Civil Rights – Page 21 – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️4TH CIRCUIT: BIA ABUSED DISCRETION, BLEW ANALYSIS, FAILED TO FOLLOW PRECEDENT IN MINDLESS DENIAL OF CONTINUANCE FOR U VISA APPLICANT— Garcia Cabrera v. Garland — A Microcosm Of Garland’s Dysfunctional, Backlog-Building Immigration Courts & His Disgraceful Defense Of The Indefensible In The Article IIIs! — Why Garland’s Inept & Disinterested Performance @ EOIR Is A “Nail In The Coffin” Of American Democracy! ⚰️

Melody Bussey — Melody Busey ESQUIRE
Associate Attorney
Devine & Beard Law Office
Charleston, SC
PHOTO: Devineandbeard.com

It should have been a 2-minute “no brainer” administrative closing @ EOIR. Instead, it took two years of tough, smart, dedicated litigation by their firm to get justice in Garland’s broken and dysfunctional “Clown Court” system. But, in the end, Melody Busey, Mark Devine, & Ashley Beard got long-overdue justice for their client by pummeling “Garland’s DOJ Clown-ocracy” in the Fourth Circuit! Should justice in America really be this difficult and uncertain? Garland seems to think so! — Mark J. Devine & Ashley R. Beard
Principal Partners
Devine & Beard Law Office
Charleston, SC
PHOTO: Devineandbeard.com

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201943.P.pdf

Garcia Cabrera v. Garland, 4th Cir., 01-06-21, published

PANEL: MOTZ, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: Judge Motz

CONCURRING OPINION; Judge Rushing

KEY QUOTE:

In sum, we hold that the BIA and IJ abused their discretion in denying Garcia

Cabrera’s motion for a continuance. Both the BIA and IJ departed from the established policies set forth in precedential opinions in holding that Garcia Cabrera failed to show good cause. Under Matter of L-A-B-R-, the BIA and IJs must consider two factors above all others: (1) the likelihood that USCIS will grant the movant’s U visa application, and (2) whether a U visa would materially affect the outcome of the movant’s deportation proceedings. 27 I. & N. Dec. at 406. Both of these factors weigh in Garcia Cabrera’s favor. The BIA recognized the existence of these factors but failed to consider whether or how they applied, focusing solely on less significant secondary factors. And although the IJ did address the primary factors, he nonetheless abused his discretion by failing to recognize that a U visa would materially affect the outcome of the deportation proceedings.

******************

Many, many congrats to NDPA stars Melody Busey, Mark J. Devine, and Devine & Beard Law Office in Charleston, SC, for their perseverance and outstanding advocacy in this case! As I’ve said before, it’s painfully obvious (to anyone but Garland and his team) that the wrong folks are on the bench and in key policy positions at EOIR!

Notably, this decision comes from an ideologically diverse 4th Circuit panel with two Trump appointees. Clearly, this panel took more time to understand the record and carefully and correctly analyze the applicable law and policy considerations than did the “faux experts” at EOIR, at either the trial or appellate levels!

Although I don’t always agree with Judge Rushing, her concurring opinion here shows that she took the time to carefully read the record, understand the applicable law, and clearly explain her position in straightforward, understandable terms. In other words, she treated this case like the important life or death matter it is, rather than “just another immigration case on the assembly line.” And, that led her to get the “bottom line” right. That’s a degree of judicial professionalism that we seldom, if ever, see from Garland’s EOIR these days.

That we get better performance on immigration cases from some Trump appointees on the Article IIIs than from Garland’s “wholly-owned EOIR” shows the total disconnect in the Biden Administration’s approach to the ongoing, unmitigated disaster unfolding every day in our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Unlike the Article IIIs, the Immigration Courts, now sporting an astounding, largely self-created 1.5+ million and growing case backlog, are a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the Administration and Garland’s DOJ!

When you’re in an EOIR “programmed to deny” by White Nationalist nativist overlords like Sessions, Barr, and Miller, you do dumb things and churn out sloppy work.

Indeed, “virtual discussion” of this case spurred some “PTSD” recollections by NDPA attorneys of other horrible, lawless decisions by this particular Immigration Judge, who never should have been on the bench in the first place. Incredibly, this judge, a member of the disgraceful “90% Denial Club” that has helped create disgusting “Asylum Free Zones” at EOIR throughout America, was appointed by the tone-deaf Obama Administration!

The idea that there weren’t better-qualified candidates out there at the time in private practice, the NGOs, clinical education, or even the government is simply preposterous! Failure of Dems to realize the progressive potential of the Immigration Courts has a long and disreputable history! Indeed, EOIR under Garland looks and performs disturbingly similar to EOIR under Miller, Sessions, and Barr!

While this particular IJ has retired, too many other unqualified judges appointed in the past under selection systems stacked against outside advocates and experts remain on the bench, at both the trial and appellate levels, under Garland.

Here’s part of the “Garland Tragedy/Missed Opportunity.” He actually has at least a few folks among his judiciary ranks who have experience and actually understand U visas and how to deal properly, justly, and efficiently with them. I guarantee that none of them would have come up with this inane and wasteful performance of judicial ineptitude and, frankly, anti-immigrant bias!

Why aren’t those folks “running the show” on the BIA, rather than the “deny anything for any reason” holdover gang that (save for Judge Saenz) Garland has “adopted as his.” Excluding Judge Saenz, I doubt that collectively the appellate judges on the BIA have ever handled a U visa case for an applicant. They are blissfully clueless as to both the practical stupidity and traumatic human consequences of the horrible decision-making exhibited at both the trial and appellate levels in this debacle! What’s a wrong with this bizarre picture of Dem incompetence and malfeasance?

Interesting that White Nationalist xenophobes like Sessions, Barr, and Miller had no problem whatsoever using their positions to further lies and myths about asylum seekers and other migrants and acting to weaponize the Immigration Courts (including “packing”them with unqualified and questionably qualified judges, unfairly selected) against individuals and their lawyers seeking justice (following eight years of indolent mismanagement of EOIR by politicos in the Obama DOJ which “teed EOIR up” for Trump and Miller).

By contrast, Dems appear afraid to speak out and act with resolve and purpose on due process, fundamental fairness, human rights, impartial professional expert judging, and human dignity — at our borders and in our Immigration Courts. Why?

Is is because deep down they don’t really believe in racial justice and equal justice for all? Because they can’t accept the humanity of migrants? Why is Garland still carrying out many of Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist policies and using a “court system” unfairly “packed” with those selected because they were perceived to be willing to carry out the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, anti-immigrant agenda?

More than nine months after taking over at “Justice,” why is Garland still defending clearly wrong, counterproductive, and frivolous EOIR decisions like this? Why should simple justice for migrants require a two-year battle by members of the NDPA to be realized?

And, I daresay that there are other panels, in other Circuits, that would have “rubber-stamped” EOIR’s errors. Lack of professionalism and judicial expertise at EOIR, promoted and defended by Garland, breeds wildly inconsistent results and turns justice in life or death cases into a “crap shoot.” That undermines and builds contempt for the entire Federal Justice System and exposes deep flaws at the DOJ that Garland has ignored!

In a functioning system, this case involving someone who is prima facie qualified to remain in the US: 1) should never have been brought by DHS, and 2) if brought, should have been promptly administratively closed or terminated without prejudice by EOIR. A competent judge might also have considered sanctioning DHS counsel for pushing ahead with this case with no justification whatsoever. In other words, conducting frivolous litigation!

That’s how you: 1) cut cases that don’t involve legitimate enforcement issues from the intentionally bloated EOIR docket; 2) reduce incredible, largely self-created backlogs; 3) hold DHS accountable for wasting court time; 4) deliver a long overdue “shape up or ship out” message to poorly performing Immigration Judges (like those in this case) at both the trial and appellate levels; 5) promote consistency and equal justice for all; 6) end the reprehensible practice of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR; and 7) stop wasting the time of the Article IIIs by defending garbage like that churned out at both the IJ and BIA level here!

Garland has demonstrated cluelessness, timidity, and intransigence in all of the foregoing essential areas of long overdue radical, yet common-sense and basically “no brainer,” progressive reforms at EOIR! You can’t get there with the current, holdover BIA! That’s as clear today as it was the day Garland was sworn in as AG.

The Biden Administration’s gross failure to bring progressive leadership, scholarship, competency, quality, and professionalism to a poorly performing, dysfunctional EOIR is corroding our justice system! Seems like an incredibly bad stance for an Administration claiming to be the “last best hope” for preserving American democracy, heading into midterms with a significant portion of its reliable progressive base angry and turned off by its contemptuous mal-performance on immigration, human rights, racial justice, and EOIR reforms!

Sometimes, just asking for financial support and votes isn’t enough! You have to earn it with bold actions!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-08-21

🤮👎🏽WASHPOST SLAMS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FOR ABANDONING NEGOTIATIONS WITH FAMILIES WHO SUFFERED CHILD ABUSE BY SESSIONS & MILLER! — “Having condemned a policy that traumatized children and their parents, Mr. Biden now leads an administration fighting in court to deny recompense to those same families.”

“Floaters” — So, what’s the “dollar value” of brown-skinned human lives to Biden, Harris, & Garland? We’re about to find out!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/05/president-biden-broke-his-promise-separated-migrant-families/

Opinion by the Editorial Board

January 5 at 2:18 PM ET

When the Trump administration wrenched migrant babies, toddlers and tweens from their parents as a means of frightening away prospective asylum seekers, it was guilty of emotionally torturing innocent children. Americans of every political leaning expressed revulsion toward the policy implemented in 2018, especially when it became clear that the government had kept no clear records linking parents with their children — in other words, no ready means to reunite the families.

President Biden, as a candidate and also once in office, made clear his own disgust at the so-called zero-tolerance policy, calling it “criminal.” He said, correctly, that it “violates every notion of who we are as a nation.”

Now the president, having explicitly endorsed government compensation that would address the suffering of separated migrant family members, has apparently had a change of heart — or political calculation. In mid-December, the Justice Department abruptly broke off negotiations aimed at a financial settlement with hundreds of affected families. Having condemned a policy that traumatized children and their parents, Mr. Biden now leads an administration fighting in court to deny recompense to those same families.

The government has no means of alleviating the trauma inflicted by the previous president’s egregious treatment of those families. That is particularly true as regards the children, whose torment has been described and documented by medical professionals, advocates and journalists. The babies and toddlers who didn’t recognize their own mothers when they were finally reunited; the depression; the fear of further separations, even brief ones — the human aftershocks of Donald Trump’s heartlessness will linger for years, and for lifetimes in some cases.

The administration compounds the hurt by breaking off negotiations on compensating victims. The government must be held accountable; compensation is the most potent and credible vehicle for achieving that.

Granted, there may be a political price to pay. Republicans had a field day blasting the White House after media reports this fall suggested the government might pay $450,000 to separated family members — a settlement that could amount to $1 billion if applied to the several thousand affected migrants. Mr. Biden, apparently unaware of the status of negotiations at that time, said the reports, first published in the Wall Street Journal, were “garbage.” He later backed away from that remark, saying he did not know how much money would be suitable but that some amount was certainly due.

Now, it seems, all bets are off. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the government would enter into what would likely be years of costly litigation, in which Mr. Biden’s Justice Department would be in the awkward position of defending a policy that Mr. Biden himself — and most Americans — have condemned as evil. There is no predicting how individual judges or juries might react to documented accounts of harm done to children. No one should be surprised if some were to award enormous damages — conceivably in amounts that exceed the $450,000 contemplated in the now-stalled negotiations.

By walking away from the bargaining table, Mr. Biden has broken an explicit, repeated promise. Whatever the political calculus behind that decision, it is morally indefensible.

**********************

Garland fails to stand up for the rights of families of color — again. At the same time, he ties up resources on a frivolous DOJ defense of the indefensible!

“Replacement theory,” White Nationalism, and racism always have been and remain at the core of the GOP’s anti-democracy insurrection. It’s no coincidence that Trump’s plans to de-stabilize American democracy began with cowardly attacks on vulnerable migrants (enabled by a failed Supremes) and culminated in open insurrection.

