"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
They raped women, burned homes and killed dozens of people, including children, chopping up their bodies with machetes and throwing their remains to pigs.The gruesome massacre three years ago, considered the worst in Haiti in decades, was more than the work of rival gangs fighting over territory. It was organized by senior Haitian officials, who provided weapons and vehicles to gang members to punish people in a poor area protesting government corruption, the U.S. Treasury Department announced last year.
Since then, Haiti’s gang members have grown so strong that they rule swaths of the country. The most notorious of them, a former police officer named Jimmy Cherizier, known as Barbecue, fashions himself as a political leader, holding news conferences, leading marches and, this week, even parading around as a replacement for the prime minister in the violent capital.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of this gruesome, yet telling, report at the link.
Over 21 years on the Immigration Bench as both a trial and appellate judge, I adjudicated thousands of asylum claims. The circumstances described on this article undoubtedly would give rise to many potentially valid asylum and withholding claims, based on actual or implied political opinion and/or family or gender-based “particular social groups” and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) grants based on torture with government acquiescence or actual connivance!
So, how do Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, and Garland, who to my knowledge have never represented an asylum applicant or adjudicated an individual asylum case among them, “get away” with simply suspending the rule of law, under false pretenses, for those entitled to seek asylum?
Stephen Miller must be on “Cloud Nine” as Biden & Co. carry out his White Nationalist plans to eradicate asylum, particularly when it protects women and people of color! This is even as Miller and his neo-Nazi cohorts (a/k/a “America First Legal”) are gearing up to sue the Biden Administration to block every measure that might aid immigrants, particularly those of color.
He’s delighted with Biden’s abuse of asylum seekers of color! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
NGOs don’t share the Biden Administration’s vision of what a “safe” Haiti looks like. Neither do kidnapped American missionaries! PHOTO: Marcelo Casal, Jr., Creative Commons License
Angering and alienating your potential allies and supporters to aid the far-right program of your enemies who are determined to do whatever it takes to undermine, discredit, and destroy your Presidency! Obviously, I’m no political expert. But, sure sounds like an incredibly stupid, “designed to fail” strategy to me!
It has been said that Immigration Judges hear death penalty cases under traffic court conditions.1 The death penalty cases are of course asylum claims, which, if wrongly denied, can result in the applicant being returned to their death.
The Biden Administration recently published proposed regulations seeking to revise the system for hearing the asylum claims of those arriving at the southern border. Any positives envisioned in the proposal are greatly outweighed by the damage the rules will do to the right to immigration court review. If enacted as drafted, traffic court conditions would be far preferable to the meager access to review that would remain for many asylum seekers.
To provide some context: presently, arriving asylum seekers who after screening by USCIS asylum officers are found to have established a sufficient risk of harm proceed directly to Immigration Court, where they have a full hearing on their claim before an Immigration Judge. In those proceedings, asylum seekers may freely submit documents, call witnesses, and elicit testimony.
This was as Congress intended it. In creating the present credible fear screening system in 1996, Congress made clear that those passing the screening, in the words of then Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), “will be provided a full – full – asylum hearing.”2 This sentiment was echoed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated that those who establish credible fear “get a full hearing without any question,”3 and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who emphasized that those with a credible fear of persecution “can go through the normal process of establishing their claim.”4
Under the proposal, those who pass the preliminary screening (known as a credible fear interview) will instead have their full asylum claim heard by an asylum officer. This could be a positive development if the rules continued to assure the right to a full court proceeding to those not granted at this initial stage.
Unfortunately, the proposed rules would reduce Immigration Judges to reviewers of transcripts of the asylum office interviews. Additional evidence (including testimony) that was not provided at the Asylum Office will only be allowed if deemed to be “non-duplicative” and necessary to complete the record. If an Immigration Judge determines that the applicant (who may not have been represented by a lawyer) provided sufficient evidence to the asylum officer, the claim may be decided entirely on the record from that initial non-court interview.
It bears noting that the Immigration Judges making these determinations remain subject to the completion quotas imposed under the prior administration. While Immigration Judges must be guided by the requirements of due process and fairness in making such decisions, it would be remiss not to point out that for newly hired judges still on probation, the ability to exclude new evidence and essentially rubber stamp the asylum officer’s decision offers the prospect of a very quick completion for quota purposes. Judges should not be put in the position of choosing between the dictates of justice and their own job security.
As the drafters of the proposed rules are well aware, Immigration Judges have long decided cases that were first heard by Asylum Officers. The outcomes of those cases offer strong reason to question the logic of what is now being proposed. EOIR’s Statistical Yearbook for 2016 (the last year such stats were made available) shows that 83% of cases referred by asylum officers were granted asylum that year by Immigration Judges conducting de novo hearings.5
Having heard referred cases as an Immigration Judge, as well as having represented asylum applicants at the Asylum Office, I have no doubt that the right to a full de novo court hearing, in which attorneys are free to offer documents, briefs, and present testimony as they see fit, is the reason for that large disparity. The current system itself recognizes this; it is why Asylum Officers are limited to granting clearly meritorious cases, and must refer the rest to courts better equipped to delve into the intricacies of a highly complex field of law. Immigration Judges also enjoy greater decisional independence than asylum officers, who require supervisory approval of their decisions,6 are more susceptible to political pressure, and are more limited in the legal theories they may rely on.
As to the criteria for supplementing the record, whether evidence is duplicative or necessary is a fuzzy concept. For example, the law accords greater deference to government sources, such as State Department reports, and at times, Immigration Judges may find other evidence deserving of “little evidentiary weight.” Thus, sometimes duplicative evidence is necessary to persuade a judge who may otherwise not be sufficiently swayed by a single report. But that need might not become apparent until the hearing is concluded, whereas decisions to exclude additional testimony and documentary evidence are made much earlier, at the outset of the proceeding.
There are constitutional considerations as well. In a 2013 decision, Oshodi v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that limiting an asylum seeker’s testimony to events that were not duplicative of the written application, on the belief that the written record would suffice for deciding veracity, was a violation of the asylum seeker’s due process rights. Yet the proposed regulations seek to codify what according to Oshodi the Constitution specifically forbids. The court in Oshodi stated that “the importance of live testimony to a credibility determination is well-recognized and longstanding.” Having heard live testimony as a judge, I can vouch for this. I decided many cases in which an in person demeanor observation was instrumental to my credibility finding.
I will also state from experience that critical “Eureka” moments arise unexpectedly in the course of hearing testimony. A question from counsel, or sometimes from the judge, will elicit an answer that unexpectedly gives rise to a new line of questioning, or even a legal theory of the case. An example is found in last year’s Second Circuit decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. In that case, the Second Circuit found that a woman’s act of resisting rape by an MS-13 gang member could constitute a political opinion based on one sentence not contained in the written application, and uttered for the first time at the immigration court hearing: when asked why she resisted, the petitioner responded: “Because I had every right to.” From that single sentence, the Second Circuit found that the resistance transcended mere self-protection and took on a political dimension. Under the proposed rules, the attorney would likely never have been able to ask the question that elicited the critical answer. At asylum office interviews, attorneys are relegated to sitting in the corner and quietly taking notes. Furthermore, I have been told by former asylum officers that the concept of imputed political opinion was not available to them as a basis for granting asylum, a fact that pretty much guarantees it will not be covered in an asylum office interview.
The proposed limitations on Immigration Judge review are not necessary to increase efficiency. Whatever cases asylum officers grant pursuant to their new up front review will significantly reduce the Immigration Court case load. And even an imperfect transcript from those interviews in claims referred to the court will provide attorneys for both sides the opportunity for advance conferencing to narrow down the issues in dispute, a practice which significantly reduces hearing times and which should be greatly encouraged.
According to the website of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, at a traffic court hearing, “you or your attorney may ask the officer questions. You may testify, bring witnesses or present evidence on your behalf.”7 The Biden Administration cannot provide less rights than these to those facing the life and death consequences inherent in asylum claims.
Those interested may submit their comments on the new regs by October 19.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See EOIR FY 2016 Statistics Yearbook, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download, at p. K-3. Figure 17 is a chart showing the Immigration Court grant rate of affirmative cases referred by the USCIS Asylum Offices. The chart shows a grant rate of 72% in FY 2012, steadily increasing each year to 83% in FY 2016.
Per the USCIS website: A supervisory asylum officer reviews the asylum officer’s decision to ensure it is consistent with the law. Depending on the case, the supervisory asylum officer may refer the decision to asylum division staff at USCIS headquarters for additional review. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/the-affirmative-asylum-process. Immigration Judges require no supervisory review before rendering their decisions.
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
REPUBLISHED BY PERMISSION
******************************
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey!”
Like many of our colleagues, I granted the majority of “referred” asylum cases, most without ICE appeal. It wasn’t that the Asylum Office did a bad job. The records were often poor or incomplete (as too many individuals attempted to represent themselves at the AO). With the additional information and elucidation from counsel provided at a full hearing, the merits of the case came into focus.
There were a few cases where the parties stipulated to the record before the AO, and just asked me for a legal ruling. This procedure would be available in appropriate cases, without any regulations changes, and should be encouraged for the parties, particularly ICE. Obviously, the key is that both parties must agree that the record before the AO was adequate.
Additionally, at the time, the AO could not grant withholding or CAT, so an inordinate number of one-year filling denial cases were in the referrals. As Jeffrey suggests, this could be fixed without eliminating the right to a full hearing upon referral.
Also, as I have said many times, instituting a new system that reduces the right to a full hearing, without first making badly needed major structural, personnel, training, and leadership changes at both the AO and EOIR is simply insane and another serious breach of trust by the Biden Administration!
So far, defending this guy and his cruel policies is about the only thing that Judge Garland has done well at a DOJ that continues to treat “justice” for migrants of color as a joke! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.comUnlike Miller, the “losers” under Garland’s unconscionable policies often aren’t in a position to complain — at least in this world! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
On Thursday, a federal appeals court allowed the continued use of the Title 42 policy, pushed initially through the previous administration by Stephen Miller, that’s used the novel coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to quickly deport asylum-seekers, including thousands of Haitians who have arrived at the southern border in search of help.
The Biden administration was set to be blocked from using the policy against families, following a federal judge’s order earlier this month. That lower court order was set to go into effect Thursday. But the policy was saved by the Biden administration, which had shockingly appealed the lower court’s decision. To be clear, the administration could have let the lower court decision stand. But it decided to protect this scientifically unsound order for continued use.
“It’s troubling to see the court grant the government’s motion to reinstate Title 42 just days after the district court ruled that its policy violates U.S. law,” Oxfam America global policy lead Noah Gottschalk told NBC News. The group is among the organizations that have led lawsuits against the policy. “We all saw the horrific images of the abuse faced by Haitian asylum-seekers subjected to Title 42, and we cannot allow people to face further harm because of this xenophobic policy.”
Department of Homeland Security Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas has claimed it is continuing Title 42 “out of a public health need.” Meanwhile, White House Press Sec. Jen Psaki has defended the policy as “a public health requirement.” That’s complete bullshit. “Vice President Mike Pence in March directed the nation’s top disease control agency to use its emergency powers to effectively seal the U.S. borders, overruling the agency’s scientists who said there was no evidence the action would slow the coronavirus,” The Associated Press (AP) reported last October.
The previous administration got its way by twisting arms. There was no science involved, only anti-immigrant and anti-asylum animus. “That was a Stephen Miller special. He was all over that,” a former Pence aide told the AP.
And, as vaccines have become readily available, the supposed rationale to keep Title 42 in place has only gotten more flimsy. If this is truly all about public health, why not rescind the policy and offer families the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine? “Let me also remind the Biden administration that over 300,000 people cross the border from Mexico every day through ports of entry,” American Immigration Council Policy Counsel Aaron Reichlin-Melnick tweeted in July. “None are given COVID tests, unlike migrants who all get tested and nearly all get vaccinated.”
. . . .
************************
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color — Progressive human rights experts and migrants of color haven’t been welcome at Garland’s DOJ “Happy Hours” where Stephen Miller’s policies, his judicial appointments, and his dysfunctional “star chamber” immigration courts are celebrated, defended, and even “enhanced!”
Read more about this legal, moral, and political travesty perpetrated by the Biden Administration with Garland’s support at the link.
When it comes to things like defending ending the reprehensible “killer-program” known as “Remain in Mexico” or protecting the DACA program, Garland’s litigation team has fared poorly.
They also have drawn raised eyebrows, even if not yet any ethical complaints, from Article III Judges for their questionable representations and disingenuous defense of wrongfully issued BIA final orders of removal.
Perhaps, part the problem is that after four years of “anything goes” often misleading, sometimes downright dishonest, defense of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist xenophobic, often misogynistic, dehumanizing agenda, their hearts aren’t in it. The other glaring problem is the obvious lack of commitment to progressive humanitarian values, due process for all, and “cleaning house” at a broken and dysfunctional DOJ that has been shown by Garland.
Obviously, Garland’s DOJ lawyers are more at home and more successful when when arguing for intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional dehumanization (or “Dred Scottification”) of “the other,” primarily individuals of color who are the most vulnerable among us.
What a totally disgraceful legacy for a guy that was once just “one Moscow Mitch” away from the Supremes! On the other hand, it now appears that the GOP right wingers wouldn’t have had much to fear from a guy who won’t stand up for liberal American democratic values or even simple human decency! I doubt that he would have presented much threat to the far-right, anti-American agenda!
The Slippery Slope of Systemic Racism in Immigration Law – Del Rio by Carrie Rosenbaum
When Senator Maxine Waters proclaimed that what we witnessed in Del Rio, Texas last week, Customs and Border Protection officers on horseback whipping black men, harkened back to slavery, she drew an age-old, but still relevant connection between slavery, Jim Crow, and anti-immigrant racism. In a press briefing, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated, “[w]e know that those images painfully conjured up the worst elements of our nation’s ongoing battle against systemic racism.” Yet, if both are right, where are our equality, anti-racism principles and why haven’t they been enough to dismantle systemic racism? Should U.S. anti-discrimination law inhibit anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, in the U.S. and at the border? Does it? Is there a slippery slope, such that undeterred discrimination against immigrants at the border seeps beyond the immediate individuals at the border?
Senator Waters was right to blur the boundaries of citizenship and rights in her speech. Racism begets racism, and racism towards black Haitians at the border translates to anti-black racism within the United States, just as anti-Mexican racism does not confine itself to noncitizens, and never has. Examples abound including obvious examples, like Latinx lynching of the late 1840s through 1920s (which coincided with lynching of Blacks), mass expulsion or “repatriation” of persons of Mexican descent that included U.S. citizens in the early 1920s and 1930s again via “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s and more subtle ones like exploitation and expropriation of Mexican and Central American farm workers and laborers, whether authorized or not, and colorblind or race neutral policies that fall most heavily, even if not completely, on persons from Mexico and Central America, like border jails.
