Human Rights – Page 33 – immigrationcourtside.com

🤯 AS EOIR SINKS INTO THE SEA OF CHAOS & INJUSTICE, GARLAND’S SOLUTION: MORE UNNEEDED BUREAUCRACY!

Hole in the head — This is how much EOIR and its long-suffering stakeholders need a “Chief of the Immigration Law Division” at EOIR!
PHOTO: EOI Teacher @ Twitter

https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/supervisory-attorney-advisor-chief-immigration-law-division

Duties include but are not limited to the following:

Plan and direct general legal activities of the Agency with the objective of assuring that all actions taken are in accordance with law and regulation with special emphasis on assuring that actions taken conform to the basic principles of law.

Provide interpretation of immigration provisions, laws, and regulations to all segments of the agency.

Propose the development of policies and procedures in response to legal cases or problems that have the effect of substantially broadening or restricting the activities of the agency.

Advise the Director/Deputy and staff on the legal implications of proposed and newly enacted laws, regulations and policies that will have an impact on the operation of the agency and keeps abreast of current decisions of the courts.

Direct professional legal staff in the development, documentation, and operation of both internal processes and administrative/technical controls.

Supervise staff in the formulation and direction of proactive, time-sensitive services and/or guidance to EOIR components, unique needs of senior management and responsiveness to the Department and other government or regulatory agencies.

Qualifications:

In order to qualify for the position, you must meet the following minimum qualifications:

Education: Applicants must possess an LL.B. or a J.D. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)

AND

Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)

AND

Required Experience:

For GS-15: Applicants must have four (4) full years (48 months) of post J.D. or LL.B professional legal experience. Qualifying professional legal experience includes: Direct professional legal staff in the development, documentation, and operation of both internal processes and administrative/technical controls; Advise Senior Management and staff on the legal implications of proposed and newly enacted laws, regulations and policies that will have an impact on the operation of the agency and keeps abreast of current decisions of the courts; and Plan and direct general legal activities of the Agency with the objective of assuring that all actions taken are in accordance with law and regulation with special emphasis on assuring that actions taken conform to the basic principles of law.

(Your resume must CLEARLY demonstrate this experience)

Preferred Experience:

The ideal candidate will have experience with the following:

Providing technical and administrative supervision over attorneys and professional staff within an organization.

Planning and assigning work to subordinate attorneys based on priorities and difficulty of the assignment.

Providing input and advice to Senior Officials on policy decisions.

Coordinating with other government offices and/or agencies on legal matters.

NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated only after receipt of J.D. or LL.B.

IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE.

Salary:

($148,484 – $176,300 per year.

Travel:

Occasional travel

Application Process:

To Apply for this position, please click the below link to access and apply to the vacancy announcement via USA Jobs USAJOBS – Job Announcement . Please read the announcement thoroughly. You Must Submit a complete application package by 11:59PM (EST) on 9/02/2022, the closing date of the announcement.

Applicants should familiarize themselves and comply with the relevant rules of professional conduct regarding any possible conflicts of interest in connection with their applications. In particular, please notify this Office if you currently represent clients or adjudicate matters in which this Office is involved and/or you have a family member who is representing clients or adjudicating matters in which this Office is involved so that we can evaluate any potential conflict of interest or disqualification issue that may need to be addressed under those circumstances.

Application Deadline:

Tuesday, September 6, 2022

Relocation Expenses:

Not authorized

Number of Positions:

1

Updated August 23, 2022

* * *

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

The ship is rudderless and sinking! Many of the sailors are inept or think they are working for a different Navy! The solution: More Lt. Commanders on deck, each doing someone else’s job and giving random orders, to add to the confusion and disorder!

Let me be clear: EOIR and its long-suffering “customers” and “stakeholders” need this superfluous position like a hole in the head! Perhaps less! This looks like “EOIR imitating the DHS bureaucracy” that it is supposed to be treating as a “party,” not a “role model!”

The “Office of Policy” — totally unnecessary and inconsistent with the mission of a quasi-judicial court system — is a serious boondoggle created by the last Administration. Eliminating it and redeploying its wasted resources into competent, expert quasi-judicial decision making should have been “Day One Stuff” for Garland. But it wasn’t!

EOIR needs better, expert judges, who know immigration and human rights laws, and are unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! It also needs a “lean team” of well qualified judicial administrators to recruit, hire, train, and support judges and court staff!

Incredibly, most of this PD sounds like it’s right out of the PDs for BIA Chair, BIA Member, CIJ, Director, Deputy Director, or General Counsel. Get folks who can do those jobs and eliminate the Office of Policy and the other “non-operational bureaucratic fat” in Falls Church!

Does the Supreme Court have a “U.S. Law Division?” How about the D.C. Circuit where Garland once served? What on earth is Garland doing with this wasteful nonsense!

For Pete’s sake, the BIA IS the “Immigration Law Division!” If, as I maintain, most of the current Appellate Judges are not capable of performing those functions competently and in accordance with due process and fundamental fairness, then get better judges in there! Now!

Sure, it’s not the “popular solution” within the self-perpetuating bureaucracy. But, it’s the right one!

Stop the unnecessary proliferation of inept bureaucrats at EOIR! “Hey, hey, Ho, ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!” Throwing more “ringmasters” into this circus is NOT the answer!

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

DOJ and Director Neal should be hauled before an Oversight Committee to justify their continuing bureaucratic nonsense in the face of abject “mission failure!” Not going to happen. But, it should! Honestly!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

💨 FROM THE ROCKIES & THE HIGH PLAINS, THE WINDS OF TRUTH BLOW AWAY THE BS & SHOW HOW GARLAND’S BIA & THEIR SCOFFLAW INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BUILT BACKLOGS — “This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in,” says 10th Cir. in Estrada-Corona v. Garland!

Kangaroos — It’s easy guys, we just do what DHS Enforcement and our political bosses want and we can keep hopping around forever! Backlogs! Ha, the bigger the bigger they get, the more “secure” our jobs!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

“The Attorney General may allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the country if, among other things, they have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We call this form of discretionary relief “cancellation of removal.” Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” the period of continuous physical presence ends (A) when the alien is served with a notice to appear, or (B) when the alien has committed certain criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Nothing more, nothing less. In the latest installment of “What Triggers the Stop-Time Rule?” the Government asks us to hold that the issuance of a final order of removal is a third, extra-statutory event sufficient to stop the clock. The plain language of the statute supports no such conclusion. Declining to read ambiguity into a statute where none exists, we hold a final order of removal does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence. … This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in. … After years of statutory short-circuiting, the Government finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being wrong. … Because Congress unambiguously replaced the final-order rule with the stop-time rule, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Petitioner continued to accrue continuous physical presence after the immigration judge issued the order to voluntarily depart. … [W]e hold that because the BIA seems to have considered change-in-the-law equitable tolling arguments before, the BIA abused its discretion in this case by failing to “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” … We cannot discern why the BIA found no extraordinary circumstance which would warrant equitable tolling, so the BIA abused its discretion. … On remand, the Government is free to argue that Petitioner should not be granted sua sponte reopening or equitable tolling. This opinion is expressly limited to two conclusions. First, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Second, the BIA’s explanations for denying sua sponte reopening and equitable tolling constituted, as a procedural matter, an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated herein, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Jennifer M. Smith and Mark Barr!]

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

“For years, if not decades, the Government sent aliens “notices to appear” which failed to include all the information required by § 1229(a)—like the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). For countless aliens, the only obstacle to being eligible for cancellation of removal was the Government’s position that a time-and-place-to-be-set notice to appear still triggers the stop-time rule. In Pereira, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s atextual interpretation and held a “putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the [alien]’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court cleared the way for many aliens, like Petitioner, to seek cancellation of removal.

But the Government quickly erected a new hurdle.”

The BIA could and should have prevented this debacle by insisting from the git go that the statute (“the law”) be followed by DHS and EOIR. Instead, at the behest of DHS, and perhaps to prevent tens of thousands of long-term residents who had received statutorily defective notices from seeking relief, the BIA misinterpreted the statute time after time.

The real stupidity here is that the requirement the BIA was pretzeling itself to avoid was hardly “rocket science” or burdensome: Serve a notice containing the actual date, time, and place of the hearing! One might ask what purpose is served by a so-called “Notice to Appear” that doesn’t notify the individual of where and when to appear?

Moreover, when the BIA started issuing their incorrect precedents, DHS and EOIR had a then-existing system — called “interactive scheduling” — that would have complied with the statute. The problem was that the “powers that be” at DOJ, EOIR, and DHS consciously decided NOT to use that system.

The apparent reason was the belief that complying with the law might have interfered with DHS arbitrarily filling the Immigration Courts with large “numbers” of cases to meet various enforcement “priorities” set from “on high.” Rather than doing its job, the BIA chose time and again to “go along to get along” with this nonsense!

Over and over, EOIR lets bogus DHS or Administration “enforcement priorities” or “improperly using the legal system as a deterrent” subvert due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations, and practical solutions!

And, although Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of bringing the rule of law and rationality back to immigration, the absurdity and illegality continues under Garland. He even sent OIL in to waste the time of the Article IIIs by mounting essentially frivolous defenses to the BIA’s malfeasance.

Perhaps worst of all, in addition to being denied timely justice, individuals and their lawyers dealing with Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR often are falsely blamed for causing the backlogs that are the primary result of DHS/EOIR incompetence and political meddling by unqualified bureaucrats. The latter don’t understand what really happens in Immigration Court and how to properly, fairly, and efficiently administer such a large and important court system.

The backlogs will continue to grow and the US justice system will crater because of bad immigration decisions generating skyrocketing litigation. Garland must replace the BIA with real expert appellate judges committed to fair, humane, and reasonable interpretations of immigration and human rights laws — without regard to whether those correct interpretations will be “career enhancing” or “career preserving.” In other words, judges who put justice before personal or institutional “survival.” Competent, expert, independent-minded judicial administrators with the guts to keep DOJ and DHS bureaucratic meddlers “at arm’s length” are also required.

Folks who could do the job are out here. But, that’s the problem! They belong in the key judicial judicial and administrative positions at EOIR where they can put any end to the due-process denying, backlog building dysfunction.

Everyone committed to the future of American justice should be asking themselves why Garland hasn’t recruited and hired the right “Team Due Process” for EOIR! American justice can’t afford more of Garland’s inept, “go along to get along,” “afraid to say no to DHS enforcement” BIA and the rest of the EOIR “Deadly Clown Show” largely left over from past, failed Administrations!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-21

⚖️🗽 RAPPAPORT & STOCK URGE ACTION ON AFGHAN REFUGEES!

Margaret Stock, Esquire
Anchorage, Alaska
PHOTO: Law firm

Nolan sends this summary of his latest on The Hill:

Afghans who helped us deserve better immigration treatment

Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor

As the Afghan government and military fell to the Taliban after U.S. troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, the U.S. hastily evacuated American citizens and 76,000 Afghans who had helped the U.S. in its 20-year war against the Taliban.

It is a year later now, and most of the Afghan evacuees still have temporary immigration status, which means that they may be subject to removal when their status expires. This isn’t right. We should be taking better care of them.

It is more than just an obligation to people who put themselves in peril to help the United States.

According to Margaret D. Stock, a retired military officer, “Correcting for this inaction is a matter of national security — in future conflicts, why would anyone risk their lives by serving alongside our soldiers or providing critical translation services if the U.S. can’t keep our promises to them when we depart?”

It wouldn’t be taking this long to meet the needs of the Afghans if our immigration system weren’t overwhelmed to the point of being dysfunctional.

Parole

The evacuees who did not have entry documents had to request humanitarian parole, which permits undocumented migrants to be admitted to the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons.

Approximately 70,192 of them were paroled into the United States between July 30, 2021, and Nov. 15, 2021.

Permanent status

Congress has enacted a series of legislative provisions which enable certain Afghan nationals to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) on the basis of a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV).

Section 1059 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2006, authorizes giving SIVs to Afghans who worked with the U.S. Armed Forces or under Chief of Mission (COM) authority as a translator or an interpreter for at least a year.

To be eligible for this special immigrant classification, the principal applicant must obtain a favorable written recommendation from the COM or a general or flag officer in the relevant Armed Forces unit.

Afghans who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government or the International security Assistance Force in Afghanistan may be eligible for SIV status under section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009.

Roadblock

As of July 18, 2022, there were 74,274 principal applicants in the SIV pipeline. This number does not include spouses and children. And the applications have to be processed by USCIS, which is experiencing a backlog crisis.

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3605096-afghans-who-helped-us-deserve-better-immigration-treatment/

Published originally on The Hill.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him athttps://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/2306123393080132994

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

Read Nolan’s full op-ed at the link.

When experts like Nolan and Margaret are saying the same thing, everyone should listen and act accordingly!

In addition to fair and equitable treatment for our allies, we must resume and expand fair and humane treatment for all refugees, including, most important, those seeking legal refuge at our borders. Many of them actually come from broken countries where the the U.S. has left a “large footprint,” like Haiti and Latin America.

It is long past time to make the legal requirement set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980 — any individual in the US or arriving at our border may apply for asylum “irrespective of status” — a reality rather than a cruel hoax. Contrary to some disgracefully wrong-headed court decisions, this statutory requirement implicitly requires that opportunity to be in full compliance with due process.

Otherwise, to state the obvious, it’s no opportunity at all — just a legal charade. Unfortunately, that is what much of our broken, dysfunctional, and unjust asylum and refugee systems look like now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-19-22

⚖️🗽🦸🏻‍♀️ CONGRATS TO NDPA SUPERSTAR 🌟 PROFESSOR CORI ALONSO YODER ON COVETED APPOINTMENT @ GW LAW!

Here’s the announcement from GW Law:

https://www.law.gwu.edu/10-scholars-join-gw-law-community-teach-first-year-students

Ten Scholars Join the GW Law Community to Teach First-Year Students

August 01, 2022

GW Law is excited to announce the appointment of ten new full-time faculty members to join the Fundamentals of Lawyering Program. The new FL faculty join Interim Director Iselin Gambert and Associate Director Anita Singh as full-time members of the GW Law faculty. The FL program introduces first-year students to the skills necessary for a successful transition from the classroom to the law firm, boardroom, courtroom, and the many other settings where law is practiced.

These ten professors join our experienced community of scholars to teach 1Ls the critical lawyering skills they will need in practice.

Cori Alonso-Yoder

Natalia Blinkova

Leslie Callahan

Katya Cronin

Robin Juni

Cheryl Kettler

Brooke Ellinwood McDonough

Robert Parrish

Jennifer Wimsatt Pusateri

Erika N. Pont

Why GW Law?

Cori Alonso Yoder

Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“I am so pleased to be joining GW Law and its community of distinguished scholars, dedicated professionals, and accomplished students. Teaching with the Fundamentals of Lawyering Program to equip students in exploring a sense of place and purpose in the law while developing their professional skills is particularly thrilling to me.”

Learn More

Natalia Blinkova

Acting Writing Center Coordinator; Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“As for why I chose to stay at GW — that part is easy! I love shepherding our wonderfully talented students through their 1L experience, introducing them to the critical lawyering skills they will need in practice, and helping them think through what kind of lawyers they would like to become. I also feel like I’ve found a home among the FL faculty, who are the most collaborative, forward-thinking, and supportive group of professionals I have ever encountered.”

Learn More

Leslie Callahan

Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“I’m thrilled to join GW Law’s innovative ‘Fundamentals of Lawyering Program’ which is at the forefront of our profession in preparing students to excel in the workplace. The Fundamentals program integrates traditional research and writing skills with a broader array of skills such as client counseling, all while providing the opportunity for professional identity formation. GW Law’s program is truly unique among top law schools and I cannot wait to begin working with this extraordinary group of professionals!”

Learn More

Katya Cronin

Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“GW Law’s Fundamentals of Lawyering Program is on the cutting edge of legal experiential education and I am thrilled to work side by side with its many accomplished and dedicated faculty members who share a commitment to excellence in teaching, student well-being, and rigorous and impactful scholarship.”

Learn More

Robin Juni

Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“GW Law is a special place. I’m thrilled to be teaching Fundamentals of Lawyering, in particular, because the whole community is invested in and supportive of the groundwork we lay in FL that allows students to pursue any of the countless opportunities GW Law offers to become the lawyers they want to be.”

Learn More

Cheryl A. Kettler

Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“I have had the pleasure of teaching at GW Law for six of the last seven years. During that time, I have worked with numerous highly talented and energetic first-year law students. Their enthusiasm for learning has made teaching here very rewarding. Moreover, GW Law has offered me opportunities to work with esteemed faculty, generous adjuncts, dedicated Dean’s Fellows, the Writing Center’s earnestly caring Writing Fellows, our various journals’ many writers, and the Inns of Court student members and advisors. Visitors at other schools are lucky if they engage with a few colleagues. Here, they are part of a larger community.

The fundamentals of lawyering are more than the name of a course at GW Law. They are ingrained in curriculum, extracurricular activity, and the culture of the law school. By bringing people together to support our first-year law students, we ensure they leave here with a network of support and the skills to face the challenges of practice.”

Learn More

Brooke Ellinwood McDonough

Acting Coordinator of Scholarly Writing and Co-Coordinator of Problem Development; Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“For nearly thirty years, GW has been part of my life. In the ‘90s, I was an undergrad. In the ‘00s, a law student. In the ‘10s an adjunct and visiting professor. From those experiences, I have a deeply rooted appreciation for the unique contributions that the school has on its students and the larger community, and seek to carry on that tradition for the next generation as I enter my fourth decade with GW.”

Learn More

Robert Parrish

Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“I chose GW Law because of its Fundamentals of Lawyering program and the unique opportunity it presents to be a small part of an innovative program that has the potential to be a model for law schools across the nation.”

Learn More

Jennifer Wimsatt Pusateri

Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“GW Law students are special. They have a grit and practicality about them that makes them a joy to teach. I’m excited to continue teaching them the skills they need to develop into successful lawyers as part of the Fundamentals of Lawyering program.”

Learn More

Erika N. Pont

Interim Associate Director, Fundamentals of Lawyering Program; Coordinator of the Dean’s Fellow Program; Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

“I joke that I “grew up” at GW Law: first as a student and Deans Fellow, then as an adjunct professor for over a decade, and finally as full-time faculty in the Fundamentals of Lawyering Program. I chose to teach at GW Law for many of the same reasons I chose to attend GW Law as a student: an unparalleled location in Washington, DC, a uniquely talented and collegial student body, and an institutional commitment to graduating “practice ready” lawyers. Joining the Fundamentals of Lawyering faculty is a dream come true. I’m grateful for the opportunity to build on GW Law’s rich foundation of professional development and experiential learning. It’s an honor to help develop and teach our 1L students this innovative curriculum that’s designed to prepare our students to serve clients, impact their community, and better their profession — and to be their healthiest happiest selves in the process.”

Learn More

Fundamentals of Lawyering

At GW Law, the Fundamentals of Lawyering Program introduces first-year students to the skills that will advance them from the classroom to the law firm, boardroom, courtroom, and the many other settings where law is practiced. The FL Program, an innovative yearlong course for 1Ls which works hand-in-hand with Inns of Court, was launched in fall of 2019. The centerpiece of the most significant reform of GW Law’s first-year curriculum in a generation, the six-credit course was designed to reflect the changing practice of law and gives graduates the essential lawyering skills employers value most.

First-year students work with a faculty drawn from law firms of all sizes, governmental agencies, and nonprofits to learn what it takes to succeed in a profession that demands the highest commitment to adherence to the rule of law and delivering justice. Our faculty members bring decades of experience building relationships with clients and meeting their needs with creativity and skill.

Fundamentals of Lawyering Program

Program Directors and Faculty

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

Here’s Cori’s full bio from the GW Law website:

Cori Alonso-Yoder

Title:

Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering

Address:

The George Washington University Law School
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052

Ana Corina “Cori” Alonso-Yoder is an Associate Professor in the Fundamentals of Lawyering. Prior to joining the GW Law faculty, professor Alonso-Yoder was a visiting assistant professor at Howard University School of Law. She has also instructed students on lawyering skills in the Immigrant Justice Clinic at American University Washington College and as the former director of the Federal Legislation Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center.

Professor Alonso-Yoder is a nationally recognized scholar on immigration legislation and the impacts of state, local, and federal laws on immigrant communities. As an expert in health policy for immigrants, she has lectured in interdisciplinary settings including at the Pediatric Academic Society, Georgetown University School of Medicine, the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, and the Interdisciplinary Association for Population Health Sciences. Professor Alonso-Yoder’s commentary on immigrants’ rights has been featured by ABC News, The Hill, Law360, and the Washington Post, among others. She also regularly comments on Supreme Court decisions that affect the statutory and constitutional rights of noncitizens for the George Washington Law Review online. Her legal scholarship has been published or is forthcoming in Denver Law Review, American University Legislation and Policy Brief, and Rutgers Law Review.

In her public interest legal practice, Professor Alonso-Yoder has worked on a variety of equal justice issues, with a special emphasis on advocacy for LGBT and HIV-positive immigrants. Prior to teaching, Professor Alonso-Yoder was the supervising attorney at Whitman-Walker Health, the country’s longest serving medical-legal partnership. Early in her legal career, Professor Alonso-Yoder represented low-income immigrants in family law and immigration matters at Ayuda. While there, she established an innovative project to meet the civil legal needs of notario fraud victims and coordinated with local stakeholders to enact legislation to protect consumers. In her work to promote immigrants’ rights, she has collaborated on transnational labor policy and worker outreach in central Mexico, provided legal orientation and advice and counsel to inmates in U.S. immigration detention facilities, and served as an assistant to the chair of the United Nations Committee Against Torture in Geneva. Her service to the Latino community has been recognized with the Hispanic Law Conference’s 2020 Edward Bou Award and the DC Courts’ 2016 Legal Community Award. She is actively involved in board service with the immigrant advocacy organizations La Clínica del Pueblo and Centro de los Derechos del Migrante.

Professor Alonso-Yoder holds an AB magna cum laude from Georgetown University and a JD cum laude from American University Washington College of Law, where she was awarded a full-tuition public interest merit scholarship. Born in Mexico, she grew up in Denver, Colorado and speaks English, French, and Spanish.

Education

AB, Georgetown University; JD, American University Washington College of Law

Congrats, Cori, my friend! What a great use of your skills as a practical scholar and nonprofit law “guru.” And, what a great step for GW to focus first-year students on the practical skills needed to practice law (and lead a successful life) and the many, diverse, critically important opportunities for improving our nation and defending and advancing our democracy that effective, ethical, values-based lawyering presents!

Values like fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork should be at the core of legal education! Cori and the other “practical scholars” described above are the embodiment of those values!

I have suggested that a legal education system that turned out some of the grossly dishonest and unethical lawyers behind Trump’s “big lie” and cowardly far-right politicos who advocate for the destruction of democracy and for “the new Jim Crow” needs to take a hard internal look — particularly in the area of legal ethics. Exposing students to those like Cori who used their skills to interact with and help some of the most vulnerable in society — and thereby to improve rather than undermine our nation — is a significant step toward “values-based” legal education.

It’s also important that a versatile immigration and human rights practical scholar like Cori be part of this innovative, forward-looking approach to legal education.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-18-22

⚖️ NDPA STALWART MICHAEL MEHR BEATS DOWN MATTER OF CORDERO-GARCIA (Obstruction of Justice) IN 9TH — Dissenting Trump Judge VanDyke Goes Ballistic — Accuses Colleagues Of “Playing Dirty” By Occasionally Ruling In Favor Of Individuals In Immigration Cases!

Here’s a report from Nate Raymond @ Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-judge-says-9th-circuit-playing-dirty-prevent-deportations-2022-08-15/

(Reuters) – A conservative judge appointed by former President Donald Trump on Monday accused his colleagues on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of playing “dirty” in a “trainwreck” of rulings to prevent immigrants from being deported.

U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s criticism came in a dissent to a 2-1 decision holding a Mexican native’s California conviction for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime was not a deportable offense under federal immigration law.

VanDyke, who has become known for a string of dissents since joining the liberal-leaning court in 2020, noted he had not been shy in criticizing the San Francisco-based court’s “abysmal and indefensible immigration precedents.”

He said the 9th Circuit for more than a decade has been “doing everything in our power (and much not) to upset” the Board of Immigration Appeals’ “reasonable” interpretation of what constitutes an offense related to obstruction of justice.

The BIA in this case had concluded Fernando Cordero-Garcia committed such an offense after he was convicted in California of sexual battery without restraint, sexual exploitation by a psychotherapist and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime.

“My colleagues in the majority should be embarrassed,” VanDyke wrote. “Perhaps not for their wrong decision today–to err is human, after all, even for those in robes. But they should be troubled by our court’s jaw-dropping, always-increasing, epic collection of immigration gaffes.”Cordero-Garcia’s lawyer, Michael Mehr, declined to comment.

Cordero-Garcia, who entered the country in 1965 as a lawful permanent resident, was a psychologist for the County of Santa Barbara Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services department who prosecutors said sexually assaulted patients, the ruling said.

Two appointees of Democratic presidents — U.S. District Judge Barry Moskowitz, a visiting judge on the court, and U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz — ruled for Cordero-Garcia in overturning the BIA’s decision on the obstruction offense.

Moskowitz, writing for the majority, said he was not writing on a “clean slate,” as the 9th Circuit in 2020 ruled an “obstruction of justice” offense must be connected to ongoing or pending criminal proceedings.

The California law Cordero-Garcia was convicted under, by contrast, does not require any connection to an ongoing or pending proceeding or investigation, making it “not an appropriate comparator” to obstruction under federal law.

VanDyke, though, said the 9th Circuit’s approach had created a “lopsided circuit-split,” with the majority acknowledging its ruling ran counter to decisions by the 1st and 4th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The case is Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-72779.

For Cordero-Garcia: Michael Mehr of Mehr & Soto

For the United States: Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips of the U.S. Department of Justice

Read more:

Trump-appointed judge blasts 9th Circuit’s ’embarrassing’ immigration rulings

In barbed dissents, Trump appointees call

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

Here’s a link to Matter of Garcia-Cordero, 27 I&N Dec. 652 (BIA 2019) which was reversed by the 9th Circuit:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwip-puUns75AhUlk4kEHaQXAisQFnoECAMQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Feoir%2Fpage%2Ffile%2F1210991%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw2IVnTOUmhzqK0ppatf4rr7

While VanDyke has been eager to rip into his colleagues for critically reviewing BIA rulings, rather than just “rubber stamp deferring,” he is no stranger to controversy. He received the coveted “not qualified to serve” rating from the ABA and has been characterized as an “unqualified hack” by Joe Patrice over at abovethelaw.com. https://abovethelaw.com/2021/12/ninth-circuit-judge-has-had-it-with-trump-judges-insulting-dissents/.

Interestingly, a chunk of the dissent is dedicated to showing that Mr. Cordero-Garcia is a louse. However, that doesn’t seem to have much to do with the legal application of the “categorical test” to his crime in the immigration context. For all its difficulties, Congress was well aware that courts had historically applied the “categorical test” as opposed to the “sounds like a bad guy” approach when they enacted the statutory language in question.

Curiously, VanDyke castigates his majority colleagues for “result oriented” decision making. But it seems highly unlikely that either District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, who wrote the opinion, or Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz would have chosen Mr. Cordero-Garcia’s situation as one to “throw out a lifeline.”

What’s more likely is that they fairly applied controlling Circuit precedent notwithstanding the highly unsympathetic individual involved. By contrast, critics have characterized VanDyke as an ideologue — driven by a far-right agenda — whose main focus on the bench has been “writing vitriolic Town Hall editorials to publish in F.4th.” Id.

From a due process standpoint, one of the most severe problems undermining our entire justice system today is the disturbingly poor performance of the BIA which often functions as a “rubber stamp” on incorrect anti-immigrant decisions by Immigration Judges, many of them appointed during the Trump Administration with questionable credentials, at best. That’s when the BIA isn’t busy serving as a “shill” for DHS Enforcement — often bending the law or going out of their way to sustain ICE appeals from correct decisions below that grant relief or benefit individuals. BIA precedents favorable to asylum seekers and other migrants are few and far between — despite an obvious lack of immigration and human rights expertise among many Trump appointees to the immigration bench.

The problem is compounded when reviewing Circuit Courts ignore the glaring Constitutional conflict of having a “court” that is “owned” by an enforcement agency (and was blatantly “weaponized” against migrants by Sessions and Barr) and the poor quality decision making, lack of scholarship, and overt bias that plagues EOIR. “Rubber stamp deference” to BIA decisions that do not deserve it is a systemic problem for the Article IIIs, actively encouraged by the Supremes judge-created Chevron and Brand X doctrines of undue deference. From this perspective, VanDyke and many (not all) of his Trump colleagues are a big part of the problem — not the solution!

Michael K. Mehr ESQ!
Senior Partner
Mehr & Soto LLP
Santa Cruz, CA
PHOTO: Website

Many congrats to Michael Mehr for vigorously and successfully litigating this complex issue in the 9th Circuit. It’s telling to compare the “quiet competence” of dedicated, expert advocates like Mehr with the “bombastic grandstanding” of VanDyke and others in the xenophobic right. Mehr and others in the NDPA have honed their their advocacy and scholarship skills by decades of giving a “voice” to those who otherwise are seldom “heard” by the powers that be.

Undoubtedly, given the circuit split, this eventually will end up at the Supremes. There, VanDyke’s fellow Trump appointees could well agree with him. But, that might be more reflective of problems with the composition of today’s Supremes than with the law. Stay tuned!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-17-22

🔌👎🏽GARLAND MUST “PULL THE PLUG” ON HIS FAILED APPELLATE COURT — BIA “DEFIES” EVIDENCE TO MOCK DUE PROCESS & DENY ASYLUM, SAYS 3RD CIR! — OGEE v. AG (Ghana)

Read the 3rd Circuit’s (unfortunately) unpublished decision here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202423np.pdf

Key quote:

The IJ credited Bimpong’s testimony, and the BIA did not disturb this finding. Yet the BIA concluded that Bimpong’s persecution was a personal land dispute that lacked any nexus to his membership in the Ashanti tribe. In doing so, the BIA deferred to the IJ’s conclusion that “the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the [Enzema] Tribe targeted the applicant because of membership in the Ashanti Tribe.” AR 97 (emphasis added). That conclusion defies the record, which is replete with evidence that Bimpong’s tribal affiliation was a central reason for his persecution. See, e.g., AR 157, 162-63, 167–68, 185, 596, 598. For example, Bimpong testified that members of

the Enzema “did not want the land that [he] possessed to be owned by non-members of 4

the Enzema tribe,” AR 596, and that he “was a target of persecution because of [an] intertribal dispute between the Enzema tribe and Ashanti tribe.” AR 598.

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

Typical BIA BS prejudged, form denial “boilerplate.” “Devoid of evidence” — gimmie a break! We tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to eliminate this type of non-analytical nonsense several decades ago. It’s indicative of a totally broken system that is unfair and biased against migrants! Why is Garland allowing this continuing systemic injustice?

Demand that Garland replace his inept, unprofessional, unconstitutional, “Trump holdover” BIA with real judges who are experts in immigration, asylum, human rights, and fully committed to due process and fundamental fairness!

To quote my good friend and Round Table 🛡 colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

At the IJ level, the ACIJs have to be charged with determining if the IJ actually doesn’t know the law, or if they are choosing not to follow it. Of course, you need ACIJs who actually know immigration law, which isn’t always the case anymore. If it’s the former, you schedule additional training; if it’s the latter, they may need to suspend or remove the IJ. That should be a priority for the next Chief IJ.

But why isn’t this being caught at the BIA level? They continue to act as a rubber stamp. There have been a few cases just in the past couple of weeks where the errors were really major and apparent.

A BIA that would “rubber stamp” denials without question or meaningful analysis so that OIL could then argue “deference” to railroad refugees and other individuals entitled to relief out of the country is precisely what Barr and Sessions intended to create. In other words, a “parody of justice” that would carry out the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda without giving it any thought. And, it’s no coincidence that this unconstitutional agenda falls hardest on the backs of asylum seekers and other migrants of color. It also serves to reinforce the vile concept that individuals of color in the U.S. are not equal under the law.

The real question here is why Garland hasn’t effectively changed the system by bringing in real judges who are experts in immigration and human rights and who would be fair to all coming before his Immigration Courts regardless of race or status? “Gradual change” is unacceptable when individuals (and their conscientious representatives) are being subjected to deadly quasi-judicial incompetence on a daily basis. Tell Garland you’ve had enough!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-16-22

IN MEMORIAM: JUDGE WILLIAM VAN WYKE, ROUND TABLE MEMBER & DEDICATED CHAMPION OF DUE PROCESS FOR THE UNDERDOG HAS DIED

Courtside has received unofficial reports of Judge Van Wyke’s death. No further details are available at present.

He will be mourned by family, friends, Round Table colleagues, and many immigrants, their families, and their descendants who owe their lives to his courage, persistence, and brilliance, as a private attorney, an Immigration Judge, and an active and engaged member of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.

Below is his judicial bio from TRAC Immigration:

Judge Van Wake was appointed as an Immigration Judge in March 1995 in New York City. He was re-assigned to the Immigration Court in New York in June 2002, following a six-year assignment as an Immigration Judge in York, Pennsylvania. Judge Van Wyke received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1972. He received a Master of Arts degree in 1974, and a Juris Doctorate in 1977, both from the University of Michigan. From 1993 to 1995, he worked as an attorney with the Law Office of Thomas Elliott in Washington, DC. From 1986 to 1993, he was in private practice in Washington, DC, focusing primarily on immigration law and international human rights issues. From 1983 to 1985, Judge Van Wyke served as staff attorney for the Central American Refugee Center, also in Washington, DC. He also served 3 years as litigation director for East Arkansas Legal Services. In 1990, he worked as a law student supervisor at AYUDA, Inc., in Washington, DC. From 1992 to 1995, Judge Van Wyke also served as an adjunct professor at Washington College of Law, American University, where he taught refugee and asylum law. He is a member of the Tennessee Bar.

Rest In Peace, our friend and colleague.🗽⚖️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-15-22

⚖️🗽🦸🏻‍♀️🎖 A TRUE AMERICAN HERO GETS HER DUE: FRANCES PERKINS WAS THE “MOTHER OF AMERICA’S SAFETY NET!” — By Professor Heather Cox Richardson — “She recognized that the ideas of community values and pooling resources to keep the economic playing field level and take care of everyone are at least as deeply seated in our political philosophy as the idea of every man for himself.”

Letters from an American

Subscribe

Sign in

August 13, 2022

Heather Cox Richardson

11 hr ago

1,608

344

Since it seems clear we will be deciding whether we want to preserve the Social Security Act by our choice of leaders in the next few elections, I thought it not unreasonable to reprint this piece from last year about why people in the 1930s thought the measure was imperative. There is more news about the classified material at Mar-a-Lago, but nothing that can’t wait another day so I can catch this anniversary.

By the time most of you will read this, it will be August 14, and on this day in 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. While FDR’s New Deal had put in place new measures to regulate business and banking and had provided temporary work relief to combat the Depression, this law permanently changed the nature of the American government.

The Social Security Act is known for its payments to older Americans, but it did far more than that. It established unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services. It was a sweeping reworking of the relationship between the government and its citizens, using the power of taxation to pool funds to provide a basic social safety net.

The driving force behind the law was FDR’s Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins. She was the first woman to hold a position in the U.S. Cabinet and still holds the record for having the longest tenure in that job: she lasted from 1933 to 1945.

She brought to the position a vision of government very different from that of the Republicans who had run it in the 1920s. While men like President Herbert Hoover had harped on the idea of a “rugged individualism” in which men worked their way up, providing for their families on their own, Perkins recognized that people in communities had always supported each other. The vision of a hardworking man supporting his wife and children was more myth than reality: her own husband suffered from bipolar disorder, making her the family’s primary support.

As a child, Perkins spent summers with her grandmother, with whom she was very close, in the small town of Newcastle, Maine, where the old-fashioned, close-knit community supported those in need. In college, at Mount Holyoke, she majored in chemistry and physics, but after a professor required students to tour a factory to observe working conditions, Perkins became committed to improving the lives of those trapped in industrial jobs. After college, Perkins became a social worker and, in 1910, earned a masters degree in economics and sociology from Columbia University. She became the head of the New York office of the National Consumers League, urging consumers to use their buying power to demand better conditions and wages for the workers who made the products they were buying.

The next year, in 1911, she witnessed the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in which 146 workers, mostly women and girls, died. They were trapped in the building when the fire broke out because the factory owner had ordered the doors to the stairwells and exits locked to make sure no one slipped outside for a break. Unable to escape the smoke and fire in the factory, the workers—some of them on fire—leaped from the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of the building, dying on the pavement.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire turned Perkins away from voluntary organizations to improve workers’ lives and toward using the government to adjust the harsh conditions of industrialization. She began to work with the Democratic politicians at Tammany Hall, who presided over communities in the city that mirrored rural towns and who exercised a form of social welfare for their voters, making sure they had jobs, food, and shelter and that wives and children had a support network if a husband and father died. In that system, the voices of women like Perkins were valuable, for their work in the immigrant wards of the city meant that they were the ones who knew what working families needed to survive.

The overwhelming unemployment, hunger, and suffering caused by the Great Depression made Perkins realize that state governments alone could not adjust the conditions of the modern world to create a safe, supportive community for ordinary people. She came to believe, as she said: “The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life.”

Through her Tammany connections, Perkins met FDR, and when he asked her to be his Secretary of Labor, she told him that she wanted the federal government to provide unemployment insurance, health insurance, and old-age insurance. She later recalled: “I remember he looked so startled, and he said, ‘Well, do you think it can be done?’”

Creating federal unemployment insurance became her primary concern. Congressmen had little interest in passing such legislation. They said they worried that unemployment insurance and federal aid to dependent families would undermine a man’s willingness to work. But Perkins recognized that those displaced by the Depression had added new pressure to the idea of old-age insurance.

In Long Beach, California, Dr. Francis Townsend had looked out of his window one day to see elderly women rooting through garbage cans for food. Appalled, he came up with a plan to help the elderly and stimulate the economy at the same time. Townsend proposed that the government provide every retired person over 60 years old with $200 a month, on the condition that they spend it within 30 days, a condition designed to stimulate the economy.

Townsend’s plan was wildly popular. More than that, though, it sparked people across the country to start coming up with their own plans for protecting the elderly and the nation’s social fabric, and together, they began to change the public conversation about social welfare policies.

They spurred Congress to action. Perkins recalled that Townsend “startled the Congress of the United States because the aged have votes. The wandering boys didn’t have any votes; the evicted women and their children had very few votes. If the unemployed didn’t stay long enough in any one place, they didn’t have a vote. But the aged people lived in one place and they had votes, so every Congressman had heard from the Townsend Plan people.”

FDR put together a committee to come up with a plan to create a basic social safety net, but committee members could not make up their minds how to move forward. Perkins continued to hammer on the idea they must come up with a final plan, and finally locked the members of the committee in a room. As she recalled: “Well, we locked the door and we had a lot of talk. I laid out a couple of bottles of something or other to cheer their lagging spirits. Anyhow, we stayed in session until about 2 a.m. We then voted finally, having taken our solemn oath that this was the end; we were never going to review it again.”

By the time the bill came to a vote in Congress, it was hugely popular. The vote was 371 to 33 in the House and 77 to 6 in the Senate.

When asked to describe the origins of the Social Security Act, Perkins mused that its roots came from the very beginnings of the nation. When Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America in 1835, she noted, he thought Americans were uniquely “so generous, so kind, so charitably disposed.” “Well, I don’t know anything about the times in which De Tocqueville visited America,” she said, but “I do know that at the time I came into the field of social work, these feelings were real.”

With the Social Security Act, Perkins helped to write into our laws a longstanding political impulse in America that stood in dramatic contrast to the 1920s philosophy of rugged individualism. She recognized that the ideas of community values and pooling resources to keep the economic playing field level and take care of everyone are at least as deeply seated in our political philosophy as the idea of every man for himself.

When she recalled the origins of the Social Security Act, Perkins recalled: “Of course, the Act had to be amended, and has been amended, and amended, and amended, and amended, until it has now grown into a large and important project, for which, by the way, I think the people of the United States are deeply thankful. One thing I know: Social Security is so firmly embedded in the American psychology today that no politician, no political party, no political group could possibly destroy this Act and still maintain our democratic system. It is safe. It is safe forever, and for the everlasting benefit of the people of the United States.”

—

Notes:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html

https://www.ssa.gov/history/perkins5.html

https://francesperkinscenter.org/life-new/

Share

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

Perkins was an original “good government person,” unfortunately, an increasingly rare breed. She recognized that a strong, reliable government safety net promotes personal independence and achieving full individual potential.

Frances Perkins Homestead
Damariscotta, ME
PHOTO: Francis Perkins Center

Perkins had strong Maine ties to her ancestral homestead in Newcastle, ME. It’s near our summer home in Boothbay Harbor, ME. A few years ago, Cathy and I had a chance to tour the homestead, now owned and maintained by the Frances Perkins Center in Damariscotta, ME.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-14-22

⚖️NDPA SUPERSTAR BEN WIN-OGRAD WINS A BIGGIE IN 4TH ON IJ CONDUCT — Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

“Petitioner Rodolfo Josue Tinoco Acevedo appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address whether Tinoco Acevedo’s case should be remanded to a new immigration judge (“IJ”) under Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2015), we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Rather than opine as to the exact grounds on which the BIA decided that the applicant was entitled to a new hearing before a new IJ in Matter of Y-S-L-C-, we remand for the BIA to interpret its precedent and address Tinoco Acevedo’s argument in the first instance. … we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for the BIA to consider whether Tinoco Acevedo is entitled to a new hearing before a different IJ because the initial IJ’s conduct—both during and following the hearing—failed to satisfy the high standard expected of IJs under Matter of Y-S-L-C-. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.” [Note: The IJ was Roxanne C. Hladylowycz.]

[Hats off once again to IRAC superlitigator Ben Winograd!]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Yet another example of the BIA not being familiar with and applying their own precedents where they could be favorable to the respondent. Any old boilerplate BS will do as long is the result is “dismiss and remove.”

It’s one thing for the BIA to articulate “high standards” for IJ conduct in Matter of Y-S-L-C-. It’s quite another to consistently enforce them where the lives of migrants are at stake!

It was a particularly bad idea for the BIA to spring this haphazard “good enough for government work” approach when Ben Winograd is appellate counsel. Winograd knows the BIA and 4th Circuit precedents better than most BIA judges. And, unlike the latter, he’s willing to stand up for immigrants’ legal rights!

It would be better for Garland and American justice — not to mention those seeking justice in Immigration Court, too often in vain — if brilliant, due-process-oriented “practical scholars” like Ben Winograd replaced the “holdover BIA judges” who aren’t up to the job of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Remarkably, there was a time in the past when that long disregarded judicial essential was the “vision” of EOIR.

Ironically, the Article III Judges of this 4th Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory, Circuit Judges Motz and Wynn) understand the critical requirements for EOIR judging better than AG Garland! That’s a problem (although, concededly, outside the “World of EOIR” Garland has had his best week as AG)!

This opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory. He continues to be a leader among Article III Judges who take due process and immigrants’ rights seriously! He’s also someone who “gets” the clear connection between immigrant justice (or, in too many cases lack thereof) and racial justice.

With the Chief Immigration Judge position now vacant, Judge Garland has a golden opportunity to appoint a “Judge Gregory clone” to that critical position. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30193&action=edit. That would also be a wise course for Garland to take to replace the current glaringly inadequate leadership at his failing BIA! How about Chief Appellate Immigration Judge/Chairman Ben Winograd?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-13-22

📖COURTSIDE HISTORY: BEYOND THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT, RACISM IS AT THE CORE OF U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY — Professor Andrew S. Rosenberg Interviewed On New Book By Isabela Dias @ Mother Jones!

Isabela Dias
Staff Writer, Immigration & Social Issues
Mother Jones
PHOTO: Twitter

https://apple.news/AOMcfZiMFQ0OSgozcppDcjg

“Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration”

. . . .

In the book, you dispute the assumption that the right to border control and to exclude foreigners is an inherent feature of sovereign states. Instead, you frame it as a “modern consequence of racism.” Why do you see it that way?

