"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.
Here’s the registration link: https://www.americanbar.org/events-cle/mtg/web/438313794/
****************************
Thanks for forwarding this, Joan, and for your decades of leadership and work on Article I!
PWS
04-05-24
Join Andrew F. in signing this petition.
TO: SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS
END THE DETENTION DEATH TAX
End the Detention Death Tax – a draconian policy that fails to make funds available to the families of people who die in ICE custody for the return and transportation of their loved ones’ remains.
We urge ICE to alter its Detainee Death policies so that Field Office Directors and the Director’s Office have discretion to authorize payment for the prompt return and transport of the remains of people who die in ICE custody.
It is, quite literally, the very least ICE could do when it fails to keep humans alive.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) currently has no defined limit on the amount of money it will spend to cage the body of a person in removal proceedings.
When one of ICE’s deadly cages claim the life from that body, the limit ICE will spend to return them to their loved ones is $0.
This Death Tax presents grieving family members with a bill alongside the devastating news that their loved one is gone forever. Forcing families to pay for the retrieval and transportation of loved ones is cruel, inhumane, and unnecessary.
CATEGORIES
REASONS FOR SIGNING
UPDATES
14 hours ago
25 signatures reached
15 hours ago
10 signatures reached
Join Andrew F. in signing this petition.
TO: SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS
END THE DETENTION DEATH TAX
End the Detention Death Tax – a draconian policy that fails to make funds available to the families of people who die in ICE custody for the return and transportation of their loved ones’ remains.
We urge ICE to alter its Detainee Death policies so that Field Office Directors and the Director’s Office have discretion to authorize payment for the prompt return and transport of the remains of people who die in ICE custody.
It is, quite literally, the very least ICE could do when it fails to keep humans alive.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) currently has no defined limit on the amount of money it will spend to cage the body of a person in removal proceedings.
When one of ICE’s deadly cages claim the life from that body, the limit ICE will spend to return them to their loved ones is $0.
This Death Tax presents grieving family members with a bill alongside the devastating news that their loved one is gone forever. Forcing families to pay for the retrieval and transportation of loved ones is cruel, inhumane, and unnecessary.
CATEGORIES
REASONS FOR SIGNING
UPDATES
14 hours ago
25 signatures reached
15 hours ago
10 signatures reached
********************
“Detain Until Dead” (“DUD”) seems harsh enough “punishment” to be meted out to “civil” prisoners in DHS’s New American Gulag (“NAG”). But, Andrew points out that the cruel and inhuman treatment doesn’t end, even with death.
Join Andrew, me, and other members of the NDPA in seeking to ameliorate this indefensible policy by signing our petition at the above link.
PWS
06-30-23
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2023/03/immigration-courts-independent/
ABA News
March 27, 2023 JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Ex-judges: Immigration courts should be independent
Two retired immigration judges urged Congress to create an independent immigration court system, removing the courts from under the U.S. Justice Department, where they currently reside.
Panelists on a recent ABA webinar argued that immigration judges are not truly independent as long as they answer to the U.S. attorney general.
The former judges made their call at a panel discussion March 17 — “Adjudicatory Independence: Are Immigration Judges a Warning or a Model?” — organized by the American Bar Association Judicial Division. They and other panelists argued that immigration judges are not truly independent as long as they answer to the U.S. attorney general, who can overturn their decisions, fire them and create new immigration policies that they must follow.
Steven Morley, a retired immigration judge in Philadelphia, talked about a case he handled in 2018, called the Matter of Castro-Tum, which he considered a red flag for judicial independence.
The case involved an unaccompanied minor who illegally entered the United States, was detained by authorities, then released to relatives in the United States pending a hearing to force him to leave the county. Hearing notices were sent to the relatives’ address, but the boy did not appear. Finally, after four postponements, Morley administratively closed — or indefinitely suspended — the case, ruling that the Department of Homeland Security could not show it had a reliable address to notify the boy of his hearing.
At that point, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred the case to himself and overturned the judge’s decision. Sessions ruled that immigration judges do not have the authority to administratively close cases as Morley did. The new policy made it harder for immigration judges across the country to indefinitely suspend cases. This caused an uproar among immigration judges and advocates.
Three years later, in 2021, Merrick Garland — a new attorney general in a new administration — overturned Sessions’ action.
Such actions undermine the independence of immigration judges, Morley said. “The flaws in the system allow this to happen, and we should always be concerned for the integrity of the court system.”
Morley said attorneys general under President Donald Trump referred immigration cases to themselves to overturn judges’ decisions 17 times in four years, a large number compared to previous administrations. “This is no way to run immigration policy, to have ping-ponging back and forth of policy, from one attorney general to another attorney general.”
Joan Churchill, a retired immigration judge in Northern Virginia, outside Washington, D.C., also emphasized the importance of maintaining due process in immigration courts, particularly hearing notices to defendants. “Adequate notice of the hearing is on everybody’s list as a requirement of due process,” she said.
Churchill noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision a few years ago, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, found that notices in immigration court often were not constitutionally adequate. “Justice Gorsuch said any notices that did not include the time and place of the hearing — which many of them did not; they just said time and place to be determined — those were not adequate notice of the hearing and therefore the cases were defective.”
In 2010, the ABA House of Delegates adopted a policy supporting the creation of an independent Article I system of immigration courts. More than 150 organizations support this position, including the National Association of Immigration Judges and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Churchill said.
The program was co-sponsored by the ABA Commission on Immigration, ABA International Law Section, National Association of Women Judges, ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice and ABA Civil Rights and Social Justice Section.
*********************
Thanks, Joan and Steve for forwarding this report and for doing such an outstanding job of highlighting the compelling, urgent need for this long-overdue reform.
PWS
03-29-23
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/02/14/women-journalists-global-violence/
. . . .
The ordeal of Farooqi, who covers politics and national news for News One in Pakistan, exemplifies a global epidemic of online harassment whose costs go well beyond the grief and humiliation suffered by its victims. The voices of thousands of women journalists worldwide have been muffled and, in some cases, stolen entirely as they struggle to conduct interviews, attend public events and keep their jobs in the face of relentless online smear campaigns.
Stories that might have been told — or perspectives that might have been shared — stay untold and unshared. The pattern of abuse is remarkably consistent, no matter the continent or country where the journalists operate.
Farooqi says she’s been harassed, stalked and threatened with rape and murder. Faked images of her have appeared repeatedly on pornographic websites and across social media. Some depict her holding a penis in the place of her microphone. Others purport to show her naked or having sex. Similar accounts of abuse are heard from women journalists throughout the world.
. . . .
This article is part of “Story Killers,” a reporting project led by the Paris-based journalism nonprofit Forbidden Stories, which seeks to complete the work of journalists who have been killed. The inspiration for this project, which involves The Washington Post and more than two dozen other news organizations in more than 20 countries, was the 2017 killing of the Indian journalist Gauri Lankesh, a Bangalore editor who was gunned down at a time when she was reporting on Hindu extremism and the rise of online disinformation in her country.
New reporting by Forbidden Stories found that shortly before her slaying, Lankesh was the subject of relentless online attacks on social media platforms in a campaign that depicted her as an enemy of Hinduism. Her final article, “In the Age of False News,” was published after her death.
. . . .
Until news organizations recognize the purpose of harassment campaigns and learn to navigate them appropriately, experts say, women will continue to be forced from the profession and the stories they would have reported will go untold.
“This is about terrifying female journalists into silence and retreat; a way of discrediting and ultimately disappearing critical female voices,” Posetti said. “But it’s not just the journalists whose careers are destroyed who pay the price. If you allow online violence to push female reporters out of your newsroom, countless other voices and stories will be muted in the process.”
“This gender-based violence against women has started to become normal,” Farooqi said. “I talk to counterparts in the U.S., U.K., Russia, Turkey, even in China. Women everywhere, Iran, our neighbor, everywhere, women journalists are complaining of the same thing. It’s become a new weapon to silence and censor women journalists, and it’s not being taken seriously.”
********************
“Not being taken seriously” aptly describes the attitude and actions of the Biden Administration toward some women seeking asylum on the basis of gender-based violence. Certainly, our Government could and should do better at recognizing and prioritizing refugee and asylum status for this vulnerable group.
Recently, I published a “happy ending” story from my friends over at the GW Law Immigration Clinic, involving an Afghan female attorney granted asylum by the Arlington Asylum Office. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/15/🗽🇺🇸-i-hope-to-rebuild-my-life-here-i-cant-save-my-country-but-i-can-save-myself-and-my-family-gw-law-immigration-clinic-asylum-laws-save-another-l/
Yet, even this “slam dunk” case took nearly six months to adjudicate. Seems like it could and should have been granted at the interview in a well-functioning system. Better yet, most Afghan refugees could have been screened overseas and admitted in legal refugee status, thus avoiding the backlogged asylum system and freeing both USG and private bar resources for more difficult cases.
My friend and Round Table colleague Judge Joan Churchill and the National Association of Women Judges have petitioned the Biden Administration to offer refuge to as many as 250 Afghan female judges whose lives are in grave danger. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/19/🗽⚖️human-rights-immigration-judges-speak-out-for-afghan-women-judges-national-association-for-women-judges-call-to-protect-courageous-afghan-women-featured-in-was/
Yet, I am aware of no guidance, precedent, or directives recognizing refugee status or directing grants of asylum for Afghan women. In the meantime, several European nations have determined that all women who have fled Afghanistan can qualify as refugees. See, e.g., https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/09/denmark-sweden-offer-protection-all-women-girls-afghanistan.
Once, America was in the forefront of setting precedents that protected female refugees. See, e.g., Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (1996) (FGM, opinion by Schmidt, Chair). Now, not so much, despite our nation’s heavy involvement with Afghanistan. Apparently, the “powers that be” are afraid that consistently and aggressively supporting refugee protection for women fleeing Afghanistan and other dangerous countries would “encourage” them to actually seek legal protection here thereby upsetting right-wing nativists and misogynists.
Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for both journalists and women. See, e.g., https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2022/05/10/mexico-vicious-attacks-against-women-journalists-and-hrds-continue/.
Yet, incredibly, the Biden Administration proposes to send up to 30,000 rejected NON-MEXICAN border arrivals per month to Mexico without fair examination of their potential asylum claims. To date, BIA precedents, regulations, and policy statements have NOT recognized the well-documented, clear and present dangers for journalists, women, and particularly female journalists, in Mexico. Consequently, I’d say that there is about a 100% chance that some female journalists seeking asylum will be illegally returned to death or danger, whether in Mexico or their native countries.
Just can’t make this stuff up. Yet, it’s happening in a Dem Administration!
AG Merrick Garland did vacate former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s lawless and misogynistic decision in Matter of A-B-. That action “restored” the BIA’s 2014 precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G-, recognizing that gender-based domestic violence could be a basis for granting asylum.
However, the BIA didn’t elaborate on the many forms that gender-based persecution can take, nor did they provide binding guidance to Immigration Judges on how these cases should be handled in accordance with due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.
Garland and his BIA have failed to follow up with any meaningful guidance or amplification of A-R-C-G- for Immigraton Judges. That’s even though many women fleeing Latin America come from countries where gender-based violence is rampant and the governments make little or no effective efforts to control it — sometimes police and other corrupt officials even join in the abuses.
Consequently, life or death protection for female asylum seekers remains a disgraceful and wholly unacceptable “crap shoot.” Outcomes of well prepared and copiously documented asylum cases often depend more on the attitude of the Immigration Judge or BIA Appellate Judge hearing the case than on the law and facts.
Also, without a knowledgeable lawyer, which the Government does not provide, an applicant has virtually no chance of winning a gender-based protection case in today’s EOIR. Additionally, those in immigration detention or placed on Garland’s “accelerated/dedicated” dockets are known to have particular difficulty obtaining pro bono counsel.
Anti-asylum IJs, some of whom were known for their negative attitudes toward female asylum seekers — many of those who actually “cheered” Sessions’s biased and wrong reversal of hard-won asylum protection for women in EOIR courts — remain on the bench under Garland at both levels.
To their credit, some have changed their posture and now grant at least some gender-based cases. But, others continue to show anti-asylum, anti-female bias and deny applications for specious reasons, misconstrue the law, or just plain use “any reason to deny” these claims, without any fear of consequences or meaningful accountability.
Whether or not such egregious errors and non-uniform applications of asylum law get reversed at the BIA again depends on the composition of the BIA “panel” assigned to the case. (Not all “panels” have three Appellate Judges; some are “single member” panels). Significantly, and inexplicably, a group of Trump-holdover BIA Appellate Judges known for their overt hostility to asylum applicants (with denial rates approaching 100%) and their particular hostility to gender-based claims, remains on the BIA under Garland. There, they can “rubber stamp” wrong denials while sometimes even reversing correct grants of protection by Immigration Judges below! Talk about a broken and unfair system!
With an incredible backlog of 2.1 million cases, approximately 800,000 of them asylum cases, wrongly decided EOIR cases can “kick around the system” among the Immigration Courts, the BIA, and the Circuits for years. Sometimes, a decade or more passes without final resolution! Imagine being a pro bono or “low bono” attorney handling one of these cases! You “win” several times, but the case still has no end. And, you’re still “on the hook” for providing free legal services.
It’s no wonder that, like his predecessors over the past two decades, Garland builds EOIR backlog exponentially — without systematically providing justice or instituting long overdue personnel and management changes! It’s also painfully clear that, also like their predecessors, Garland and his political lieutenants have never experienced the waste and frustrations of handling pro bono litigation before the dystopian “courts” they are now running into the ground!
Meanwhile, Biden’s promise and directive that his Administration promulgate regulations containing standards for gender-based asylum cases that would promote fairness and uniformity within his OWN courts and agencies remains unfulfilled — nearing the halfway point of this Administration! Apparently, some politicos within the Administration are more fearful of predictable adverse reactions from right-wing nativists and restrictionists than they are anxious to “do the right thing” by listening to the views of the experts and progressives who helped put them in office in the first place!
Thus, abused women and other refugees and asylum seekers, and their dedicated supporters, many of whom have spent “professional lifetimes” trying to establish the rule of law in these cases, face a difficult conundrum. In America today, neither major political party is willing to stand up for the legal and human rights of refugees, particularly women fleeing gender-based persecution.
As an “interested observer,” it seems to me that something’s “got to give” between so-called “mainstream Dems” and progressive immigration/human rights advocates. The latter have devoted too much time, energy, courage, and expertise to “the cause” to be treated so dismissively and disrespectfully by those they are “propping up.” And, that includes a whole bunch of Biden Administration politicos who were nowhere to be found while immigration advocates were fighting, often successfully and against the odds, on the front lines to save democracy during the “reign of Trump.”
That was a time when immigrants, asylum seekers, people of color, and women were the targets for “Dred Scottification” before the law. I have yet to see the Biden Administration, or the Dem Party as a whole, take a strong “active” stand (rhetoric is pretty useless here, as the Administration keeps demonstrating) against those who would use misapplications of the law, ignoring due process, demonization, and refusal to recognize the humanity of migrants as their primary tool to undermine and ultimately destroy American democracy!
Immigrants, including refugees, are overall a “good story” — indeed the real story of America since its founding. That Dems can’t figure out how to tell, sell, advance, and protect the immigrant experience that touches almost all of us is indeed a national tragedy.
PWS
02-18-23
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1482556/download
Matter of M-M-A-, Respondent
Decided March 11, 2022
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals
When the Department of Homeland Security raises the mandatory bar for filing a frivolous asylum application under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2018), an Immigration Judge must make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the requirements for a frivolousness determination under Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), have been met.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Elias Z. Shamieh, Esquire, San Francisco, California
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Jennifer L. Castro, Assistant Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: WILSON and GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judges. Dissenting Opinion: GREER, Appellate Immigration Judge.
WILSON, Appellate Immigration Judge: [Opinion]
In my view, when an Immigration Judge elects to undertake the analysis set forth in our precedent under Matter of Y-L-, either independently or at the request of the DHS, and determines that the application is frivolous, then the plain statutory language requires the entry of a frivolousness finding as part of the Immigration Judge’s decision. But whether the Immigration Judge must conduct that analysis in the first place because the DHS requests it is a different question. This key distinction was recognized by the Second Circuit in stating that Immigration Judges “regularly exercise discretion when deciding whether to initiate a frivolousness inquiry.” Mei Juan Zheng, 672 F.3d at 186.
Requiring the adjudicator, either independently or at the request of the DHS, to engage in this analysis because the respondent made a material misrepresentation upends current practice by creating a rigid structure not mandated by statute. It equates adverse credibility with frivolousness, which I view as conflicting with the case law. It also removes discretion from the Immigration Judge and transfers it to the DHS. Accordingly, the majority’s interpretation constitutes an unwarranted expansion of the frivolousness provisions.
Although the majority casts this question in terms of whether an Immigration Judge may “ignore” a mandatory bar to asylum, the question is whether the Immigration Judge has the authority to make a judgment about pursuing a frivolousness inquiry. This Immigration Judge did not ignore a request from DHS to consider frivolousness. Rather, she entertained it and made an independent judgment not to proceed based on particular facts and circumstances in this case after deliberation. As discussed, the DHS did not question the judgment she made, which is a critical distinction; rather the DHS questions the ability of the Immigration Judge to make this judgment at all.2
I interpret the language and structure of the statute and development of relevant case law, combined with the sequencing of the frivolousness inquiry and its consequences, to demonstrate the discretionary nature of the frivolousness inquiry. And, absent any challenge to how the Immigration Judge exercised her discretion in this case, which I consider to have been waived, I would dismiss the appeal.
2 The relevant factors for the Immigration Judge to assess in making a threshold determination whether to invoke the frivolousness inquiry are a separate issue not implicated by the posture of this case.
*********************
BIA to IJs: “When our overlords @ DHS tell you to jump, your duty is to say ‘how high, my masters!’”
Under Garland, the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” continues to pile up some really wrong, one-sided, and poorly-reasoned decisions that intentionally skew the law against migrants and adversely affect human lives. Decisions that punctuate Judge Joan Churchill’s call for an independent Article I Immigration Judiciary. In an article I posted yesterday, Joan argued persuasively that that EOIR never had true quasi-judicial independence. Decisions like this illustrate her point. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/03/12/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%a9%f0%9f%8f%bb%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%a9%f0%9f%8f%be%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bdfeature-the-latest-issue-of-the-abas-judges/
Here, a correct (basically, uncontested on the merits, as Judge Greer points out) grant of a waiver was reversed just because DHS wanted “control” over the judges. “How dare a ‘mere employee’ of the AG exercise discretion in the face of the ICE ACC’s demand? Do these guys think they are ‘real’ judges? Let’s tell our buddy Merrick to get his toadies back in line like they were under Sessions and Barr!” How does the “holdover” BIA’s steady stream of incorrect decisions, institutionalized bias, and “worst practices” advance justice?
The “Biden-Era BIA” is building a legacy of bad law, poor judging, and unnecessarily broken lives. Not exactly what the Biden Administration promised during the election! And, it goes without saying that requiring a fact-heavy “full Y-L- analysis” at the unilateral demand of the DHS will increase the backlog as Garland “shoots for 2 million” in his dysfunctional and chronically misdirected “courts.”
PWS
03-13-22
The whole issue is devoted to addressing the critical due process, fundamental fairness, and ethical issues in Immigration Court with articles by NAIJ President Judge Mimi Tsankov, Judge Samuel B. Cole, Professor Michele Pistone of the VIISTA Villanova Project and others in addition to Joan.
PWS
03-12-22
Many thanks to Judge Joan A. Churchill for spearheading this effort and for her many years of leadership and tireless dedication to the Article I Movement!
Endorsement of Art. I Bill (Final)
ENDORSEMENT OF H.R. 6577
BY
THE ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES February 18, 2022
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, composed of 52 for- mer Immigration and Appellate Immigration Judges, wholeheartedly endorses H.R. 6577. We urge its passage.
Members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges were appointed by and served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Our periods of service on the bench span 1980 through December 2021. As former Immigration Judges, we are acutely aware of the systemic flaws in the placement of the Immigration Court within the Department of Justice, our nation’s highest law enforcement agency. Ever aware of our duty to exercise our independent judgment to accord due process, we conscientiously strove to do so throughout our years on the bench. However, challenges to our ability to do so were ever present. While we felt that we individually were administering impartial justice, we could not overcome the appearance of partiality, created by the structural flaw in the system, in the eyes of the parties and public.
Establishment of an independent Immigration Court under Article I of the Constitution is long overdue. On March 1, 1981 the Congressionally created bipartisan Select Commission on Immigration & Refugee Policy, issued its Final Report, entitled U. S. Immigration Policy and the National Interest, calling for creation of an Article I Immigration Court :
“The Select Commission recommends that existing law be amended to create an immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.” [pp. xxviii-xxix]
The Select Commission, which began its work in 1979, undertook an exhaustive study which ultimately identified and recognized the structural flaw which H.R. 6577 will finally correct. Steps taken by successive ad- ministrations since 1981 have not fixed the problem. Rep. Bill McCollum, (R FL), a prior Chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee, introduced several Article I Immigration Court bills over the years. It is not a partisan issue. The structure simply does not allow for truly impartial adjudication. Political policy making functions should not be commingled with adjudicative functions. Impartial adjudication is essential for due process. Congressional action is necessary to eliminate the systemic structural flaw. Passage of H.R. 6577 will do that. H.R. 6577 will establish a judicial structure for adjudicative immigration proceedings that will assure due process, an American value enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. We applaud the intro- suction of H.R. 6577 and look forward to its enactment.
*******************************
PWS
02-21-22
American Bar Association International Law Section
Program Spotlight: Refugees and Asylum in the U.S.
&
Review of Domestic Interpretations at Odds with International Guidance
Presented by the American Bar Association International Law Section, Immigration & Naturalization Committee, and the International Refugee Law Committee
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
12:00pm ET – 1:00pm ET
Register Today for this Free Program:
This program will review the differences between the Refugee and Asylum processes (which includes Withholding of Removal) in order to provide clarity to new practitioners about the stark contrasts between the two U.S. refugee programs and to inform on international law compliance.
Topic 1: Contrast and compare Refugees and Asylum law and process, and
Topic 2: Compare U.S. domestic interpretations of the legal criteria of Refugees and Asylum seekers with international law and policy.
Moderator and Chair: Joan Churchill (Former Immigration Judge)
Speakers:
Topic 1: The Hon. Paul Grussendorf
Paul Grussendorf has worked with both the refugee and asylum programs in the United States and abroad. He headed a law school legal clinic at the The George Washington University Law School representing asylum seekers, served as an Immigration Judge handling asylum cases, worked as a Supervisory Asylum Officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services [CIS], as a refugee officer with Refugee Affairs Division of USCIS, and as a refugee officer and supervisor with the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency.
Topic 2: The Hon. Jeffrey Chase
Jeffrey Chase is a retired Immigration judge for New York City. He has written extensively about the inter relationship of international law sources with the U.S. national law when administering cases involving asylum and refugee applications.
He has a blog entitled Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law. He coordinates The Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges, an informal group of Retired Immigration Judges from both the trial and appellate level, who weigh in on topics relating to the administration of justice by the Immigration Court. The Round Table files amici briefs, and has issued position papers and testimony on issues affecting due process and the administration of justice by the Immigration Courts.
***************************
Many thanks to my round table friends and colleagues for putting this fantastic free program together and to the ABA International Law Section for sponsoring it!
In 1980, Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980 to bring the U.S. into compliance with the U.N. Convention & Protocol on The Status of Refugees, to which we are a signatory through the Protocol.
After some steady progress over the first two decades, today, as a result of actions taken by the last four Administrations since 2001, we are further away than ever from the goal of compliance. Bungling bureaucrats at DHS and DOJ wrongfully view large numbers of refugees and asylees as a “threat” to be “deterred,” rather than as the legal obligation and undeniable assets to our nation that they in truth are.
They fail miserably to fix systemic problems, to properly welcome refugees and asylees, and to adjudicate their claims in a fair and timely manner consistent with due process and racial justice. With stunning tone deafness, they eschew the advice of experts like Judges Churchill, Grussendorf, and Chase in favor of cruel, inept, and “bad faith” gimmicks, like gross misuse of Title 42 to suspend the asylum system indefinitely without Congressional approval.
One only has to look at the evening news to see firsthand what a horrible failure these “Stephen Miller Lite” policies have been and how they ruin lives and trash the reputation of our nation. The failure of the Biden Administration to make good on its campaign promises to migrants and refugees is nothing short of a national disgrace!
The first step in holding Mayorkas, Garland, and the others responsible for this ongoing mess accountable and restoring the rule of law is to understand how the system should and could work.
Then, you will have the tools to sue the hell out of the irresponsible public officials and their bumbling bureaucrats, lobby Congress for better protections for asylum seekers, and generate outraged public opinion until the rule of law, common sense, and human decency are restored to our land! And, we can save some lives that are well worth saving in the process!
Knowledge is power! The Biden Administration’s knowledge of how to implement an efficient, practical, legal, successful asylum system would fit in a thimble with room left over! Get the “upper hand” by listening to these Round Experts!
PWS
11-02-21
. . . .
In an interview with ABC News, Mr. Biden himself for the first time hinted at flexibility on the deadline, “if there are American citizens left.” That won’t be enough: This country’s moral responsibilities begin, but do not end, with U.S. citizens. On Tuesday, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) received and forwarded to Secretary of State Antony Blinken an appeal from the National Association of Women Judges on behalf of 250 Afghan women judges, trained by Americans and other Western countries, some of whom sentenced Taliban fighters to prison for murder or other crimes. These criminals have just been released by the Taliban. The judges have thus joined the ranks of the fearful. This country must make time for all of them.
https://www.nawj.org/blog/newsroom/news/nawj-statement-on-afghanistan
NAWJ Statement on Afghanistan
Written by National Association of Women Judges|August 15, 2021|News
NAWJ is the U.S. Chapter of the International Association of Women Judges, an organization which NAWJ founded, developed and helped grow. NAWJ joins the IAWJ in expressing our grave fears for the basic human rights of women and girls in Afghanistan as the Taliban advance and take control of large parts of the country. In particular, the women judges have disclosed that because they have followed their country’s laws, conducted trials, and administered sentences to the guilty, many of whom are members of the Taliban, they will soon be targeted for assassination. The AWJA judges have served in criminal, anti-corruption and narcotics courts, developed in conjunction with the United States over many years. Through their efforts, they have implemented rule of law and anti-corruption principles which are central to the mission statements of NAWJ and IAWJ.
At a virtual meeting of the AWJA last month, at which a number of NAWJ members were present, the Afghan judges spoke about the dangerous and difficult conditions in which they live and work. Some judges have lost their lives in terrorist attacks and several of the judges present had received death threats. Some have already been forced to flee their posts in the provinces with their families because it was too dangerous to remain. Their fears are not theoretical. In January, two women judges traveling to their jobs at the Supreme Court of Afghanistan, were murdered in the street. Now, the prisons housing convicted terrorists have been opened, and sentenced prisoners are contacting their judges threatening reprisals and revenge.
As a chapter of the IAWJ, an organization comprised of over 6500 women judges from more than 100 countries and territories worldwide, NAWJ wants to draw particular attention to the situation of Afghan women judges, given the special role they have played in upholding the rule of law and human rights for all, and the particular dangers they face as a result. We honor their commitment and their courage. Today, some 250 women serve as judges there.
Today, it is reported that the Afghan government has collapsed. The President of Afghanistan has fled the country. The United States Department of State is currently prioritizing visas for employees of the United States, including interpreters, as the United States reaches its date for final withdrawal from Afghanistan. NAWJ urges the Department of State to include the Afghan women judges and their families, who are in such a desperate and precarious position, in facilitating travel and processing visas in the same manner that special measures are being extended to interpreters, journalists and other personnel who provided essential service to the foreign military forces in Afghanistan. NAWJ urges our government to consider the fate of the women judges. By serving as judges and helping develop the Afghan judicial branch, women judges have helped establish the rule of law in their country, an essential pillar of a democratic state. Allowing them to be at the mercy of the Taliban and insurgent groups, given what they have sacrificed and contributed working side by side with the United States would be tragic indeed.
Hon. Karen Donohue
President, NAWJ
*******************
Thanks to my friends and long-time colleagues Judge Churchill and Judge Tsankov for standing up and speaking out. I understand from them that Senior DC Court of Appeals Judge Vanessa Ruiz (also a past President of the NAWJ) was also instrumental in this effort.
Also, many thanks to Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) for sending this to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken who hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory or shown much moral or intellectual courage in standing up for the rights and lives of refugees and energizing the bureaucracy to save lives.
Compare this with the conspicuous lack of moral, intellectual, and legal leadership and effective action from the Biden USDOJ on refugee and asylum issues.
Sadly, as many of us tried, in vain, to tell the incoming Biden Administration, failure to make immediate, bold, progressive, humanitarian, due process reforms at EOIR and to take a strong, courageous stand against the continuing misuse of bogus legal rationales to suspend refugee and asylum processing (and ignore our legal and moral obligations to refugees and other migrants) at the border will likely cripple the US response to arising human rights catastrophes and cost more innocent human lives.
Human rights and immigrant justice are not “back burner” issues! Nor are they “rocket science!” Delay costs lives and undermines democracy and our international leadership.
PWS
08-19-21
Maine Voices: New U.S. intelligence report suggests how Maine can address global trends
We’re in a good position to improve the lives of people without college degrees, to welcome foreigners to a democratic society and to diversify our workforce.
. . . .
The Global Trends report provides analysis but not policy solutions. Maine could assist by demonstrating that democracy can work here by taking steps to bridge the ideological divide and reduce political polarization. Maine can become a welcoming state for immigrants by easing their entry into the workforce to replace our retiring baby boomers.
Maine can also develop public-private partnerships to teach workforce skills that raise incomes and improve the quality of life for those without a college degree. Finally, Maine can exercise soft power by welcoming foreigners as tourists and recruiting students from China to our high schools and universities, offering an opportunity to experience a democratic society with both its flaws and freedoms, and to forge friendships between the two contested countries.
Joseph W. McDonnell is a professor of public policy and management at the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service at the University of Southern Maine
********************
You can read Professor McDonnell’s article (along with a couple of comments that show exactly why our hope for the future has to be in immigrants — not that the commenters probably weren’t immigrants of some sort at some point in our history).
B/T/W Congresswoman Omar (D-MN) is a naturalized U.S. citizen — an example of someone who not only immigrated, survived racial and religious bigotry and bullying in school, graduated from college, established a successful career as an educator and civic advocate, and further had the courage and commitment (which most native-born Americans, including me, do not) to successfully seek elective office and work through the system to make America a better place for all, regardless of whether or not one agrees with all of her views.
The vast majority of immigrants of any status “learn the language” (many better than some native-born U.S. citizens) and become at least bi-lingual if not tri-lingual, a skill set that few native-born Americans achieve.
Of course, in an intentionally diverse society, important Government documents should be printed in languages that individuals are most comfortable with. You might have become proficient in French in college, but if involved in a legal dispute in France, most of us would need and expect an English translation to be sure we understood and, in turn, were understood.
I knew enough German to study in Germany during college. I was comfortable going down to the local watering spot and ordering “bauernbrat mit kraut und bier.” But, if I had been involved in a legal proceeding, I wouldn’t have dared to proceed in German.
Also, although undoubtedly some students and foreign workers are exploited by the American system, overall they make huge contributions to both education and our workforce. As an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law, my classes are continually enriched by the presence of foreign students and scholars, many of whom are willing to share their own immigration stories and to enlighten us on the culture and legal system they experienced.
Also, if we have learned anything during the pandemic, it is how very dependent we are on our immigrant and ethnic communities, regardless of “status,” for essential workers. The “exploitation” is an “American home grown problem,” not one caused by immigrants! As a society, we need to stop “shooting the messenger!”
Where we spend much of our summers, Boothbay Harbor in the “Mid-Coast Region of Maine,” the tourism, hospitality, recreational, and resort industries that power this town are highly dependent on talented foreign workers. Their upbeat attitudes, eagerness to learn and contribute, and fascinating multiculturalism is one of the primary factors that comes bursting out in town and throughout this area, making this one of the best summer tourist locations in America. (Obviously, it’s “world famous,” since these folks seek to come here from literally around the world.)
I remember commenting several summers ago about the amazing refugee assistance and appreciation programs generated by the local religious community here in Boothbay Harbor, as well as the impressive social justice awareness and activism of some of the talented local artists who performed at a fundraiser for refugees and asylum seekers. http://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/07/15/the-new-due-process-army-is-alive-and-well-in-boothbay-harbor-singer-songwriter-john-schindler-friends-inspire-uplift-with-benefit-concert-for-maines-immigrant-legal-advocacy-pr/
Our “next-door neighbors,” here on beautiful Linekin Bay, Larry and Janey Anderson, were long time year around residents of Maine before retiring to “warmer climes” near their family (and us) in Northern Virginia. They were very involved with the African refugee community in Southern Maine, calling me several times for advice on how to get legal help on asylum cases. I well remember on occasions hearing the rhythm of a “drum circle” in which Larry participated with his refugee friends coming from the Anderson cabin.
It actually made me feel good about the lives I had been able to save and the positive progressive legal changes, precedents, and attitudes that I was able to help, at least in some modest way, forge over a 40+ year career in immigration and human rights, most of it with the U.S. Government.
Of course, I was fortunate enough to have retired in 2016, before the institutionalized White Nationalist, racist, misogynistic, xenophobia of the Trump regime arrived. Unfortunately, they undid some of the hard work that many of us had done to improve the system, further due process, and insure fairness and humane treatment for foreign nationals under U.S. laws.
However, the lives we were able to save (yesterday’s post about my Arlington Immigration Court/Round Table colleague Judge Joan Churchill and our joint NDPA colleague Deb Sanders is an example) have remained saved! “A life saved, is a life saved,” as I always say! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/05/12/ndpa-all-star-debi-sanders-round-table-judge-ret-joan-churchill-featured-in-story-of-inspiring-immigrant-sumera-haque-her-family-from-george-bushs-recent-book-out-of-many-one/
The folks we welcomed under the law, their families, and their descendants continue to make America great despite all the destructive actions and false, misleading hate rhetoric promoted by Tump and his party.
Now, it’s up to the “new generation” of the NDPA to seize the baton and lead the fight to assist migrants of all types in creating a new and better day for Maine, America, and the world! I actually just had inspiring conversations this week with “two of the best out there” in the private/NGO sectors who are competing for positions at EOIR to help return due process, efficiency, practicality, and humanity to a disgracefully dysfunctional and unfair system. These are the folks who are “inspiring a new day for America.” They have already got Professor McDonnell’s message and are working to make it a reality!
PWS
05-13-21
**************************
Thanks to my long-time friends Joan and Debi for showing how our asylum system and the rest of our legal immigration system could and should work for the greatness of our nation. It also demonstrates the critical importance of pro bono representation in Immigration Court.
How wonderful that President Bush selected this as one of his examples of how immigrants ARE America! And, how different from the White Nationalist, racist, xenophobic myths that his GOP has made a vile staple of their despicable attempt to overturn our democracy and our cherished institutions. I have little doubt that if President Bush were in politics today the GOP would ride him out of the party like others who have spoken truth to his party’s horrible, Anti-American leaders!
With better leadership and independent expert Immigration Judges, our Immigration Courts could once again be a source of pride for our nation and our legal system rather than a deadly, unmitigated, self-created national disaster that undermines our national values while actively harming and dehumanizing those we should be protecting and welcoming.
PWS
05-12-21
https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-likely-to-block-trump-era-changes-to-immigration-court/
Here’s an excerpt from a report by Nichols Iovino @ Courthouse News:
. . . .
The judge added that she found an amicus brief submitted by 37 former immigration law judges particularly illuminating because it helped illustrate some of “real-life consequences” of the rule.
The former immigration judges wrote that the rule “makes it more difficult for applicants and defense counsel to brief relevant issues and present evidence, creates new challenges for immigration judges to consider extraordinary changes in circumstances and to control the timing of their own docket, and severely limits the [Board of Immigration Appeals’] authority to make legally sound decisions and remain an apolitical rung in the immigration system.”
A motion for a preliminary injunction is also pending in separate lawsuit challenging the same Trump-era rule in the District of Columbia.
******************
Yesterday, Judge Illston issued a blistering 73-page order enjoining EOIR’S illegal rules: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.372189/gov.uscourts.cand.372189.59.0.pdf
The case is CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA v. EOIR.
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Judge Illston referenced our brief four times throughout the opinion (p.5, n.2, and pp. 39, 52, and 55).
Jeffrey also added:
The brief (drafted by Steven Schulman and his team at Akin Gump) was based on our Round Table’s comments to the proposed regs. [Judge] Ilyce [Shugall] organized and filed the comments, and the drafting committee was made up of [Judges] Ilyce [Shugall], Rebecca [Jamil], Joan [Churchill], Cecelia [Espenoza] and myself.
So proud to be part of this team that is “making a difference for the NDPA,” and more importantly, for the vulnerable human lives at stake in the EOIR Star Chambers. 🏴☠️ And thanks so much to Steven Schulman and his pro bono team at Akin Gump for making this happen.
So, here’s my question: Why is the Biden Administration defending this totally illegal, disingenuous, not to mention stupid, attempt by EOIR to deny due process and fundamental fairness while implementing the “worst practices imaginable?”
Judge Garland must get a handle on the awful, festering mess 🤮🤡☠️ at EOIR sooner rather than later!
PWS
03-11-21
“May God forgive you, because I cannot.”
These words were written to me in a letter while I was a United States immigration judge at the Baltimore Immigration Court, where I presided for 31 years. The letter was written by the wife of a man I had ordered deported. In so doing, I had permanently separated a father and husband from his wife and children. These words will stay with me for the rest of my life.
Michelle Jones’ husband, Daryl, was charged with a minor offense in Maryland. Like many first-time offenders and individuals charged with minor violations, he was given probation before judgment (PBJ). This meant that Daryl, a lawful permanent resident of the United States was not convicted under Maryland state law. For United States citizens, a Maryland PBJ poses no further consequences unless they violate the terms of their probation. But for non-citizens like Daryl, the legal consequences can be far more dire.
Although a PBJ is not considered a conviction under state law, it is considered a conviction under federal law and therefore triggers immigration consequences, such as detention and deportation. I have witnessed countless non-citizens be ordered deported as a result of a PBJ and the devastation to their families that follows. I myself have ordered the deportation of hundreds of Maryland residents like Daryl because of a PBJ. It didn’t matter that these individuals had been deemed worthy of a second chance and not convicted under Maryland law. Their PBJs condemned them to the gravest punishment — deportation under federal immigration law — leaving me with no judicial discretion. My hands were tied by the law.
The Maryland General Assembly has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to correct this unjust system by amending the PBJ statute. That is why I am asking the Maryland General Assembly to pass legislation (House Bill 354/Senate Bill 527) that would make probation before judgment accessible to all Maryland residents, regardless of citizenship status. The amendment would merely change the process by which a PBJ is entered; the impact of a PBJ would remain unchanged.
This bill ensures that the consequences of PBJs are the same for citizens and non-citizens alike, narrowing the disparities in our criminal justice and immigration systems, which disproportionately affect people of color. And for someone like Daryl, it would have been the difference between deportation and staying in the country to be with his family and watch his kids grow up.
. . . .
******************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
All of us who have served on the immigration bench have had cases like Daryl’s where the result is unjust and there is no sensible explanation for what we were forced to do.
The time for rationalizing and humanizing our immigration laws is here. As my long-time friend and colleague (we were “present at the beginning” of EOIR) John says, we must seize and act on every opportunity to make due process and equal justice under law a reality for all persons in America!
Thanks, my friend and colleague!
Historical trivia: I made one of my rare Immigration Court appearances before Judge Gossart in a pro bono case when I was at Frogomen DC. It was an asylum case, and we won at the preheating conference! I do remember that Judge Gossart was pretty peeved at me because I refused to concede removability, asserting my client’s right to be in and remain in the U.S. as a refugee/asylee. He “ripped me” on that issue, but we won on everything else. The INS Attorney didn’t contest it, as I remember.
One of my other pro bono appearances was before my friend and Round Table colleague Judge Joan Churchill in Arlington. Won that one too — recollect it was a withholding of removal case, also resolved through pretrial agreement with the INS Attorney at the suggestion of Judge Churchill.
Didn’t get to show off my “litigation skills” in either case. Probably just as well. A “W” is a “W,” and a life saved is a life saved!
PWS
02-05-21
https://immigrationimpact.com/2020/12/03/eoir-rules-immigration-judges/#.X8qg9NhKhPY
Katy writes at Immigration Impact:
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has proposed two rules that would significantly decrease the due process rights of people in immigration court. Both rules would restrict judges’ abilities to manage their dockets and require them to push through cases at breakneck speeds, further transforming the immigration court system into a deportation machine.
While the rules are not likely to be finalized by the time President Biden takes office, they demonstrate the Trump administration’s continued commitment to dismantling the immigration system.
The first rule would severely limit the reopening of immigration cases after a judge enters an order of removal. Respondents or their attorneys routinely file motions to reopen because of previously unavailable evidence, changed country conditions, or a lack of proper notice of a hearing. This opportunity is crucial for people who are eligible for relief but were ordered deported for reasons beyond their control.
The rule would limit the reasons for which a case can be reopened, requiring significantly more evidence. This means that fewer people could overturn a deportation order, even if they now had another way to remain in the United States. The respondent would have to include their application for relief with the motion. Once their case is reopened, they would be barred from applying for any other kind of relief.
EOIR’s new rule would further limit case termination, a tool judges used in the past to remove low-priority cases from their dockets. It would also end nearly all discretionary stays of removal, which temporarily prevent a deportation in emergency situations.
Before the Board of Immigration Appeals would even consider an emergency stay of removal, immigrants would have to ask for a stay from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and wait up to five business days for a response. This delay could make the process practically useless in true emergencies.
The second rule would end most continuances in immigration court. Respondents and their attorneys, as well as attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security, frequently file motions for a continuance to request that an immigration judge delay a hearing.
Regulations currently allow judges to grant continuances if “good cause” exists, but do not provide a definition of “good cause.” For years, judges were allowed significant discretion in this area. A 2018 Attorney General decision limited the situations that were considered “good cause” for a continuance.
The proposed rule writes those restrictions into federal regulations, it would go even further by declaring that a wide variety of situations are not “good cause” for a continuance—even many situations where continuances are routinely granted under current rules.
For example, the new rule would severely limit continuances for immigrants who need to find a lawyer or appl for a form of relief outside of immigration court. Currently, judges are required to grant at least one continuance for respondents to find a lawyer if requested.
Under the proposed rule, immigration judges would not have to allow respondents time to find legal representation. Instead, they would be discouraged from giving an immigrant more time to find a lawyer. The only exception would be the rare cases in which a hearing occurs fewer than 30 days after the Notice to Appear is filed.
EOIR states that restricting continuances is necessary to decrease the over 1.2 million cases pending in the immigration court backlog. However, the answer to the backlog is not to throw due process out the window.
Eliminating docket-management tools could worsen the backlog.
Placing stricter requirements on these tools require judges to write longer justifications when they do grant them. Forcing immigrants to apply for relief in front of an immigration judge when they will likely be granted relief by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is an unnecessary use of the judge’s time. Many continuances allow respondents to find an attorney, which can shorten overall case completion time. Denying continuances can also increase the appeal backlog.
The public can comment on both the first and second proposed rules through December 28, 2020. It is extremely unlikely that the Trump administration could meaningfully review comments, respond to them, and finalize these rules before Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021.
Instead of pursuing policies that restrict due process for people seeking relief, EOIR should restore a full set of discretionary tools to immigration judges, including administrative closure, termination, and continuances. Judges can only make fair decisions in each unique case if allowed to manage their own dockets.
FILED UNDER: EOIR, immigration judges
*********************
Thanks Katy!
And many thanks to my friend Judge Alex Manuel over at the ABA National Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary for bringing Katy’s outstanding and “accessible” analysis to my attention.
Along with my NAIJ colleagues Judge (Retired) Joan Churchill and Judge Mimi Tsankov, Judge Manuel has been a tireless activist, forceful advocate, and supporter of judicial independence for Immigration Judges and all Administrative Judges in government.
As Katy clearly and cogently says, far from reducing the backlog, these beyond idiotic proposals would further add to the already astounding backlog that the “malicious incompetents” at DOJ/EOIR/DHS have built over the past four years. Their “redesign” of the Immigration Courts into a “deportation railroad” has been a total “train wreck” (without minimizing the actual lives ruined and futures lost in “America’s Star Chambers” and the lasting damage inflicted on our justice system and our democracy)!
Let’s go over the basic principle for rationalizing dockets and eliminating backlogs as I have recently stated in speeches and other public presentations:
Treating individuals with unfailing fairness, simple courtesy, and respect, granting relief wherever possible and at the lowest possible levels of the system speeds things up and promotes best practices and maximum efficiency without stomping on anyone’s rights. And, it saves lives!
The current Falls Church kakistocracy must be immediately removed and replaced with qualified members of the NDPA committed to the foregoing principle.
Agitate, agitate, agitate with everyone you know with any influence in the incoming Biden-Harris Administration to insure that the curtain comes down for good on the EOIR Clown Show and that the Immigration Courts are independently run by real judges and real judicial administration from the NDPA who are unswervingly committed to “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
While we’re at it, compare Katy’s clear, succinct, understandable analysis with the turgid political gobbledegook that infects everything coming out of EOIR these days, from ridiculous regulations, to lousy anti-immigrant precedents, to nonsensical scheduling directives issued by the mid-level “clown apprentices” in the Falls Church circus! Obviously, when the Biden Administration and the NDPA reconstitute the EOIR public information function (A/K/A the “Politburo of Nativist Propaganda”) Katy should be high on the list of new faces who could help and support radical due process reform, innovation, and advancement at EOIR!
It’s not just a question of “repairing the damage.” It’s about unleashing creativity, innovation, and better, more progressive judging that not only will make the original “EOIR vision” a reality but will lead to long overdue improvements in the Article III Judiciary and throughout the American justice system! If there is anything the last four years have taught us, it’s that we can and must do better as a nation to achieve equal justice under law. With better judicial leaders from the NDPA in charge, EOIR can not just be part of the solution, but can lead the way to better justice for America!
PWS
12-06-20
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is composed of 47 former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We were appointed by and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have centuries of com- bined experience adjudicating asylum applications and appeals. Our members include nation- ally-respected experts on asylum law; many regularly lecture at law schools and conferences and author articles on the topic.
Our members issued decisions encompassing wide-ranging interpretations of our asylum laws during our service on the bench. Whether or not we ultimately reached the correct result, those decisions were always exercised according to our “own understanding and conscience,”1 and not in acquiescence to the political agenda of the party or administration under which we served.
We as judges understood that whether or not we agreed with the intent of Congress, we were still bound to follow it. The same is true of the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and for that matter, the President.
INTRODUCTION
Initially we note that the current practice of reducing the time for notice and comment, severely undermines the ability for the public to digest and comment on rules. The reduction of time to
1 See Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266-67 (1954). 1
30 days violates the intent of Congress to give full deliberation to regulatory changes. As experi- enced adjudicators, we are in a unique position to contextualize these changes, but even with our experience, the breadth of these proposed regulations should allow for additional time to review and comment.
Next, we note that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), contains changes that continue to diminish the role and function of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) as an independent adjudicatory body free from political pressure. For example, the granting of certification author- ity to judges who are supposed to be subject to the appellate review of the BIA, does not further the objectives of finality or due process. Further, these rules are slanted in ways that diminish actions and take away tools used by Immigration Judges and Board to manage dockets and en- sure consideration of changed circumstances that might arise for either party. Under the NPRM, the Department of Homeland Security is invited to utilize unlimited power to reopen cases for negative information, and all opportunity for respondents to obtain reopening for new infor- mation have been removed.
In our review we do not object to the clarifications and changes regarding: 1) finality; 2) the ex- pansion of the authority to grant voluntary departure to the BIA; and 3) having cases that only need security checks being placed on hold by the BIA.
However, we do object to: 1) the proposed shortened briefing schedule; 2) simultaneous briefing in non-detained cases; 3) the prohibition from receiving new evidence on appeal, remanding a case for the immigration judge to consider new evidence in the course of adjudicating an appeal, or considering a motion to remand based on new evidence; 4) the elimination of the ability of immigration judges to consider issues beyond the express scope of the remand; 5) giving Immi- gration Judges Certification Authority over BIA decisions; 5) the proposed elimination of admi- nistrative closures; 6) the proposed elimination of the delegation of sua sponte reopening author- ity; 7) removal of BIA certification authority; 8) the imposition of new deadlines and timeframes for adjudication of appeals with those failing to be adjudicated in the specified time being re- ferred to the EOIR Director for adjudication; and 9) the elimination of Immigration Judge review of transcripts.
In short, there is little in the NPRM, that furthers the interests of ensuring a fair and neutral adju- dication. We are concerned with the overall diminishment of the BIA as an appellate body.
Read the full 17-page comment with the names of all the signers here:
BIA restructure regulation comments_FINAL
**********************************
B/T/W, “diminishment’ is a polite term for “dumbing down!” In this case, “further dumbing down.”
PWS
09-26-20