While the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not limit itself to citizens, it falls vastly short in protecting racialized people of color, especially immigrants. The U.S. treatment of Haitians in Del Rio implicates the problem of anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, and is indicative of the express and implicit bias that continues to evade remedy. It runs much deeper than the disturbing images of CBP agents on horseback, and its impacts have ripple effects.
At the same time that DHS Secretary Mayorkas decried systemic racism, he spelled out the government’s potential argument that the exclusion of Haitians, and Central Americans, and Mexicans that accompanies such brutal treatment was not discriminatory pursuant to the current state of immigration equal protection. He stated, “if we are able to expel them under Title 42 … we will do so” and announced that its application was “irrespective of the country of origin, irrespective of the race of the individual, irrespective of other criteria that don’t belong in our adjudicative process and we do not permit in our adjudicative process.”
Yet this is precisely how systemic racism flourishes. The reality is, this provision has been used to exclude the same racialized immigrants who have been subject to the worst treatment under immigration law. However, because the law is colorblind, Mayorkas can suggest that there was no discrimination. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1977 Arlington Heights decision, discriminatory impact has to be accompanied by proof of discriminatory intent. Just by saying that wasn’t his (or implying it was not Congress’) intent, he can erase what too many know to be real. A new immigration priorities memo by the Agency released today stated that ““We must ensure that enforcement actions are not discriminatory and do not lead to inequitable outcomes.” It is a step in the right rhetorical direction, but does little to meaningfully address the colorblind racism that plagues enforcement.
What is the solution? Aside from a more expansive interpretation of the Equal Protection doctrine in line with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Trump era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals case, and modest progress at the district court level in the crimmigration context, Congress could take steps to stop racial harm inflicted via immigration law and policy. By creating a path to legal status for those who not only have been here, but who have suffered the greatest harms of systemic racism, Haitian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, and others, Congress could start to undo the damage. It could also stop the relatively new practice of detaining or imprisoning migrants at the southern border, who happen to be almost entirely from Mexico and Central America, or abolish immigration prisons entirely. The policies that result in the imprisonment of Mexicans and Central Americans at the southern border now started with expulsion and imprisonment of Haitians in the 1980 and 1990s. Instead of expulsions and rumored potential imprisonment at the notorious Guantanamo Bay as was done in response to Haitians fleeing violence after the U.S. supported overthrow of democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the U.S. could re-evaluate both its involvement in foreign affairs, and treatment of those who flee here after our interventions cause disruption and civil strife. The largest number of Black migrants come from Haiti and their mistreatment is rooted in anti-Black racism. Racializing anti-immigrant demonization does not confine itself to noncitizens, nor should the remedies. Immigration reform, and a more robust application of the Equal Protection doctrine to all those inside the country, and at our borders, is necessary to move towards meaningfully dismantling systemic racism.
Access my law review articles and scholarship on SSRN
*******************************
Very eloquently said, Carrie!
Compare this with the racist blather and White Nationalist nonsense of nativist pols like Abbott, DeSantis, Cruz, Cotton, and others who glorify Jim Crow and seek to force a sanitized, whitewashed version of American history down the throats of the public!
Also, compare this with the intellectually dishonest actions by Biden Administration officials. They disingenuously claim to be champions of racial equality and racial justice.
But, in reality, they operate “star chamber courts,” “New American Gulags,” and implement discredited, outmoded, and ineffective “Stephen Miller Lite” border enforcement policies that basically dehumanize people of color and deny them the due process and equal protection to which they are entitled under law. Also, think about the many Federal Judges who spinelessly enable that which most first year law students could tell you is illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention totally immoral!
What exactly does Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke do every day at the Civil Rights Division if unraveling the White Nationalist, racially tone deaf policies of her own Department, the DHS, and the “star chambers for people of color” being operated by her “boss” aren’t first and foremost on her “to do” list?
“Floaters” — The ugly reality of Biden’s “Miller Lite border strategy.” It’s mostly people of color floating face-down in the river, being illegally returned to danger zones, rotting in the “New American Gulag,” and being railroaded through Garland’s biased and dysfunctional “star chamber courts.” Right now, Garland and and the rest of of the Biden Administration have “zero (0) credibility” on racial justice and voting rights!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
The biggest failure of the Biden Administration to date is their willful blindness to the obvious connection between lack of overall racial justice in America and running star chambers, gulags, and border enforcement policies that are unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and racially demeaning to individuals of color. Sadly, and tragically we seem to have gone from “zero tolerance” under Trump to “zero credibility” under Biden! “When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?”
Heidi Altman Director of Policy National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: fcnl.org
Haiti has been in turmoil for many years and the recent assassination of the Haitian president, political and economic insecurity, devastating storms, and an earthquake have further destabilized the nation.
Yet, Haitians seeking protection in the United States face treacherous journeys, racial abuse, violence from border patrol agents, detention, and deportation and expulsion back to the life-threatening situation they fled in Haiti.
All people—including Haitian migrants and asylum seekers—need freedom, shelter, dignity, and compassionate welcomes.
In the past couple of weeks, the Biden administration has expelled more than 4,600 people to Haiti. And they continue to deport and expel even more people.
The Biden administration has the authority to grant humanitarian parole and stop the deportations to Haiti. We at the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) are teaming up with other organizations to urge them to do just that.
Thousands of Haitian migrants removed from a makeshift camp near Texas have been sent back to Haiti. Now we’re getting our first up-close look at what they are facing upon their arrival. NBC’s Jacob Soboroff reports for TODAY from Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Sept. 30, 2021
Eleanor Acer Senior Director for Refugee Protection, Human Rights First
Human Rights First debunks myth that seekers present a COVID health threat:
ASYLUM DOES NOT THREATEN PUBLIC HEALTH
The last week saw more of the Biden administration’s despicable deportation of Haitians and use Title 42 to deny their right to seek asylum. The administration perpetuates the false claim that their use of Title 42 is not an immigration policy, but a public health one, despite the vehement disagreement of public health experts.
Courtesy Washington Times
Migrants, many from Haiti, wade across the Rio Grande
river to leave Del Rio, Texas to avoid possible deportation.
Human Rights First also responded to the administration’s plans to use Guantanamo Bay as a migrant detention facility.
“Sending people who are seeking protection to a place that is notorious for being treated as a rights-free zone is the last thing that the Biden administration should do,” Eleanor Acer, Senior Director of Refugee Protection at Human Rights First told NPR. “It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to evade oversight, due process, human rights protections and the refugee laws of the United States.”
Maria Sacchetti Immigration Reporter, Washington Post
Even in rolling out otherwise more reasonable enforcement priorities for ICE, Mayorkas insisted on making the bogus claim that recent border arrivals present a “national security threat,” as reported by the WashPost’s Maria Sacchetti:
Mayorkas said in his memo Thursday that migrants who cross the border illegally, particularly those who arrived unlawfully over the past year or so, remain a “threat to border security” and a priority for removal. But the ACLU has argued in its lawsuit that migrants have a legal right to seek asylum.
************************
“Courtside’s” rating of Mayorkas’s claims: 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥
Who would have thought that more than eight months into the Biden Administration, we’d still be arguing about basics like “migrants have a legal right to seek asylum in the US?” See, INA section 208.
There are enormous downsides to border disorder, to immigration policy paralysis and to leaving the fates of more than 11 million current immigrants without any path to a secure future — even beyond the reinforcement it provides to the United States’ growing international reputation for dysfunction. No one gains by the chaos except smugglers who soak desperate migrants financially on their way north in hopes of a better life. The losers include not only the “dreamers” brought to this country as children, who must live in perpetual anxiety, but also the country as a whole, which loses the value of immigrants, skilled and otherwise, who would turbocharge entrepreneurship, create jobs and help the economy grow.
There are available solutions if Congress could overcome its horror of bipartisan compromise. The goal should be to establish a realistic annual quota of immigrant visas for Central Americans, Haitians and others desperate to reach this country who otherwise will cross the border illegally — a number that recognizes the U.S. labor market’s demand for such employees. That must be supplemented by a muscular guest worker program that enables legal border crossing for migrants who want to support families remaining in their home countries.
. . . .
**********************
Read the complete editorial at the link.
It’s worth adding that the current “border disorder” is largely the result of White Nationalist, legally defective, anti-immigrant policies of the Trump regime compounded by the failure of Mayorkas and Garland to take the obvious, available, common sense steps necessary to reopen legal border ports of entry, to make the long overdue necessary reforms to establish a fair, efficient, and generous legal asylum system at the USCIS Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts, and to insist on the creation of a robust, functional refugee program for Latin America and the Caribbean.
None of the this is “rocket science!” 🚀 Plenty of great blueprints for administrative reforms and the potential expert leadership to implement them were “out there for the taking” at the beginning of the Biden Administration. By dawdling, tapping the wrong leaders, and continuing enforcement policies and bad judicial practices that were proven failures, the Administration predictably put itself “behind the eight-ball” in establishing order and implementing the rule of law at our borders!
Until the Biden Administration ends its disgraceful, cowardly, illegal, cruel, ineffective, and inhumane reliance on bogus “Title 42” restrictions to suspend orderly legal processing at the border, they will continue to bobble the next predictable “border crisis.” The GOP will continue to spout nativist nonsense. Desperate people will continue to do desperate things. Only a tone-deaf Administration would continue to ignore this reality!
Several Black immigration organizations have filed a formal complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, demanding that the Biden administration halt its continued deportations of Haitian asylum seekers.
The complaint filed by four groups ― the Haitian Bridge Alliance, UndocuBlack Network, African Communities Together and Black Alliance for Just Immigration ― requests that any potential witnesses of Border Patrol abuses be allowed to remain in the U.S. while their asylum claims are investigated. The complaint was first reported by theGrio, and signed by dozens of advocacy groups.
More than 13,000 Haitians were camped along the river at the Texas border town of Del Rio last weekend when Border Patrol officers on horseback charged at some of those gathered there, verbally assaulting and appearing to whip them. Photos of the violence shocked the public.
. . . .
The complaint by the organizations notes that the migrants have been denied access to attorneys, interpreters, adequate medical care, fear-based screening and proper nourishment and sanitation, all under intense heat. It also highlights physical intimidation and violence against migrants by Border Patrol officers, and misleading statements made by Homeland Security officers to Haitians about where they were being flown to.
“We’re not living up to our obligation as a nation to be a place of refuge for people seeking a better life,” former Obama administration Cabinet member Julián Castro told HuffPost earlier this week. “And in the least, asylum seekers, whether they’re from Haiti, or from one of these Northern Triangle countries should be allowed to make their asylum claim, instead of being severely expelled from the country. This was not the change we were hoping for on immigration policy.”
**************
Mayorkas’s defense of his grotesque, “Trumpist” misuse of Title 42, which actually has been rejected by a Federal Judge, on “Meet the Press” was as disgraceful as it was dishonest!
Either Mayorkas doesn’t understand reality, or he’s too intellectually dishonest to speak truth! Regardless, it’s not good!
Re-establishing the rule of law and treating asylum seekers fairly and generously, as the law requires, is not an option! It’s a legal and moral obligation! There is absolutely no reason to “apologize” for treating asylum seekers fairly and humanely, no matter what racist GOP nativists like Texas “Governor Death” Greg Abbott and Senator “Cancun Ted the Insurrectionist” Cruz say!
“Abushagif contends that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address his CAT claim. On that point, he is correct. A CAT “claim is separate from . . . claims for asylum and withholding of removal and should receive separate analytical attention.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906–07 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the BIA must not leave asserted CAT claims unaddressed. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 196 (5th Cir. 2004). The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise. The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 196. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the Board’s addressing Abushagif’s CAT claim.”
The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise.
“Confounding,” but not surprising to any of us who follow the continuing meltdown of justice and callous indifference to the law, truth, and human lives @ Garland’s failed and failing Department of “Justice.”
The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised.
Basically, OIL, argues that even if they had actually addressed CAT, the BIA would still have stiffed the respondent’s claim because that’s what a “programmed to deny for any reason” BIA does. Why bother with a BIA decision when a denial is “predetermined?” Is this really the sad state of due process at Garland’s DOJ? Apparently!
Let’s put this in context. The respondent is from Libya, a country notorious for torture. Here’s an excerpt from the latest (2020) Department of State Country Report on Libya:
While the 2011 Constitutional Declaration and postrevolutionary legislation prohibit such practices, credible sources indicated personnel operating both government and extralegal prisons and detention centers tortured detainees (see section 1.g.). While judicial police controlled some facilities, the GNA continued to rely on armed groups to manage prisons and detention facilities. Furthermore, armed groups, not police, initiated arrests in many instances. An unknown number of individuals were held without judicial authorization in other facilities nominally controlled by the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Defense, or in extralegal
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020
United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
LIBYA 7
facilities controlled by GNA-affiliated armed groups, LNA-affiliated armed groups, and other nonstate actors. Treatment varied from facility to facility and typically was worst at the time of arrest. There were reports of cruel and degrading treatment in government and extralegal facilities, including beatings, administration of electric shocks, burns, and rape. In many instances this torture was reportedly initiated to extort payments from detainees’ families.
Also, the 5th Circuit is generally considered the most conservative and pro-Government Circuit. It is a jurisdiction where the Government has to work hard and really, really screw up to lose an immigration case.
Two of the panel judges in this case are GOP appointees: Judges Engelhardt (Trump), and Smith (Reagan). The third panel member, Judge Higginson is an Obama appointee. Judge Jerry E. Smith, who wrote this opinion, is known as one of the most conservative Federal Judges in America! If these jurists see problems, you can be sure they actually exist!
One thing that unites Federal Judges across the ideological spectrum is dislike of being lied to by DOJ attorneys! Evidently, that’s no longer of concern to Judge Garland now that he is the purveyor, rather than the recipient, of misrepresentations, untruths, and sloppy, unprofessional work from DOJ attorneys!
How travesties like this, that happen at Garland’s DOJ on a daily basis, in “life or death” cases, is acceptable professional judicial performance is beyond understanding!
Additionally, how clearly misrepresenting the facts of record is ethically acceptable performance for OIL attorneys is totally beyond me!
Maybe its time for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to call Judge Garland before them for oversight to examine his continuing mismanagement of EOIR, America’s worst, most backlogged, most blatantly unfair, court system, that has not materially improved during his tenure. They should also inquire as to why he continues to tolerate unethical performance from OIL Attorneys making material misrepresentations to Federal Courts in attempting to defend the indefensible performance of the BIA in immigration litigation. Also, why hasn’t Garland spoken out about the illegal suspension of asylum laws enacted by Congress at our borders? Human lives are at stake here!
The idea that Garland intends to “fix” this problem by throwing 200 new Immigration Judges into this broken, dysfunctional system, without first addressing any of the structural, management, competence, personnel, and institutional bias issues at EOIR is beyond absurd! “Management 101” says you fix the system by rooting out and replacing incompetent and unqualified judges, replacing incompetent managers with competent ones, and fixing the many broken operational pieces of the Immigration Court System before expanding it.
This means, at a minimum, slashing the backlog by getting hundreds of thousands of old, non-priority cases off the docket now, stopping endemic “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR, installing a functional e-filing system, getting competent representation into the Immigration Courts, replacing the current institutionalized “worst practices” with “best practices,” and instituting real judicial training by experts from outside EOIR.
Only then, after the system has been made functional, should it be expanded, if needed. Otherwise, it’s like trying to fix defective automobile production by hiring more workers and speeding up the assembly line, thereby producing more defective vehicles without fixing that which caused the defects in the first place.
This case also shows the critical, life-saving role of pro bono counsel in Immigration Court. Without the heroic efforts ofpro bono publico counsel Alison Caditz and Jeri Leigh Miller, Mr. Abushagif would probably be hanging from a ceiling fan in Libya right now!
Garland indifferent to wrong torture decisions from BIA? Photo by David R. Badger, Creative Commons
I was pleased to see that Judge Smith cited my precedent opinion in Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&B Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) in his opinion. See FN 1. In L-O-G-, we held that “we have been willing to reopen ‘where the new facts alleged, when coupled with the facts already of record, satisfy us that it would be worthwhile to develop the issues further at a plenary hearing on reopening.’” 21 I&N Dec. at 419 (citations omitted).
Yes, folks, there was a time long ago and far away when BIA Chairs actually functioned as appellate judges: participating in cases at both the panel and en banc level, writing decisions, and, where necessary, filing dissents, without regard to “career enhancement.” That was in addition to BIA management duties, being a senior member of EOIR’s executive team, andmany public speaking, writing, and other public information and educational functions.
While today’s BIA and many Immigration Judges routinely ignore Matter of L-O-G- and its important teaching, it remains “good law,” as found by Judge Smith. Practitioners should be citing it in every motion to reopen and insisting that EOIR start following its own precedents, even where they produce results inconsistent with the restrictionist positions urged by DHS or the “round ‘em up and move ‘em out attitudes” that still seem prevalent at Garland’s DOJ.
It’s rather ironic that Federalist Society hero Judge Jerry E. Smith understands me better than Garland’s BIA!
Garland seems uninterested in making the long overdue bold progressive reforms necessary to restore due process, consistency, humanity, and racial justice to our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That means the battle over the next four years is likely to shift to the Article III Courts and Congress to finally get this utterly disgraceful, yet fixable, system back on track! This is also what’s required to save at least some of the vulnerable human lives now being “chewed up and spit out” by Garland’s ☠️ “Deadly Clown Courts” 🤡 and their ethics-challenged OIL defenders!🤮
Hon. Andrea Saenz Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA PHOTO: immigrantarc.org
Here’s Andrea’s bio:
Andrea Sáenz
Andrea Sáenz [was] Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) at Brooklyn Defender Services. NYIFUP is New York’s first-in-the-nation immigration public defender program representing detained immigrants facing removal. Prior to joining BDS in 2016, Andrea was a Clinical Teaching Fellow in the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, teaching, litigating, and working on the advocacy that grew NYIFUP at the city and state levels. Andrea has previously worked as an Immigration Staff Attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a judicial law clerk at the Varick Street Immigration Court in Manhattan, an Equal Justice Works Fellow at the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation (PAIR) Project in Boston, and a high school ESL teacher. She teaches and trains widely on criminal immigration, detention, and litigation issues. Andrea graduated from Harvard Law School cum laude in 2008 and received her B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2002.
KEY QUOTE:
Andrea Sàenz, Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) at Brooklyn Defender Services
“Our platform calls for universal representation of immigrants facing deportation, because when the stakes are often literally life, death, or permanent family separation, no one should be deported simply because they couldn’t afford an attorney. We need to change, shrink, and defund the deportation system and reinvest in our communities. ICE enforcement, detention and other cruel immigration policies tear apart families, and we urge the Biden administration and the new Democratic majority congress to listen to our neighbors’ voices.”
Congratulations, Andrea! As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues said: “Incredibly great news. I couldn’t think of anybody better and more deserving!” Nor can I!
This is great news for American Justice and for the NDPA. It’s even better news for the long suffering victims of perverted justice at EOIR and their courageous attorneys, like members of the NDPA, who have fought in the trenches for due process, human rights, and human dignity against an intentionally rigged and gamed system designed to deny all three of the foregoing. Andrea also has “EOIR creds,” having been a JLC at the Varick Street Immigration Court.
Finally, someone who has witnessed the waste, unfairness, illegality, and human carnage of failed policies enabled by EOIR’s feckless, tone deaf, careless, and complicit performance of their life-determining quasi-judicial duties. This breaks the scandalous two-decade plus exclusion of the “best and brightest” progressive expert judges from the BIA, the nation’s highest immigration and human rights tribunal, that has helped reduce due process and justice for women and people of color before EOIR to a “sick joke!”
I know that’s it’s impossible for any one person, no matter how brilliant, hard-working, and dedicated, to change the anti-asylum, anti-due process, anti-gender-fairness “culture” encouraged @ EOIR by the past Administration and, to date, not effectively repudiated by Garland. But, it is important that the voice of reason, practicality, due process, fundamental fairness, and humanity once again be heard at EOIR!
We all hope and trust that others will follow in your footsteps, Andrea, and eventually form the “new majority” of a much, much better Immigration Judiciary: That the properly generous, sensible, and humane view of asylum law established in Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi will again become the guiding lights of immigration jurisprudence rather than being parroted (but not followed), mocked, and dishonored by those whose job it is to protect individual Constitutional, legal, and human rights from Government overreach: That “through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” once again becomes the vision of our Immigration Courts at all levels!
Speaking in behalf of the NFPA, we all appreciate the dedication, hard work, consistent excellence, and intellectual and moral courage it took for Andrea to put herself forward and be a pioneer for the better Immigration Judiciary of our future! On behalf of a grateful NDPA and an appreciative Round Table, thanks, congratulations again, and may the forces of due process guide you and be with you forever!
The Biden administration has condemned abuses at the border – while maintaining the policies underlying these abuses. That’s beyond cynical
Published:
06:22 Thursday, 23 September 2021
Follow Moustafa Bayoumi
You’ve probably seen a photograph haunting the internet this week: a white-presenting man on horseback – uniformed, armed and sneering – is grabbing a shoeless Black man by the neck of his T-shirt. The Black man’s face bears an unmistakable look of horror. He struggles to remain upright while clinging dearly to some bags of food in his hands. Between the men, a long rein from the horse’s bridle arches menacingly in the air like a whip. The photograph was taken just a few days ago in Texas, but the tableau looks like something out of antebellum America.
The image is profoundly upsetting, not just for what it portrays but for the history it evokes. What’s happening at the border right now puts two of our founding national myths – that we’re a land of liberty and a nation of immigrants – under scrutiny. To put it plainly, we don’t fare well under inspection.
US border patrol agents on horseback search for migrants trying to enter the United States along the US-Mexico border. Photograph: José Luis González/Reuters
. . . .
Without review, it’s impossible to know who is facing real threats of persecution when returned to Haiti. The United Nations human rights spokesperson, Marta Hurtado, said that the UN “is seriously concerned by the fact that it appears there have not been any individual assessments of the cases”. Why does the Biden administration not share her concern?
One has to wonder if the same policies expelling Haitians from the US today would be in effect if those arriving at the border were Europeans or even Cubans. If history is any guide – for decades, the US privileged Cubans over Haitians and other Caribbean peoples in immigration matters – the answer is no.
It’s one thing for the Biden administration to condemn abuses conducted by its own government that recall the worst parts of our national history. But it’s quite another to do so while maintaining the policies that enable those abuses. That’s not just cynical. It’s despicable.
Moustafa Bayoumi is the author of How Does It Feel to Be a Problem?: Being Young and Arab in America
Foote’s sudden departure leaves a void in U.S. policy toward Haiti and adds another prominent, critical voice to the administration’s response to Haitians.
AP By Joshua Goodman and Matthew Lee, September 21, 2021
The Biden administration’s special envoy to Haiti has resigned, protesting “inhumane” large-scale expulsions of Haitian migrants to their homeland wracked by civil strife and natural disaster, U.S. officials said Thursday.
Daniel Foote was appointed to the position only in July, following the assassination of Haiti’s president. Even before the migrant expulsions from the small Texas border town of Del Rio, the career diplomat was known to be deeply frustrated with what he considered a lack of urgency in Washington and a glacial pace on efforts to improve conditions in Haiti.
Foote wrote Secretary of State Antony Blinken that he was stepping down immediately “with deep disappointment and apologies to those seeking crucial changes.”
“I will not be associated with the United States inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the danger posed by armed gangs to daily life,” he wrote. “Our policy approach to Haiti remains deeply flawed, and my policy recommendations have been ignored and dismissed, when not edited to project a narrative different from my own.”
Two U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter confirmed the resignation on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
One official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss personnel matters and spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Foote had consistently sought greater oversight of Haiti policy and that the administration did not believe his requests were appropriate.
Foote’s sudden departure leaves a void in U.S. policy toward Haiti and adds another prominent, critical voice to the administration’s response to Haitians camped on the Texas border. The camp has shrunk considerably since surpassing more than 14,000 people on Saturday – many of them expelled and many released in the U.S. with notices to report to immigration authorities.
The White House is facing sharp bipartisan condemnation. Democrats and many pro-immigration groups say efforts to expel thousands of Haitians without a chance to seek asylum violates American principles and their anger has been fueled by images that went viral this week of Border Patrol agents on horseback using aggressive tactics against the migrants.
. . . .
___
Goodman reported from Miami, Lee from New York on the sidelines of United Nations General Assembly meetings.
**********************
Read the complete article at the above link.
And, there are more “strange happenings” within the flailing Biden immigration/human rights bureaucracy.
Over at ICE, “Immigration pro” John Trasviña is out at OPLA after only a few months in office:
The Biden administration has appointed seasoned Boston immigration attorney Kerry Doyle to become its immigration enforcement agency’s top prosecutor.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed to GBH that Doyle, previously of Graves & Doyle, will be its principal legal advisor. The office she will lead is the largest legal program within the Department of Homeland Security, with over 1,250 attorneys and 290 support personnel.
The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor sends its prosecutors to litigate deportation cases before the Executive Office for immigration Review, the body that oversees the nation’s immigration courts.
Doyle has been an outspoken critic of the agency and has led many lawsuits against it.
She is a graduate of the American University Washington School of Law, and George Washington University. She started her career as a legislative assistant to former U.S. Rep. Bob Wise (D-W.Va.), and became an attorney for Legal Services for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers in 1993. She was managing attorney for the International Institute of Boston from 1998 to 2001, before founding Graves & Doyle with partner William E. Graves Jr.
The Boston-based firm handled a breadth of immigration issues, from citizenship, to business and family immigration, federal litigation, asylum, and deportation cases.
Doyle took the case of Iranian student Mohammad Shahab Dehghani Hossein Abadi, who was enrolled at Northeastern University and deported because it was assumed by Logan Airport border patrol agents that he would remain in the U.S. beyond the time frame of his student visa. She co-authored an op-ed in The Boston Globe about Abadi’s case, entitled “Customs and Border Protection gone rogue.”
Doyle has also been particularly outspoken against ICE on Beacon Hill, including one appearance in January 2020, where she called ICE “out of control” during a hearing over the Safe Communities Act, which would limit how state and local municipalities interact with federal immigration enforcement.
Doyle declined to comment on her appointment, asking GBH to speak with ICE’s media office, which did not return requests for comment.
Susan Church of Demissie & Church has known and worked with Doyle for over two decades.
“She actually taught me much of what I know about immigration law,” said Church. “I can’t imagine a better, more knowledgeable attorney to run that agency because she knows the immigration system in and out.”
Church and Doyle co-filed a 2017 federal lawsuit against former President Donald Trump with the American Civil Liberties Union after he banned entry to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor has control over whether immigrants are released from detention, what financial amounts — or bonds — are set for them to be released, or whether a lawsuit gets postponed.
“There will be a tremendous opportunity to craft policy procedures, rules and the like to make sure that immigrants receive a fair day in court and a fair hearing and have a fair shot at getting a life in the United States,” said Church.
Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has been criticized for continuing to keep immigrants detained with high bond amounts, but Church thinks Doyle’s appointment shows there may be a shift.
“I think it’s clear that the Biden administration is following the path of the progressive district attorney and installing somebody in charge who cares about safety issues, but also cares deeply about the rights and the protections for immigrants,” she said, referring to the recent nomination of Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins to be the U.S. attorney.
Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, also applauded the pick. “We hope Kerry Doyle’s outstanding track record of fighting for immigrants’ rights continues in her new position at ICE,” Rose said. But, she added, “the ACLU remains committed to holding this and other government agencies accountable.”
The former principal legal advisor John D. Trasviña announced his retirement at the beginning of September.
*****************
On one hand, Kerry Doyle is well qualified and presumably will work to restore professionalism, common sense, and humanity to what had been a misdirected, counterproductive, and totally out of control agency under Trump and his toadies.
But, there has to be more to Trasviña’s “retirement” than meets the eye. One does not normally accept a senior level policy position in a new Administration while planning to “retire” within a few months.
So, something else is going on here. Many of us had applauded the appointment ofTrasviña, a high profile, nationally respected, experienced expert in immigration, civil rights, human rights, and racial justice, at OPLA. During his short tenure, he issued helpful memos and guidance expanding the use of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) at ICE. More aggressive and sensible use of PD is critical to controlling and eventually eliminating the largely Government-created 1.4 million case Immigration Court backlog.
Best wishes to Kerry in her new position!
*****************
Immigration and human rights are a mess because Biden and his advisors ignored expert advice to move quickly and aggressively to restore robust refugee and asylum systems and to institute long overdue progressive reforms and personnel changes at EOIR. Right now, there appears to be neither an overall plan nor the dynamic progressive leadership and better Immigration Judiciary to carry it out.
It’s going to take more than a few intellectually dishonest expressions of “outrage” from Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki and a bogus “investigation” of Border Patrol Agents who were only carrying out the cruel, inhumane, and racist policies developed and approved at the highest levels of the Biden Administration, to wipe out the images of the abuse of asylum applicants at our border and the deep-seated racial prejudices and biases it represents. 🏴☠️It’s all about dehumanization and continuing “Dred Scottification” of the “other”🤮☠️ — predominantly courageous, yet vulnerable, people of color!
“Adel Ghanem, a former lawful permanent resident of the United States, seeks to avoid removal to Yemen, from which he fled to avoid persecution on account of political opinion. He pursues three forms of relief that were denied by the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA): asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Ghanem was kidnapped and tortured before being convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for political opposition to the Houthi regime. We will therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA. … We begin by reviewing the agency’s determination that Ghanem was ineligible for asylum under the INA because he was not persecuted “on account of” political opinion. We perceive two errors in its analysis: First, the Board’s conclusion ignores overwhelming evidence that Ghanem was persecuted on account of political opinion. Second, it erroneously treated familial relationships as disqualifying and failed to give the proper weight to the substantial record evidence that a protected ground remains one central reason for Ghanem’s persecution. … Illustrating “gross, flagrant [and] mass violations of human rights” that he would be unable to escape, the record evidence not only fails to support but directly contradicts the BIA’s conclusions that Ghanem is not likely to be tortured with the government’s acquiescence, if returned to Yemen. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(iii).8 The denial of relief under CAT therefore cannot withstand even our most deferential review. … For the foregoing reasons, we will grant Ghanem’s petition, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
How is the BIA’s grotesque misapplication of asylum and CAT law and intentional distortion of the record evidence acceptable adjudication from a Federal Court, even a “quasi-judicial administrative tribunal?” Lives are at stake are here! But, Garland remains indifferent to the deadly ☠️ daily injustices and stunning judicial incompetence and bias he promotes, coddles, defends, and enables at his dysfunctional EOIR!
And what is his OIL doing defending this garbage before the Circuits? Garland’s DOJ is an ethical cesspool and a slimy mess of legal incompetence! Where’s the long overdue “thorough housecleaning” of this gross abuse of taxpayer dollars and walking talking insult to the Canons of Legal and Judicial Ethics!
These aren’t just “honest legal mistakes!” No way! They are the product of an anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, anti-due process, anti-people of color “culture” which was actually encouraged and promoted at EOIR during the Trump regime and still endures!
It starts, but doesn’t end, with aBIA “packed” with a number of Trump/Miller appointees who were nationally renowned for their unsuitability to fairly adjudicate ANY asylum case, let alone to be “elevated” to the highest immigration tribunal. But, it’s not like any BIA Appellate Judge has the guts and integrity to stand up and speak out for immigrants’ rights, human rights, and constitutional due process!
It’s outrageous that the BIA as currently comprised is charged with setting precedents, maintaining consistency, and guaranteeing fairness for asylum applicants, particularly women and people of color. Of course this type of misconduct and incompetence will continue to generate huge, uncontrolled backlogs! THIS national, even international, disgusting disgrace will be Garland’s lasting legacy!
The proposed “asylum reform regulations” and all other immigration and racial justice reforms put forth by Biden will fail without a better, progressive, expert BIA totally committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice! Why hasn’t Congress demanded an accounting from Garland for his jaw-dropping mismanagement of the Immigration Courts and his failure to make obvious administrative reforms?
Demand better from Garland and the Biden Administration! This disgraceful, dysfunctional, deadly mess at EOIR is NOT OK!🤮👎🏽
PANEL: Consuelo M. Callahan and*Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Watford; Dissent by Judge Callahan
* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
STAFF SUMMARY:
Granting Rafael Diaz-Rodriguez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that child endangerment, in violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a), does not constitute “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
In Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018), a divided panel held to the contrary, and a majority of the non-recused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. However, after the petitioner passed away, the en banc court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the panel decision. The panel here observed that Martinez-Cedillo is no longer binding precedent, but explained that between its issuance and the decision to rehear the case en banc, two published opinions relied on it: Menendez v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2018), and Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2018).
The panel concluded that the unusual circumstance here led it to conclude that this case falls outside the scope of the general rule that three-judge panels are bound to follow published decisions of prior panels. The panel explained that both Alvarez-Cerriteno and Menendez simply followed Martinez-Cedillo as then-binding precedent without engaging in independent analysis of the deference issue, and
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND 3
both decisions were effectively insulated from en banc review on that issue. The panel explained that both decisions are irreconcilable with a subsequent decision of the court sitting en banc because their reliance on Martinez-Cedillo is in conflict with the en banc court’s decision to designate that decision as non-precedential.
Applying the categorical approach, the panel identified the elements of California Penal Code § 273a(a): causing or permitting a child “to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered,” committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence. As to the federal offense, the panel explained that Congress enacted the ground of removability at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and did not define the phrase “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” In Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), however, the BIA held that the phrase encompassed child endangerment offenses committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. In considering whether Soram was entitled to deference, the panel was guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017), where the Court observed that the term “sexual abuse of a minor” was undefined and then looked to normal tools of statutory interpretation in concluding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of it.
Applying this approach, the panel concluded that deference was precluded at Chevron step one because the text of §1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses. First, the panel explained that contemporary legal dictionaries from the time of IIRIRA’s enactment indicate that child abuse, child neglect, and child
4 DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND
abandonment were well-understood concepts with distinct meanings that do not encompass one-time negligent child endangerment offenses. Second, the panel explained that the statutory structure suggested that Congress deliberately omitted child endangerment from the list of offenses specified in § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Third, the panel explained that the general consensus drawn from state criminal codes confirms that the phrase does not encompass negligent child endangerment offenses. The panel noted that the fourth source consulted in Esquivel-Quintana, related federal criminal statutes, did not aid its analysis.
Because a violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a) can be committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence, the panel concluded that it is not a categorical match for “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” Accordingly, the panel concluded that Diaz-Rodriguez’s conviction under that statute did not render him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that she was compelled to dissent for two reasons. First, she did not agree that the three-judge panel could disregard Menendez and Alvarez-Cerriteno. Second, Judge Callahan did not agree with the majority’s peculiar reading of the phrase as not encompassing a child endangerment offense committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. Judge Callahan wrote that majority’s suggestion that § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) is unambiguous is contrary to precedent and the unanimous opinions of the court’s sister circuits. Moreover, she wrote that the majority failed to recognize that the court’s task is limited to reviewing the agency’s interpretation for “reasonableness.” Instead, the majority proffered its own definition based primarily on selected dictionary definitions and its own research.
*****************
Who knows how this eventually will come out? But, what I can guarantee is until it is finally resolved, by the Supremes or otherwise, immigration practitioners and their clients will have a mess of inconsistency and bad decisions by EOIR on their hands.
Complicated issues involving criminal law come up all the time in EOIR “detention courts,” located in the Mayorkas/Garland “New American Gulag,” where many respondents are unrepresented or under-represented. How would an unrepresented respondent be able to prepare a “defense” like this? No way! The entire EOIR system suffers from some extreme constitutional problems that Garland has done nothing to address.
Having bad precedents like this in effect for a decade or more, almost always tilted toward DHS enforcement, results in many wrongful removals, as well as numerous remands and “redos” that help increase the astronomical 1.4 million case backlog! Having better judges on the BIA, real independent jurists with practical scholarly expertise, unafraid to interpret statutes and apply the law in favor of respondents when that is the “better view,” and to impose “best practices” on the Immigration Courts, is a necessary first step in addressing EOIR’s many legal and operational shortcomings.