The nation-state is a relatively modern invention on the scale of human history. Today, we have this conventional wisdom floating around that it is the natural right and duty of nation-states as sovereign entities to be able to restrict foreigners and have these really hard borders—and that it’s that ability that makes a state what it is. Actually, if you go back in time and look at the international legal thought that emerged from the 15th through the 19th centuries on what it actually means to be a state, the commonly held assumption that people like the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia and others talk about, is actually an invention of the 19th century. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the great thinkers of international legal jurisprudence or of state theory either thought that states had a right or an obligation to be hospitable to foreigners and to allow them free passage into their territory or, at most, it was up for raucous debate. It was only in the 19th century, when immigrant-receiving countries like the United States began receiving a large influx of racially different outsiders like the Chinese, that this presumption that sovereign states have a right and an obligation that can be tied back to their status as sovereign states to restrict outsiders emerged.

People like Texas Governor Greg Abbott seem to invoke that supposed inherent right when they describe migrants at the border as an “invasion.”

Precisely. These types of “declarations of war” are one of the clearest examples of this ideology seeping into public debate, which leads everyday people to create this idea that migrants are undesirable outsiders who are not fit for, or are undeserving of reaping the benefits of living in the United States or participating in our society.

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

Read the complete interview at the link.

The myth of the “undesirable immigrant” — at the heart of the anti-immigrant rabble rousing of Trump, Miller, Bannon, DeSantis, Abbott, Cotton, Hawley, etc. — has deep roots in American racial history.

I’ve said it many times: There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all without justice for immigrants (regardless of status). Laws like the Refugee Act of 1980, that very explicitly make arrival status irrelevant to access to a fair legal process, have been intentionally misinterpreted and misapplied by right-wing judges from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts.

Advocates for civil rights, womens’ rights, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, disability rights, and other fundamental rights that have been unlawfully restricted or diminished, usually, but certainly not exclusively, by the right, who continue to ignore the primacy of dealing with the intentional unfair, racially biased treatment of migrants do so at their own peril!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-12-22

⚖️🗽 US JUDGE IN SAN DIEGO EVISCERATES TRUMP’S ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL “TURNBACKS” OF ASYLUM APPLICANTS; MAYORKAS TERMINATES REMAIN IN MEXICO (AGAIN) EVEN AS RED RESTRICTIONIST AGs FILE MORE FRIVOLOUS OBJECTIONS! 🤮

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12R1mt07Z4S7R7xiieRUznueR9DRXrBdq/view?usp=sharing

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant minces no words in blasting both the unlawful, cruel, and unconstitutional policy and the Supreme’s toxic decision to look the other way as immigration enforcement runs roughshod over legal, constitutional, and human rights.

In its September 2, 2021 decision, this Court held the right to access the U.S. asylum

process conferred vis a vis § 1158(a)(1) applies extraterritorially to noncitizens who are

arriving at Class A POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, but who are not yet within the

jurisdiction of the United States, and is of a constitutional dimension. (Op. Granting in

Part and Denying in Part Parties’ Cross-Mots. for Summ. J. (“MSJ Opinion”), ECF No.

742.) It further held that Defendants’ systematic turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at

Class A POEs (the “Turnback Policy”) amounted to an unlawful withholding by

immigration officials of their mandatory ministerial “inspection and referral duties”

detailed in 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (“§ 1225”), in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act,

5 U.S.C. § 706(1) et seq., and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. (MSJ Opinion at

33–34, 37–38); see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(a)(3) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to

inspect asylum seekers), 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to

refer asylum seekers to the U.S-asylum process).

In casting appropriate equitable relief to rectify the irreparable injury Defendants’

unauthorized and constitutionally violative Turnback Policy has inflicted upon members

of the Plaintiff class,2 this Court ordinarily would be guided by the fundamental principle

that an equitable remedy should be commensurate with the violations it is designed to

vindicate. See Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 465 (1979) (“[It is an]

accepted rule that the remedy imposed by a court of equity should be commensurate with

the violation ascertained.”). Equitable relief should leave no stone unturned: it should

correct entirely the violations it is aimed at vindicating. That cornerstone of Article III

courts’ equitable powers generally is unfaltering, whether the party against whom an

injunction is sought is a private entity, a state actor, or, as here, a federal official. Thus, in

2 Plaintiffs consist of the named Plaintiffs listed in the case caption, along with a certified class

consisting of “all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting

themselves at a Class A [POE] on the U.S.-Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S.

asylum process by or at the instruction of [Customs and Border Protection] officials on or after January 1,

2016.” (Class Certification Order at 18, ECF No. 513.) The Court also certified a subclass consisting of

“all noncitizens who were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process at a Class A POE on the

U.S.-Mexico border as a result of Defendants’ metering policy on or after January 1, 2016.” (Id.)

– 3 – 17cv2366

the ordinary course of things, this Court would not hesitate to issue broad, programmatic

relief enjoining Defendants from now, or in the future, turning back asylum seekers in the

process of arriving at Class A POEs, absent a valid statutory basis for doing so.

Yet the circumstances with which this Court is presented are not ordinary because

of the extraordinary, intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court in Garland

v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022). That decision takes a sledgehammer to the

premise that immigration enforcement agencies are bound to implement their mandatory

ministerial duties prescribed by Congress, including their obligation to inspect and refer

arriving noncitizens for asylum, and that, when immigration enforcement agencies deviate

from those duties, lower courts have authority to issue equitable relief to enjoin the

resulting violations. It does so through unprecedented expansion of a provision of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1989 (“IIRIRA”), 8

U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) et seq. (“§ 1252(f)(1)”), which for years the Ninth Circuit has

interpreted as placing a relatively narrow limit on injunctive relief. In essence, Aleman

Gonzalez holds that § 1252(f)(1) prohibits lower courts from issuing class-wide injunctions

that “require officials to take actions that (in the Government’s view) are not required” by

certain removal statutes, including § 1225, or “to refrain from actions that (again in the

Government’s view) are allowed” by those same provisions. Id., 142 S. Ct. at 2065.

Federal courts (except for the Supreme Court) now may only issue injunctions enjoining

federal officials’ unauthorized implementation of the removal statutes in the individual

cases of noncitizens against whom removal proceedings have been initiated. See id.

In no uncertain terms, the logical extension of Aleman Gonzalez appears to bestow

immigration enforcement agencies carte blanche to implement immigration enforcement

policies that clearly are unauthorized by the statutes under which they operate because the

Government need only claim authority to implement to immunize itself from the federal

judiciary’s oversight.

With acknowledgment that its decision will further contribute to the human suffering

of asylum seekers enduring squalid and dangerous conditions in Mexican border

– 4 – 17cv2366

communities as they await entry to POEs, this Court finds the shadow of Aleman Gonzalez

inescapable in this case. Even the most narrow, meaningful equitable relief would have

the effect of interfering with the “operation” of § 1225, as that term is construed by the

Aleman Gonzalez Court, and, thus, would clash with § 1252(f)(1)’s remedy bar. Aleman

Gonzalez not only renders uneconomical vindication of Plaintiff class members’

statutorily- and constitutionally-protected right to apply for asylum, those inefficiencies

inevitably will lead to innumerable instances in which Plaintiff class members will be

unable to vindicate their rights at all. Thus, while the majority and dissent in Aleman

Gonzalez hash out their textual disagreements concerning § 1252(f)(1)’s scope in terms of

remedies, make no mistake, Aleman Gonzalez leaves largely unrestrained immigration

enforcement agencies to rapaciously scale back rights. See Tracy A. Thomas, Ubi Jus, Ibi

Remedium: The Fundamental Right to a Remedy Under Due Process, 41 San Diego L.

Rev. 1633, 1634 (2004) (“Disputes over remedies provide a convenient way for dissenters

to resist conformance to legal guarantees. Courts can declare rights, but then default in the

remedy to avoid a politically unpopular result.” (footnote omitted)).

Although it is no substitute for a permanent injunction, class-wide declaratory relief

is both available and warranted here. In lieu of even a circumscribed injunction enjoining

Defendants from again implementing a policy under which they turn back asylum seekers

presenting themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Court enters a

declaration in accordance with its MSJ Opinion that turning back asylum seekers

constitutes both an unlawful withholding of Defendants’ mandatory ministerial inspection

and referral duties under § 1158 and § 1225 in violation of both the APA and the Fifth

Amendment Due Process Clause. The Court also issues relief as necessary to named

Plaintiff Beatrice Doe.

. . . .

You can read Judge Bashant’s full opinion at the link.

Meanwhile, Secretary Mayorkas exercised the authority recognized by the Supremes in Biden v. Texas to terminate the reprehensible and illegal “Remain in Mexico” (a/k/a “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico”) program engineered by Trump and Miller. Predictably, the same scofflaw, restrictionist “Red AG’s” who had instituted frivolous litigation to block this long overdue action filed more specious objections with the Trump-appointed US District Judge, as advocacy groups like Justice Action Center (“JAC”) pledged to fight the racist right until this vile (and highly ineffective) program is finally ended.

JAC Responds to Official Termination of Remain in Mexico, Attempts by Texas to Delay Wind-Down

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 9, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a victory for immigrants’ rights movement, the Remain in Mexico program has been officially terminated after court proceedings following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Biden v. Texas on June 30. Below is a statement from Justice Action Center founder and director Karen Tumlin:

“The official end to shameful Remain in Mexico program is a victory for the immigrants’ rights movement and the right to asylum. RMX is a stain on the country’s history, having harmed tens of thousands of people fleeing for their lives since the Trump Administration instituted the unlawful and immoral program in 2019.

“Since the Supreme Court’s ruling affirming the authority of the Biden Administration to end the RMX program, the #SafeNotStranded campaign has called on the President and DHS to implement a swift and humane wind-down, including halting all new enrollments and allowing everyone in RMX to safely pursue their asylum claims in the U.S. Yesterday, DHS stated its wind-down has begun and new people will not be enrolled in the program, and that it would disenroll individuals with upcoming RMX hearings. These are important first steps to finally redress just some of the immense harm inflicted by the program.

“This commitment by DHS, following such a significant SCOTUS victory, illustrates the strength and resilience of the immigrants’ rights movement. But even after a clear loss, Texas is continuing its hateful attempts to keep this deadly program in place for as long as possible: After the District Court rightfully vacated its injunction of the RMX wind-down yesterday, Texas unfortunately—yet unsurprisingly—filed an amended complaint challenging the second DHS memo rescinding RMX, as well as a motion asking the District Court to stay the memo’s effective date.

“But we will not be deterred: advocates will continue to fight back against ongoing red state efforts to continue Trump’s racist and xenophobic agenda and work towards a world where all people fleeing danger can be safe, not stranded.”

# # #

Contact: Tasha Moro; 323-450-7269; tasha.moro@justiceactioncenter.org

Justice Action Center (JAC) is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for greater justice for immigrant communities by combining litigation and storytelling. JAC is committed to bringing additional litigation resources to address unmet needs, empower clients, and change the corrosive narrative around immigrants in the U.S. Learn more at justiceactioncenter.org and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Related:

8/1/22: JAC Responds to Supreme Court’s Certification of Decision on Remain in Mexico; Encourages Swift and Humane Wind-Down of Deadly Program

6/30/22: Justice Action Center Welcomes Positive Supreme Court Decision on Remain in Mexico in Biden v. Texas

3/21/22: #SafeNotStranded Campaign Launches Ahead of April Supreme Court Arguments in Biden v. Texas

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

We should remember that the Trumpest GOP’s insurrectionist war on American democracy and attack on truth and human decency began with overt lies and racist attacks on migrants of color and non-Christians. It has escalated to become an all out assault on our future as a nation of laws and values.

We can’t go back to a time when liberals and progressives viewed immigration as a tangental or secondary issue. It is THE all-encompassing issue now in preserving American democracy from GOP efforts to destabilize and destroy our nation’s fabric from bottom to top!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-11-22

THE GIBSON REPORT — 08-08-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Managing Attorney, NIJC — Among Headliners: “The [Trump Administration’s child separation] policy’s worst outcomes were all anticipated, and repeated internal and external warnings were ignored,” Reports Caitlin Dickerson in The Atlantic!

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

◦NEWS

◦LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

◦RESOURCES

◦EVENTS

PRACTICE UPDATES

Chief Immigration Judge Email: Taking Cases Off Calendar: Cases may be selected to be taken off the court’s calendar for the following reason(s)…

EOIR Schedule: EOIR immigration judges are scheduled for a mandatory training session on Aug. 22, 2022, from 1pm to 5pm EST. The Chicago Immigration Court will re-set all non-detained cases scheduled for that afternoon; detained cases will go forward. It is unclear at this time if/how this affects other courts.

NEWS

Thune breaks through Democratic bloc on ‘vote-a-rama’ amendments

Roll Call: Senate Democrats stuck together and mostly voted against amendments to their tax, climate and health care package, while using a procedural maneuver to allow their vulnerable incumbents to vote for some that could score political points without actually making any changes to the bill [including on immigration].

The secret history of the U.S. government’s family-separation policy

The Atlantic: Over the past year and a half, [the Atlantic] has conducted more than 150 interviews and reviewed thousands of pages of internal government documents, some of which were turned over only after a multiyear lawsuit… The policy’s worst outcomes were all anticipated, and repeated internal and external warnings were ignored.

Talk of ‘invasion’ moves from the fringe to the mainstream of GOP immigration message

NPR: In Republican primary races this year, few issues have come up more in TV ads than immigration. And one word in particular stands out: invasion.

New York City works to make space for rapidly rising number of asylum-seekers

NPR: On Monday, New York Mayor Eric Adams announced a round of emergency contracts with local agencies and organizations to allow the city to respond to an increasing number of asylum-seekers entering the city’s homeless shelter system. See also Pentagon denies DC request for National Guard migrant help.

Border Patrol Agents Are Trashing Sikh Asylum-Seekers’ Turbans

Intercept: “The turban is sacred.” At least 64 Sikh men have had their headwear confiscated and discarded by Yuma’s Border Patrol.

Immigrant Rights Advocates Push Cook County To Find Out If ICE Is Using Data Brokers To Skirt Sanctuary City Ordinances

Block Club: Cook County Commissioner Alma Anaya and several immigrant rights organizations held a public hearing last week in which the county’s Legislation and Intergovernmental Relations Committee heard testimony from experts about how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses data from companies like LexisNexis.

The Officer of the Future: Facial Recognition and the Border-Industrial Complex

Border Chron: Facial recognition has become the primary biometric technology for CBP. Everyone who enters the country has their picture taken, though supposedly people can opt out (that often isn’t obvious, thanks to a lack of signage; I cross the border constantly and have never seen anything about opting out). The surveillance technology has also been deployed at 32 airports for people exiting the country. CBP partners with airports and airlines to add another layer to this private-public nexus.

Fact Check: Immigrants are not getting Social Security numbers at the U.S. border

AP: Lara Logan, a former Fox Nation host, recently claimed that U.S. Border Patrol agents are distributing Social Security numbers to immigrants at the border. A video of her comments has circulated widely across social media platforms… No such thing is happening, Rhonda Lawson, a spokesperson for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, told the AP in an email.

NYC Attorney Carlos Moreno Imprisoned For Immigration Fraud

NYCaribNews: Between September 2017 – when Moreno was suspended from the bar – and late September 2018, Moreno took on new clients, practiced law, and gave legal advice to scores of undocumented immigrants. In some instances, even predating his suspension, Moreno defrauded clients by falsely claiming that undocumented immigrants who have resided in the United States for over a decade could secure legal status, a fraud known as the “10-Year Green Card Scam.”

DHS Watchdog Reports Understaffing At Afghan ‘Safe Havens’

Law360: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s internal watchdog reported worker shortages at the military sites that provided a temporary refuge to Afghan evacuees, saying the understaffing left officials concerned they couldn’t properly meet Afghan nationals’ needs.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

Supreme Court certifies ruling ending Trump border policy

AP: The two-word docket entry read “judgment issued” to record that justices voted 5-4 in a ruling issued June 30 that the administration could scrap the “Remain in Mexico” policy, overruling a lower court that forced the policy to be reinstated in December.

Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022)

BIA: A respondent who has made a timely objection to a noncompliant notice to appear is not generally required to show he or she was prejudiced by missing time or place information. An Immigration Judge may allow the Department Homeland Security to remedy a noncompliant notice to appear without ordering the termination of removal proceedings [Note: Except in CA7, pursuant to Arreola-Ochoa].

3rd Circ. Upholds Deportation Of Surgeon In $3M Tax Scheme

Law360: A Swedish plastic surgeon who served prison time for a $3 million tax evasion scheme should not be allowed back into the U.S., the Third Circuit ruled Thursday.

4th Circ. Says Death Threat Is Persecution In Asylum Case

Law360: The Fourth Circuit gave a Salvadoran woman and her son a second chance at their asylum application, holding that an immigration judge didn’t give enough weight to her claim of death threats on the basis of religion.

CA9 On Cancellation, Pre-Trial Detention: Troncoso-Oviedo V. Garland

LexisNexis: Pretrial detention not credited toward a sentence is not “confinement, as a result of conviction” under § 1101(f)(7).

9th Circ. Won’t Stop Man’s Removal Based On 1997 Conviction

Law360: The Ninth Circuit rejected a Mexico native’s bid to reopen his removal proceedings on grounds that his 1997 conviction was modified, saying none of the circumstances allowing the challenge of a removal applied to him.

Immigration Enforcement Can’t Block Grants, 9th Circ. Rules

Law360: The Ninth Circuit ruled that federal funds for criminal justice programs can’t be withheld from states and counties that don’t enforce immigration laws, upholding lower court decisions that found the denial an overreach of the U.S. Department of Justice’s authority.

11th Circ. OKs Deportation Of Chilean Convicted Of ‘Whatever’

Law360: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Tuesday a deportation order against a Chilean green card holder who pled guilty to violating a Florida law criminalizing child neglect, while acknowledging that the trial court’s record of the conviction was “hopelessly opaque” and included the state judge specifying the criminal offense was for “whatever.”

Travel Ban Waiver Lawsuit Victory: Emami V. Mayorkas

LexisNexis: Drawing all inferences and viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the Court finds that plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the waiver implementation guidance was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.

NY Judge Declines Relief For DACA Hopefuls In ‘Limbo’

Law360: A New York federal judge refused to modify an order resuming acceptance of new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals applications, saying clarification sought following a Texas judge’s barring new approvals was actually a request for additional relief.

Russian Denied Resident Status Over Cannabis-Related Work

Law360: A California federal judge has affirmed a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decision to deny a Russian national permanent resident status, ruling that by installing and maintaining a security camera system for a cannabis grower, the person had participated in the trafficking of a Schedule I drug.

Pa. Judge Says USCIS Must Redo Spousal Petition After Delay

Law360: A Pennsylvania judge ordered U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to reconsider a man’s petition for his Turkish wife’s green card, saying the agency’s unreasonable delay in denying the petition unfairly hampered the couple’s ability to address the agency’s concerns.

Biden Ordered To Revisit Visa Apps Nixed In Trump Travel Ban

Law360: A California federal judge ordered the Biden administration to revisit the tens of thousands of visa applications that were denied under Trump-era travel restrictions, finding that targeted foreigners were still bruised from the travel ban, long after its revocation.

USCIS Issuing Updated I-797C for Certain Operation Allies Welcome Parolees

USCIS: Certain EADs with a validity period of less than 2 years are now being automatically extended to align with the parole period shown on the beneficiary’s Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record.

USCIS Issues Policy Guidance on Uncharacterized Military Discharges Eligible for Naturalization

AILA: USCIS issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to address the eligibility of military service members with uncharacterized military discharges for purposes for naturalization under section 328 or section 329 of the INA. Comments are due by 9/2/22.

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges

EOIR: [EOIR] announced the appointment of 19 immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

EOIR Warns of Scammers Spoofing Agency Phone Number

EOIR: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced it has recently been notified of phone calls that spoof the Arlington Immigration Court as part of a misinformation campaign. The callers will often “spoof,” or fake, the immigration court’s main line, 703-305-1300, so the calls appear to be coming from EOIR on the recipient’s caller ID.

RESOURCES

AILA: USCIS Lockbox Updates (Updated 8/3/22)

AILA: Find Resources for Assisting Afghan Clients (Updated 8/2/22)

CLINIC: All About Parole Practice Advisory

CLINIC: Age-Out Rules for Afghan SIV Derivative Children

USCIS: Afghan Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) Parolee Asylum-Related Frequently Asked Questions

EVENTS

8/10/22 Preparing Criminal Waivers of Inadmissibility

8/10/22-8/11/22 2022 AILA Paralegals Virtual Conference

8/12/22 TPS Beneficiaries and Authorized Travel Following the Rescission of Matter of Z-R-Z-C-

8/16/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/16/22 The Child Status Protection Act: Strategies for Keeping the Family Intact

8/17/22 ASISTA Inadmissibility Webinar Series: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT): Impact on Immigrant Survivors

8/23/22 Preparing Solid Affidavits of Support: “Show Me the Money!”

8/23/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/24/22 Seeking Prosecutorial Discretion Post Texas v. United States

8/30/22 Naturalization During the Pandemic: “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”

8/31/22 What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

8/31/22 Building Your Pro Bono Program

9/1/22 For Immigration Practitioners: Understanding Referrals & Resources for Low-Income Clients

9/8/22-9/29/22 Webinar Series: Dealing With Denials

9/8/22 Post-Conviction Relief: “If I Could Turn Back Time!”

9/8/22 Trial Advocacy Skills – Working with Expert Witnesses in Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Convention Against Torture Claims

9/13/22 PLI: Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2022: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

9/14/22 Representing U Visa Clients with Complex Issue

9/14/22 Partial to Full Accreditation Initiative 2022

9/15/22 Advanced Mandamus Trends

9/20/22 Nonprofit and For-Profit Entity Intersection 2022: Achieving Charitable Goals Through Innovative and Nontraditional Mechanisms

9/21/22 Breaking Down the Record in a Ninth Circuit Petition for Review

9/22/22 Maximizing Second Chances: Filing Appeals, Motions, and Practicing before the BIA

9/29/22 Consular Processing Roundup for Families and Survivors

10/07/22-10/28/22 Understanding and Preparing Waivers

10/29/22 4th Annual NIJC 5k for Immigrant Justice

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Interestingly, none of the “perps” of child abuse by the Trump Administration has been held accountable. By contrast, many of their victims have suffered irreparable harm.

Trump officials provided “explicitly false formation” to intentionally mislead the public about the abusive, racist intent behind their program of intentional misconduct. So, why isn’t this a problem?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-10-22

🏴‍☠️☠️DANA MILBANK @ WASHPOST: THE JIM CROW GOP WAS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY LONG BEFORE TRUMP — Today’s Absurdist & Corrupt GOP Reaction TO DOJ’s Long Overdue Investigation Of Trump’s Treason & Criminality Is The Predictable Result Of Many Years Of Corrupt, Racist, Authoritarianism!

\https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/04/dana-milbank-republican-destructionists-book-excerpt/

. . . .

Much has been made of the ensuing polarization in our politics, and it’s true that moderates are a vanishing breed. But the problem isn’t primarily polarization. The problem is that one of our two major political parties has ceased good-faith participation in the democratic process. Of course, there are instances of violence, disinformation, racism and corruption among Democrats and the political left, but the scale isn’t at all comparable. Only one party fomented a bloody insurrection and even after that voted in large numbers (139 House Republicans, a two-thirds majority) to overturn the will of the voters in the 2020 election. Only one party promotes a web of conspiracy theories in place of facts. Only one party is trying to restrict voting and discredit elections. Only one party is stoking fear of minorities and immigrants.

Admittedly, I’m partisan — not for Democrats but for democrats. Republicans have become an authoritarian faction fighting democracy — and there’s a perfectly logical reason for this: Democracy is working against Republicans. In the eight presidential contests since 1988, the GOP candidate has won a majority of the popular vote only once, in 2004. As the United States approaches majority-minority status (the White population, 76 percent of the country in 1990, is now 58 percent and will drop below 50 percent around 2045), Republicans have become the voice of White people, particularly those without college degrees, who fear the loss of their way of life in a multicultural America. White grievance and White fear drive Republican identity more than any other factor — and in turn drive the tribalism and dysfunction in the U.S. political system.

Other factors sped the party’s turn toward nihilism: Concurrent with the rise of Gingrich was the ascent of conservative talk radio, followed by the triumph of Fox News, followed by the advent of social media. Combined, they created a media environment that allows Republican politicians and their voters to seal themselves in an echo chamber of “alternative facts.” Globally, south-to-north migration has ignited nationalist movements around the world and created a new era of autocrats. The disappearance of the Greatest Generation, tempered by war, brought to power a new generation of culture warriors.

Dana Milbank: In the GOP, the paranoid fringe is becoming the establishment

But the biggest cause is race. The parties re-sorted themselves after the epochal changes of the 1960s, which expanded civil rights, voting rights and immigration. Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” began an appeal to White voters alienated by racial progress, and, in the years that followed, a new generation of Republicans took that racist undertone and made it the melody.

It is crucial to understand that Donald Trump didn’t create this noxious environment. He isn’t some hideous, orange Venus emerging from the half-shell. Rather, he is a brilliant opportunist; he saw the direction the Republican Party was taking and the appetites it was stoking. The onetime pro-choice advocate of universal health care reinvented himself to give Republicans what they wanted. Because Trump is merely a reflection of the sickness in the GOP, the problem won’t go away when he does.

. . . .

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

Read the full excerpt from “The Destructionists: The Twenty-Five Year Crack-Up of the Republican Party” by Dana Milbank at the link.

As I noted in yesterday’s post, racially charged lies, myths, knowingly false narratives, and bogus attempts to tie migrants to all the ills of society are a key part of the GOP’s toxic narrative! The continuing campaign of hate and misinformation began with immigrants — but as this article suggests, it won’t end until either the GOP is thrown out of office at all levels or our nation’s constitutional structure and democratic republic are in tatters!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-09-22

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏽‍⚖️🗽🗽🇺🇸 GARLAND’S LATEST IMMIGRATION JUDGE APPOINTMENTS SHOW QUALITY, DIVERSITY! — Noted “Practical Scholars” Hoffman, Racine, Haer Join The Bench As “Balance” Between Gov. & Private Sector Appointments Improves Significantly!

Here’s the list of the 19 newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judges: https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMjA4MDUuNjE4NDgwNTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xNTI0MzM2L2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.9Wv3WdIlGNb8WuNMytym1WmPC51-32QHaSCK76FgdYo/s/842922301/br/142150174324-l

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR

Aug. 5, 2022

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of 19 immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

EOIR continues to work to expand its immigration judge corps and welcomes qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join the agency. In addition to making a difference through service to our Nation, immigration judges join a diverse and inclusive workforce. Individuals interested in these critical positions are invited to sign up for job alerts that are sent when new opportunities become available.

After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Tanisha L. Bowens-McCatty, Michael P. Davis, James T. Dehn, Julia E. Egy, Ashley Gadson-Andrews, Amy F. Haer, Robert J. Herrington, Geoffrey A. Hoffman, Maria L. Jaimes-Salgado, Christina M. Jimenez, Christopher M. Kozoll, Nicole A. Lane, Francis M. Mwangi, Alex D. Perez, Xavier F. Racine, Raphael G. Rojas, Marc B. Stahl, Michelle M. Venci, and Mary C. Vergona to their new positions.

Biographical information follows:

Tanisha L. Bowens-McCatty, Immigration Judge, Hyattsville Immigration Court

Tanisha L. Bowens-McCatty was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Bowens-McCatty earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of North Florida and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from the Florida State University College of Law. From 2013 to 2021, she worked for the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration in Washington, D.C., serving as the Associate Director (2013-2020) and the Director of Legal Initiatives and Member Engagement (2020-2021). From 2006 to 2011, she worked for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., in Washington, D.C., in the following roles: Senior Project Coordinator for the National Pro Bono Project for Children (2010-2011); Project Coordinator for the Raids Preparedness & Response Project (2008-2010); and Legalization Attorney (2006-2008). From 2004 to 2006, she was a supervising attorney for Catholic Charities Legal Services of the Archdiocese of Miami in Miami and in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Broward County Satellite Office, and from 2003 to 2004 she worked as a staff attorney. From 2001 to

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 2

2003, she was a staff attorney with Americans for Immigrant Justice (formerly the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center) in Miami. Judge Bowens-McCatty is a member of the Florida Bar.

Michael P. Davis, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Michael P. Davis was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Davis earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from John Carroll University and a Juris Doctor in 2000 from the University of Illinois College of Law. From 2016 to 2022, he served as the Executive Deputy Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security. From 2012 to 2016, he served as ICE Deputy Principal Legal Advisor for Enforcement and Litigation. From 2005 to 2012, held the following roles at ICE: Appellate Counsel (2005-2007); Deputy Chief (2007-2009); and Chief of the ICE Immigration Law and Practice Division (2009-2012). From 2003 to 2005, he served as Associate Counsel, Refugee and Asylum Law Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. From 2000 to 2003, he served as an assistant district counsel with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in Los Angeles, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Davis is a member of the State Bar of California.

James T. Dehn, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

James T. Dehn was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Dehn earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from George Mason University, a Master of Arts in 1998 from the Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and a Juris Doctor in 1998 from the Syracuse College of Law. From 2020 to 2022, he served as the Chief Appellate Counsel at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Washington, D.C. From 2019 to 2020, he served as an attorney advisor at the Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in Washington, D.C. From 2005 to 2019, he served as an attorney advisor at the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, in Washington, D.C. Also, from 2007 to 2011, he served as a government appellate counsel, and from 2002 to 2006, as a trial defense counsel, in the U.S. Army Reserve, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, National Capital Region. From 2000 to 2005, he served as an attorney advisor at the Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, in Washington, D.C. From 1998 to 1999, he was an associate attorney at Whelan, DeMaio & Kiszkiel PA, in Miami. Judge Dehn is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Julia E. Egy, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Julia E. Egy was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Egy earned a Bachelor of Journalism in 1997 from the University of Missouri-Columbia and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from American University Washington College of Law. From 2014 to 2022, she served as a senior panel attorney with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Executive Office for Immigration Review. From 2012 to 2014, she served as a supervisory attorney, and from 2004 to 2012, as an attorney advisor, with the BIA. From 2003 to 2004, she was in private practice. From 2002 to 2003, she served as a judicial law clerk for the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and York immigration courts. Judge Egy is a member of the Missouri Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 3

Ashley Gadson-Andrews, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles – Olive Street Immigration Court

Ashley Gadson-Andrews was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Gadson-Andrews earned a Bachelor of Science in 2008 from the University of Arizona – Eller College of Management and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. From 2013 to 2022, she served as a deputy district attorney at the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. From 2012 to 2013, she was a trial attorney with the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers at Edelman Children’s Court in Monterey Park, California. Judge Gadson-Andrews is a member of the State Bar of California.

Amy F. Haer, Immigration Judge, Atlanta – W. Peachtree Street Immigration Court

Amy F. Haer was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Haer earned a Bachelor of Science in 2003 from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the George Washington University Law School. From 2017 to 2022, she was the Director of Immigration Legal Services at Catholic Charities Atlanta. From 2015 to 2017, she was the Associate Director for Immigration and Refugee Services at Catholic Community Services – Tucson (CCS-T). From 2012 to 2015, she was the Program Director for the Immigrant Survivors Legal Assistance Program at CCS-T. From 2008 to 2012, she was a staff attorney with Catholic Charities Atlanta. Judge Haer is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.

Robert J. Herrington, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles – Olive Street Immigration Court

Robert J. Herrington was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Herrington earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1975 from the University of Southwestern Louisiana and a Juris Doctor in 1985 from the LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center. From 2005 to 2022, he was a criminal defense lawyer in Plano, Texas. From 1998 to 2005, he served as an assistant federal public defender at the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Dallas. From 1996 to 1997, he was a general practitioner in Dallas. From 1991 to 1995, he served as a staff attorney at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and then at the Resolution Trust Corporation. From 1988 to 1991, he served as a law clerk to the U.S Bankruptcy Court. From 1985 to 1988, he was an immigration lawyer in private practice. Judge Herrington is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Geoffrey A. Hoffman, Immigration Judge, Houston – S. Gessner Road Immigration Court

Geoffrey A. Hoffman was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Hoffman earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from Columbia College, Columbia University, a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Tulane Law School, and a Master of Laws in 2004 from Harvard Law School. From 2009 to 2022, he served as Director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Houston Law Center. From 2004 to 2009, he practiced immigration law at Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, and Tetzeli PA in Miami. From 1998 to 2000, Judge Hoffman served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Paul V. Gadola U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Hoffman is a member of the Florida Bar and the State Bar of Michigan.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 4

Maria L. Jaimes-Salgado, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Maria L. Jaimes-Salgado was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Jaimes-Salgado earned a Bachelor of Science in 2006 from the University of Houston-Downtown and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Texas South University Thurgood Marshall School of Law. From 2021 to 2022, she was an associate attorney with the Law Office of Velia E. Rosas PLLC in Houston. From 2019 to 2022, she was in private practice in Houston. From 2012 to 2019, she was managing attorney, and from 2009 to 2012, she was an associate attorney, at the Law Office of Isaias Torres PC in Houston. Judge Jaimes-Salgado is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Christina M. Jimenez, Immigration Judge, Arlington Immigration Court

Christina M. Jimenez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Jimenez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of Washington and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Boston University. From 2002 to 2022, she served as an attorney and a trial judge with the U.S. Air Force in the following locations: Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom; Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea; Kadena Air Base, Japan; Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.; Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea; Lajes Field, Azores, Portugal; Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; and Travis Air Force Base, California. In 2022, she retired as a colonel from the U.S. Air Force, having last served as the Chief Circuit Military Judge for the Western Circuit. Judge Jimenez is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.

Chris M. Kozoll, Immigration Judge, Memphis Immigration Court

Chris M. Kozoll was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Kozoll earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1993 from the University of Notre Dame, a Master of Arts in 2000 from Gonzaga University, and a Juris Doctor in 2004 from the University of Colorado School of Law. From 2010 to 2022, he was a partner at Kozoll & Associates Immigration Law PLLC. From 2007 to 2010, he served as an associate attorney with the Law Office of Dennis M. Clare PSC. In 2007, he was a contract attorney at Lichter Associates PC. From 2004 to 2007, he worked as an associate attorney with the Joseph Law Firm PC. Judge Kozoll is a member of the Kentucky Bar.

Nicole A. Lane, Immigration Judge, Newark Immigration Court

Nicole A. Lane was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Lane earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from the State University of New York at Albany and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from the George Washington University Law School. From 2018 to 2022, she served as an assistant director at the New York State Adjudication Services Office. From 2012 to 2018, she served as a senior Administrative Law Judge, and from 2008 to 2012, she served as an Administrative Law Judge at the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. From 2005 to 2008, she was a director of public affairs at New York City Health and Hospitals in Harlem, New York, and worked as a public policy analyst prior to that. Judge Lane is a member of the New Jersey State Bar and New York State Bar, and is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 5

Francis M. Mwangi, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center

Francis M. Mwangi was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Mwangi earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from Kenyatta University in Nairobi, Kenya, a Juris Doctor in 1997 from the West Virginia University College of Law, and a Master of Laws in 2011 from the University of Houston Law Center. From 2019 to 2022, he was an attorney supervisor, and from 2016 to 2019, a staff attorney, in the Legal Services Section at State Counsel for Offenders, Texas Board of Criminal Justice. From 2003 to 2016, he was in private immigration practice in Maryland and Texas. From 1997 to 2003, he was an associate with the immigration law firm of Blaine L. Gilbert & Associates in Baltimore. Judge Mwangi is a member of the Maryland State Bar, State Bar of Texas, and West Virginia State Bar.

Alex D. Perez, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Alex D. Perez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Perez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2006 from Northwestern University and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from the University of Houston Law Center. From 2019 to 2022, he served as a deputy chief counsel, and from 2010 to 2019, as an assistant chief counsel, with the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security in Houston. From 2009 to 2010, he worked in private practice in Houston. Judge Perez is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Xavier F. Racine, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Xavier F. Racine was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Racine earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1998 from Boston College and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Suffolk University Law School. From 2014 to 2021, he was a partner at Priale & Racine PLC. From 2008 to 2014, he was a partner at Marks Calderon Derwin & Racine PLC. From 2002 to 2008, he was a senior associate at Montagut & Sobral PC. From 2001 to 2002, he was an associate with Jaime Aparisi & Associates LLC. Judge Racine is a member of the Massachusetts Bar, as well as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Raphael G. Rojas, Immigration Judge, Orlando Immigration Court

Raphael G. Rojas was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Rojas earned a Bachelor of Science in 1990 from Long Island University at C.W. Post Campus, a Juris Doctor in 1994 from the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico School of Law, and a Master of Laws in Health Law in 1996 from Loyola University Chicago School of Law. From 2008 to 2022, he served as Superior Judge at the Judicial Branch of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. From 2006 to 2008, he was in private practice in Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2006, he served as Municipal Judge at the Judicial Branch of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. From 1995 to 2000, he was in private practice in Puerto Rico. Judge Rojas is a member of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 6

Marc B. Stahl, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Marc B. Stahl was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Stahl earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1988 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctor in 1991 from the University of Chicago Law School. From 1991 to 2021, he served as an assistant public defender in the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender in Chicago, and from 2016 to 2021, he was the Chief of the Felony Trial Division. From January to July 2022, he was in private practice. Judge Stahl is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Michelle M. Venci, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Michelle M. Venci was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Venci earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of Notre Dame and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Chicago-Kent College of Law. From 2010 to 2022, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From 2007 to 2010, she served as an assistant chief counsel, OPLA, ICE in Orlando, Florida. From 2002 to 2007, she served as an Assistant State’s Attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office in Chicago. Judge Venci is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Mary Catherine Vergona, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Mary Catherine Vergona was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Vergona earned a Bachelor of Science in 1987 from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, a Juris Doctor in 1997 from The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, and a Master of Laws in Military Law in 2005 from The Judge Advocate’s General Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. From 1998 to 2022, Judge Vergona served as a Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Army, culminating with her serving as a Circuit Judge from 2019 to 2022 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Judge Vergona is a member of the Virginia State Bar.

— EOIR —

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

Congrats to all! Looks like a well-qualified group with a big job ahead of them. For me, personally, three names particularly stand out.

Professor Geoffrey Hoffman — Judge Geoffrey Hoffman, Houston Immigraton Court

Judge Geoffrey Hoffman of the Houston (S. Gessner Rd.) Immigration Court was most recently the Director of the Immigration Clinic at Houston Law and a noted immigraton litigator and universally respected scholar whose work I have cited and published on Courtside.

Judge Xavier Racine of the Sterling (VA) Immigration Court is an outstanding practitioner who appeared many times before me at Arlington. I also particularly remember that he generously shared his time and expertise with our JLCs and summer interns as a frequent participant in our Brown Bag Lunch Series on “Careers in Immigration.”

Judge Amy F. Haer of the Atlanta (W. Peachtree) Immigration Court was most recently Director of Immigration Services for Catholic Legal Services of Atlanta. A graduate of GW Law, she is an alum of the GW Immigration Clinic headed by my good friend and neighbor in Alexandria, Professor Alberto Benitez. Professor Benitez wrote to me earlier on Friday about his pride in Judge Haer’s achievements and how honored he was to be able to attend her investiture by Zoom. Professor Benitez informs me that Judge Haer is the third of his clinic students to be elevated to the Immigration Bench! Way to go in training the “next generation” of the NDPA!

EOIR needs change! Big time! Lives depend upon it, as does the future of our legal system, now staggering under the load of far too many “ivory tower right wing ideologue jurists” at all levels who have lost sight of the serious scholarship, humanity, and practicality with which the law must be interpreted and applied. Justice without mercy isn’t justice at all, something that the Supremes’ GOP majority needs to be “schooled” on! To the extent that change starts at the “retail level” of EOIR, the latest selections represent progress.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-06-22

☠️⚰️🏴‍☠️ TITLE 42 CAUSES DEATH @ THE BORDER: Rachel Monroe @ The New Yorker Sums Up The Jim Crow Cruelty, Stupidity, & Futility Of Title 42 In One Paragraph! — Title 42 “has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places.”

https://apple.news/AX5E8qIWlQYOauANHEV2g3w

. . . .

Between 2015 and 2020, about fifty bodies were recovered each year in Brooks County, according to an S.T.H.R.C. report. Then came Title 42, a policy enacted by the Trump Administration at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that closed ports of entry and blocked most avenues for asylum claims, ostensibly for public-health reasons. The policy, which is still in place in a modified form, has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places. “Before Title 42, the calls we got used to be, like, eighty-per-cent apprehended, twenty-per-cent missing,” Canales said. “Now it’s flipped—it’s more like twenty-per-cent apprehended, eighty-per-cent missing.” So far this year, there have been nearly seventy recoveries of remains in Brooks County, putting 2022 on track to be the deadliest year on record.

. . . .

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

Read Rachel’s entire report, directly from the border, at the link.

So, before the Trump Administration’s bogus, racist “invocation” of Title 42, 80% of migrants came to the border or were easily apprehended close thereto — most probably because they turned themselves in to seek asylum through the legal system. And, lets not forget, this was with an already badly broken, fundamentally unfair, asylum legal adjudication system intentionally biased and “loaded” against legitimate refugees seeking protection!

Smart, honest public policy would have improved asylum adjudication at USCIS and at EOIR to quickly recognize and grant, with the assistance of NGOs and legal assistance groups, the many cases of legitimate refugees so that they could take their rightful, legal places in our society.

Additionally, by taking refugees seeking legal determinations “out of the equation,” enforcement against those seeking to evade legal processing — certainly a much, much smaller “universe” than is “out there now” — would have been enhanced. Business would have declined for smugglers, as those seeking protection would have been motivated to use a humane, fair, functioning legal system rather than being forced into “do it yourself” refuge!

You don’t have a genius to figure this out — just not be motivated solely by racism like Stephen Miller and his Trump regime cronies! Better qualified — non-Jim Crow righty — Federal Judges would also produce more humane, honest, and rational results.

Additionally, by running a legitimate asylum system, and complementing it with an honest, robust, legal refugee system for Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, we would finally have sound data on how many of those seeking to enter at the Southern Border are entitled to immigrate as legal refugees and how many are non-refugees. That’s something on which we now have no reliable information — just myths and anecdotes, many provided by racist restrictionists and nativists with neither expertise in asylum law nor any real interest in the rule of law at the border.

As a result of Title 42, and the unqualified “Jim Crow” Federal Judges, GOP nativist AGs, and their apologists (including some in the media who repeat or republish, without critical examination, GOP racist lies about the border), we now have a deadlier than ever border; the legal immigration system at the border has been functionally abolished and replaced with an underground, extralegal system; the U.S. Government has ceded control of border migration policy to cartels and smugglers; and the job of the Border Patrol — forced to spend time apprehending legal refugees who seek only the protection to which they are legally entitled — has become impossible.

That’s what happens when we let GOP nativist pols, overt racists, and bad, right wing Federal Judges take over the immigration policies that were actually enacted by Congress — a key part of which are legitimate refugee and asylum systems and a fair, functioning, expert Immigration Court. Right now, we have NONE of the foregoing. And, innocent migrants at the border are too often paying the price — with their lives!

Border Death — This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border.
Tomas Castelazo
To comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

“Enforcing the law” does NOT mean unfairly, unwisely, and illegally abrogating the legal asylum system and fair adjudications in Immigration Court at the border. It means fixing the legal asylum system including USCIS Asylum Offices. Perhaps most of all, it means reforming and replacing where necessary the broken, dysfunctional, leaderless, and non-expert Immigration Courts and a BIA that continues to misinterpret asylum and protection laws on a daily basis. We need a BIA of real judges with the expertise and guts to establish fair, humane, correct, positive precedents and to rein in or remove from asylum cases those Immigration Judges who are “programmed to reject, not protect!”

I, along with many others, watched the Brittney Griner travesty unfold. I saw the irony. President Biden was rightfully blasting the outrageous “kangaroo court” show trial that passes for justice in Russia. But, at the same time, he, Harris, and Garland are basically running a farcical “Russian style” dysfunctional immigrant “justice” system at EOIR and calling it a “court!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

PWS

08-05-22

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Nolan sends this summary of his latest on The Hill:

Afghans who helped us deserve better immigration treatment

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the announcement from GW Law:

Here’s Cori’s full bio from the GW Law website:

Cori Alonso-Yoder

Education

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s a report from Nate Raymond @ Reuters:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Key quote:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Rest In Peace, our friend and colleague.🗽⚖️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

Related posts: