new regulations reference derives from Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which serves as the international law basis for our asylum laws. That treaty (which is binding on the U.S.) states that the prohibition against returning refugees shall not apply to those “whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.”
However, Article 33(2) applies to those who have already been recognized as refugees, and have then committed crimes in the country of refuge, which is not the class to whom the new regulations would apply. The bases for excluding those seeking refugee status for reasons arising prior to their arrival are found under Article 1D through 1F of the 1951 Convention. The prohibitions found there cover three groups: those who are already receiving protection or assistance (Article 1D); those who are not considered to be in need of protection (Article 1E); and those “categories of persons who are not considered to be deserving of international protection (Article 1F).2 Individuals posing a danger to the community fall into the final category.
No ground contained in the 1951 Convention excludes those in need of protection for health-related purposes. To understand why, let’s look closer at the Convention’s use of the word “deserving” as it relates to refugee protection. In 1997, UNHCR published a note providing additional insight into the Article 1F “exclusion grounds.” Explaining that “the idea of an individual ‘not deserving’ protection as a refugee is related to the intrinsic links between ideas of humanity, equity, and the concept of refuge,” the note explains that the primary purpose of the clauses “are to deprive the perpetrators of heinous acts and serious common crimes, of such protection.” The note explains that to do otherwise “would be in direct conflict with national and international law, and would contradict the humanitarian and peaceful nature of the concept of asylum.”
The European Council on Refugees and Exiles covered this same issue in its 2004 position paper on Exclusion from Refugee Status. At page 8, the ECRE stated that the “main aim” of Article 1F was not “to protect the host community from serious criminals,” but rather to preserve the integrity of the international refugee system by preventing it from being used to “shelter serious criminals from justice.” These sources make it extremely clear that the intent was certainly not to exclude someone who might have been exposed to a virus.
In including six exceptions to eligibility in our asylum statute,3 Congress followed the lead of the 1951 Convention, as all six domestic clauses fall within the three categories listed in paragraph 140 of the UNHCR Handbook as listed above. Of the six grounds listed under U.S. law, the last one, regarding persons firmly resettled in another country prior to arrival in the U.S., is covered by the Convention categories of those already receiving assistance or not in need of assistance.
The remaining five exceptions under U.S. law fall within the category of those not considered to be deserving of protection (Article 1F). The statute lists those categories as: (i) persecutors of others; (ii) persons posing a danger to the community of the U.S. by virtue of having been convicted of a particularly serious crime; (iii) persons whom there are serious reasons to believe committed serious nonpolitical crimes prior to their arrival in the U.S.; (iv) persons whom “there are reasonable grounds for regarding…as a danger to the security of the United States,” and (v) persons engaged in terrorist activity.
Agencies may only apply their own interpretation to the term “as a danger to the security of the United States” to the extent such term is ambiguous. But the courts have instructed that in determining whether a statute is in fact ambiguous, traditional tools of construction must be employed, including canons.4 The Supreme Court has recently applied one such canon, ejusdem generis, for this purpose.5 In its decision, the Court explained that “where, as here, a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the general term is usually understood to ‘ “embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.”’”6
Former Attorney General Barr himself recently applied the ejusdem generis canon to the term “particular social group,” stating that pursuant to the canon, the term “must be read in conjunction with the terms preceding it, which cabin its reach…rather than as an “omnibus catch-all” for everyone who does not qualify under one of the other grounds for asylum.”7
A very similar canon to ejusdem generis is noscitur a sociis (the “associated words” canon). Whereas ejusdem generis requires a term to be interpreted similarly to more specific terms surrounding it in a list, noscitur a sociis applies the same concept to more specific terms across the same statute.8
In 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A), the more general term “danger to the security of the United States” is surrounded by the more specific terminology describing the accompanying grounds of asylum ineligibility. When thus “cabined” by the more specific classes of persecutors of others, those convicted of serious crimes, and those engaged in terrorist activities, it is clear that Congress intended a “risk to security” to relate to similar types of criminal activity, and not to health grounds. As the intent of Congress is clear, the term “threat to the security of the United States” is not open to any interpretation the agencies might wish to apply to it. Yet in its published rule, EOIR and USCIS here create the type of “omnibus catch-all” that the Attorney General himself has elsewhere declared to be impermissible.
The rule is further at odds with circuit case law in its application to those who simply “may” pose a risk. The Third Circuit has found the statutory language of the clause in question to unambiguously require that the asylum-seeker pose an actual, rather than merely a possible, threat to national security.9 Even if it were assumed that COVID could somehow fit into the category of security risk, simply having traveled from or through an area where the virus is prevalent doesn’t establish that the individual presents an actual risk.
There is also the issue of the transient nature of the risk. In the same decision referenced above, the Third Circuit relied on the Refugee Act’s legislative history to conclude “that Congress intended to protect refugees to the fullest extent of our Nation’s international obligations,” allowing for exceptions “only in a narrow set of circumstances.”10 This is obviously a correct reading where exclusion can lead to death, rape, or indefinite imprisonment. The other classes deemed undeserving of asylum are defined by more permanent characteristics. In other words, the attribute of being a terrorist, a persecutor, or a serious criminal will not wear off in two weeks time. To the contrary, any risk posed by one exposed to COVID-19 is likely to pass within that same time frame. Wouldn’t the “fullest extent” of our obligations call for simple quarantining for the brief period in question?
These issues were all raised in comments to the proposed regs. And of course, dubious reasons were employed to dismiss these arguments. For example, the agencies acknowledged the need for the danger posed be an actual rather than a merely possible one. But somehow, that requirement was dismissed by the inadequate excuse that the danger posed by a pandemic is “unique.”
The rule stands as one of the final examples of the extremes this administration will go to in order to circumvent our asylum laws and turn away those entitled to avail themselves of our immigration courts in order to determine if they are entitled to protection. As demonstrated here, the degree to which this administration veered from the actual intent of the statute in interpreting the security bar wouldn’t have been much greater if it attempted to deny asylum to those wearing white after Labor Day.11 The law must not be twisted or ignored by executive branch agencies when it conflicts with an administration’s policy objectives.
Notes:
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).
UNHCR Handbook at ❡ 140.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).
See, e.g., Arangure Jasso v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 333, 338-39 (6th Cir. 2018).
See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1625 (2018).
Ibid (citing Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 (2001); National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense,138 S.Ct. 617, 628–629 (2018)).
Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581, 592 (A.G. 2019).
Thanks to Prof. Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer for sharing her expertise on these terms. See Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and Hillary Rich, “A Step Too Far: Matter of A-B-, Particular Social Group, and Chevron,” 29 Cornell J. of Law and Public Policy 345, 373 (2019).
Yusupov v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 518 F.3d 185, 201 (3d Cir. 2008).
Id. at 203-204.
If it had done so, EOIR would undoubtedly have defended the move through the traditional, completely acceptable, totally normal method of issuing a “Myths vs. Facts” sheet. The document might contain the following entry: “Myth: EOIR issued a rule banning asylum to anyone wearing any color at any time. Fact: That’s completely absurd! Only those wearing white (which technically might not even be a color) are banned, and even then, only after Labor Day. As Pantone lists 1,867 colors, white consists of .05 percent of all colors one could wear. And that’s only if white is in fact a color. And, again, only after Labor Day.”
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
*********************
Jeffrey’s article points out how deeply the corruption and racism of the regime have penetrated into the Federal Bureaucracy, even infecting supposedly “professional and apolitical” agencies like CDC. Fixing this will be a formidable task for the Biden-Harris Administration.
But, there is a larger issue here: Why has the Supremes’ GOP majority “lapped up” the transparent pretexts for unconstitutional actions presented by the regime’s ethics-challenged DOJ lawyers?While an impressive array of U.S. District Court Judges, from both parties, have generally courageously stood tall for the rule of law against White Nationalist abuses, not so the GOP majority of the Supremes!
Let’s go back to the beginning of the regime. After a string of lower Federal Court defeats, “ethics-free” DOJ lawyers massaged and slightly watered down Trump’s “Muslim Ban” and repackaged it as a bogus “national security” measure. But, even as these disingenuous lawyers were advancing this bogus pretext in court, Trump was reassuring his White Nationalist base that this was indeed the “Muslim Ban” he had promised to his supporters.
Nevertheless, the Supremes’ GOP majority “bought into” the patently (and demonstrably) bogus “national security” pretext, hook, line, and sinker:
Of the Supreme Court’s decision on Muslim ban 3.0, Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures. It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president’s own explanation for his action.”
“It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking actions to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”
In doing so, the GOP Supremes’ associated themselves with a long line of racially biased pretexts used by courts to uphold invidious discrimination that violated our Constitution
Internment of Japanese-Americans (but not German-Americans) is about national security.
Truth: Dehumanize, punish, and dispossess Japanese Americans on the West Coast;
Poll taxes are about raising revenue.
Truth: Preventing African-Americans from voting;
Literacy tests (“grandfathering” ignorant White guys) are about insuring an informed electorate.
Truth: Excluding African-American voters;
Separate is equal.
Truth: Insuring that African-Americans will be educationally disadvantaged;
Voter ID laws are about election integrity.
Truth: Designed by a primarily White GOP ruling class to suppress African American, Latino, and other minority voters who tend to support Democrats;
Gerrymandering to favor the GOP can be solved through the political process.
Truth: Gerrymandering is intended by the GOP to rig the political process so that voters of color will never achieve political representation proportional to their numbers.
These are just a few of the obvious examples of how the “legal power structure” has often been on the “wrong side of history.” Sadly, it continues with today’s GOP Supremes’ majority which often embraces obvious pretexts and bogus “right wing legal gobbledygook” to systematically dump on vulnerable minorities and others whose political power and humanity they refuse to recognize.
Finally, to reinforce what Jeffrey and others have said, we have a legal obligation to protect refugees.Article 33 of the Convention to which we are party, now incorporated into the INA, is mandatory, not “optional” or “discretionary.”
As I pointed out before, refugees more often than not arrive in times of international crisis and turmoil. “Tough times” or internal problems (in this case aggravated and magnified by a maliciously incompetent regime) are NOT a legal (not to mention moral) basis for us to jettison our legal obligation to offer them protection.
Had the Supremes courageously and unanimously stood up for the Constitution, rule of law, and simple human decency against the regime’s obvious lies, false narratives, overt racism, religious bigotry, and general disregard for the rule of law (now in full, foul bloom every day), the last four years might have been very different. Lives lost forever could have been saved.
Folks, here we are, two decades into the 21st Century. Yet, we have a highly “un-representative” Supremes’ GOP majority that has willingly promoted the anti-democracy antics of, and carried water for, a patently corrupt White Nationalist regime seeking to “Dred Scottify” tens of millions of persons of color, religious minorities, and those “suspected” of not supporting the GOP.
Even if many would like to, this is not something that can simply be swept under the table (again). Failure of the Supremes majority to stand up for the individual rights and human dignity of all persons in America is something that will haunt us until it is fixed or we disappear as a nation!
Lousy judging has a huge cost for humanity and democracy. We need and deserve better from the highest levels of our privileged, yet too often ineffective andfeckless in the face of tyranny, life-tenured judges!
Better Judges for a Better, Fairer America.🇺🇸 Make Equal Justice Under Law ⚖️ A Reality Rather Than an Ongoing, Judicially-Enabled, Charade!
Knightess of the Round TableHon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
************************
Thanks to our friends Steve Schulman 😇 and Michael Stortz 😇 at Akin Gump for their truly outstanding pro bono assistance on this brief.Couldn’t do it without you!😎
Such an honor to be “fighting the good fight” for due process and fundamental fairness with my colleagues on the Round Table🛡⚔️👩⚖️🧑🏽⚖️👨🏻⚖️. We have made a difference in the lives of some of the most vulnerable and deserving among us. 🗽We have also helped educate the Federal Courts and the public on the ugly realities of our failed, unjust, and totally dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” ☠️🤡🦹🏿♂️, modern day “Star Chambers” ☠️⚰️😪that have become weaponized appendages of “White Nationalist 🤮🏴☠️⚰️👎🏻 nation.”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!
Happy New Year! 🍾🥂🎉Looking forward to Jan. 20 and the end of the kakistocracy!👍🏼⚖️🗽😎🇺🇸
Watching the Trump campaign’s attacks on the election results, I now see what might have happened if, rather than nip and tuck the Trump agenda, responsible Justice Department attorneys had collectively — ethically, lawfully — refused to participate in President Trump’s systematic attacks on our democracy from the beginning. The attacks would have failed.
. . . .
*******************
Read the full op-ed at the link. That’s right Erica. Lack of ethics, morality, and failing to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law have consequences. Helping to “custom design” obvious pretexts for racist and hate inspired policies, for consumption by right-wing judges who only seek “cover” for going along to get along with fascism, is wrong. Duh!
It’s no surprise that the clearly unconstitutional and racially and religiously bigoted “Travel Ban,” willingly embraced by an intellectually dishonest and morally compromised Supremes majority, was first on the list in Erica’s “confession.”
But, don’t expect any apologies from the vast majority of Trumpist lawyer/enablers who violated their oaths of office or from the big time law firms (one where I was formerly a partner) who have granted them undeserved refuge at fat salaries! Nor should we expect large-scale redemption from the legions of Government lawyers in DOJ, DHS, and elsewhere who will assert the “Nuremberg defense” of “just following orders.”But, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us can’t demand some accountability for participation inwhat are essentially “crimes against humanity.”
Erica’s article largely echoes what my friend and colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase, many of our colleagues in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, ⚔️🛡 and numerous members of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) have been saying throughout this Administration. Indeed, I frequently have noted that the once-respected Solicitor General’s Office and EOIR operated as basically “ethics free zones” under the disgraced “leadership” of Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.
It’s also why the the Biden-Harris team that takes over at DOJ must:
immediately remove all the current “executives” (and I use that term lightly) at EOIR as well as all members of the BIA and transfer them to positions where they can do no further damage to asylum seekers, migrants, their (often pro bono or low bono) lawyers, or the rest of humanity;
replace them with qualified individuals from the NDPA; and
be circumspect in eventually making retention decisions for Immigration Judges, taking into account public input as to the the degree to which each such judge’s jurisprudence during the Trump kakistocracy continued to reflect adherence to constitutionally required due process and fundamental fairness to migrants, respect for migrants and their representatives, best practices, and interpretations that blunted wherever reasonably possible the impact of the kakistocracy’s xenophobic, racist, White Nationalist policies.
American justice has been ill-served by the DOJ and the Immigration Courts over the past four years. That’s something that must not be swept under the carpet (as is the habit with most incoming Administrations).
The career Civil Service overall, and particularly complicit and often ethics-free government lawyers,failed to put up the necessary resistance to an overtly anti-American regime with an illegal and immoral agenda. Lives were lost or irreparably ruined as a result. That’s a big-time problem that if not addressed and resolved will likely make continuance of our national democratic republic impossible.
⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Complicity Never☠️🤮🏴☠️👎🏻!
PWS
12-21-20
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
To use another sports analogy, we have entered the preseason of the Biden Administration. As any sports fan knows, preseason (which generally starts five or six weeks before the real season begins) is a time for dreaming. During preseason, every team is undefeated, and every fan is permitted to believe that this will finally be the year in which their suffering and loyalty are rewarded.
I’ve spoken to several law school classes this fall via Zoom. One question I’ve been asked by students (both before and after the election) is what reforms I would like to see under the Biden Administration. Although it seemed significantly more likely before November 3 that the Democrats would control both houses, I’ve stuck with the original list. This is, after all, preseason, and I’m allowed to dream.
Just to be clear, Biden will be the 13th president to serve during my lifetime, and the seventh since beginning my career in immigration law. I am well aware that most of the items on my list won’t happen; I wouldn’t be surprised if none come to pass. Maybe I’ll continue that thought in a future blog; this one is devoted to dreaming. That being said, some of the changes I hope to see are:
Safeguarding Asylum: In spite of numerous reminders from Article III courts that it is Congress, and not the Attorney General, that writes our laws, and that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, Congress intended to bring our asylum laws into accordance with our treaty law obligations, the Trump Administration showed shameless disregard for these facts, doing everything it could think of to upend Congressional intent by eliminating asylum eligibility to all who apply. Ideally through statute, but if not possible, then at least through regulation, safeguards must be added making it absolutely clear to future administrations that asylum is meant to be a broad and flexible relief from any type of persecution creative persecutors may conceive; that the designated grounds required for such protection are to be interpreted broadly, and that persecution may be attributed to a government providing imperfect protection to its citizens. It is important to note that none of these principles constitute changes to the law, but simply shore up or repair long-existing principles following the storm of the past four years.
An Independent Immigration Court: It is time for the Immigration Courts to be moved out of the Department of Justice, and into independent Article I status. We’ve seen over the past four years the worst-case scenario of what happens when an enforcement agency realizes that it controls the courts that exist to keep that same agency’s worst impulses in check. Article I has been strongly endorsed by the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and many other groups, including the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. Enacting this change is the only way the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts can be safeguarded from future attack.
Government Appointed Counsel for Children in Removal Proceedings: This is a no-brainer. In a case before the Ninth Circuit involving this issue, J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, an amicus brief was filed by the states of Washington and California. The brief began: “In this case, the federal government argues that an indigent child charged with removability in a federal immigration proceeding does not, as a matter of due process under the federal Constitution, have the right to be represented by appointed counsel at government expense….Such a position is at odds with principles of ordered liberty and due process. It ignores the reality that indigent children are incapable of representing themselves in an adversarial immigration removal proceeding, let alone raising complex claims of due process or navigating federal administrative and appellate procedure.” The brief continued: “An adversarial immigration system, which depends on the presentation of both sides of a case in a highly specialized area of law, demands that a child, standing alone, be represented by counsel.” The brief was signed (in March 2016) by California’s then Attorney General, Kamala Harris. Hopefully Vice President Harris will work to make this right a reality.
Eliminate Chevron Deference for BIA and Attorney General Decisions: Last year, the Third Circuit, in a concurring opinion by Judge McKee in its decision in Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. (which all three judges on the panel joined), stated that “it is difficult for me to read this record and conclude that the Board was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring Quinteros’ removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be. That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly.” The court’s observation highlights the problem with according broad deference to those who use their decision-making authority for politically motivated ends.
In a blog post earlier this year, I highlighted three recent scholarly articles questioning the continued propriety of applying Chevron’s principles to decisions of the BIA concerning asylum, or to any decisions of the Attorney General. I believe Article I status would resolve this problem, as decisions issued by an independent court outside of the executive branch would no longer constitute the interpretation of an executive branch agency covered by Chevron. In the meantime, Congress and/or the Department of Justice should consider means of exempting such decisions from Chevron deference, and thus keep both the BIA and Attorney General honest in their efforts to reach neutral and fair results.
Create a “Charming Betsy” Reg Requiring Adherence to International Law: Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible. As the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca observed that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, “one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” it would seem that interpreters of our asylum laws should look to international law interpretations of that treaty for guidance. Recent examples in which this has not been the case include the just-published “death to asylum” regulations that will completely gut the 1980 Refugee Act of any meaning; as well as regulations that bar asylum for conduct falling far, far short of the severity required to bar refugee protection under international law (which a federal district court blocked in Pangea v. Barr).
As the Board seems disinclined to listen to the Supreme Court on this point, it is hoped that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.
Eliminate or Curtail the Attorney General’s Certification Power: Until Article I becomes a reality, Congress must pass legislation that either eliminates or at least seriously limits the Attorney General’s certification power by removing the ability to rewrite established law on a whim. At most, the Attorney General’s role should be limited to requesting the BIA to reconsider precedent in light of interceding Supreme Court or Circuit Court decisions, changes in law or regulations, or other legal developments that might materially impact the prior holding. Furthermore, any right to certify must be limited to cases before the BIA, and to actual disputes between the parties arising in the proceedings below.
Revamp Immigration Judge Training: This is more important than it might sound. Conservative commentator Nolan Rappaport has commented on the inadequacy of Immigration Judge training, particularly where many recent appointees come to the bench with no prior immigration experience. This problem predates the present administration. Under Attorneys General Holder and Lynch, the BIA in particular was extremely resistant to exposing its judges and attorneys to views not considered part of the official party line. During that period, I was amazed at how the BIA’s vice-chair (who continues to hold that position up to present) viewed respected immigration experts as the enemy, and employed a director of training and subject matter experts whose only qualification was their willingness to shield EOIR employees from outside sources. This problem has worsened over the past four years. A committee including not only those within EOIR, but also academics and members of the private bar should be formed to completely rethink the curriculum and resources available to judges and support staff.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
**********************
Jeffrey’s point on training is particularly well-taken. This has been a festering “below the radar screen” problem at EOIR for decades.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Jeffrey’s analysis supports my call for the immediate end of the “EOIR Clown Show” and the replacement of EOIR Senior “Management” and the entire BIA with expert “practical scholars” from the NDPA. Indeed, one of the most grossly “underrepresented” groups in the current Immigration Judiciary are those who gained their expertise and courtroom knowledge as clinical professors! That group includes some of the finest legal minds I have run across in nearly 50 years of government, “big law,” and academic practice.
In my experience, EOIR training ranged from the “minimally adequate,” to the sadly comical, to the overtly insulting. In the latter category were the years we had no in person training and were sent a series of “mandatory videos.” Some were inaudible; others wrong or misleading; a few were actually reprises of BIA “staff brown bag lunches.” “Amateur Night at The Bijou” to be sure!
It was not that the resources weren’t available. We had among our ranks colleagues like Judge Dana Marks, one of the “Founding Mothers” of U.S. asylum law, who successfully argued the landmark Cardoza-Fonseca (“well-founded fear”) case before the Supreme Court as a private lawyer; and Board Member/Appellate Immigration Judge Lory D. Rosenberg, to my knowledge the only EOIR judge at any level whose legal analysis was favorably cited by name by the Supreme Court in the St. Cyr case (212(c) waiver retroactivity).
Yet instead of getting insights and pointers from these and other luminaries of modern immigration and asylum law, we often were treated to government litigators telling us how to narrowly interpret asylum law or make denial decisions “easier to defend” in the Circuit Courts. One government prosecutor famously informed us that we weren’t really “judges” at all but simply “highly paid immigration inspectors working for the Attorney General.”
Others told us that as “mere DOJ attorneys” we weren’t allowed to claim status as “administrative judges” for state bar purposes, even though by law we were barred from performing non-adjudicative legal functions. This is the kind of nonsense on which some of our limited “training time” was spent. Still others told us that although Congress had granted us statutory contempt authority, the Attorney General was withholding it because we shouldn’t be allowed to hold “other government attorneys” (that is, INS/DHS prosecutors) accountable for their conduct in our “courts” (which, clearly, these bureaucrats didn’t consider “courts” at all, except, perhaps, when arguing against judicial review by the Article IIIs).
Training is important! Many of the Circuit Court reversals highlighted in “Courtside” and on Jeffrey’s blog show grossly deficient understanding and application at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR of the fundamentals of immigration and asylum law — things like standards of proof, considering all the evidence, judging credibility, and following Circuit and sometimes even BIA precedents favorable to respondents.
This isn’t “rocket science!” They are the “x’s and o’s” of basic due process and fair immigration adjudication. Yet, all too often, EOIR “expert” tribunals (that really aren’t) come up short. Indeed very few members of today’s EOIR judiciary would be generally recognized as “experts” in the field based on their lifetime body of work. A sad, but true, commentary. But, one that can and must be changed by the Biden-Harris Administration!
The BIA should not only be reconstituted as an true “expert tribunal,” along the line of a Circuit Court of Appeals, but as a tribunal that teaches, instructs, and promotes best practices through its jurisprudence.
And, contrary to some of the restrictionist commentary that I continue to read, asylum law following Cardoza, Mogharrabi, the Refugee Act of 1980, and the U.N. Convention & Protocol from which it flows is neither intentionally narrow nor inherently restrictive. As indicated in Cardoza, it could and should properly be interpreted generously and humanely to grant life-saving protection wherever possible. The purpose of the Convention was to set forth legal minimums while inspiring greater protections along those lines.
The “spirit of Cardoza and Mogharrabi” have long been lost, and now gleefully exorcised at the “EOIR Clown Show.” It’s past time for the appointment of competent, expert EOIR judges and administrators from the NDPA. Those who are intellectual leaders with moral courage who will insist on its long overdue restoration and fulfillment of this spirit!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
I’m going to use a baseball analogy here (with apologies to non-fans): DJ LeMahieu finished this past season as the American League batting champion. Imagine if he were to walk in to negotiate a new contract with the New York Yankees, only to be offered the minimum permissible contract because of his disappointing performance. When a shocked LeMahieu would respond “but I hit .364 last season!,” the Yankees general manager would reply “Not even close.”
The Yankees would explain that they are no longer employing the traditional method of calculating batting average, but have come up with a “better” approach. A confused LeMahieu would note that he had 71 hits in 195 at bats. The Yankees would respond that he appeared at the plate 216 times, if one includes “other” outcomes, such as walks, hit-by-pitch, and sacrifices. LeMahieu would point out that those have not counted in calculating batting average before; the Yankees would respond “Well, now they do.” The Yankees would next point out that LeMahieu had not played in 12 of the team’s games last season, due to injury. The team therefore estimated another 48 plate appearances that the player could have had, and calculated those into his batting average as “non-hits.” Lastly, the team would note that the season was shortened by 102 games due to the pandemic, covering another 408 plate appearances. By the time they were done, the Yankees would conclude that LeMahieu had actually batted .107, certainly not Major League quality hitting.1 The Yankees would add that few if any teams would even be negotiating with a .107 hitter, much less offering them a contract.
The above purely fictitious, imaginary scenario is offered to illustrate EOIR’s very real current approach to its published asylum statistics. The Trump Administration has from day one taken the position that all asylum claims are false in order to justify its inhumane treatment of genuine refugees. However, such a claim is undermined when the Justice Department’s own judges are granting asylum in those very cases. It was therefore up to EOIR to offer the type of “alternative facts” that are a trademark of this administration.
EOIR has for many years published an annual Statistical Yearbook, which has included asylum grant rates nationally for all immigration courts. But recently, EOIR put out a chart entitled “Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics,” and subtitled “Asylum Decision Rates.” The top half of the chart contains a graph that is only slightly less difficult to follow than Rudy Giuliani’s latest election conspiracy theories. Below that is a chart containing asylum grant rates for the years 2008 through 2020.
Interestingly, the grant rates listed on this latest chart (using what I’ll call EOIR’s new “Larger Inclusion Asylum & Refugee Statistics,” or “LIARS” for short) are strikingly different than the numbers in the EOIR Yearbooks:
Year EOIR Statistical Yearbook LIARS Figures
2008 45% granted 23.68% granted
2009 48% 23.92%
2010 51% 25.34%
2011 52% 31.36%
2012 56% 30.55%
2013 53% 24.93%
2014 49% 22.84%
2015 48% 18.70%
2016 43% 15.80%
There is quite a difference between a grant rate of 48 percent or 18.7 percent for 2015. So how were the LIARS figures derived?
Well, in addition to asylum grants and asylum denials (i.e. the only two figures that should matter), the LIARS figures added two more categories to the equation. The first new category is “Other.” A footnote explains (if that’s the correct word) that “Asylum Others have a decision of abandonment, not adjudicated, other, or withdrawn.” The explanation that “other” includes “other” didn’t clear things up for me. Nevertheless, it seems that these were cases that did not involve either a grant or a denial of asylum, and thus shouldn’t be part of the calculation, much like walks, hit by pitch, and sacrifices are not considered in batting average calculations. The reason those outcomes don’t count in baseball is because they are not indicative of the batter’s ability to get a hit, since no opportunity was available. Similarly, an asylum case that did not proceed to an actual decision is not indicative of the merits of the application. For example, an asylum applicant who subsequently became eligible for a faster, easier path to legal status because they married a U.S. citizen or won the visa lottery in no way indicates that their asylum claim wasn’t meritorious.
The second new LIARS category involves cases that were administratively closed. This is the equivalent of games not played in the baseball analogy. A case administratively closed is taken off the docket and not tried; it’s a hearing not held. EOIR is now choosing to consider it as a “non-grant” in itscalculations, thus reducing the grant rate to the same degree as if the hearing was held and asylum was denied. In 2015, the two new categories that shouldn’t have been considered equaled 60.94 percent of the total cases considered by LIARS (comparable to the 102 games not played in 2020 by the Yankees, which constitutes 63 percent of a normal length season). To summarize, the real (Statistical Yearbook) grant rate of 48% in 2015 was derived based on 8,246 asylum grants out of 17,079 total asylum cases decided that year. The LIARS grant rate of 18.70considered 8,076 asylum grants (i.e. 170 less than listed in the 2015 Statistical Yearbook) out of a total of 43,189 cases consisting of grants, denials, other, and administratively closed hearings in which the asylum claim was never heard. I have no idea how LIARS reduced the number of grants in 2015 by 170 cases.
The EOIR Statistical Yearbook contains an additional chart which includes cases in which withholding of removal was granted. In 2015, fifty-five percent of asylum applicants were granted either asylum or withholding of removal. The LIARS figures make no mention of withholding of removal. If grants of that alternative relief were hidden in the “Other: other” category, they would have been counted as cases in which asylum was not granted, which would lower the grant rate in the same way as a denial.
This might all seem like mere pettiness on EOIR’s part, but the administration uses these numbers in press releases (such as its infamous “Myths vs. Facts” sheet which remains posted on EOIR’s website). It also emboldens the administration to claim it is merely “increasing efficiency” in passing new rules to quickly deny and deport asylum seekers by “efficiently” rendering all of them ineligible for relief.2 Such a statement depends on an underlying belief in the illegitimacy of the claims of those being quickly denied and deported, an illegitimacy that seeks support from the doctored numbers. Where the true numbers show a much higher rate of asylum claims granted, how could efficiency be used to justify sending actual refugees home to die?3
I wonder who came up with this new system. As I don’t know the answer, let’s call them “other.” Maybe they can spend the final weeks until January 20 devising a new chart, titled “Who should no longer be a government employee as of January 21, 2021?” To get them started, here are a few easy ones: (1) EOIR Director James McHenry: 100%. (2) Every EOIR manager who enabled him over the past four years: 100%. (3) Other: 100%.
Notes:
The infamous “Mendoza Line,” which denotes a batting average of .200, is usually considered “the offensive threshold below which a player’s presence on a Major League Baseball team cannot be justified,” according to Wikipedia.
The administration’s latest rules, scheduled to take effect on January 10, would make the manipulation of asylum grant rates unnecessary as to future claims, as virtually no one would remain eligible for such relief. One can only hope that courts will block those rules until they can be withdrawn by the Biden administration.
To be clear, no grant rate would everjustify sending even a single refugee to their death in the name of efficiency.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase.All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission.
***********************
A test of the Biden-Harris Administration’s seriousness about equal justice and restoring human dignity to immigrants will be how quickly the members of the EOIR Kakistocracy, including the BIA, are removed from their positions and replaced by real judges and judicial administrators. That is, “practical scholar-experts” with demonstrated immigration/human rights expertise, applied due process experience, and the guts and integrity to stand up for the rights of individuals who have been unfairly victimized by a vile, White Nationalist, nativist agenda!
Knightess of the Round TableHon. Jeffrey S. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
More great news from Sir Jeffrey:
Hi all: We filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit last year in a domestic violence withholding and CAT claim from Mexico. The BIA acknowledged that the petitioner was beaten four or five times a month by her abuser; was raped by him several times, and then lost her job as an agro-engineer with a government agency in Mexico after her abuser beat her violently in front of her co-workers, and her employer told her she could not publicly represent the agency with the resulting bruises on her face. The BIA further recognized that her abuser was able to locate her when she tried to relocate within Mexico. And yet withholding was denied on nexus, and CAT denied on government acquiescence grounds.
A number of other groups, including CGRS, filed amicus briefs as well, and OILu moved to remand under favorable terms. Anju Gupta at Rutgers, who represents the petitioner, said that today, the IJ (who was very much made aware of all of the amicus briefs) granted CAT relief.
The email said that the petitioner (who was previously detained at Elizabeth, NJ) is now in Mexico (I’m not clear on the details), but will hopefully be able to return soon based on the grant.
It’s great that we continue to make a positive difference.
Best, Jeff
**********
Wow! What a great holiday present!
What a great group with a great mission of promoting due process, advocating for equal justice, and saving lives! Every member of the Round Table has saved lives by standing up for the human dignity and legal rights of those who came before us in Immigration Court. And, we continue to “fight the good fight,” in every possible way at every level of the justice system!
I am thrilled to report that VIISTA is getting rave reviews. The inaugural class of students is really enjoying the course. They will be finishing Module 1 next week and will start Module 2 (with its focus on immigration law) in January. I am really impressed so far with their work product and the quizzes and other assessments confirm that they are learning what we want them to learn.
Students in the inaugural class come from diverse backgrounds. My current students include a Stanford college senior who aims to work as a paralegal next year, and eventually go to law school. Other students are recent college grads interested in peace and justice/law/social work who want to make an immediate impact for immigrant families. Some students are first-generation immigrants, others are children of immigrants. Some students are retirees or those seeking an encore career, like empty nesters and parents coming back into the workforce. Three PhDs also enrolled in the program. Many are volunteers with immigrant serving organizations.
I am now focused on getting the word out. Attached and linked here is a recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education and here is a link to an article from the Columbus Dispatch. And here is a link to the website, immigrantadvocate.villanova.edu.
Please help me to spread the word about VIISTA in your networks, including among volunteers with your organizations. You can also let folks know that scholarships are available for the Spring term, which starts on Monday, January 11.
The Scholarships are offered through ADROP, Augustinian Defenders of the Rights of the Poor.
If you have any questions about the process, please feel free to reach out to Lacie Michaelson (cced here). She is the Executive Director of ADROP and took VIISTA herself as a student in the pilot.
Please note that the deadline to apply for a scholarship for Spring of 2021 semester is Monday, December 14th, 2020.
Thanks for helping me to spread the word and identify passionate advocates for immigrant justice who want to become part of the solution.
Warmly,
Michele
Michele R. Pistone
Professor of Law
Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law
Founding Faculty Director, VIISTA: Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates
Over the past four years, what passes for “management” at DOJ and EOIR has wasted millions of dollars, squandered thousands of hours of time, and kept the private bar on a treadmill with a steady stream of moronic, cruel, and inept “enforcement only” gimmicks, each seemingly stupider and more counterproductive than the last, driven by a White Nationalist nativist agenda. The result is a backlog that has exploded to astounding levels, (even with twice as many judges on the bench, many of them with questionable credentials and little if any expertise in immigration and human rights laws) and a totally dysfunctional mess that threatens to topple the entire Federal judicial system.
As those of us who understand immigration know, the key to a successful EOIR is representation! With an adequate supply of good representation, cases get sorted out at the earliest possible levels, claims are properly documented and presented, individuals show up at their hearings at remarkably high rates, and results are much more likely to be fair. Presto, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR shrinks, parties are encouraged to stipulate and get right to the contested issues, results at trial are more likely to be fair, appeals, petitions for review, and remands decrease, and the backlogs go down as the dockets come under control. Moreover, as the Immigration Court litigation experience improves, more practitioners get the “positive vibes” and are willing to undertake pro bono or low bono cases. Best practices developed to achieve fairness on EOIR’s high-volume docket find their way into other parts of the Federal Court system. It’s an all-around winner! Or, at least it should be!
So, any competent, rational, and knowledgeable “management group” at EOIR would make increasing representation “job # 1.” They would work cooperatively and harmoniously with bar groups, NGOs, states, and localities, to increase availability and improve quality of representation. They would eschew unnecessary detention, which inhibits representation, and insure than courts are reasonably and conveniently located in areas where private representation is abundantly available.
Of course, that’s not what the clowns at EOIR have done! Instead, they have gone out of their way to inflict misery on respondents and their representatives. Far from inspiring more folks to undertake cases, we have all seen stories of how the intentional rudeness and abuse inflicted in Immigration Court and the dysfunctional system actually demoralizes lawyers and causes them to leave the field. Their “stories of woe” are hardly encouragingfor others to donate time and effort.
Fortunately, while EOIR was busy ”kneecapping justice,” someone outside the “EOIR twilight zone” was thinking about how to solve the problem! With help from her friends, Michele designed the VIISTA program to train more non-attorney representatives to represent asylum seekers, convinced folks to fund it, recruited initial classes, and has it up and running. (By contrast, after two decades of wasted resources and incompetent meanderings, EOIR is still without a functioning e-filing system. Think that might have helped or saved some lives during the pandemic?)
And the training is not only a bargain (with scholarships available), it is beyond first class in substance and content. Essentially, it’s “what you really need to learn in law school in less than a year.” The curriculum would put to shame any training we received at EOIR, even before the current Clown Show. My Round Table colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase (a/k/a “Sir Jeffrey”) has reviewed the curriculum and agrees.
The solution is painfully obvious to anyone who takes the time to think about it. On January 21, 2021, give the hook to the Clown Show in Falls Church, and bring in the scholar/problem solvers like Michele and her NDPA colleagues to lead the due process revolution that will transform EOIR into a place where teamwork and innovation will produce the world’s best court system guaranteeing fairness and due process for all. That was once the “EOIR vision” before “serial mismanagement” transformed it into the ugly, dysfunctional Star Chamber that confronts us today.
It need not and should not be that way. But, the vision of true due process at EOIR will only be realized if the Biden Administration puts the right people — folks like Michele and others like her from the NDPA — in place immediately upon assuming power.
Let your contacts in the Biden Administration know that you have had more than enough! The EOIR Clown Show must go!
Due Process Forever!
PWS
12-05-20
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Hon. Sarah Burr Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Knightess of The Round Table Photo Source: Immigrant Justice Corps websiteHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judgeship
Sir Jeffrey Chase reports:
Attached is the decision of U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York ordering ICE to present detained noncitizens before an immigration judge within 10 days of their arrest. It was not unusual as recently as early last year for noncitizens detained by ICE who were eligible for release to wait weeks or months to see an IJ for the first time.
Sarah Burr filed a declaration in support of the litigation that counsel acknowledged was critical to the outcome. Congrats, Sarah, and thanks for your extraordinary efforts on behalf of due process!
Whether as individuals or a group, we continue to make a difference in important decisions.
Best, Jeff
*********************
Thanks, and congrats, Sarah!
You are indeed one of the Round Table’s leading “warrior-princesses!”
Knightess of the Round Table
Your fighting spirit and lifelong dedication to the battle to achieve “due process for all” are a constant inspiration to all of us in the Round Table and the NDPA!
The constant stream of proposed regulations relating to our immigration laws has led to a continuous call to the public to submit comments to those rules. Individuals and organizations have responded in large numbers, in spite of the short 30 day comment windows this administrative has generally afforded. For those who have questioned the purpose of submitting comments or have wondered if the effort was worth it, I point to the recent decision of U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston in the Northern District of California in Pangea Legal Services v. DHS granting a temporary restraining order against regulations that classify a wide range of crimes as bars to asylum eligibility.
As background, I would like to point to the explanation of the notice and comment procedures provided by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly last year in CAIR Coalition v. Trump. In that case, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security attempted to bypass the process by publishing final rules with no opportunity to comment. Judge Kelly (who happens to be a Trump appointee) found that the avoidance of comments invalidated the regulations, explaining that the “procedures are not a mere formality. They are designed (1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment; (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”
It is further worth noting that comments become part of the public record, and that the Administrative Procedures Act requires the agency to respond to all significant comments before the regulations can become final.
In accordance with this scheme, a brief comment period was provided as to the regulations covered in Pangea. The proposed rule sought to expand the category of “particularly serious crimes” that Congress has designated as a bar to asylum. Instead of allowing immigration judges to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, the new rule sought to add a broad range of criminal conduct that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security originally argued should categorically bar asylum as particularly serious crimes.
Commenters pointed out the flaws with this proposal, not the least of which was some of the offenses are not particularly serious. The crimes include harboring certain noncitizens (even if they are family members), or possessing or using false identity documents (for example, to work and support one’s family). These offenses are a far cry from the type of behavior that would pose such a threat to society as to outweigh the obligation to provide refugee protection. In publishing the final rule, the Departments did acknowledge these concerns raised in the comments. However, as explained above, more than mere acknowledgement was required.
Although Judge Illston found numerous reasons to support the granting of the temporary restraining order, one of those reasons was the Departments’ failure to respond to the above comments as required. As Judge Illston wrote, “when commenters pointed out that the new bars would include minor conduct and conduct that cannot be categorized as particularly serious or even dangerous, the Departments either declined to respond or else relied on their authority under § 1158(b)(2)(C).”
In other words, when the comments received caused the Departments to realize that their claimed justification for the rule under the statute’s “particularly serious crime” provision was problematic, instead of addressing those comments as they were required to do, the agencies instead replied “Particularly serious crimes? Is that what you thought we said? We meant they were similar to particularly serious crimes. Sorry for the confusion; let’s just say the changes fall under section 1158(b)(2)(C) for the sake of clarity.”
That section which the Departments now chose to rely on contains vague language allowing the Attorney General to establish by regulation “additional limitations and exceptions, consistent with this section” under which noncitizens might be ineligible for asylum. The Departments might not have noticed the words “consistent with this section,” which would seem to rule out their disregarding the fact that Congress had allowed only a few narrow statutory limitations to the right to asylum that tend to be consistent with international law. That might explain their reading of the clause as an invitation to impose any limitation on asylum the Departments desired, with no regard to international law obligations.
But besides from the permissibility of the Departments’ interpretation of the clause, Judge Illston categorized their tactics as evasion. The judge wrote that “the Departments initially stated they were relying in part on their authority to designate new offenses as particularly serious crimes. They then disclaimed reliance on that authority but said the new offenses were ‘similar to’ particularly serious crimes… And they declined to address commenters’ concerns that the Rule now bars crimes that do not rise to the level of particularly serious because, according to the Departments, they are not, in fact, designating new particularly serious crimes and any comments to that point ‘are outside the scope of this rulemaking.’”
Much thanks are owed to the lawyers and organizations who litigated and filed supporting briefs in Pangea; they managed to block yet another effort by this administration that sought to undermine the very nature of refugee protection. But thanks are also due to those who took the time and effort to submit comments. Hopefully, this will provide inspiration to continue to submit comments to new regulations still being proposed in these final days before what will hopefully be a return to normalcy, decency, and respect for the rule of law.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
***************************
While many Federal Judges have been receptive and stopped illegal (and often immoral) regulations in their tracks, there is one key group of jurists so in the regime’s White Nationalist pocket that they don’t pay any much attention. That is the GOP majority on the Supremes, who have happily treated the Trump/Miller racist agenda of “Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants with kid gloves. At the request of an “ethics free” Solicitor General, the majority has used corrupt procedural moves to interfere with the lower courts and advance the regime’s agenda while accepting obvious factually and legally inaccurate “pretexts” to “justify” the regime’s extreme, racist, dehumanizing actions.
Imagine all the positives for America that could be accomplished ifall of the time and resources devoted to blocking an avalanche of illegal regulations and litigating them through the Federal courts were instead devoted to working for the public good. That’s actually what government is supposed to do. But, fascist regimes and their enablers, not so much.
Ultimately, better qualified, more scholarly, human, and humane Justices — judges distinguished for their wisdom, courage, humanity and constructive problem solving abilities rather than adherence to some far-right agenda — on the Supremes will be necessary for a better, more equal, America.
Life tenure means it will be a slow process of getting the right “Supreme Team” in place. But, one that needs to begin somewhere. A remade U.S. Immigration Court seems like a good starting place for building a better Federal Judiciary at all levels, bottom to top!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Members: “Hey, let’s celebrate! We just sent a refugee to death for not being able to describe some obscure insignia irrelevant to the case. But, the big thing is we found ‘any reason to deny’ asylum making our handler ‘Billy the Bigot’ happy! He’s out to set new killing records before Jan. 20! Maybe he’ll find us jobs at Breitbart then!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons LicenseHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
On November 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an unpublished decision in Malonda v. Barr. In that case, the asylum-seeker was attacked by armed soldiers when they raided his family’s home in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The soldiers raped and killed three of his sisters, and abducted his father and brother, all due to the father’s membership in an opposition political party.
The Immigration Judge acknowledged the voluminous documentation and detailed testimony in support of the claim. However, asylum was denied because Malonda couldn’t identify the soldiers’ uniforms with absolute certainty, although he stated “they were working for the government, I can say.” And because he did not credit the attackers as working for the government, the judge did not find that the attack was necessarily motivated by the family’s political opinion, but could have simply been an act of random violence not protected under asylum law.
Malonda was not the only recent agency decision to employ this thought pattern. In the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of O-F-A-S-, an applicant for protection under the Convention Against Torture testified that he was beaten, robbed, and threatened by five men wearing police uniforms bearing the insignia of a government law enforcement agency, who were armed with high-caliber weapons and handcuffs. The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent had not met his burden of establishing that the five were police officers, as the uniforms could have been fake, and criminals also carry weapons. The IJ further noted that the five did not arrive in an official police car, and immediately departed when they heard that a police car was en route in response to the disturbance. Of course, real police officers engaging in extracurricular criminal activity would behave the same way. Nevertheless, the BIA found no clear error on appeal.
In another recent decision presently pending at the Second Circuit, asylum was denied because the applicant was unable to state with certainty from the details of the uniform he wore that one of his persecutors was certainly a police officer, although he believed that he was. The IJ therefore did not conclude that police were involved, instead considering the persecutors to be non-state actors, from whom the respondent hadn’t proven that the police were unwilling or unable to protect him. The BIA affirmed in an unpublished decision. Obviously, a finding that a police officer participated in the persecution of the asylum applicant could well have led to a different finding as to the government’s willingness to protect.
In each of the above cases, the respondent was found to be a credible witness. There are only two types of witnesses in court proceedings: fact (or “lay”) witnesses and experts. Asylum applicants are fact witnesses, describing what they experienced. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding on immigration judges, they provide the best guidance available, as the Immigration Courts have no such evidentiary rules of their own. Rule 701 of the FRE allows a lay witness to express an opinion provided that it is (1) rationally based on their own perception; (2) helpful to clearly understand the testimony or to determine a fact in issue; and (3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge reserved for expert witnesses. In the above cases, the asylum seekers’ opinions that the uniformed, armed attackers were government officials fit clearly within the parameters of Rule 701.
Of course, asylum applicants are not experts on uniforms worn by the various government forces in their home countries. I doubt most country experts who testify in asylum cases would possess such specific expertise. Even if they did, those experts weren’t present to witness the event in question to be able to affirm that the uniform was in fact the official government issue. So what is the solution in cases in which the Immigration Judge harbors doubt regarding the attackers?
The UNHCR Handbook at para. 196 advises that despite all efforts, “there may also be statements that are not susceptible of proof. In such cases, if the applicant’s account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt.” The following paragraph adds that evidentiary requirements should not be applied too strictly to asylum seekers. But the Handbook sets limits on this practice, adding that “[a]llowance for such possible lack of evidence does not, however, mean that unsupported statements must necessarily be accepted as true if they are inconsistent with the general account put forward by the applicant.”1
It would seem that requiring absolute confirmation of the authenticity of the attacker’s uniform (which psychologists have testified is not one’s focus during a traumatic experience) places an insurmountable burden on asylum applicants. Given the purpose of asylum laws, where an asylum applicant expresses the reasonable opinion that attackers who look and behave like government officials are in fact government officials, in the absence of the type of inconsistencies flagged by the Handbook, the benefit of the doubt should be allowed to carry the day.
Addressing this issue in Malonda, the Second Circuit focused on the fact that the identity issue was tied to the question of political opinion. The court referenced its decision from earlier this year in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, in which it cited language from the BIA’s excellent 1996 decision in Matter of S-P- holding that political opinion is established by direct or circumstantial evidence.
The Second Circuit pointed to circumstantial evidence in Malonda’s testimony that the attackers were government soldiers motivated by the family’s political opinion. Such evidence included the facts that Malonda’s home was the only one attacked, and his father was the only resident of the street who was an active opposition party member. Furthermore, the likelihood of the attackers being anti-government rebels was undermined by Malonda’s testimony that the rebels ability to reach his neighborhood was impeded by the presence of state security forces, and that his brother, who was abducted by the attackers, was brought to a camp where he was trained to fight against (rather than for) the rebels.
In a footnote, the court noted that the BIA had added its own insinuation to the contrary by referencing general reports of rebel involvement in “widespread violence and civil strife” in the country. But the Second Circuit pointed out that such general information failed to consider that Malonda’s own region was protected by the government, and “more importantly, does not explain why the rebels would have targeted only Malonda’s house for such violence.”
The Second Circuit’s opinion in Malonda emphasizes the starkly different approaches of the 1996 BIA and its current iteration. In Matter of S-P- (an en banc decision which remains binding precedent on immigration judges and the BIA), the Board noted the difficulty in determining motive where “harm may have been inflicted for reasons related to government intelligence gathering, for political views imputed to the applicant, or for some combination of these reasons.” But the Board emphasized the importance of keeping “in mind the fundamental humanitarian concerns of asylum law,” which are “designed to afford a generous standard for protection in cases of doubt.”2
S-P- also included a reminder that a grant of asylum “is not a judgment about the country involved, but a judgment about the reasonableness of the applicant’s belief that persecution was based on a protected ground.” As the scholar Deborah Anker has emphasized, such reasonableness determinations require “that the adjudicator view the evidence as the applicant – or a reasonable person in his or her circumstances – would and does not simply substitute the adjudicator’s own experience as the vantage point.”3 In its decision in Sotelo-Aquije v. Slattery, the Second Circuit similarly emphasized the importance of vantage point by describing the standard as what a reasonable person would find credible “based on what that person has experienced and witnessed.”
Applying this standard, what reasonable person who had experienced and witnessed what Malonda did would say: “You know, I was pretty certain the attackers were government soldiers punishing us for my father’s political activities. But since you pointed out that I’m not completely certain about the uniforms, I guess I was mistaken. It was probably just a random incident. In which case, I can’t see any reason to fear return?”
Remarkably, that appears to have been the BIA’s approach in Malonda. Its decision lacked any indication of adopting the asylum applicant’s vantage point or applying the benefit of the doubt as described above. And while Matter of S-P- set out a rather complex set of elements for identifying motive through the types of circumstantial evidence pointed to by the Second Circuit, the present BIA pointed instead to whatever generalized information it could find in the record to justify affirming the asylum denial.
Although an unpublished decision involving a pro se petitioner that could easily evade our attention,4 Malonda underscores the need for a uniform application of the principles emphasized in the BIA’s decision in Matter of S-P-, instead of a “uniform” approach based on the ability to identify uniforms.
Notes:
Although not binding, the Supreme Court has recognized that “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform [and] has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 439 n. 22 (1987). The BIA reached a similar conclusion in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985) (finding the Handbook to be a useful tool “in construing our obligations under the Protocol”).
The majority opinion in Matter of S-P- was authored by now retired Board Member John Guendelsberger. Three current members of the Round Table of Immigration Judges, Paul W. Schmidt (the BIA Chairperson at the time), Lory D. Rosenberg, and Gustavo Villageliu, joined in Judge Guendelsberger’s opinion.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Edition) (Thomson Reuters) at 76.
Thanks to attorney Raymond Fasano for bringing this decision to my notice.
Copyright 2020, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Reprinted With Permission.
***********************
Obviously, the BIA could resume court-like functions, provide scholarly, rational guidance and enforce uniformity for Immigration Judges (too many of whom lack true expertise in asylum laws), help cut backlogs, increase efficiency, and put an end to frivolous litigation by DHS which too often these days seeks to encourage IJs to deny cases where asylum grants clearly are warranted. (There was a time, at least in Arlington, when DHS Counsel actually worked cooperatively with the private bar and the Immigration Judges to promote fairness and use court time wisely on asylum cases. Those days are now long gone as the system has regressed horribly and disgracefully under the maliciously incompetent, White Nationalist, nativist, leadership of the current regime at DHS and DOJ).
But, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices, can’t and won’t happen until the current “BIA Clown Court” 🤡 is replaced with a new group of expert Appellate Judges ⚖️👨🏻⚖️🧑🏽⚖️ from the NDPA who are “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights laws.
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Hon. “Sir” Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Hi all: A few outcomes right before the holiday (two good, one bad):
(1) The Fourth Circuit just granted the motion for rehearing en banc in Portillo-Flores v. Barr, in which the Round Table filed an amicus brief. This was a decision with a very problematic unwilling/unable determination by two judges (the petitioner, who was 14 when the events occurred, stated on the third time he was asked that it was possible the police might have taken some action), and a very strongly worded dissent.
(2) In a bond case in the Second Circuit in which we also filed an amicus brief in a case represented by Legal Aid., Arana v. Barr, the petitioner was released from custody today after having two prior requests denied. Legal Aid believes our brief was helpful in achieving that result. Counsel is expecting a stipulation for dismissal without prejudice.
(3) The bad news: in a petition to the 4th Circuit in support of CAIR Coalition involving Matter of A-B- issues, the 4th Cir. denied the petition for review, but did so in an unpublished decision.
Wishing everyone a very safe and happy Thanksgiving!
All my best, Jeff
**************************
Thanks, Sir Jeffrey!
I’m so thankful for all of the fantastic work that you and our other knightesses and knights of the Round Table do to keep due process and best practices on the forefront and spread truth in the face of tyranny, lies, and false narratives. While we often focus on the weekly amicus briefs we file with tribunals across the nation, the work also goes on in analysis, public speaking, media interviews, teaching, political involvement, video appearances, and grass roots pro bono and community work.
For example, our amazing colleague Judge Charlie Pazar of Tennessee just reported that he was featured on a CLE panel entirely devoted to the work and impact of our Round Table! Way to go Charlie! You are one of those who tirelessly works to improve American justice on all levels and you are certainly “super generous” in sharing your time, knowledge, expertise, and perspective!
Just recently, Sir Jeffrey, along with Round Table knightesses Judge Denise Slavin and Judge Sue Roy, in addition to yours truly and our friend NAIJ President Judge Ashley Tabaddor, were quoted by Suzanne Monyak in a Law360 article about the future of the NAIJ and the Immigration Court in a Biden Administration. Sadly, the article is “hidden behind the pay wall,” but those with access can read it in its entirety.
Compare these unselfish, teamwork-oriented, effective, expert professional activities aimed at improving the justice system and access to it for everyone with the disgraceful, ignorant, divisive, counterproductive, and often downright racist and illegal actions of the current regime’s immigration kakistocracy, starting, but by no means ending, with the deadly ☠️⚰️🏴☠️ “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡!
Think what a “Better EOIR” and a “better bureaucracy,” led by members of the NDPA could do to solve problems, promote the rule of law and best practices, and make “equal justice for all” a reality rather than a false promise that is intentionally never fulfilled! It isn’t rocket science. But, it does take replacing the kakistocracy, on all levels, throughout Government with experts from the NDPA committed to achieving “good government in the public interest.”
As this Court has recognized, “when [an] alien appears pro se, it is the IJ’s duty to ‘fully develop the record.’” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2000)). Despite this long-recognized obligation, the record in this case demonstrates that this duty is not always fulfilled; and that the consequence may be unfairness and injustice to the pro se petitioner who is unable to develop the record without guidance and assistance. We respectfully submit that this Court should use this case to provide much-needed guidance to IJs on the scope of their duty to work with pro se respondents to elicit the information necessary to develop the factual record. Based upon our own extensive experience, we are of the view that this can be done efficiently and effectively by conscientious IJs, so long as the rule that they are required to do so is clear.
******************
Thanks so much to out “Team of Pro Bono Heroes” at Sullivan & Cromwell, NY:
Philip L. Graham, Jr.
Amanda Flug Davidoff
Rebecca S. Kadosh
Joseph M. Calder, Jr.
This regime has appointed mostly judges lacking experience representing individuals in Immigration Court and then compounded the problem with:
Mindless “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks (often supported by knowingly false or misleading narratives) imposed by political hacks at DOJ and Falls Church;
A BIA lacking expertise and objectivity that instead of focusing on due process for those in Immigration Court, spews forth “blueprints for denial and deportation” without regard for statutory, Constitutional, and human rights;
A system that has elevated “malicious incompetence” and “worst judicial practices” to a “dark art form.”☠️
TIME FOR COURAGEOUS NEW IMMIGRATION LEADERSHIP!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
It’s time for the “EOIR Clown Show” in Falls Church to go! Bring in competent jurists and administrators from the NDPA: practical scholars and problem solvers with real life skills developed by saving lives from this broken and biased system. Real jurists with expertise in human rights and courage, who will make due process, fundamental fairness, humane values, and “best judicial practices” the only objectives of the Immigration Courts. Jurists who will courageously resist political interference and improper and unethical weaponization of the Immigration Courts by any Administration.
Let the incoming Biden-Administration know that you won’t accept failed “retreads” from the past and “go along to get along” bureaucrats running and comprising what is probably the most important and significant court system in America from an equal justice, social justice, constitutional development, and saving human lives standpoint.
This is the “retail level” of our justice system: Thefoundation upon which the rest of our legal system all the way up to a tone-deaf, flailing, failing, and generally spineless Supremes stands! This is a court system that the Biden Administration can fix without Mitch McConnell!
The members of the NDPA are the ones who have been fighting in the trenches (and at the borders) to save lives, advance social justice, insure equal justice for all, end institutional racism, and preserve our democracy in the face of a tyrannical, unscrupulous, corrupt, racially biased, anti-democracy regime and its enablers! Many have sacrificed careers, health, not to mention financial security in this fight!
Don’t let those who watched from the sidelines, above the day-to-day fray, or were part of the problem swoop in and take control after the battle has been won!
Get mad! Get vocal! Get active! Call everyone you know in the incoming Administration! Demand that the NDPA and its members be given the leadership roles they have earned and deserve in remaking EOIR and reforming a thoroughly corrupt, politicized, and dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy across our Government!
Don’t let the Dems turn their back on achievable reforms and “shut out” the reformers and problem solvers in the advocacy sector (who have “carried the water” for Dems for decades) as has been the case in the past! Don’t let the mistakes and short-sightedness of the past destroy YOUR chances for a better future!
Don’t let timidity, ignorance, indifference, and fear of “rocking the boat” in the name of justice, due process, and human dignity replace “malicious incompetence” in Government!
Due Process Forever! Same old, same old, never! It’s time for real change and reform! It’s YOUR time to shine! Let YOUR voices be heard!
J Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Asher Stockler reports for Law360:
. . . .
But the government said that, even if these withholding claims succeed, it still retains the right to deport the group of immigrants to other countries that will accept them. Because deportation is still on the table regardless of the status of those claims, the administration argued, the group of immigrants should be treated identically to those who are about to be deported.
The ACLU rebutted that argument, saying that such third-country deportations are exceedingly rare. Because of this, the ACLU said the availability of a third-country option should not mean the
11/12/2020 Justices Told Of Due Process Issues Without Bond Hearings – Law360
deportation-ready provision of the law kicks in. According to the American Immigration Council, fewer than 2% of immigrants who received persecution-based relief in fiscal year 2017 were ultimately deported to a third country.
The Justice Department also raised the possibility that having to scrutinize the practical odds of removal from immigrant to immigrant would be “patently unworkable.”
“A case-by-case approach … would needlessly add to the burdens that are already ‘overwhelming our immigration system,'” the department said, quoting a prior case.
But a coalition of former immigration trial and appeals judges pushed back on that idea with their own amicus brief Thursday.
“Bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings are no different than bond hearings in other contexts,” the group, representing 34 judges who have cumulatively overseen thousands of cases, wrote. “Contrary to [the administration’s] assertion, bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings neither lead to a slowdown of cases that ‘thwart Congress’ objectives’ in enacting the immigration laws, nor impose an administrative burden on immigration courts.” The American Civil Liberties Union is represented by its own Michael Tan, Omar Jadwat, Judy Rabinovitz, Cecillia Wang and David D. Cole.
The coalition of former judges is represented by David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Hughes, Michael Kimberly and Andrew Lyons-Berg of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg and Rachel McFarland of the Legal Aid Justice Center, Mark Stevens of Murray Osorio PLLC, and Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School’s Supreme Court Clinic.
The Trump administration is represented by Noel Francisco, Jeffrey Wall, Edwin Kneedler and Vivek Suri of the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office and Lauren Fascett, Brian Ward and Joseph Hunt of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division.
The case is Tony H. Pham et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez et al., case number 19-897, at the U.S. Supreme Court.
–Editing by Michael Watanabe.
**********************************************
Read the complete article over on Law360. The case comes from the Fourth Circuit. Hopefully, the Biden-Harris Administration will withdraw the SG’s disingenuous petition (if not already denied by the Supremes) and implement the Fourth Circuit’s correct decision nationwide.
That’s the way to promote due process and judicial efficiency instead of constantly promoting inhumanity, abuse of due process, judicial inefficiency (fair adjudication is hindered by unnecessary detention in the Gulag), and chaos!
Many, many, many thanks to our all-star pro bono team:
David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
Couldn’t have done it without you guys! You constantly “Make us look smart!”
I also note with great pride the following “charter members” of the “New Due Process Army” who were on the plaintiffs’ legal team:
Rachel McFarland, my former Georgetown Law student;
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court, and is an occasional contributor to “Courtside;
Mark Stevens, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court.
Well done, fearless fighters for due process!
Rachel McFarland Legal Aid Justice Center Charter Member, New Due Process Army
This disgraceful performance by the Solicitor General’s Office (once revered, now reviled) has become “the norm” under Trump. Francisco’s arguments are those of an attorney who didn’t do “due diligence,” but doesn’t expect the Court to know or care what really happens in Immigration Court. And, unfortunately, with the exception of Justice Sotomayor and perhaps Justice Kagan, that may well be a correct assumption. But that doesn’t make it any less of a powerful and disturbing indictment of our entire U.S. Justice system in the age of Trump.
Reality check: I routinely did 10-15, sometimes more, bond hearings at a Detained Master Calendar in less than one hour. I treated everyone fairly, applied the correct legal criteria, and set reasonable bonds (usually around $5,000) for everyone legally eligible. Almost all represented asylum seekers and withholding seekers eligible for bond who had filed complete and well-documented asylum or withholding applications were released on bond. About 99% showed up for their merits hearings.
I encouraged attorneys on both sides to file documents in advance, discuss the case with each other, and present a proposed agreed bond amount or a range of amounts to me whenever possible. Bond hearings were really important (freedom from unnecessary restraint is one of our most fundamental rights), but they weren’t “rocket science.” Bond hearings actually ran like clockwork.
Indeed, if the attorneys were “really on the ball,” and ICE managed to find and present all the detainees timely, I could probably do 10-15 bond cases in 30 minutes, and get them all right. My courtroom and my approach weren’t any different from that of my other then-colleagues at Arlington. In thirteen years on the bench, I set thousands of bonds and probably had no more than six appeals to the BIA from my bond decisions. I also reviewed many bond appeals at the BIA. (Although, most bond appeals to the BIA were “mooted” by the issuance of a final order in the detained case before the bond appeal was adjudicated.) Most took fewer than 15 minutes.
Indeed, my past experience suggests that a system led (not necessarily “run”) by competent judicial professionals and staffed with real judges with expertise in immigration, asylum, and human rights and unswervingly committed to due process and fundamental fairness could establish “best practices” that would drastically increase efficiency, cut (rather than mindlessly and exponentially expand) backlogs, without cutting out anyone’s rights. In other words, EOIR potentially could be a “model American judiciary,” as it actually was once envisioned, rather than the slimy mass of disastrous incompetence and the national embarrassment that it is today!
The idea that doing something as straightforward as a bond hearing would tie the system in knots is pure poppycock and a stunning insult to all Immigration Judges delivered by a Solicitor General who has never done a bond case in his life!
Yes the system is overwhelmingly backlogged and dysfunctional! But that has nothing to do with giving respondents due process bond hearings.
It has everything to do with unconstitutional and just plain stupid “politicization” and “weaponization” of the courts under gross incompetence and mismanagement by political hacks at the DOJ who have installed their equally unqualified toadies at EOIR. It also has to do with a disingenuous Solicitor General who advances a White Nationalist political agenda, rather than constitutional rights, fundamental fairness, rationality, and best practices. It has to do with a Supreme Court majority unwilling to take a stand for the legal rights and human dignity of the most vulnerable, and often most deserving, among us in the face of bullying and abuse by a corrupt, would-be authoritarian, fundamentally anti-American and anti-democracy regime.
It has to do with allowing a corrupt, nativist, invidiously-motivated regime to manipulate and intentionally misapply asylum and protection laws at the co-opted and captive DHS Asylum Office; thousands of “grantable” asylum cases are wrongfully and unnecessarily shuffled off to the Immigration Courts, thus artificially inflating backlogs and leading to more pressure to cut corners and dispense with due process.
It also paints an intentionally false and misleading picture that the problem is asylum applicants rather than the maliciously incompetent White Nationalists who have seized control of our system and acted to destroy years of structural development and accumulated institutional expertise.
Good Government matters! Maliciously incompetent Government threatens to destroy our nation! (Doubt that, just look at the totally inappropriate, entirely dishonest, response of the Trump kakistocracy to their overwhelming election defeat by Biden-Harris and the unwillingness of both the GOP and supporters to comply with democratic norms and operate in the real world of facts, rather than false narratives.)
Due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, simple human decency, and Good Government won’t happen until we get the White Nationalist hacks out of the DOJ and replace the “clown show” at EOIR with qualified members of the New Due Process Army. Problem solvers, rather than problem creators; over-achievers, rather than screw-ups!
The incoming Biden-Harris Administration is left with a stark, yet simple, choice: oust the malicious incompetents and bring in the “competents” from the NDPA to fix the system; or become part of the problem and have the resulting mess forever sully your Administration.
The Obama Administration (sadly) chose the latter. President Elect Biden appears bold, confident, self-aware, and flexible enough to recognize past mistakes. But, recognition without reconstruction (action) is useless! Don’t ruminate — govern! Like your life depends on it!
And, by no means is EOIR the only part of DOJ the needs “big time” reform and a thorough shake up. We must have a Solicitor General committed to following the rules of legal ethics and common human decency and who will insist on her or his staff doing likewise.
The next Solicitor General must also have demonstrated expertise in asylum, immigration, civil rights, and human rights laws and be committed to expanding due process, equal justice, racial justice, and fundamental fairness throughout the Government bureaucracy and “pushing” the Supremes to adopt and endorse best, rather than worst, practices in these areas.
American Justice and our court systems are in “free fall.” This is no time for more “amateur night at the Bijou.”
And here are some thoughts for the future if we really want to achieve “Good Government” and equal justice for all:
Every future Supreme Court Justice must have served a minimum of two years as a U.S. Immigration Judge with an “asylum grant rate” that is at or exceeds the national average for the U.S. Immigration Courts;
Every future Solicitor General must have done a minimum of ten pro bono asylum cases in U.S. Immigration Court.
Due Process Forever! Clown Show (With Lives & Humanity On The Line) Never!
The Outrageous Decision to Decertify the IJ’s Union
Our attention is understandably focused elsewhere right now. However, it must be mentioned that on the eve of Election Day, a panel decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) as a union. While this might seem to be a minor issue at the moment, it is not. At stake is the integrity of the nation’s Immigration Courts and the life-changing decisions its judges make.
The NAIJ was formed in 1971, and was certified as the recognized collective bargaining representative of Immigration Judges in 1979, 41 years ago. It weathered a similar decertification effort in 2000. Then as now, the agency argued that Immigration Judges are managers, and thus ineligible to unionize. Under federal labor law, one is classified as a manager if their position “influences policy.” 20 years ago, both the initial decision of the Regional Director and the appeal to the FLRA resoundingly dismissed that notion. In its September 2000 decision, the FLRA agreed with the finding below that IJs are not involved in creating agency policy. The FLRA then noted that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review. The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the Judges do not influence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the Board.”
In two decades, the only change to the above is that while the IJ’s findings of law remain subject to de novoreview, their findings of fact are now reviewed for clear error. Of course, facts are entirely case-specific, and thus have no influence whatsoever on policy. So as before, rather than create or influence policy, IJs implement established policy. Yet EOIR once again sought decertification. At the hearing in January, EOIR stipulated that the judges’ duties and responsibilities had not changed since the prior decision. As reported in an article covering the hearing, EOIR’s Director, James McHenry, testified that Immigration Judges are not supervisors, adding that they “are at the bottom of the org chart so they don’t supervise anything,” and further noted that “they cannot hire or fire anyone.” Nevertheless, he argued that because an Immigration Judge’s decision becomes a final ruling binding the agency if not appealed, Immigration Judges influence policy.
The Regional Director dismissed the claim based on the above arguments and testimony. But there was always a sense that the administration had something up its sleeve. That “something” turned out to be two Trump appointees, FLRA Chairperson Colleen Duffy Kiko, and FLRA Member James T. Abbott. They have jointly issued a series of decisions overturning decades of precedent to erode the rights of federal employees’ unions, a result clearly favored by the administration that appointed them. The two stayed true to form in decertifying the NAIJ. The FLRA’s lone Democratic appointee, Ernest DuBester, issued a scathing opinion in the NAIJ’s case, which concluded with the following language:
This is the antithesis of reasoned decision making. Based upon the conclusory nature of the majority’s analysis, along with the facetious manner in which it reconciles its decision with Authority precedent precluding collateral attacks on unit certifications, it is abundantly clear that the majority’s sole objective is to divest the IJs of their statutory rights. Once again, I refuse to join a decision “so fundamentally adverse to the principles and purposes of our Statute.”
By deciding in this matter, the decision violates the FLRA’s own rules regarding when such reversals of past holdings are allowed. Moreover, not that it matters to Chairperson Kiko and Member Abbott, but if allowed to stand, their decision ignoring the NAIJ’s 41 years as a certified union and reversing its own precedent without any reasoned basis will accomplish the following damage.
First, Immigration Judges would lose their voice, collective bargaining rights, ability to be individually defended by their union representative, and their ability to push back against the relentless attack on their independence, neutrality, and ability to fulfill their proper function as a check against executive branch overreach. Second, NAIJ officers have remained the only Immigration Judges able to allow the public to peek behind the scenes at these tribunals, by speaking at law schools and conferences (with the exception of management level judges who may be permitted to state the party line, sometimes by reading it from index cards). As several leading scholars explained in an article in Slate: “Judges and asylum officers are being instructed to decide cases in ways that many contend are contrary to law. A virtual gag rule has been placed on them in the context of law schools and the broader public. This denies information to coming generations of lawyers and eliminates public discourse on some of the most critical civil rights issues of our time.”
But of great importance is a point I raised last year in an article I wrote forLaw360 on the decertification effort: the administration’s citing to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucia v. SEC:
while irrelevant to the management inquiry, the citing of Lucia points to another motive of the DOJ. In a leaked internal memo, the Justice Department indicated its interpretation of the decision as a basis to bypass the Merit System Protection Board, allowing the Administration to more easily terminate ALJs whose decisions don’t align with its political views. Such actions would constitute a troubling attempt by the executive branch to influence case outcomes. Similarly, decertifying the NAIJ would simplify the removal of IJs whose decisions are at odds with the administration’s stated immigration goals by eliminating the present collective bargaining agreement’s right to an independent arbitrator in matters concerning IJ discipline and termination.
Just prior to the FLRA’s decision, an executive order creating a schedule of career federal employees who can be more easily fired for purely political reasons (such as issuing decisions not in line with the administration’s views). By ruling that IJs influence agency policy (contrary to its prior decision), the FLRA has put the Immigration Judges squarely in the crosshairs of the new executive order. To be clear: Immigration Judges whose neutral and independent application of the law would lead them to issue decisions the administration doesn’t like would be subject to easy termination. And of course, having just lost their union, those judges will have lost their best means of challenging such termination. Then, the hiring of their replacements would become even more nakedly partisan.
While it seems as I write this there will be a new administration come January, that doesn’t render this issue irrelevant. First, the earlier decertification effort in 2000 occurred under a Democratic administration. Second, leaving the above ruling in place would allow it be used as a weapon in the ways described by any subsequent administration. Whatever one’s political leanings or views on immigration, we should all be able to agree that decisions of such importance should be rendered by fair, neutral judges by applying law to facts, protected from rank political pressures.
The creation of an Article I Immigration Court is ultimately the most durable way to guarantee the independence of these vital tribunals, but the evisceration or protections caused by allowing this decision to stand is too egregious to ignore even in the short term. It is therefore hoped that readers will amplify the news of the decision and all it means. It is hoped those with the capacity to do so will provide amicus or other legal support for further actions by the NAIJ to legally challenge the FLRA decision. And the decision must be brought to the attention of an incoming Biden administration, which has so much damage to correct
There also needs to be consequences for those who abandoned their obligation of fairness and neutrality under the present administration. FLRA Member DuBester is to be applauded for continuing to strongly voice his defense of justice in the dissent. But perhaps a Biden administration can assess whether Kiko and Abbott might be better suited for other work.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. reprinted with permission.
***********************
Thanks for speaking out so forcefully and articulately, my friend,
I am confident that the Biden-Harris Administration will correct this egregious miscarriage of justice. As “Good Government” folks, I’m also confident that they they will constructively address the disgraceful dysfunctional mess at EOIR that threatens to topple the American justice system. We will finally have “problem solvers” leading our Government! That will make a positive difference for all Americans.