It appears that Garland is disinterested in meaningful due process reforms and inserting real progressive judicial leadership into EOIR. The good news: With the vast majority of the immigration, human rights, and constitutional expertise and legal talent now in the private sector, and more talent coming out of law schools all the time, the NDPA stands a good chance of “litigating Garland’s failed EOIR to a standstill” over the next four years.
While that’s hardly the most desirable result, it would be infinitely better than the continuing due-process-denying “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland currently runs at EOIR! Sometimes, you just have to take what the opposition gives you!
At what point will “powers that be” finally pay attention to the ongoing disaster at EOIR? When the backlog reaches 1.5 million? 2 million? 3 million? 4 million? 5 million? How many unjust and illegal removals will take place, and how many lives and futures irrevocably altered or ruined before this dysfunctional system finally reaches its “breaking point?”
“Eyore is completely distraught that Garland has eschewed installing progressive expert judging and creative thinking, instead allowing the ‘death spiral’ to continue!” “Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
President Joe Biden announced another historic slate of judicial nominees on Wednesday who would bring badly needed diversity to the nation’s federal courts.
His picks also begin to address a major vacancy problem on California’s courts.
Biden announced a total of eight new judicial nominees; three would fill seats on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and five would fill seats on U.S. district courts. All are up for lifetime appointments.
With Wednesday’s nominees, Biden has now nominated a total of 43 people to federal judgeships. Thanks in part to the Democrat-led Senate, he has been confirming judges faster than any president in more than 50 years by this point in their terms.
His latest nominees also reflect his push to bring more diversity to the federal bench, both professionally and demographically. The courts have long been represented by white, male judges with backgrounds as corporate attorneys or prosecutors. President Barack Obama helped to diversify the courts, adding historic numbers of women and LGBTQ judges, for example. But former President Donald Trump reversed that trend by overwhelmingly nominating straight, white, male, right-wing ideologues.
As a candidate, Biden vowed to bring a diversity of perspectives onto the courts, even promising to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court if and when a seat opens up there. He’s kept his word; so far, his court picks have been public defenders, civil rights lawyers, voting rights lawyers and historic firsts with Native American and Muslim American picks.
Wednesday’s nominees include people with backgrounds at legal civil rights organizations, too. Thomas worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Urias and Vera both worked for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
California’s senators praised Biden for his six picks for courts located in their state.
“If confirmed, this slate of nominees will bring historic personal and professional diversity to California’s federal bench,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). “Our justice system needs the experience and unique perspectives these public servants bring.”
But California needs far more nominees than Biden put forward Wednesday. The state still has a whopping 15 vacancies on its federal courts, in part because the state’s two U.S. senators aren’t moving quickly enough to recommend people to the White House to fill those seats.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) acknowledged there is more work to be done here.
“There are 15 additional vacancies on California’s district courts that need to be filled immediately and more expected next year,” Feinstein said. “I look forward to continuing to work with President Biden and Senator Padilla to ensure that the remaining vacancies on the federal courts in California are filled with well-qualified judicial candidates who reflect the makeup of the state.”
. . . .
***************
Read the complete story at the link.
It’s an important step — but only a first step in the process of creating a diverse progressive Federal Judiciary, from top to bottom!
Meanwhile, a house built on a bad foundation is in trouble! In this case, that crumbling foundation is the nearly 600-judge U.S. Immigration Court at both the trial and appellate levels.
This “court” system, with nationwide jurisdiction and life or death authority over millions of lives and American families, is regressive, dysfunctional, and non-diverse, particularly when taking into account the composition of the American communities most directly affected by it’s too often defective, unprofessional, and biased decision making. That’s hardly surprising, because it was largely expanded, packed, weaponized, staffed, and directed in the “image” of Jeff Sessions, Billy Barr, and Gauleiter Stephen Miller!
Unlike Article III Judges, Immigration Judges currently are considered “DOJ Attorneys” who are selected outside the competitive Civil Service, have no “tenure” in their quasi-judicial positions, are subject to the control of the Attorney General, and can be reassigned, or in some cases terminated, at the will of the Attorney General. In simple terms, Garland could fix this badly broken system, but hasn’t done so.
The sorry condition of today’s Immigration Courts (“EOIR”) is particularly disgraceful when one considers the wide, diverse, progressive pool of potential judicial talent available in the private/NGO/sector who were either discouraged from applying under Trump or passed over in favor of lesser-qualified candidates perceived (whether accurately or not) to be more receptive and obedient to the overtly White Nationalist, xenophobic stance promoted by Trump’s DOJ.
To date, Garland has replaced zero (0) of the Trump judicial appointees. He has hired no notable progressive judges as inspirational leaders. He “promoted” one notable progressive to be among the several dozen “Assistant Chief Immigration Judges.” He outrageously appointed his first 27 Immigration Judges from among those “preselected” by Barr under defective procedures that have been universally condemned by progressive experts!
For the most part, without any progressive judicial leadership, precedents, or procedures, EOIR rambles on producing the same sloppy, haste-makes-waste, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, racially and misogynistically tinged decisions that were the “hallmark” of the Trump-era EOIR.
If things don’t change quickly, I guarantee that American progressives will come to rue the squandered opportunity to radically reform EOIR and convert it into a model progressive judiciary that will showcase due-process-focused judging, innovation, and best judicial practices while saving lives and promoting racial justice, gender rights, and equal justice for all at the critical “retail level” of our justice system!
BTYB – Student Success, Equity, and Community and the Weissberg Program in Human Rights & Social Justice
The Office of Student Success, Equity & Community Ousley Scholar In Residency honors the legacy of Grace Ousley, the first black woman to graduate from Beloit College. It is a junior scholar/activist/organizer/intellectual committed to the theory and practice of social justice. They should embody the “academic hustler” who fights for “social justice” in all aspects of their work. Support for the residency comes from the Weissberg Program in Human Rights and Social Justice and the Office of Student Success. Equity & Community.
This promises to be a great program! And, the Ousley Residence Program is a fantastic contribution to educating and inspiring new generations of Americans about the many challenges still facing us in achieving social justice in our nation.
The abrogation of due process and dehumanization of people of color has, outrageously, become part of the dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Court System. The last Administration specifically encouraged and promoted this ugly, anti-democracy, phenomenon and then used it to spearhead an all-out assault on racial justice, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, religious tolerance, economic progress, voter rights, and humane progressive values throughout American society.
Unfortunately, many progressives have been slow to “connect the dots” and insist that meaningful social justice change start with fixing the racial and gender bias problems in our Immigration Courts, tribunals that are under the complete control of the Biden Administration!
For example, current Attorney General Merrick Garland rather incredibly claims to be standing up for women’s rights in Texas and defending voting rights for minorities while continuing to run misogynistic, regressive “Star Chambers” at EOIR, staffed with many judges hand-selected by Jeff Sessions and Billy Barr, and tossing vulnerable women refugees of color back across our Southern Border into harm’s way without any “process” at all, let alone “Due Process of Law.” Garland also continues to enable human rights abuses in the “New American Gulag” of DHS civil detention! We can see this process of dehumanization of the “other” before the law, called “Dred Scottification” by many of us, spreading throughout our legal system and being endorsed and “normalized” all the way up to the Supremes.
From the summary in the announcement above, it appears that Denea, based on her own inspiring life and achievements as a “Dreamer,” will help us to “connect the dots” between racial justice, immigrant justice, and equal justice for all. Immigrants’ Rights = Human Rights = Everyone’s Rights!