The dots aren’t that hard to connect. But, Garland doesn’t seem to be able to do it!

If Garland can’t handle the “low hanging fruit” — like settling these cases and creating a progressive judiciary at EOIR who will stand up for the rights of all persons while using expertise and “practical scholarship” to replace dysfunction with efficiency, his pledge to hold the January insurrectionists and their leaders accountable rings hollow!

I’m not the only one to note and question Garland’s uninspiring performance as Attorney General at a time of existential crisis. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Merrick-Garland-isn-t-going-to-save-16752522.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_opinioncentral&sid=5bfc15614843ea55da6b8709

For those who read the LA Times, there was a “spot on” letter to the editors today accurately characterizing Garland as the “Attorney General for different era.”

As I’ve noted before, this is NOT Ed Levi’s, Griffin Bell’s, or Ben Civiletti’s DOJ. It isn’t even Janet Reno’s DOJ. (I ought to know, as I worked under each of the foregoing.)

It’s an organization that has become increasingly politicized over the last two decades (as it was during Watergate), and that allowed itself to be weaponized by Trump’s White Nationalist regime. EOIR, Executive Orders, and immigration litigation were perhaps the most obvious, but by no means the only, examples.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-07-22

🏴‍☠️NO ACCOUNTABILITY: ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICLY INSTIGATING A FAILED COUP, TRUMP CONTINUES TO OPENLY PLOT TO OVERTHROW DEMOCRACY, AS NEO-FASCIST GOP & ITS TOADY POLITICOS LINE UP BEHIND THE “BIG LIE!” — THE GOP, & THOSE WHO SUPPORT & ENABLE IT, HAS ACTUALLY BECOME THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC!🤮👎🏽🏴‍☠️

S.V. Date
Senior White House Correspondent
HuffPost
PHOTO: HuffPost

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-coup-attempt_n_61c2733fe4b04b42ab6602a2

SV Date on HuffPost:

WASHINGTON — What if you attempted a coup but people were unwilling to wrap their heads around what you had done?

A year after Jan. 6, 2021, that is the peculiar situation in which Donald Trump finds himself. Instead of being carted off in handcuffs for inciting an insurrection against the United States, or even just being banished from federal office for life by the Senate, the former president instead remains the leader of one of the two major political parties and is openly considering another run for the White House in 2024.

. . . .

*******************

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/05/capitol-attack-january-6-democracy-america-trump?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Cas Mudde on The Guardian:

The government is finally taking the threat of far-right militia groups seriously. But the larger threat are the Republican legislators who continue to recklessly undermine democracy

One year ago, he was frantically barricading the doors to the House gallery to keep out the violent mob. Today, he calls the insurrection a “bold-faced lie” and likens the event to “a normal tourist visit”. The story of Andrew Clyde, who represents part of my – heavily gerrymandered – liberal college town in the House of Representatives, is the story of the Republican party in 2021. It shows a party that had the opportunity to break with the anti-democratic course under Donald Trump, but was too weak in ideology and leadership to do so, thereby presenting a fundamental threat to US democracy in 2022 and beyond.

The risk of a coup in the next US election is greater now than it ever was under Trump | Laurence H Tribe

Clyde is illustrative of another ongoing development, the slow but steady takeover of the Republican party by new, and often relatively young, Trump supporters. In 2015, when his massive gun store on the outskirts of town was still flying the old flag of Georgia, which includes the Confederate flag, he was a lone, open supporter of then-presidential candidate Trump, with several large pro-Trump and anti-“fake news” signs adorning his gun store. Five years later, Clyde was elected to the House of Representatives as part of a wave of Trump-supporting novices, mostly replacing Republicans who had supported President Trump more strategically than ideologically.

With his 180-degree turn about the 6 January insurrection, Clyde is back in line with the majority of the Republican base, as a recent UMass poll shows. After initial shock, and broad condemnation, Republicans have embraced the people who stormed the Capitol last year, primarily referring to the event as a “protest” (80%) and to the insurrectionists as “protesters” (62%), while blaming the Democratic party (30%), the Capitol police (23%), and the inevitable antifa (20%) for what happened. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of Republicans (75%) believe the country should “move on” from 6 January, rather than learn from it. And although most don’t care either way, one-third of Republicans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who refuses to denounce the insurrection.

Advertisement

Upgrade to Premium and enjoy the app ad-free.

Upgrade to Premium

The increased anti-democratic threat of the Republican party can also be seen in the tidal wave of voting restrictions proposed and passed in 2021. The Brennan Center for Justice counted a stunning 440 bills “with provisions that restrict voting access” introduced across all but one of the 50 US states, the highest number since the Center started tracking them 10 years ago. A total of 34 such laws were passed in 19 different states last year, and 88 bills in nine states are being carried over to the 2022 legislative term. Worryingly, Trump-backed Republicans who claim the 2020 election was stolen are running for secretary of state in various places where Trump unsuccessfully challenged the results.

. . . .

At the same time, the Republican party has become increasingly united and naked in its extremism, which denies both the anti-democratic character of the 6 January attack and the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency, and is passing an unprecedented number of voter restriction bills in preparation for the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential elections. As long as the White House mainly focuses on fighting “domestic violent extremism”, and largely ignores or minimizes the much more lethal threat to US democracy posed by non-violent extremists, the US will continue to move closer and closer to an authoritarian future.

***************************

You can read both articles in full at the above links.

If you are counting on AG Merrick Garland to “lead the charge” on establishing accountability, your optimism might be tempered by his own failure to “clean house” at DOJ and in particular by his failure to reform his wholly-owned Immigration Court system that was front and center in assisting and carrying out the Trump/Miller White Nationalist assault on the rule of law, primarily targeting individuals of color and the “world’s most vulnerable” seeking justice in our system.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-06-22

🗽🗽⚖️😇NY TIMES PAYS TRIBUTE TO LEGENDARY FOLK HERO & HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE LISA BRODYAGA (1940-2021)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/us/lisa-brodyaga-dead.html

Lisa Brodyaga, Crusading Lawyer for Immigrants’ Rights, Dies at 81

She became a folk hero representing asylum seekers fleeing violence in Central America, setting up shop in the Rio Grande Valley and building a refuge camp.

By Alex Vadukul

Jan. 4, 2022

As leftist revolution and U.S.-backed counter-insurgencies spread through El Salvador and Guatemala in the early 1980s, Central America became awash in bloodshed, sending refugees fleeing to the United States border in hopes of a new life.

When they got there, a combative immigration lawyernamed Lisa Brodyaga, who had only recently passed the Texas bar exam, was waiting.

She was running Proyecto Libertad, a pro bono legal initiative in Texas representing asylum seekers, and by the decade’s end she had helped defend thousands in court. She went on to earn a reputation as a litigious thorn in the side of federal border enforcement agencies for the next 40 years.

“Lisa was a leader in a whole movement of lawyers who decided to approach the representation of immigrants with a civil rights consciousness,” said Susan Gzesh, an immigrant rights expert who teaches at the University of Chicago. “She helped firmly establish that undocumented asylum seekers have rights under our Bill of Rights. She taught immigration lawyers to not be afraid to go into federal courts.”

Ms. Brodyaga (pronounced brod-YA-ga) died on Oct. 28 at her home at a refuge camp she founded near San Benito, Texas. She was 81. The cause was lung cancer, her son, Paul Mockett Jr., said. Her death was not widely reported at the time.

Wearing her hair in a long single braid down her back, Ms. Brodyaga was known to show up at court wearing sandals or cowboy boots. If the federal prosecutors she faced smirked at first, it was because they were uninitiated. By lunch break they were often stepping outside to collect themselves after the verbal barrage Ms. Brodyaga had directed at them in defense of her client.

“I like to be underestimated,” she once told law students at the University of Miami. “I like to have people think, ‘She’s just a hick lawyer.’” She added: “Go ahead, I dare you. Dismiss me.”

In the mid-1980s, as war raged in El Salvador, members of the independent Human Rights Commission of El Salvador were imprisoned by the country’s government, and Ms. Brodyaga traveled there to check on their condition.

. . . .

******************************

Read the complete tribute/obit at the link!

“Go ahead, I dare you. Dismiss me.”

That’s something to which today’s talented, dedicated, grossly under-appreciated NDPA lawyers can relate!

As an elitist who never had to operate “in the trenches of immigration law,” AG Garland obviously takes your and your colleagues’ legitimate demands for long overdue radical EOIR reform, real practical immigration/human rights expertise, and potential judicial and administrative talent “for granted” as he “busies himself” with “more important things” and runs our immigrant justice and asylum systems even more deeply into the ground (a hard concept to grasp after four years of Sessions & Barr — but progressive advocates had better start looking at Garland in a “new Miller Lite” and acting accordingly).

It looks like the only way you are going to get Garland’s attention is to keep taking him and his error-prone, anti-immigrant, Trump-era-holdover BIA “to the cleaners” in Federal Court — in the mold of the late, great, Lisa B!

Many thanks to my good friend and NDPA warrior queen Deb Sanders, who’s cast in that same mold as Lisa, for alerting me to this article!

Here’s a previous Courtside post on Lisa:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/09/28/ndpa-😢-sad-news-gives-gives-all-of-us-a-chance-to-honor-ndpa-warrior-queen-for-a-lifetime-of-unswerving-devotion-to-due-process-equal-justice-for-migrants-s/

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-05-21

☠️🤮⚰️ AMERICAN TRAVESTY — IN GARLAND’S TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL (NON) COURT SYSTEM, LIFE OR DEATH⚰️ IS A COMPLETE “CRAP SHOOT!” — WHY ISN’T THE PRESSURE ON BIDEN’S AG TO FIX IT BEFORE MORE LIVES ARE UNJUSTLY LOST?

https://www.kqed.org/news/11900535/a-simple-paperwork-error-can-get-asylum-seekers-deported-rosa-diaz-got-lucky-on-a-lunch-break

Tyche Hendricks reports for KQED:

A Simple Paperwork Error Can Get Asylum Seekers Deported. Rosa Díaz Got Lucky on a Lunch Break

Jan 4

Sitting in her home in Colusa County on Dec. 29, 2021, Rosa Díaz holds the papers she was given by immigration officials when she fled Honduras and asked for asylum at the U.S. border. Díaz was ordered deported ‘in absentia’ when she missed a hearing in immigration court due to a clerical error in her address. (Courtesy of Rosa Díaz)

Rosa Díaz vividly remembers the summer day in 2019 when she showed up for an appointment at the Sacramento office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“The surprise I got on July 12 was that I was going to be deported,” she said, speaking in Spanish.

An ICE officer told her that a judge had ordered her removed from the country after she missed an immigration court hearing in Los Angeles the previous November. Díaz was stunned.

She had left Honduras with her three children in 2018 after police failed to protect her from an abusive partner who beat her close to death while she was pregnant with her youngest child. Over two weeks, they walked, got rides and took buses to the U.S. border, hoping to find protection. They were sent to an ICE family detention center in Texas for three weeks.

Before she was released from detention, Díaz, 40, gave ICE agents the phone number for her adult son, who lived in Maxwell, a town in rural Colusa County in the Sacramento Valley. Her son provided officials with his address, where his mom and siblings would be living. But the address ICE sent to the immigration court got botched: ICE listed the city as Los Angeles.

“I never received a notice of that hearing. If I had, I would have been there,” Díaz said. “My intention was to do things the right way.”

‘I never received a notice of that hearing. If I had, I would have been there.’Rosa Díaz, asylum seeker from Honduras

When she was released from detention with a temporary status called “parole,” she was given a year before she had to check in with ICE. Díaz said she thought she had already been granted asylum.

“When a person first gets here, they don’t know how things work, and nobody explained it to me,” she said.

The asylum process can be baffling, and, as Díaz learned, navigating it without a lawyer can be disastrous. Unlike in criminal cases, people in federal immigration court have no right to a court-appointed lawyer if they can’t find their own.

Like Díaz, thousands of newly arrived asylum seekers never get their day in court. They can be tripped up by paperwork, and a clerical error can be enough to get them deported.

Last year a third of all immigrants in asylum cases did not have representation, according to data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, a research center at Syracuse University. And over the past two decades, just 10% of asylum seekers without legal representation won their cases, while those with lawyers were nearly four times as likely to win protection, according to TRAC’s data.

The luckiest lunch break

After passing an initial asylum screening, Díaz and her kids were released from family detention on June 20, 2018, and told to check in with ICE before her one-year parole document expired. So on June 13, 2019, Díaz voluntarily went to the ICE office in Sacramento. She was instructed to return on June 20 with all her documents, which she did. That day, ICE officials put her in a GPS ankle monitor. On July 12, they summoned her again, and that’s when she learned she had been ordered deported “in absentia” by a Los Angeles immigration judge on Nov. 27, 2018.

ICE officials told Díaz they planned to deport her that same day. But first, the office was closing for lunch.

“I went outside, sat down and burst into tears,” Díaz said. “I cried because I had gotten all the way here with my three children and I couldn’t imagine taking them back to Honduras.”

A pair of immigrant rights advocates with NorCal Resist who were leafleting outside the ICE building stopped to check on Díaz, said Katie Fleming, director of the removal defense program at the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in Sacramento. The advocates drove her to Fleming’s office and made an urgent plea for legal help.

“We were able to talk to her and then advocate with ICE to give her a few more days to be able to try to reopen that removal proceeding because she did not know about it,” Fleming said.

The swift response by the activists and lawyers was an incredible stroke of luck for Díaz. Attorneys succeeded in reopening her case. And in March, with Fleming representing her, she won asylum for herself and her children.

But what Díaz experienced is common for asylum seekers without a lawyer. Fleming said Díaz’s case shows how even people with legitimate claims to asylum can be ordered deported without getting a chance to make their case to a judge.

“She didn’t understand, as most people don’t, what the next process entailed in terms of applying for asylum,” she continued. “She didn’t realize that going to an ICE office is different from going to court.”

Judge Phan turned to a towering stack of blue folders for those not present. Then she signed deportation orders for 23 people who failed to appear.

Immigrant rights advocates have long argued for universal access to counsel for people in removal proceedings. In a January 2021 report, the American Bar Association made a series of recommendations for how the incoming administration of President Joe Biden could make the immigration system more fair and efficient by providing government funding for lawyers, among other things.

The stakes for people who are deported can include persecution, torture and death, the report noted.

“Unrepresented individuals in removal proceedings are inherently disadvantaged in an adversarial system in which the government is always represented by an experienced attorney,” the report warned.

The Biden administration has asked Congress to budget $15 million to provide representation to families and children, and $23 million for legal orientation programs, but Congress has yet to act.

Deported in absentia

When a person fails to appear for a hearing in immigration court, they can be ordered removed from the country in absentia. That’s what happened to Díaz, and it’s been happening with alarming regularity at San Francisco’s immigration court, according to Milli Atkinson, who runs the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Atkinson said judges handed out scores of deportation orders in absentia from August to November under a new system ostensibly aimed at correcting bad addresses when mail was returned as undeliverable.

“What the court started doing in August is purposely taking cases that they knew people were unlikely to get their mail and rescheduling their hearing and sending a new notice out to an address that the court knows is incorrect,” Atkinson said. “Some of the judges were just reading off their names and their case numbers and ordering them removed in bunches, without looking at the individual file, making sure the information was all correct and really making no attempt to contact the individuals.”

It’s a self-defeating system, Atkinson said, because most immigrants never get the new notice, so they miss their new court date.

She acknowledged that it’s the responsibility of individuals to notify the court within five days every time they move. But many people in removal proceedings are checking in regularly with ICE under a supervision program, she said.

“A lot of times ICE and the government attorneys have information about where these people are and what their current addresses are, and they have no legal obligation to share those with the court,” she said.

At one “returned notice” hearing in San Francisco in late October, Judge Susan Phan had 31 cases on her afternoon docket, but only six of the people were present.

One woman in the courtroom was Nichol Valencia, a fluent English speaker originally from the Philippines who’s married to a U.S. Coast Guard officer. She said she learned that her December hearing date had been rescheduled for October when she checked the court’s website, concerned that COVID-19 might interfere with court business.

“We called you in today because we were concerned you were not getting hearing notices,” Phan told Valencia. “Even though you submitted your new address to the ICE officer, you have to separately submit it to the court.”

“I did submit a blue form to the court,” responded Valencia, who again provided her new address.

After scheduling a new hearing for Valencia in February, Judge Phan turned to a towering stack of blue folders for those not present. She rescheduled two cases, telling the ICE prosecutor he needed to provide more evidence. Then Phan signed deportation orders for 23 people who failed to appear.

Atkinson said she thinks the new system was an effort to cope with the court’s massive backlog, which recently surpassed 1.5 million cases.

“This was a way to help some cases get back on track that might have otherwise lost contact with the court, but the actual result is they’re deporting people in very high numbers,” she said.

In November, Atkinson sent a letter on behalf of a group of Bay Area legal advocates to the presiding judge for the San Francisco court expressing “grave concerns” about the returned notice dockets, arguing they violate the constitutional due process rights of people who are ordered deported in absentia.

In addition, the letter said, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused housing instability for many immigrants and restricted their access to legal services, two reasons the court should be more understanding.

In December, an official for the court system replied, calling the approach a “longstanding practice” for immigration courts throughout the country.

Courts “routinely create dockets for cases with returned hearing notices for efficiency and docket management,” wrote Alexis Fooshé, the communications and legislative affairs division chief of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. “Like every case before the court, immigration judges make decisions based on the specific and unique factors of each case in accordance with applicable law.”

Atkinson said if people in immigration proceedings had the right to court-appointed counsel, attorneys would help with the simple but essential task of keeping contact information current.

“And all of your mail would go to the lawyer’s office, so that would be a huge problem solved right there,” she said.

Díaz did not have a lawyer to sort out the mess caused when ICE erroneously entered her brother’s address. She’s grateful that the two advocates stopped to help when they saw her weeping outside the Sacramento ICE office.

“If they hadn’t been there, I wouldn’t be here,” she said. “I’d be back in my country and God knows what would have happened to me there.”

*********************

Garland’s epic failure to address the festering mess in his wholly-owned Immigration Courts is an ongoing and ever-escalating national catastrophe with cosmic human consequences and implications that go to the very future of our nation as a Constitutional democracy!

It’s also a betrayal of not only Biden’s campaign promises, of almost every so-called American value, but also of basic human decency and morality.

For every “lucky individual” like Rosa, there are thousands, probably tens or even hundreds of thousands, who “fall through the gaping, largely Government-created holes” of Garland’s ridiculously broken system.

That includes tens of thousands of potential refugees improperly turned around at the border because Garland has failed to: 1) stand up for the rule of law; and 2) establish a functioning asylum system in his Immigration Courts with competent, qualified judges and professional administrators.

I simply don’t know how he gets away with it! But, he does!

And advocates, NGOS, and supposedly “progressive” Dems in Congress seem to be too discombobulated or too feckless to get his attention and demand that he change his behavior. So, the carnage continues!

The ones who play the biggest price for Garland’s failures are the “unlucky Rosas” — men, women, children, many legally entitled to protection, the most vulnerable among us, who deserve better!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-05-21

☹️👎🏽BIDEN’S MUDDLED IMMIGRATION APPROACH WINS FEW FANS, WHILE CONTINUING TO TREAT HUMAN LIVES CALLOUSLY! — Weak AG, Underperforming VP, Fear Of The Right, Dysfunctional Immigration Courts, Failure To “Connect The Dots” Between Immigrant Justice & Racial Justice Appear To Have Led Administration To Treat Re-Establishing The Rule Of Law & Standing Up For Human Rights As “Bogus Policy Option” Rather Than The Legal & Moral Imperative It Is! — Tal Kopan Reports In The SF Chron!

Tal Kopan
Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/One-year-in-Biden-has-been-slow-to-unwind-Trump-16725642.php

One year in, Biden has been slow to unwind Trump immigration policies

WASHINGTON — As President Biden approaches a year in office, immigration advocates fear he may have learned some lessons from his predecessor, Donald Trump — and not the ones they would have wanted.

Most immigration advocates abhor virtually every policy in the sphere that Trump pursued, but they do give him credit for two things: showing how much change an administration can make quickly, and driving home the power of fully committing to a salient political message. But they fear that instead of using those lessons to enact Biden’s stated objective — a fair, orderly and humane immigration system — the president has borrowed too many of his predecessor’s policies and not enough of the fervor.

Biden has extended Trump’s policy turning away the vast majority of immigrants at the border ostensibly because of COVID. The administration has also, under court order, reinstated and expanded a policy forcing migrants to wait in Mexico for court hearings, despite Biden running against the policy in his campaign. And his Justice Department is defending some of Trump’s policies in court against challenges from immigrant advocates.

Several immigration groups worked together on what became known as the “Big Book,” a collection of more than 500 policy recommendations for the incoming Biden administration. The pro-immigration group Immigration Hub has tracked about 150 that have been implemented so far. Many of those were reversing Trump policies.

“What we don’t have is a White House that’s committed to moving forward on the stated Biden administration agenda in the way that the Trump White House was committed to moving forward on theirs, and as a result, we’re living in a world where a whole lot of those Trump policies are still around,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project with the American Civil Liberties Union.

A White House spokesperson objected to the notion that Biden has not delivered progress on immigration, citing actions in the early days of the administration to roll back some of Trump’s policies, extend protections to young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and new protections for migrants whose home countries are in turmoil.

“This administration is committed to working day in and day out to provide relief to immigrants and bring our immigration system into the 21st century,” spokesperson Vedant Patel said.

During the presidential campaign, Biden ran on turning the page from Trump’s hardline immigration policies and talked up a plan to get a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented into law. He also emphasized the importance of letting asylum-seekers make their case to stay in the U.S., and said the Obama administration in which he served made a mistake in waiting too long to enact immigration reforms.

In his early days in office, Biden did introduce policies cheered by immigration advocates, including rescinding Trump’s travel bans and embracing an aggressive legislative strategy to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants through procedural maneuvers that would require only Democratic votes.

But he also kept in place a controversial policy known as Title 42 that essentially closed the southern border to virtually all immigrants. Then in the spring, when border crossings soared to historic levels, the Biden administration doubled down on deterring migration, vexing many advocates who saw that strategy as essentially an embrace of the right’s talking points. Others have pinned their hopes on Vice President Kamala Harris, who forged a strong progressive streak on immigration while serving as California’s senator. She has led administration efforts to improve conditions in Central America, but also adopted deterrence talking points, including urging would-be migrants directly while in Guatemala: “Do not come.”

More: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/One-year-in-Biden-has-been-slow-to-unwind-Trump-16725642.php

**********************************

As Tal and others have observed, the Trump Administration “hit the ground running” on its White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda, which was a key part of it’s overall anti-democracy, neo-fascist program.

The Biden Administration’s campaign pledges to undo the damage — not so much. In the end, lack of backbone, failure to leverage and use the expert talent available, not acting quickly, and treating values-based campaign promises as “fungible political capital” has left the Administration “wandering in the wilderness” on this key issue. Usually, standing for the right thing, even if risky, is a far better path than aimlessly wobbling around.

“Don’t come” is not part of our asylum law!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-03-22

⚖️👨‍⚖️🤮 JUDICIAL SOPHISTRY AT ITS BEST! — 1ST CIRCUIT REAFFIRMS THAT GARLAND IS RUNNING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BOND SYSTEM @ EOIR THAT INFRINGES ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS, BUT MANAGES TO “TALK ITSELF OUT OF” GRANTING EFFECTIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF! — Garland’s “Anti-Due Process” Stance “Makes My Point” Once Again!

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1037P-01A.pdf

Brito v. Garland, 1st Cir., 12-29-21, published

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. This class action presents a due process challenge to the bond procedures used to detain noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the discretionary immigration detention provision. In light of our recent decision in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021), we affirm the district court’s declaration that noncitizens “detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) are entitled to receive a bond hearing at which the Government must prove the alien is either dangerous by clear and convincing evidence or a risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence.” Brito v. Barr, 415 F. Supp. 3d 258, 271 (D. Mass. 2019). We conclude, however, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief in favor of the class, and we otherwise vacate the district court’s declaration as advisory. Our reasoning follows.

. . . .

****************

I can usually count on Garland to “punctuate” my points! See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/29/%f0%9f%97%bd%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-courtside-in-the-news-both-nolan-the-hill-kevin-immigrationprof-blog-highlight-my-blistering-analysis-of-bidens-first-year-immigration/

And, he didn’t disappoint, at least on that score!

No sooner was the ink dry on my last post, than Ol’ Merrick gave me a classic example of why come “panic time” next Fall, when the Dem bigwigs come knocking on the door asking their “old reliable” progressive base to open their pocketbooks and get out the vote, they might find that the windows are dark and nobody’s home! If you don’t exist for the first 19 months of a Dem Administration, it’s hard to see why you wouldn’t be “on vacation” for the next three!

If Dems want to continue as a viable force in American politics, at some point they will need leaders who recognize the difference between “political strategies” and “values.” Standing up for the human and due process rights immigrants and all other “persons” in the U.S. is the latter, not the former!

To reiterate Garland’s position in this and related cases:

No due process for immigrants;
Keep the “New American Gulag” full of non-dangerous individuals;
Promote wasteful litigation, inconsistency, and chaos in my wholly-owed Immigration Courts that continue to operate as if “Gauleiter Stephen” were still calling the shots, and clutter the Article IIIs with my poor work product.

Nice touch! (Although, to be fair, it’s the same regressive, anti-due process, racially tinged position taken by both the Obama Administration and the Trump regime.)

Seems like an Administration that claims to be litigating, to date not very successfully (surprised?), to vindicate the voting rights and civil rights of African-Americans, Latinos, and other minorities might want to rethink arguing for the “Dred Scottification” of migrants, primarily persons of color. Maybe, some right-wing Federal Judge will start citing Garland back to Garland to say that “all persons aren’t really persons.” Sounds like something Rudy would say on a Sunday talk show (except that nobody invites him any more).

Alfred E. Neumann — “Let’s see, if ‘humans’ are ‘persons,’ and ‘all persons’ have Constitutional rights to due process, then immigrants must not be ‘humans!’ Or, maybe we should argue that they are only 3/5 of a ‘person’ with half the rights! Chief Justice Taney would be. proud of me!”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

And, if you are wondering what the 34 pages of opaque legal gobbledygook and all out assault on logic and the English language in the majority opinion means, I’ll simplify it.

“We think it’s reasonable and appropriate that you plaintiffs who admittedly have had your Constitutional rights systematically violated by your litigation opponent should be required to seek redress on a case-by-case basis before a dysfunctional ‘court’ wholly-owned, staffed, and operated by your opponent located within a Government bureaucracy that has been litigating against your Constitutional rights over three Administrations!”

There, you have it! 34 pages of intentionally impenetrable “judgespeak,” legalese, and doublespeak condensed to one sentence of fewer than 65 words!

Anybody (besides me) think that maybe, just maybe, there could be a Constitutional problem with “courts” owned and operated by a litigating party? Certainly seems above Garland’s pay grade to trifle with such trivialities, even when human lives and freedom are on the line.

Nope, better to just regurgitate the “Miller Lite” positions from the “restrictionists’ playbook” left behind by your Trumpy predecessors. And, for a good measure, why not even use some of their lawyers to argue them? But, strangely, those folks don’t seem to be very convincing when, on rare occasions, they are sent out to argue for more humane and reasonable treatment of immigrants! Perhaps their hearts, and heads, just aren’t in it.

My congrats to Circuit Judge Lipez (concurring and dissenting), the only one to actually get this one right and be able to explain it in understandable terms. When you have the right answer, you don’t have to obfuscate as much to cover up your fuzzy thinking (or lack thereof).

Gotta love it! Garland runs an unconstitutional bond system that infringes on individuals’ right to freedom, while improperly shoving those not accused of crimes into his “New American Gulag.” Yet, the panel manages to talk itself out of granting effective relief! Truly remarkable!

If the judges in the majority had actually practiced before the Immigration Courts they might know:

1) Bond cases are hard to appeal because the IJ isn’t required to provide a final rationale for his or her decision until after an appeal has been taken;

2) By regulation, bond hearings aren’t even required to be “on the record” (although many of us chose to nevertheless put them on the record for the convenience and protection all concerned);

3) The BIA has a “general practice” of not adjudicating bond appeals by respondents until after the detained merits hearing has taken place, whereupon the BIA finds the bond appeal to be “moot;”

4) OIL often encourages DHS to release individuals who sue in District Court to moot the case.

I’m sure that Garland’s BIA which has, on occasion, blown off the Supremes and declined to follow Circuit Court orders on remand, will promptly fashion a very well-reasoned progressive precedent vindicating respondents’ rights.

Then again, maybe they will just take whatever position that their “boss” Garland wants to litigate in behalf of his “partners” at DHS Enforcement.

What do you think Garland’s personally owned and operated courts will do?

Better Judges for a Better America — starting with the BIA! And, while you’re at it, how about throwing in an Attorney General committed to vindicating the legal and human rights of all persons!

So, NDPA, take up, the cudgel of justice and flood Garland’s courts and the Article IIIs with as many individual “exhaustion of remedies” cases as it takes to obtain justice or grind Garland’s corrupt system to a halt!

Garland would “rather fight than get it right.” So, take advantage of his limited litigation skills, tunnel vision, and the mediocre talent he employs to do his bidding. Take the fight to him, as he wishes!

Continually pummeling him in court is apparently the only way to get Garland to pay attention to progressives!

Additionally, you should, of course, keep applying for Immigration Judgeships, BIA Judgeships, Asylum Officer positions, and other key jobs where you can make a difference and save some lives.

Garland’s tone-deaf system must be attacked from all angles until it collapses under its own weight. An Attorney General who obviously would like to put migrants, their humanity, their rights, and YOU, their advocates, “out of sight, out of mind” so he can think great thoughts about the “really important things in life,” is eventually going to find that those he ignores and condemns without fair trial will be the ONLY thing on his plate and occupying his time!

When leadership lacks the vision, courage, and skills necessary to promote change, it falls to those at all levels of society and our justice system to assert the pressure and impetus for that essential change to take place! Keep pushing and pressing until “the powers that be” can’t ignore and marginalize you any more!

Vanita Gupta, Lucas Guttentag, and Kristin Clarke, what on earth do you do with yourselves all day long, now that you have removed yourselves from the battle for civil rights, equal justice, and racial justice in America? I guess there are lots of papers to push and meaningless meetings to attend in Garland’s broken DOJ bureaucracy.

I’d say things haven’t changed much. But, I actually think they have gotten measurably worse since “my days” at the DOJ. And, that’s saying a lot!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever, and Happy New Year!🥂

P 😎

🗽⚖️ “COURTSIDE” IN THE NEWS: BOTH NOLAN @ THE HILL & KEVIN @ IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG HIGHLIGHT MY BLISTERING ANALYSIS OF BIDEN’S FIRST-YEAR IMMIGRATION POLICIES! — Garland’s Monumental EOIR Fail Writ Large Among “Underreported News” Of 2021 — Mishandling Of Immigration Courts Creates Key “Enthusiasm Gap” Among Progressives Heading Into 2022 Midterms!

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/587347-has-biden-kept-his-immigration-promises

Biden promised to establish a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system. Has he done it?

Paul Schmidt, a former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, doesn’t think so. He claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”

Predictably, nobody is pleased.

The problems Schmidt describes are not limited to the border and the treatment of asylum seekers. They are reflected in many of Biden’s other immigration measures too.

. . . .

********************

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/12/has-biden-kept-his-immigration-promises.html

Nolan Rappaport for the Hill reports that Paul Schmidt, former chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals who now blogs at Immigration Courtside, does not think that President Biden has done enough on immigration. Schmidt claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”

KJ

December 27, 2021 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

********************************

Thanks, guys! As I have told both of you, I really appreciate the huge contributions you have made to informing the public about this all-important, yet often misunderstood or “mythologized,” issue!

Following up on my last thought, I urge everyone to view this recent clip from “Face the Nation,” posted by Kevin on ImmigrationProf, in which reporter Ed O’Keefe succinctly and cogently explains how immigration is the “most underreported issue of 2021.” It’s fundamental to everything from COVID, to the economy, to voting rights, to racial justice, to climate change, to our position in the world.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/12/the-most-neglected-story-of-2021-immigration.html

And, I say that the absolute dysfunctional mess that Garland has presided over in his broken and jaw-droppingly backlogged Immigration Courts is the most widely ignored, misunderstood, mishandled, and under-appreciated part of this under-reporting!

As an example of how even “mainstream liberal progressive pundits” get it wrong by not focusing on the spectacular adverse effects of Garland’s botched handling of the Immigration Courts, check out this article by Mark Joseph Stern over at Slate. https://apple.news/AvmEJc5V0RXa8hCgKICcTOA

Overlooking Garland’s disastrous mis-handling of his “wholly owned” U.S. Immigration Courts and the unparalleled “missed opportunity” to put more brilliant progressive judges on the Federal Bench is an all too common “blind spot” for progressive pundits. Mark Joseph Stern
Reporter, Slate

Stern does a “victory lap” over Biden’s 40 great Article III judicial appointments to the lower Federal Courts, closing with the astounding claim that: “Democrats are finally playing hardball with the courts.”

In truth, Dems are only belatedly starting to do what the GOP has been doing over four decades: Get your guys in the positions where they make a difference for better (Dems, in theory) or worse (GOP in practice).

Appointing a diverse, talented, progressive group of 40 out of 870 Article III Judges is an important, necessary, and long, long overdue start; but, it’s not going to make a cosmic difference overnight!

By contrast, there are about 550 Immigration Judges, the majority appointed by GOP restrictionist AGs, many with mediocre to totally inadequate credentials for the job. And, it shows in the consistently substandard performance and mistake-riddled, haphazard “jurisprudence” emanating from Garland’s EOIR.

The main qualifications for a number of these pedestrian to totally outrageous appointments appears to be willingness to carry out former GOP AGs’ restrictionist, nativist policies, or at least to adhere to the DOJ’s enforcement-oriented agenda, while ignoring, distinguishing, or downplaying the due process rights of migrants!

This is “complimented” by an appellate branch (the BIA) with about two dozen judges hand-selected or retained for notorious anti-immigrant records or willingness to “go along to get along” with the wishes of DHS Enforcement. The BIA turns out some truly horrible, almost invariably regressive, “precedents.” A number are so lacking in substance and coherent analysis that they are unceremoniously “stomped” by the Article IIIs despite limitations on judicial review and the travesty of so-called “Chevron deference” that serves as a grotesque example of Supremes-created “judicial task avoidance” by the Article IIIs.

From an informed Dem progressive perspective, it’s an infuriating, ongoing, unmitigated disaster! Only one BIA appellate judge, recently appointed “progressive practical scholar” Judge Andrea Saenz, would appear on any expert’s list of the “best and brightest” progressive legal minds in the field.

Unlike Article III Judges, who are life-tenured, EOIR Judges serve at the pleasure and discretion of the Attorney General and can be replaced and reassigned, including to non-quasi-judicial attorney positions, “at will.”

Starting with Attorney General John Ashcroft’s notorious “BIA Purge of ‘03,” GOP AGs haven’t hesitated to remove, transfer, “force out,” marginalize, demoralize, discourage from applying, or simply not select EOIR judges who stood for due process and immigrants’ rights in the face of nativist/restrictionist political agendas.

Yet, for eight years of the Obama Administration and now a year into the Biden Administration, Dem AGs have lacked the guts, awareness, and vision to fight back by “de-weaponizing” the regressive GOP-constructed Immigration Judiciary and recruiting replacements from among the “best and the brightest” among the “deep pool” of expert, intellectually fearless “progressive practical scholars.”

Not only that, but Dems have totally blown a unique opportunity to remake and establish the Immigration Judiciary not only as “America’s best judiciary” — a model for better Article IIIs — but also as a training ground for the diverse progressive judiciary of the future!

Even more significantly, tens of thousands of lives that should have been saved by an expert, due-process-oriented, racially sensitive judiciary have been, and continue to be, sacrificed on the alter of GOP nativism and Dem indifference to quality judging and human suffering in the Immigration Courts!

Compare the diverse, progressive backgrounds and qualifications of “Stern’s 40” with those on the totally underwhelming list of the most recent Garland “giveaways” of precious, life-determining Immigration Judge positions! See, e.g., https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1457171/download

Compare Garland’s regressive BIA with what could and should be if progressive practical scholars were “given their due:”https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/18/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽🇺🇸courts-justice-courtside-proudly-announces-the-dream-bia-its-out-there-even-if-garland/

The progressive talent is definitely out there to change the trajectory of the Immigration Courts for the better! Garland’s failure to inspire, recruit, appoint, and tout the “best and brightest” in American law for his Immigration Courts is a horrible “whiff” with disturbing national and international implications!

Article III Federal Courts deal with the mundane as well as the profound. By contrast, lives and futures are on the line in every single Immigration Court case! Often effective judicial review of EOIR’s haphazard, widely inconsistent, unprincipled, and one-sided decisions is unavailable, either as a legal or practical matter. The exceptionally poor performance of the Immigration Courts that continues under Garland threatens the underpinnings of our entire justice system and American democracy!

Right now, Garland’s broken system has a largely self-created 1.5+ million case ever-expanding backlog! At a very conservative estimate of four family members, co-workers, employees, employers, students, co-religionists, neighbors, and community members whose lives are intertwined with each of those stuck in Garland’s hopelessly broken, biased, and deficient system, at least 6 million American lives hang in the balance — twisting in the wind among Garland’s “backlog on steroids!” Yet, amazingly, it’s “below the radar screen” of Stern and other leading progressive voices!

I doubt that any Federal Court in America, with the possible exception of the Supremes, holds as many human lives and futures in its hands. Not to mention that “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of the other in Immigration Court drifts over into the Article III Courts on a regular basis. Once you start viewing one group of humans as “less than persons” under the Constitution, it’s easy to add others to the “de-personification” process.

Yet, Garland cavalierly treats the Immigration Courts as just another mundane piece of his reeling bureaucratic mess at the DOJ. The long overdue and completely justified “housecleaning” at Trump’s anti-democracy insurrectionist regime seems far from Garland’s serenely detached mind!

For Pete’s sake, even ICE Special Agents understand the need to “rebrand” themselves by escaping the inept and disreputable ICE bureaucracy left over from Trump:

They say their affiliation with ICE’s immigration enforcement role is endangering their personal safety, stifling their partnerships with other agencies and scaring away crime victims, according to a copy of the report provided to The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/hsi-ice-split/2021/12/28/85dc6c66-61ad-11ec-8ce3-9454d0b46d42_story.html

But, Garland doesn’t understand the well-deserved toxic reputation of EOIR among legal experts? Gimme a break!

Garland also stands accountable for his spineless failure to insist on a dismantling of the bogus, illegal, immoral, and ultimately ineffectual Title 42 abomination at the Southern Border and an immediate return to the rule of law for asylum seekers.

Unless and until the Dems get serious about gutsy, radical progressive reforms of the Immigration Courts, the downward spiral of American justice will continue! Lives will be lost, and many of those who helped put Dems in power will be pissed off and “de-motivated” going into the midterms. That’s a really bad plan for Dems and for America’s future!

As Dems’ hopes of achieving meaningful Article III judicial reforms predictably are stymied, their inexcusable failure to reform and improve the Immigraton Courts that belong to them becomes a gargantuan, totally unnecessary “missed opportunity!” Talk about “unforced error!” See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/28/supreme-court-term-limits/

If Dems suffer an “enthusiasm gap” among their key progressive base going into the key 2022 midterms, they need look no further than Garland’s tone-deaf and inept failure to bring long overdue and readily achievable progressive personnel, procedural, management, and substantive reforms to his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That — not a false sense of achievement — should have been the “headliner” for Stern and other progressive voices!

“Expedience over excellence, enforcement over equity, gimmicks over innovation is good enough for Government work!” — The “vision” for Garland’s EOIR! But, progressive experts aren’t buying his “tunnel vision.”
PHOTO: Thomas Hawk
Creative Commons
Amateur Night

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-29-21

👍🏼⚖️🗽MAJORITY OF ASYLUM SEEKERS WIN THEIR CASES, EVEN IN A BROKEN & BIASED SYSTEM INTENTIONALLY STACKED AGAINST THEM — But, Only, If They Can Get To A “Merits Adjudication!” — Nativist Lies, Myths, Driving USG Policies Exposed! — Why USCIS & EOIR Self-Created Backlogs Primarily Shaft Those Deserving Legal Protection Of Some Type!

The “Gauleiter”s” policies of “transportation” of legal asylum seekers to danger zones or death has, to a totally unacceptable extent, been adopted by the Biden Administration. America’s cowardly, immoral, illegal, and unethical treatment of these vulnerable individuals will haunt our nation for generations to come! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/672/

*********************

. . . .

Completed Asylum Cases and Outcomes

Asylum grant rates have often been the focus of public attention and discussion. An implicit assumption is often made that if the immigrants’ asylum applications are denied that they have been unsuccessful in their quest to legally remain in the U.S. However, this may not always be the case. In addition to asylum, there are often other avenues for relief, and other types of decisions where the Immigration Court can determine that an individual should be allowed to legally remain in the U.S. This report breaks new ground in empirically documenting just how often asylum seekers’ quests to legally remain in the U.S. have been successful.

According to case-by-case records of the Immigration Courts, Immigration Judges completed close to one million cases (967,552) on which asylum applications had been filed during the last 21 years (October 2000 – September 2021). Of these, judges granted asylum to 249,413 or one-quarter (26%) of these cases.

However, only about half of asylum seekers were ordered deported. More specifically, just 42 percent received removal orders or their equivalent,[4] and an additional 8 percent received so-called voluntary departure orders. These orders require the asylum seekers to leave the country, but unlike removal orders voluntary departure orders do not penalize individuals further by legally barring them for a period of years from reentry should their circumstances change.

The remaining one-quarter (24%) of asylum seekers were granted other forms or relief or Immigration Judges closed their cases using other grounds which allowed asylum seekers to legally remain in the country.[5] When this proportion is added to asylum grant rates, half of asylum seekers in Immigration Court cases — about twice the individuals granted asylum — have been successful in their quest to legally remain in the United States at least for a period of time. See Figure 5.

Figure 5. Outcome of U.S. Asylum Applications, October 2000 – September 2021

(Click for larger image)

Focusing on just Immigration Court asylum cases, however, does not take into consideration asylum seekers who have asylum granted by Asylum Officers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Those cases end there with the asylum grant. Only unsuccessful cases are forwarded to the Immigration Court for review afresh, and thus included in the Immigration Court’s records. These referrals of asylum denials by USCIS Asylum Officers are classified in the Court’s records as affirmative asylum cases,[6] to distinguish them from those that start with DHS seeking a removal order from the Immigration Court and the asylum claim being raised as a defense against removal.

Thus, a more complete picture of asylum seekers to the U.S. would add in the asylum grants by USCIS on these affirmative cases. Over the period since October 2000, the total number of asylum grants totals just under 600,000 cases – more than double the asylum grants by Immigration Judges alone.[7] Asylum Officers granted asylum in just over 350,000 cases, while Immigration Judges granted asylum in an additional close to 250,000 cases. See Tables 5a and 5b.

Asylum grants thus make up almost half (46%) of the outcomes on the total number of 1.3 million cases closed in which asylum applications were filed. An additional one in five (18%) were granted some other form of relief or otherwise allowed to legally remain in the U.S. Thus, almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum seekers in the 1.3 million cases which were resolved have been successful over the past two decades.

Figure 5 above presents a side-by-side comparison of asylum case outcomes when examining Immigration Court completions alone, and how outcome percentages shift once Asylum Officers’ asylum grants are combined with decisions made by Immigration Judges.

. . . .

Outcome on Asylum Cases Number Percent**

IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases

Asylum Granted by IJ 249,413 26%

Other Relief, etc. 236,889 24%

Removal Order 403,252 42%

Voluntary Departure Order 77,998 8%

Total IJ Asylum Completions 967,552 100%

USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases

Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ 599,772 46%

Other Relief, etc by IJ 236,889 18%

Removal Order by IJ 403,252 31%

Voluntary Departure Order by IJ 77,998 6%

USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions 1,317,911 100%

. . . .

****************

Read the complete TRAC report, containing all the graphs and charts that I could not adequately reproduce, at the link.

Applying the 50% “granted protection of some type” rate in Immigration Court to the ever expanding backlog of 667,000 asylum cases in Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, that means that there are at least 333,000 asylum seekers who should be “out of Garland’s backlog” and legally living, working, and/or studying in the U.S., probably over 165,000 of whom should be on the way to green cards, citizenship, or already citizens in a functional system!

And, the TRAC-documented success rate has been achieved in a system that has been designed with bias to deter and discourage asylum seekers with mediocre, or even hostile, judges, a BIA that lacks asylum expertise and turns out incorrect restrictionist precedents, and administrative leadership that specializes in ineptitude, toadyism, and mindless “aimless docket reshuffling.”

Obviously, the “get to stay” rate would be much higher with better-qualified, better-trained, merit-selected judges, guided and kept in line by a BIA of America’s best and brightest appellate judges with proven expertise in asylum, immigration, human rights, due process, and racial justice, and dynamic, inspiring, well-qualified leadership. For a great example of what “could have been” with a better AG, see, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/18/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%87%ba%f0%9f%87%b8courts-justice-courtside-proudly-announces-the-dream-bia-its-out-there-even-if-garland/.

Better problem-solving-focused judicial leadership at EOIR could come up with innovative ways of screening and getting the many aged, grantable cases of asylum seekers and other migrants (cancellation of removal, SIJS, and “stateside processing” come to mind) out of the Immigration Court backlog and into an alternative setting where relief could granted more efficiently. For the most part, there is no useful purpose to be served by keeping cases more than three years old on the Immigration Court docket.

The Immigration Courts must work largely in “real time” with real judges who can produce consistent, fair results on a predictable timetable. Big parts of that are increasing competent representation, providing better legal guidance on recognizing and promptly granting meritorious cases (that, significantly, would also guide the USCIS Asylum Office), and standing up to efforts by DHS Enforcement to overwhelm judicial resources and use Immigration Courts to “warehouse and babysit” the results of their own mismanagement and misdirection of resources.

There’s no chance that Garland (based on inept and disinterested performance to date, and his near total lack of awareness and urgency) and the crew, largely of Sessions/Barr holdovers, currently comprising his EOIR can pull it off. That’s a monumental problem for migrants and American justice generally!

Without an AG with the guts, determination, expertise, and vision to “clean house” at EOIR and DOJ, or alternatively, a Congress that takes this mess out of the DOJ and creates a real Article I Immigration Court system, backlogs, fundamental unfairness, and incompetence at EOIR will continue to drag down the American legal system.

Worthy of note: The TRAC stats confirm the generally held belief that those asylum seekers held in detention (the “New American Gulag” or “NAG”) are very significantly less likely to be granted relief than those appearing in a non-detained setting. But, what would be helpful, perhaps a task for “practical scholars” somewhere, would be to know “why.”

Is it because the cases simply are not a strong, because of criminal backgrounds or otherwise? Or, is it because of the chronic lack of representation, intentional coercion, and generally less sympathetic judges often present in detention settings? Or, as is likely, is it some combination of all these factors?

Also worthy of note: Three major non-detained courts, with approximately 31,000 pending asylum cases, had success rates significantly below (20% or more) the national average of 50%:

Houston (19%)
Atlanta (29%)
Harlingen (24%)

On the “flip side,” I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to see that the oft-criticized El Paso Immigration Court (non-detained) had a very respectable 48% success rate — a mere 2% off the national average! Interesting!

Also worthy of watching: Although based on a tiny, non-statistically-valid sampling (2% of filed asylum cases), Houston-Greenspoint had a 53% grant rate, compared with “Houston non-detained’s” measly 19%. If this trend continues — and it well might not, given the very small sample — it would certainly be worthy knowing the reasons for this great disparity.

In addition to “giving lie” to the bogus claims, advanced mostly by GOP nativists, but also by some Dems and officials in Dem Administrations, that most asylum seekers don’t have valid claims to remain, the exact opposite appears to be true! Keeping asylum seekers from getting fair and timely dispositions of their cases hurts them at least as much, probably more, than any legitimate Government interest.

Moreover, it strongly suggests that hundreds of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers with bona fide claims for protection have been illegally and immorally returned to danger or death without any semblance of due process under a combination of a bogus Title 42 rationale and an equally bogus “Remain in Mexico” travesty. It should also prompt some meaningful evaluation of the intellectual and moral failings of Administrations or both parties, poorly-qualified Article III judges, and legislators who have encouraged, enforced, or enabled these “crimes against humanity” — and the most vulnerable in humanity to boot!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-24-21

☠️🤮 “TEFLON MERRICK” — GROTESQUE DUE PROCESS MELTDOWN @ GARLAND’S EOIR CONTINUES UNABATED, WHILE AG AVOIDS ACCOUNTABILITY — 3RD CIR. CASTIGATES GARLAND’S BIASED & INCOMPETENT “STAR CHAMBERS” — “It is more akin to the argument of an advocate than the impartial analysis of a quasi-judicial agency.”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-slams-ij-bia-nsimba-v-atty-gen#

CA3 Slams IJ, BIA: Nsimba v. Atty. Gen.

Nsimba v. Atty. Gen.

“Bob Lupini Nsimba petitions for review of a December 8, 2020 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum. In affirming that decision, the BIA misapplied and misinterpreted controlling precedent and imposed requirements on those seeking relief that would require petitioners to first endure torture or arrest. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition for review, vacate the ruling of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[You MUST read the entire opinion; the panel really goes to town on the IJ and the BIA. Hats off to Valentine Brown!]

*****************

Not news for anyone who (unlike Garland) has even passing familiarity with the daily mockery of justice being carried out by Garland’s “wholly-owned bogus ‘court’ system.” These AREN’T aberrations or isolated incidents! They are “business as usual” in Garland’s totally dysfunctional and out of control Immigration “Courts.”

These aren’t “courts;” they are “adjuncts of DHS enforcement, masquerading as courts,” redesigned as such by Sessions and Barr with Stephen Miller’s influence and enabled to continue their disgraceful degradation of American justice by Garland!

DRC cases, if credible and documented, should be “slam dunk grants of asylum.” They could be put on the “30 minute docket.” Instead, EOIR has been allowed and encouraged to engage in this type of obscene, dilatory nonsense, with obvious racial overtones.

This case is a microcosm of how EOIR and the DOJ have built astounding due process denying backlog! The solution is NOT more Immigration Judges! It’s better Immigration Judges.

Congrats to NDPA Star Valentine Brown!

Obviously Garland has neither standards nor any shame!

Dishonest, biased, and incompetent decisions like this should long ago have resulted in the removal from the BIA and reassignment of the BIA “judge(s)” involved.

When are the Circuits going to catch on that this entire charade is a grotesque denial of due process, pull the plug, and hold Garland accountable for this unconstitutional (not to mention unethical) degradation of American justice?

BIA judges and EOIR judges AREN’T Article IIIs, and they DON’T have life tenure in their particular jobs.

When are Dems in both Houses going to start demanding accountability and competence from Garland? How long are the Article IIIs going to allow this mind-boggling misfeasance that materially affects millions of lives in America, and squanders an unconscionable amount of legal resources, to continue before finally “pulling the plug” on Garland’s “quasi-judicial farce?”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-23-21

🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!

https://www.asylumist.com/2021/12/01/cancel

-culture-in-immigration-court/

Cancel Culture in Immigration Court

December 1, 2021

For “respondents” (non-citizens in removal proceedings) and their lawyers, Individual Hearings in Immigration Court are a big deal. Evidence must be gathered. Affidavits have to be prepared, checked, and re-checked. Witnesses must be identified, convinced to attend the hearing, and prepared for trial. Respondents practice their testimony. In most cases, the noncitizen has been waiting for many months or years for the trial date. The result of the trial determines whether the applicant can remain in the United States or must leave. When a respondent receives asylum, he is permitted to stay in the U.S. If he loses, he may be deported to a country where he faces danger. In many cases, respondents have family members here or overseas who are counting on them, and the outcome of the case affects the family members as well as the respondent. All of this provokes anxiety and anticipation. In short, Individual Hearings are life-changing events that profoundly effect respondents and their families.

So what happens when the Individual Hearing is canceled?

“Sorry boys and girls, the ‘nice’ list is too long. We’ll reschedule Christmas for next year… or maybe the year after that.”

The first thing to know is that cancellations are common. Cases are canceled weeks, days or even minutes before the scheduled time. Indeed, we often cannot be sure that a case will actually go forward until the hearing begins.

Why does this happen?

There are many reasons, some more legitimate than others. The most common reason these days is the pandemic. Sometimes, courts close due to potential exposures. That is understandable, but as far as I can tell, these represent a small minority of Covid cancellations. I have had 50% or more of my Individual Hearings canceled over the last year and a half, and none of those was caused by a Covid exposure. I suspect that the large majority of these cancellations are due to reduced capacity to hear cases–since judges and staff are often working from home. Indeed, most pandemic cancellations seem to occur a week or two before the Individual Hearing. By that time, we’ve already completed and submitted the evidence, witness list, and legal brief, and have usually started prepping the client for trial. The client is also psychologically gearing up for the big event.

And then we check the online system and find that the case is off the docket.

What’s so frustrating about these cancellations is that we’ve been living with the pandemic since early 2020. The Immigration Courts should have adjusted by now. If cases need to be canceled, why not do that several months in advance? At least that way, applicants would not build up hope, only to have that dashed when the case is cancelled at the last minute. Also, it wastes attorney time–since we will have to submit updated country condition evidence (and perhaps other evidence) later, re-prep witnesses, and potentially prepare new legal briefs, if the law changes (which is more common than you’d like to think). For attorneys who charge hourly, this additional work will involve additional costs to the applicants. So all around, last minute cancellations are harmful, and it’s hard to understand why they are still so frequent.

“I’m double booked today, so let’s put off your heart surgery until 2023.”

Besides the pandemic, court cases are cancelled for a host of other reasons: Immigration Judges (“IJs”) are out sick, hearings get bumped to accommodate “priority” cases or sometimes cases are “double booked,” meaning that they are scheduled for the same time slot with the same IJ, and so only one can go forward. To me, all these are weak excuses for canceling individual hearings. Most courts have several judges, and so if one judge is out sick, or if a priority case must be scheduled at the last minute, another judge should be able to help out (in all but the most complicated cases, judges need little time to prepare for a hearing, and so should be able to adjudicate a case on short notice). Also, there is no excuse for double-booking cases. IJs should have a sense of their schedules and simply not overbook. In addition, all courts are overseen by Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (“ACIJs”), who should be available to hear cases if need be. Finally, given the ubiquity of video conferencing equipment and electronic records, judges can adjudicate cases remotely, and so there should almost always be a judge available to fill in where needed.

Of course, there are times when case cancellations are unavoidable, due to inclement weather, for example. But in an ideal world, these should be rare.

“Oy vey! I have to give priority to a better-looking couple. Let’s reschedule this wedding for later. Are you free in 2024?”

If the delay caused by case cancellations was measured in weeks or even months, the problem would not be so severe. But in many cases, hearings are postponed for one or two years–or even longer! This is obviously distressing for the applicant, as the long-anticipated end date is pushed back to who-knows-when. It is particularly devastating for applicants who are separated from family members. The long postponements are also a problem for the case itself, as evidence becomes stale and must be replaced with more up-to-date information, and laws change, which can require a new legal brief. In short, these delays often force the applicant (and the applicant’s lawyer) to do significant extra work on the case, and this can add additional costs in terms of legal fees.

It seems obvious to me that courts do not fully appreciate the damage caused by last minute cancellations. If judges and staff (and management) knew more about the harm these cancellations cause, perhaps they would make a greater effort to ensure that hearings go forward, and that any delayed hearings are rescheduled as quickly as possible.

*************

Readers of “Courtside” are familiar with the “toxic culture” of EOIR — actively encouraged by some Attorneys General, enabled and abetted by others.

The real problem here is that Immigration Courts are “led” by “managers” beholden to political agendas rather than the public they should serve. Also, since far too many EOIR “managers” and Immigration Judges have never represented individuals in Immigration Court, they are basically clueless as to the human and practical effects of their actions on individuals as well as on the dedicated, often pro bono or “low bono” lawyers who must guide their desperate and often re-traumatized clients through this morass.

At a time when the need for pro bono assistance has never been greater, the disgraceful dysfunction, mismanagement, and “studied user unfriendliness” of EOIR under Garland is actually discouraging attorneys from donating their time and endangering their emotional well-being! Could there be any worse public policy?

With so many extraordinarily talented, creative, courageous, independent legal minds out there in the private/NGO/academic sector of human rights/immigration/racial justice/due process this “intentional mediocrity (or worse)” is inexcusable. Yet, this massive failure of the U.S. justice system at the most basic level gets scant attention outside of Courtside, LexisNexis, ImmigrationProf Blog, Jeffrey S. Chase Blog, The Asylumist, and a few other specialized websites.

This “leading disintegrator of American justice and cosmic threat to our entire democracy” is largely “shoved under the carpet” by “mainstream media,” leaders of the legal profession (outside of immigration/human rights), politicians, policy makers, and the general public. Will they only “wake up” when it is too late and their own rights and futures have been diminished, dehumanized, and de-personified as if they were “mere migrants, not humans?”

In other words, who in America will always be immune from the “Dred Scottification of the other” now practiced, tolerated, and often even encouraged at the highest levels of our government? Don’t think it couldn’t happen to you! If immigrants, asylum seekers, and migrants in the U.S. are not “persons” under the Fifth Amendment, what makes YOU think that YOUR “personhood” will be honored by the powers that be!

In defense of today’s IJs, they actually have remarkably little control over their own dockets which are incompetently “micromanaged” from on high or by non-judicial “administrators.” Sound like a formula for an incredible, largely self-created, 1.5 million case backlog?

Cutting to the chase, the Immigration Courts are controlled by the Attorney General, a political official and a chief prosecutor to boot. Beyond that, no Attorney General has actually had to experience practice before the totally dysfunctional and intentionally user unfriendly “courts” he or she runs.

Foreign Service Officers must initially serve as consuls — the basic operating level of an embassy. Hotel managers usually start by working the front desk, where the “rubber meets the road” in the industry.

But, we enthrone those who are supposed to be the best, wisest, and fairest in the legal profession as Attorneys General and Article III Judges without requiring that they have had experience representing individuals at the “retail level” of our legal system — the U.S. Immigration Courts.

It doesn’t make sense! But, what does figure is that a system run by those without expertise and relevant experience, haphazardly “supervised” by Article III Judges who almost invariably exhibit the same blind spots, indifference to injustice, and lack of practical knowledge and expertise as those they are “judicially reviewing” has devolved into the worst court system in America. It’s an oppressive catastrophe where “liberty and justice are not for all” and survival is often more about the mood, mindset, or personal philosophy of the judge, or the “whim of the day” of DOJ politicos, than it is about the facts of the case or the most fair and reasonable applications of the law by experts! Is this really the way we should be determining who lives and who dies, who thrives and who will struggle just to survive?

These “courts” are not fair and impartial courts at all. They are places where service to the public comes last, poor leadership and mismanagement are tolerated and even rewarded, backlogs are out of control, due process, fundamental fairness, scholarship, and best practices scorned, and precious lives and human dignity routinely are ground to dust and scattered to the wind.

We deserve better from our legal system!

Once, there was a court system with a dream of a better future for all in America — a noble, if ambitious, vision, if you will: “through teamwork and innovation, become the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”😎

Now, sadly, that enlightened vision has disintegrated into a nightmare of dedicated dockets, biased precedents, endless backlogs, sloppy work, due process denying gimmicks, bogus statistics, mediocre judicial selections, secrecy, customer unfriendliness, dishonest blame shifting, and ridiculous Aimless Docket Reshuffling. ☠️

Where there once was the promise of “light at the end of the tunnel,” now there is only “Darkness on The Edge of Town:”

Well lives on the line where dreams are found and lost
I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost
For wanting things that can only be found
In the darkness on the edge of town
In the darkness on the edge of town

—- Bruce Springsteen

😎Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-15-21

☹️OFTEN INDIFFERENT OR OVERTLY HOSTILE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL & HUMAN RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS & WOMEN, SUPREMES’ MAJORITY MIGHT GREEN-LIGHT “OPEN SEASON ON HUMANITY” FOR CBP AGENTS!☠️

Lydia Wheeler writes for Bloomberg Law’s Opening Argument:

https://openingargument.substack.com/p/kings-and-queens-of-border-puzzle

‘Kings and Queens’ of Border Puzzle Courts Divided on Liability

Lydia Wheeler

Welcome back to Opening Argument, a column where I dig into complicated legal fights, unpack issues dividing appeals courts, and discuss disputes ripe for Supreme Court review. On tap today: a look at when border patrol agents can be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights.

Border patrol agents allegedly took Anas Elhady’s coat and shoes, and held him in a near-freezing cell without a blanket after he legally crossed the border back into the U.S. from Canada. Robert Boule was allegedly shoved to the ground by a border patrol agent who came onto his property without a warrant to check the immigration status of a guest at the inn Boule owns in Washington.

Can they each sue the agents for damages? The answer right now depends on which court is hearing their case.

The Supreme Court is expected to provide more clarity in a case it’s hearing later this term. Depending on how the justices rule, it could further insulate border patrol agents from liability.

If there’s no way to hold individual agents accountable for their conduct at the border, “then custom agents are kings and queens unto themselves,” said Elhady’s attorney Gadeir Abbas, a senior litigation attorney at the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

A 1971 Supreme Court decision gave people the right to hold federal officials liable when their constitutional rights are violated, but courts have been trying to figure out if or when that applies to immigration officials. So far, they’re coming to different conclusions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said Elhady, who claimed his detainment violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process, didn’t have a right to sue the agents involved. The Ninth Circuit said Boule did.

. . . .

But the Supreme Court specifically refused to consider whether Bivens should be overruled when it agreed to hear the agent’s appeal in the Boule case. The justices will instead decide if you can bring a suit under Bivens for a First Amendment retaliation claim and whether you can sue federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating your Fourth Amendment rights. Oral arguments in the case haven’t yet been scheduled.

“I could imagine a Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito saying something like ‘Yes Bivens still is the law, but we find that in this case involving enforcement of the immigration laws, Bivens claims really don’t fit and don’t belong, and limit Bivens one step further and say immigration cases are different,” said Kevin Johnson, the dean of University of California Davis School of Law.

If the court does that, Johnson, who’s written extensively on immigration law and civil rights, said it would embolden border patrol agents to feel like they can act with a great deal of discretion that will never be questioned.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lydia Wheeler in Washington at lwheeler@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Childers at achilders@bloomberglaw.com; Jo-el J. Meyer at jmeyer@bloombergindustry.com

***************

Read Lydia’s full report at the link.

Hard to argue with the analysis of Dean Kevin Johnson, the “most often cited” immigration scholar in America according to a recent survey.

The rampant abuses of legal and human rights by the CBP, systemic racial bias, and almost total lack of accountability have been well-documented by civil rights advocates. See, e.g., https://www.southernborder.org/border_lens_abuse_of_power_and_its_consequences

Here’s a telling excerpt from the foregoing report issued by the SPLC in 2020:

The number of deaths resulting from an interaction with CBP officers are indicators of the horrific culture of abuse, corruption, and disregard for human life that plagues the nation’s largest federal law enforcement agency. Unfortunately, these killings are not the only examples of abuse of power and corruption within CBP.

Numerous studies — both internal and external — have shown that CBP is plagued with a culture of impunity, corruption, and abuse. Its systemic problems also run deep. The discovery of a secret Facebook group full of racist, misogynist and xenophobic posts by Border Patrol agents brought to light more evidence of the agency’s culture of abuse. In it, agents routinely made sexist jokes, made fun of migrant deaths, and shared other hateful content. A year later, little action was taken by CBP, again pointing to the lack of transparency and accountability for the agency. Countless other reports have linked CBP to cases of officer misconduct, corruption and a general lack of accountability for criminal conduct and abusive actions.

Doesn’t sound to me like an ideal candidate for freedom from individual constitutional tort liability! Indeed, the reasons for applying Bivens to immigration agents appear quite compelling. Hard to think of a law enforcement agency more in need of “strict scrutiny.”

But, with the current Court majority, who knows? Kevin’s “highly educated guess” is as good or better than anyone else’s. After all, the Supreme’s majority had little difficulty enabling constitutional and human rights abuses carried out by the Trump regime on asylum seekers and other vulnerable migrants — in other words, “Dred Scottification” of the “other!”

Valerie Bauman
Investigative Reporter
Bloomberg
PHOTO: Twitter

Many thanks to Val Bauman over at Bloomberg for bringing this article to my attention. I’ve missed Val’s lively and incisive reporting on the “immigration beat” for her previous employer. Come on back to immigration, Val! We miss you!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-14-21

🗽⚖️PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO @ LA TIMES: BIDEN’S DISHONEST USE OF TITLE 42 TO SHAFT ASYLUM SEEKERS IS ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, AND BAD POLITICS! — “Actions speak louder than words, and this stated commitment simply cannot be squared with a policy that denies protection to desperate individuals fleeing grave violence. It is past time to put an end to the use of Title 42, and to restore asylum as required by domestic and international law.”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-11-24/continuing-trumps-pretext-to-block-asylum-claims-biden-defies-the-law-and-good-politicsOp-Ed: Continuing Trump’s pretext to block asylum claims, Biden defies the law and good politics

BY KAREN MUSALO

NOV. 24, 2021 3:10 AM PT

The so-called Title 42 border closure, which uses the COVID-19 pandemic to justify immediate expulsion or deportation of people fleeing persecution and torture, has always been heartless and illegal. So why is the Biden administration indefinitely continuing this most egregious and unlawful of Trump’s immigration policies? Recent reports confirm that it’s in part because the White House doesn’t want the political repercussions of ending it.

That craven position would be a flimsy defense in court. It’s also simply bad politics.

Biden continues to be accused of advocating open borders. It is likely that nothing he can do will placate those who supported Trump’s anti-immigrant policies. On the other hand, recent polling shows that a majority of Americans believe “immigration is a good thing” for the country, and American support for resettlement of Afghan refugees was at 81% in August. It is not necessarily true that harsh immigration policies are winning strategies.

Even if it were politically expedient to keep the border closed to those seeking safety, turning away these individuals without any opportunity to apply for protection is a violation of U.S. law, as well as of international treaties to which the U.S. is a party. The pretext of Title 42 does not make our actions any less a violation of law. This point was made quite clear by Harold Koh, a senior State Department legal advisor and former dean of Yale Law School, who has served in four presidential administrations. In a stern rebuke, Koh wrote that the use of Title 42 was “illegal” and “inhumane,” inconsistent with American values and not worthy of the Biden administration.

Just as the Trump administration invoked it in March 2020, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced this summer that it would continue, the Biden administration could revoke Title 42 now, permitting asylum applications again in compliance with our legal obligations.

This misuse of Title 42 authority, a public health law, was the brainchild of former President Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller. Evidently not satisfied with the administration’s brutal “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forced asylum seekers to await their hearings in Mexico, once COVID-19 struck Miller decided the pandemic could be used as a pretext to close the border, denying migrants the right to even seek asylum. Officials at the CDC maintained that this measure was not justified by public health considerations and only acceded as a result of sustained White House pressure.

The Title 42 policy has resulted in untold suffering. People refused entry are either expelled to Mexico, where they face kidnapping, rape and other brutal assaults, or they are forcibly returned to their home countries — regardless of the human rights violations they may encounter there. Since September, thousands of Haitians have been deported despite the U.S. government’s acknowledgement that Haiti is “grappling with a deteriorating political crisis, violence, and a staggering increase in human rights abuses.” The kidnapping for ransom of American missionaries in October highlighted the acute dangers that persist in the island nation.

. . . .

*************************

Read Karen’s full op-ed at the link.

I’m thankful for Karen and other extraordinary leaders of the NDPA who continue to confront the “power structure” with “uncomfortable truth!”

An orderly refugee processing system abroad and a properly staffed and run asylum system at the border that timely recognizes those needing protection and enlists and cooperates with NGOs to ensure representation and resettlement in locations where they can quickly contribute should actually be more “popular” than the current “scofflaw chaos” resulting from misguided and ultimately futile “maximum enforcement and deterrence” efforts by our Government.

This is not to suggest that “popularity” should be the “test” for whether we comply with our legal and moral obligations to refugees. Given the many documented contributions that refugees and immigrants make to America, there is no reason to assume that a viable asylum program can’t be part of a robust legal immigration program that benefits everyone.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-26-21

😎👍🗽⚖️🙏🏽🇺🇸🍻🍽THANKSGIVING SPECIAL: BILL BOYARSKY: “SPECIAL REPORT: IMMIGRATION AND THE DUTY TO HELP” — How Universities, Clinics, & The NDPA Are Providing The “Practical Scholarship & Essential Humanitarian Leadership” That Our Government Isn’t! — I’m Thankful For Professor Eagly & All The Other Members Of the NDPA & The Round Table!

Professor Ingrid Eagly
UCLA Law
Blogger, ImmigrationProf Blog
Picture from ImmmigrationProf Blog

Special Report: Immigration and the Duty to Help

From the UCLA Blue Print:

RESEARCH | FALL 2021 ISSUE
SPECIAL REPORT: IMMIGRATION AND THE DUTY TO HELP
“Bringing the university into the streets”
BY BILL BOYARSKY
ACADEMICS, UNIVERSITY STUDENTS and activists are creating an informal network reaching throughout California and beyond to seek justice for the more than 25,000 immigrants held in federal detention centers across the nation. It is eye-opening work and often distressing.
Members of the network struggle to penetrate the secrecy in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shrouds its immigration centers, many located far from attorneys who might be able to help. When the network pierces the concealment, it often finds babies imprisoned with their mothers, random mistreatment by guards and an ever-growing backlog of cases awaiting hearings in immigration court.
“As a state university, we have an obligation to train students who will give back to the state, and immigrants are terribly important. Immigrants contribute greatly to the state,” Ingrid Eagly, a UCLA law professor who is part of the network, told me in a recent telephone interview.
Victor Narro, project director at the UCLA Labor Center and one of Eagly’s network colleagues, put it this way: “We are activist scholars, bringing the university into the streets.”
Championing justice is crucial now, when immigrants are arriving in California and throughout the United States in ever-growing numbers, and it will become ever more urgent as desperate newcomers — refugees hoping for asylum after President Biden’s end to the war in Afghanistan — attempt to enter the country. This is the immediate future of the battle over immigration, one that will shape the future of Los Angeles and the larger nation. It is far from settled.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll in early September showed, for example, general support for the resettlement of Afghans in the United States, after security screening. But granting them entry is likely to anger Americans bitterly opposed to immigration of any kind.
UCLA and beyond
UCLA is at the center of this informal network of professors, students and activists pursuing justice for immigrants. But it is hardly alone.
Immigration clinics at the USC Gould School of Law and Southwestern Law School send students into the community to represent immigrants in deportation hearings. Centers for undocumented students at California State University, San Bernardino, and other Cal State campuses provide gathering places for students and faculty, as well as on-campus locations from which activists can enter the community and fight for those fearing deportation. There are many such examples around the state.
As faculty director of the UCLA Law School’s criminal justice program, Prof. Eagly is deeply involved. She took her students to rural Texas to work with immigrants arrested by federal officers who accused them of illegal entry into the country. The immigrants were jailed by ICE officers after seeking amnesty at the border, or they were caught during raids on their workplaces.
The students went from familiar surroundings at UCLA to ICE’s South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, 70 miles southwest of San Antonio, where the company that runs the center for the federal government had been accused of treating the immigrants as if they were dangerous criminals. The students met with migrants from Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, Ecuador and Honduras.
The center is tantamount to a prison for families as they await hearings in which they try to convince an immigration court that they fled their countries because they had feared death or injury at the hands of criminal gangs or corrupt police. These hearings are called “credible fear” interviews. If the immigrants are not persuasive enough, deportation proceedings begin. Like most detention centers, the South Texas facility is far from the immigration lawyers and translators the immigrants need to guide them through the complex process. Among Guatemalans, for example, 22 languages are spoken.
Visiting the South Texas Center gave Eagly’s students a unique experience, she said. “They had deep concerns. We saw babies in arms being detained. We would hear about inadequate health care and mistreatment by guards.” Even though the observers were only law students, Eagly added, the fact that the inmates had any representation at all made a difference in the process and getting people released.
It was an intense introduction to a system bogged down in bureaucracy and shaped by years of hostility toward immigrants, extending through Democratic and Republican administrations. Democrats, fearing an electoral backlash, promoted laws increasing penalties for immigration violations. President Trump, elected as an anti-immigrant crusader, carried them to new extremes. The students learned that the backlog of cases awaiting hearings in immigration court numbered almost 1.4 million, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Someone seeking a hearing at the Texas center could wait as long as 2.4 years, TRAC said.
When Eagly’s students returned from Texas, they recruited lawyers who would take immigration cases without charge and try to help immigrants through the legal maze.
UCLA SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR Cecilia Menjivar and her students focused on the inequalities that immigrants found in the United States. For many, it was simply a continuation of the hard life they had left in Central America. “Because it is so difficult to access people in detention, we approached it through lawyers,” Menjivar said. “What we wanted to do was capture the everyday life in detention centers. We wanted to focus on what life is like in detention centers. We also interviewed immigrants who had left detention.”
Menjivar recalled visiting a detention center in Eloy, Arizona, about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix, to attend immigration court. “I had to go through three gates before entering the facility, first a barbed-wire gate, then two [more],” she said. “A guard accompanied me until I got to the courtroom. Six gates or doors [total] to get to the courtroom.
“Immigrants are often moved from one place to another. Lawyers may lose contact with them. Immigrants can’t be found, [are] moved to a different facility, sometimes to a different state. So families have to locate relatives.”
Studying the crisis
Narro, the UCLA Labor Center project director, told me about students venturing into Pico-Union in Los Angeles, where impoverished immigrants from Central America and Mexico crowd into apartments, making it one of America’s densest neighborhoods. Some of the immigrants try to find work in the food industry.
The students enroll in classes such as “Immigrants, Students and Higher Education,” taught by Labor Center Director Kent Wong. From these classes come academic studies like the center’s examination of the impact of robots on food workers. The studies, in turn, help shape legislation on the federal, state and local levels.

“Two summers ago, they did a project on gig workers,” Narro said. “We train students on how to survey workers. They interviewed gig drivers. They collected data and analyzed it, and the information was used by community activists.
“[In that way], the activists become scholars.”
Shannon Speed combines many of the attributes of scholars and activists. Speed is a professor of gender studies and anthropology at UCLA and director of the American Indian Studies Center. She also is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma.
The center brings together indigenous American Indian students with faculty, staff, alumni and members of the indigenous community. Its goal is to address American Indian issues and support native communities. It also acts as a bridge between the academy and indigenous peoples locally, nationally and internationally.
One of Speed’s accomplishments has been to lead a successful effort to have Los Angeles adopt Indigenous People’s Day, the largest city to do so. As director of the Community Engagement Center at the University of Texas in Austin, she was one of a corps of volunteers who inspected detention centers.
“We would talk [to immigrants] about how things were, what their needs were, how they came to be there,” she said. “Almost all had been kidnapped for ransom.” Now, Speed said, they had no idea when — or whether — they might be released from detention.
She collected some of their stories in a book, Incarcerated Stories: Indigenous Women Migrants and Violence in the Settler-Capitalist State. The subtitle reflects Speed’s thesis: that European settlers imposed a violent culture on Indians living throughout the length and breadth of South and North America, a violence that continues in the treatment of the indigenous people Speed grew up with and whom she and her students met every day.
“What the stories of indigenous women migrants make evident, above all else,” Speed wrote, “is their strength and resilience as they seek to free themselves of the oppression and violence that mark their lives.”
These are the lessons, learned in migrant communities, that students and their academic and activist mentors will take with them as the United States meets its ongoing challenge of immigration, with its newest confrontation: this one between those who approve of Afghan resettlement and those who do not.
There is work left to do: Even as Americans have voiced their sympathy for Afghans who helped U.S. soldiers fight the 20-year war in Afghanistan, the Post-ABC News poll shows that 27% of Americans oppose resettling Afghans here.
IN TOPICS: BIDEN CIVIL RIGHTS FAMILIES IMMIGRATION SANCTUARY TRUMP
TAGGED:IMMIGRATION, PUBLIC POLICY, UCLA

Bill Boyarsky

Veteran American Journalist & Author

PHOTO: UCLA

BILL BOYARSKY
Boyarsky is a veteran journalist and author. He was with the L.A. Times for 31 years, serving as city editor, city county bureau chief, political reporter and columnist. He is the author of several books, including: “Inventing LA, The Chandlers and Their Times.”

Republished with author’s permission.

***************************

Thanks, Bill, for forwarding this great and timely article!😎👍

Courtside recently has highlighted the extraordinary efforts of other All-Star 🌟 Immigration Clinics at Wisconsin, Cornell, and George Washington.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/04/25/%EF%B8%8Fndpa-news-superstar–clinical-prof-erin-barbato-named-clinical-teacher-of-the-year-u-w-law/

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/10/21/more-ndpa-news-immigration-guru-professor-stephen-yale-loehr-cornell-immigration-clinic-help-afghan-refugees-with-humanitarian-parole-requests/

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/11/19/%EF%B8%8F-of-course-great-lawyering-makes-a-difference-in-immigration-court-only-nativists-former-director-mchenry-would-bogusly-claim-otherwise/

These are just a few of the many law schools across our nation that have answered the call for due process and human dignity for all migrants in America!

I’ve made the point many times that Professor Eagly and other leaders of the NDPA like her are the folks who rightfully should be on the BIA, the Immigration Judiciary, and in the key “sub-cabinet” policy positions at DOJ & DHS. These are critical jobs that generally do not require the delays and inefficiencies associated with Presidential appointments.

I’m thankful for Professor Eagly, her students, and all of the other extraordinary members of the NDPA and the Round Table for courageously and steadfastly standing tall every day for due process for all persons in the U.S., regardless of race, creed, gender, or status! Also, as I always tell my students, I’m personally thankful: 1) that I woke up this morning; and 2) that I’m not a refugee!

Additionally, my condolences ☹️ to UCLA “Bruin Nation” 🐻 for the drubbing their (previously) #2 Men’s hoopsters took at the hands of #1 Gonzaga Tuesday night!🏀

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS
11-25-21

☠️🤮UNDER NEW MISMANAGEMENT: Trump’s “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) Now Being Run By Biden, Harris, & Mayorkas, With Garland’s Embedded “Star Chambers” — Coercion, Denial Of Right To Counsel Endemic In Illegal, Immoral, Secretive Biden “Civil” Prison System! — “[W]ithout having knowledge, we’ll go directly to the slaughterhouse!” ⚰️ — That’s The Goal Of “Detention & Deterrence!”

Slaughterhouse — “[W]ithout having knowledge, we’ll go directly to the slaughterhouse!”
Creative Commons License

Star Chamber Justice — “Do you still want to talk to a lawyer, or are you ready to take a final order?” “Justice” Star Chamber Style

https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/10/29/ice-detention-contact-lawyer/

Emma Winger writes on Immigration Impact:

“Ben G.” is a 35-year-old veterinarian from Nicaragua who fled to the United States after he was beaten and tortured by police. When he crossed the border into the United States, he requested asylum. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) eventually transferred Ben to the Winn County Correctional Center, an ICE detention facility in rural Louisiana located four hours away from the nearest metropolitan area. It is also the facility with the fewest immigration attorneys available in the entire country.

Despite passing the government’s initial screening and having a credible fear of persecution, Ben was still unable to find a lawyer. As a fellow detained person noted, “without having knowledge, we’ll go directly to the slaughterhouse.”

Ben’s story illustrates the monumental barriers that detained immigrants face in finding lawyers to represent them. As described in a letter sent October 29 by the American Immigration Council, the ACLU, and 88 legal service provider organizations to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, ICE detention facilities have systematically restricted the most basic modes of communication that detained people need to connect with their lawyers and the rest of the outside world, including phones, mail, and email access.

This must change. The immigration detention system is inherently flawed, unjust, and unnecessary. The best way to eliminate these barriers to justice is to release people from detention.

Although immigrants have the right to be represented by lawyers in immigration proceedings, they must pay for their own lawyers or find free counsel, unlike people in criminal custody who have the right to government-appointed counsel. In many cases, detained immigrants cannot find lawyers because ICE facilities make it so difficult to even get in touch and communicate with attorneys in the first place.

The importance of legal representation for people in immigration proceedings cannot be overstated. Detained people with counsel are 10 times more likely to win their immigration cases than those without representation. Yet the vast majority of detained people — over 70% — faced immigration courts without a lawyer this year.

ICE has set the stage for this problem by locating most immigration detention facilities far from cities where lawyers are accessible. Each year, ICE locks up hundreds of thousands of people in a network of over 200 county jails, private prisons, and other carceral facilities, most often in geographically isolated locations, far from immigration attorneys.

Even when attorneys are available and willing to represent detained people, ICE detention facilities make it prohibitively difficult for lawyers to communicate with their detained clients, refusing to make even the most basic of accommodations. For example, many ICE facilities routinely refuse to allow attorneys to schedule calls with their clients.

As described in the letter, the El Paso Immigration Collaborative reported that staff at the Torrance County Detention Facility in New Mexico have told their lawyers that they simply don’t have the capacity to schedule calls in a timely manner, delaying requests for more than one week or more.

The University of Texas Law School’s Immigration Law Clinic attempted to schedule a video teleconferencing call with a client at the South Texas ICE Processing Center. An employee of the GEO Group, Inc., which runs the facility, told them that no calls were available for two weeks.

. . . .

***********************

A “Jim Crow Mentality” of never being held accountable for abuses of law or human morality permeates the politicos, legislators, and Federal Judges of both parties responsible for enabling and upholding this toxic system.

Nowhere is this more obvious than at the DOJ Civil Rights Division. While pontificating on racially abusive local police policies and actions, these folks go to great lengths to overlook the DOJ-run “Star Chamber Courts” embedded in DHS’s “New American Gulag” that disproportionally harm persons of color and deny them basic legal, civil, and human rights every day.

This system is thoroughly rotten! Yet, Garland’s DOJ “defends the indefensible” in Federal Court almost every day.

🇺🇸⚖️ Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-30-21

Outcome on Asylum Cases	Number	Percent**
IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by IJ	249,413	26%
Other Relief, etc.	236,889	24%
Removal Order	403,252	42%
Voluntary Departure Order	77,998	8%
Total IJ Asylum Completions	967,552	100%
USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ	599,772	46%
Other Relief, etc by IJ	236,889	18%
Removal Order by IJ	403,252	31%
Voluntary Departure Order by IJ	77,998	6%
USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions	1,317,911	100%

Garcia Cabrera v. Garland, 4th Cir., 01-06-21, published

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Tyche Hendricks reports for KQED:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever, and Happy New Year!🥂

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Completed Asylum Cases and Outcomes

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

😎Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Lydia Wheeler writes for Bloomberg Law’s Opening Argument:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From the UCLA Blue Print:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Emma Winger writes on Immigration Impact:

🇺🇸⚖️ Due Process Forever!

Related posts: